37 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Smaller Book with Less Info than 4th Edition, August 2, 2007
This review is from: Nutrition Almanac (Paperback)
When I ordered this book, I was anticipating giving away my old 4th edition for a new one with improved information. NOT SO!
The tables, the heart and soul of the book, have fewer foods and not more than the 4th edition. In a display of ignorant cost cutting, Carb counts for grains such as rice are given per cup of RAW not cooked product - same for macaroni whereas the 4th edition gives raw and cooked values. This alone makes it not worth the money but scattered throughout are foods that were there for 4th edition but are now gone.
The publisher probably saved money by eliminating pages but I can no longer recommend this book to friends; I advise them to not buy it but get a copy of the 4th edition instead.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
66 of 73 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Not very accurate, February 5, 2003
Seemingly authoritative, this 4th ed. is to be read at your own risk.
The benefits of aerobic exercise are confused with those from anerobic exercise (p9). Anerobic exercise utilizes 14 times as much glucose as aerobic does (Bernstein 1997, pp179-190). Heart disease patients are very little aided by hard exercise (Dorn 1999).
All carbohydrates are said to contain similar amounts of energy (p19). They do not, with fiber contributing none and other carbs various amounts up to 4 kcal/g (Livesey 2001). Complex carbohydrates are said to break down more slowly than simple sugars (p20). This does not explain why many complex carbs have a more serious effect on blood glucose levels than some simple sugars. The important notion of glycemic index (GI) is missing, even when recommending for Type 2 diabetics, thus the recommendation for 50-60% of their diet to be complex carbs (p207) has no basis in reality, and is quite destructive (Bernstein pp33-48, 121-140). Everyone is said to require a minimum of 100 g/day, and that 300 g/day is ideal for most people (p20). Actually there is NO carbohydrate requirement for humans. Glucose is made from amino acids when needed (Ottoboni pp25,85). Ask any Eskimo! (McGee 2001 pp82-86,109).
The GI is measured in humans by checking blood glucose levels after eating. The GI of a food shows the % glucose levels rise compared with the same weight of glucose (GI = 100). One of the things that creates high (bad) insulin levels is high blood glucose levels. Since all the common complex carbohydrates (starches) in foods are polymers of glucose, and some of them are metabolized very rapidly into glucose, and we eat more of them by weight, the contribution of wheat, corn, potato and other forms of high-GI starches to poor health is greater than that of many of the the simple sugars. The so-called low-carb diets must be low GI diets to be effective, and they really are for weight loss, and the prevention of type 2 diabetes.
Fats do not all contribute 9 kcal/g to human energy when eaten. To begin with, this book give 9 calories per gram (p21); this is incorrect by 1/1000; the correct unit is kcal/g or Cal/g. Fats actually run from 5.5 kcal/g for cocoa butter (Apfar 1987) to 5.9 for beef fat (Carlson 1968) to 8.5 for corn oil (Carlson 1968). Unsaturated fatty acids are said to have points in the chemical attachment that are missing (p21); this is a fairy tale. There is a typo that is very destructive in which linoleic acid is said to be an omega-3 fatty acid (p22); actually it is an omega-6. The authors warn against taking supplements of one type only (p22), and are unaware that there is far too much omega-6 in the American diet compared with the usual smaller amounts of omega-3 (Ottoboni 2002, pp45-54). And the authors are blank on the evils of trans fats, even in the tables! (Oomen 2001; Willett 1993; Wood 1993).
This entire book is permeated by the biggest fraud in the history of nutrition that eating saturated fats and cholesterol will lead to atherosclerosis and heart failure. This nonsense originated with a campaign by the American Heart Association (AHA) begun in 1961, and its anti-cholesterol, pro-polyunsaturated fat campaign, which peaked in the 1980s. Nothing in the Framingham, MRFIT, or any other honest study actually supports this anti-fat stand, despite the politically correct summaries of many of the studies. (Moore 1989, Smith 1991, Fehily 1993, Fraser 1997, Tunstall-Pedoe 1997, Eades 2000, Enig 2000, Kauffman 2000, Kauffman 2001, McCully 2000, McGee 2001, Ottoboni 2002, Ravnskov 2000).
The unfounded advice of the authors of this book on diets for diabetics, and for all in avoiding staturated fat and cholesterol in favor of omega-6 and trans fats (Vos 2003), and their ignorance of of GI in recommending complex carbs severely limits the usefulness of this Alamanac, despite the presence of some accurate information on other topics.
For complete references cited e-mail me at ...
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
18 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Very helpful, except for counting fiber intake., September 30, 2000
I own the 1979 version of Nutrition Almanac. It has been very helpful to me in information, and in tracking my nutrition intake. However, I recently started counting grams of fiber, and started questioning when I couldn't get anywhere near the RDA of 25 grams. Then I remembered that years ago, insoluable fiber was not included in nutrition information, as it's benefit was not yet known. So I decided to purchase the latest version, and to my surprise, it has the same low fiber numbers as my 1979 version. I looked up 3 different fruits in this book and another, and there was a huge difference in grams of fiber listed. Other than this, it's a great book - mine is falling apart from use. If you want to increase your natural sources of vitamins and minerals, this book will show you which foods they are in.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
