Customer Reviews

Understanding Nutrition

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

All jokes aside, while students may gripe about having to shell out the bucks for this textbook, it is well worth the money. I've got an earlier edition and have used it a lot in the past. I found the later editions to be very up to date and quite useful as a reference for some of the clinical questions I encounter while working with patient education issues. In the days of picky insurance reimbursement, it's vital that all the stuff we do be based on sound clinical information showing that what we do is indeed effective.

Easy to understand, and a well laid-out text with many good illustrations, there's a good reason why it's a standard in the field. Can also recommend The Sixty-Second Motivator for people who have trouble sticking to a healthy diet. After all, what good is nutritional advice if no one is motivated enough to follow it?

My comments are on the 10th ed., 2005. With over a million sold this book is a major influence on diet, dieticians and nutritionists. The authors assure that it is based on the best science available, and that only a Registered Dietician (RD) can be relied on for accurate information. An RD can be obtained by achieving a 4-year degree in a related subject, then passing an examination given by the American Dietetic Association. Coverage is intended to be comprehensive, and it could have been on 990 big pages. The writing is very clear, but contains internal inconsistencies. Many citations appear to support the authors' (and ADA's) positions. Kilocalories (kcal) are correctly used instead of calories. Advice is given for the "average" American for whom the authors made tiny changes in intakes of many nutrients based on age, sex, and pregnancy, but none for metabolic types, such as low-carbohydrate diets for people prone to diabetes, or most types of food allergies.
But there is a serious omission of celiac and Crohn's diseases and their causes, which are grain, gluten, and gliadin allergies which also lead to several types of cancers. This must be related to the authors' incessant promotion of whole grain foods and carbohydrates in general despite 10-50% of Americans suffering from grain allergies. Irritable bowel syndrome is mentioned with high-fat intake as the supposed cause, when grains, intestinal flora and stress are more likely.
While "balanced diets" are lauded, the actual diets recommended are high carbohydrate (300 g/day, 60% of energy intake), tempered only to 50% for diabetics despite extensive un-cited findings that serum glucose control, hyper- and hypoglycemia are uncontrollable with such diets. Type-2 diabetes is preventable and treatable with low-carb, high-fat diets, which are anathema to these authors.
One reason is fear of fat, especially animal fat, as supposedly atherogenic, one of the most pervasive messages in this book, ignoring observations in groups such as the Inuit, Masai, and long-term (up to 50 years) use of high-animal fat diets by physicians. The Spanish Paradox (among others) was the result of observations that between 1964 and 1991, per capita bread consumption fell by 55%, rice by 35%, and potato by 53%. During this period beef and full-cream milk consumption doubled, poultry tripled and pork intake quadrupled. During this period heart disease deaths fell by 25% in men and 34% in women; blood pressures and stroke deaths dropped. Spanish now live 2 years longer than Americans. Between 1959 and 2004, there were at least 50 articles by researchers seeking to prove a connection between fat intake or cholesterol levels and "heart disease" (CVD) where none found a positive correlation.
Among chemistry errors was the claim that loss of an electron by a stable molecule gave a free radical, implicated in atherogenicity and carcinogenicity (p389). Such a loss of a negative charge would lead to formation of a positive and negative ion pair, not a free radical, which is commonly formed when a hydrogen atom with its electron is removed. This is exactly the reason that polyunsaturated fats are more likely to form free radicals (and go rancid) than saturated or monounsaturated fats, making them less desirable. Ignored was a well-done study that pitted animal fat against olive and corn oils. After two years there were the following percentages of subjects free from major cardiac events: animal fat 75%, olive oil 57% and corn oil 52%.
Cholesterol was such a bugaboo to Whitney and Rolfes that they admitted not a single direct function of it in the body! Cell and organelle membranes were drawn with no cholesterol present, where in fact, it is essential as it also is in nerve synapses and other brain function. Low cholesterol levels' association with cancer, depression, violence, and all-cause mortality were missing. A search of citations such as these authors used was made by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, to find the original studies or trials supporting a deadly role for dietary saturated fat or cholesterol without success. The earlier sources had no or opposite evidence to support their claims. Whitney and Rolfes even touted the Seven Countries Study of Ancel Keys, M.D. (p174), long exposed as a fraud utilizing data suppression. In addition, they quoted an NCEP/NHLBI/AHA publication that claimed a 1% reduction of serum cholesterol level gave a 2% reduction in CVD (p176); but a concurrent publication and many other studies showed the opposite. In the elderly, those with the higher cholesterol levels live the longest, as do those whose cholesterol levels do not drop on their own.
Dietary fiber was strongly recommended to prevent both CVD and colon cancer, despite an admission that the research was contradictory (p124). A 16-year study on 89,000 women and a meta-analysis of 17 studies showed no effect on CVD and 35-50% increases in colon cancer.
Whitney and Rolfes even touted choosing wild fish over farmed fish, writing that the wild fish contained more omega-3 fats, exactly opposite of a recent study's findings.
Salt limitation to '6 g/day "to lower blood pressure" was presented despite the very persuasive evidence showing that BP will go down in only 1/5 of people, that it will go up in 1/5, and that 3/5 will be almost unaffected by changing salt intake. Overall, in the gigantic Intersalt trial, there was little effect of salt on BP, while greater potassium intake was hypotensive. In 2003, the Cochrane Collaboration agreed.
Best single volume nutrition book I know of: Groves B. Trick and Treat: How "Healthy Eating" is Making Us Ill. London, England: Hammersmith Press, 2008. Not a textbook. See my Amazon review.
Physicians who ignore recommendations of dietitians may be justified. Calls for courses in nutrition for physicians and other health providers, if based on books such as this, might not be worthwhile.
Over 130 questionable statements other than those above were found. Therefore, this book is not recommended. For a list of over 100, with references to back up my positions, e-mail me at kauffman37@yahoo.com after 25 Apr 09.

