Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #157212 in Books
• Published on: 2006-07-28
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 288 pages

Synopsis
Every week there's another food or health scare. Whether it's British beef, the MMR vaccine or just sunshine itself, there's always somebody to tell you that you are under threat from yet another everyday activity; or that the food we eat, and the medicines we take are poisoning our bodies. However, this book reveals that we are all living longer, healthier lives, while science has advanced to the stage where medicines and surgical procedures are safer and more effective than ever before. So where does the truth lie? Who can we believe? How do we know whose advice is worth listening to? Examining the truth behind the headlines, drawing together the country's leading experts in their field to examine these questions, this book really does give you the excuse to "Diet Another Day". You may be surprised to find that many 'scientific' truths that have come to be circulated as fact would be better compared to urban myths and don't have the backing in the scientific community that is often claimed for them...

Customer Reviews

Rant nation
I agree with the negative review below. From the cover, and the blurb on the back, this reads like a worthwhile read; a counterblast against the sort of pseudoscientific nonsense which is used to back up claims about food and health. As the book wore on, however, I quickly came to realise that it falls into the same trap as the complementary therapists and other quacks it criticises: the chapters rarely cite any evidence in support of the claims the authors make; they bizarrely seem to have a limited understanding of basic epidemiology (mis-describing the purpose and nature of meta-analysis and systematic reviews for example); they rely heavily on the authors' own claims without citing supporting evidence; and most seriously, they selectively use or ignore evidence as it suits their purposes.

And their own views are as bizarre as the crystal gazers and dowsers they criticise. Salt, radioactivity, fat, junk food - all good for you apparently. Forget about hearing a balanced argument, or an alternative point of view, or even a scientific, well-informed argument presenting and weighing the evidence. Instead, you get a series of oddly right-wing and generally patronising rants, with little understanding or discussion of why the public make the choices they do.
One of later sections in the book is labelled "Bad Science". A well-worn phrase about motes and beams spring to mind at this point. Overall, this is non-evidence-based pseudoscience masquerading as trenchant observation; and worse, a thinly-disguised right-wing rant.

fascinating!
I completely disagree with the other reviewer who only gave this one star. I thought was an immensely thought-provoking read and certainly worthwhile. It certainly does not endorse eating junk food, etc but unpicks brash generalisations that pervade our media. There is plenty of evidence base here and the selected research is there to highlight the ideas being explored. Highly recommended!

Contradictory and biased
Hmm, although generally I think this book is a good read, I really do feel that often the authors say "don't believe this slant on the evidence, believe our slant instead". Often this will be backed by describing the proponents of other views as "zealots" or "ludicrous". It also contadicts itself - we are told that there is no link between fat and cholesterol and eating fat seems to have no ill-effects then later that serum levels of cholesterol are lowered by a lower fat diet.
I think the authors are riding many backlashes which is always a populist approach as people like nothing better than to find that "experts" saying unpopular things about health are wrong, this was much of the appeal of the Atkins diet. The snag is that they invoke the same kind of conspiracy theories about say the majority view on Cholesterol as they later ridicule themselves as being impossible to refute.
They also miss a key point, for example meat may be only marginally "bad" for my health but if it costs me nothing to avoid it and choose foods I consider to be better for me then what exactly is the problem wih my choosing not to eat it?
In rubbishing the concept of "junk" food we go into the realms of semantic quibbling, I'm sorry but Eric Schlosser's description of one industrially-produced hamburger containing the meat from hundreds or thousands of animals meets my criteria for "junk", its no good saying that as there is some nutritional value in it then it cannot be "junk" - that is their definition, not mine and no amount of PhDs allows them to define meanings of words.
Occasionally they hit the target such as with the "Poo lady" but I feel there is much conservative bias in the writings rather similar to those who like to pretend that climate change does not exist.