I am using this book for an online class. It is easy to read. The material is explained clearly. It is worth the money!

It is not the typical nutrition book that talks about apples and oranges. She actually talks about "far out" stuff like spirulina, super dieters tea, ma huang, kombucha, probiotics, Qi gong, colonics etc. I wish that she would have gone into a little more detail about the alternative health stuff that you find in health food stores as I shop there alot. This books shows you how to calculate your Body Mass Index, how to calculate the amt of proteins, carbs and fats you need in your diet specifically for your weight and there is an index in the back that acts as a calorie guide to todays most popular foods. It not only tells you where you should be at ht/wt wise but also where your waist line should be and even calculations for that.

This is a great book that I'll keep in my library for years to come. I really enjoyed that the book listed all the top sources of certain vitamins and minerals, all in one easy place. The chemistry is basic as well, but not overwhelming. For more of the same but maybe a bit higher level, I suggest Robert Wildman's "Advanced Human Nutrition", or "The Nutritionist."

I'm wondering who funded the creation of this ridiculous book ... I stopped wasting my time reading it after it informed me that pesticides have not been *proven* to be bad for you, nitrates don't actually cause cancer (don't worry about it...just keep buying!), artificial flavor chemicals and dyes are actually better for you than the compounds that flavor natural foods ... oh and it's fine to eat antiobiotics and growth hormones all the time (as long as people are *responsible* about how they apply them) ... Toxic sludge is good for you -- Don't waste your money -- complete garbage1

Good condition, but it didn't come with the cd and I really needed it for the class. I bought it new from amazon, but had to return it.

The book is in excellent shape. If even better than expected. It arrived quickly too! I am very pleased and will look for this seller with future needs. Thanks!

Good basic knowledge. Help anyone in creating foundation for nutrition knowledge.
Reads well and is sufficient to provide thorough information.

It's a great textbook for a Nutrition class, down to earth, clear explanations, lots of extras.