What do you think?
Rate this book
Food Intelligence: The Science of How Food Both Nourishes and Harms Us
To understand how to eat, we have to know why we eat
The more expert advice we hear about diet, the less clarity we have about what to eat. Leading researcher Kevin Hall and award-winning health journalist Julia Belluz want to cut through the smoke screen thrown up by the food industry on one side, and the diet gurus on the other, with this definitive book about food, diet, metabolism and nutrition.
We evolved to eat everything. If we eat a starchy potato or a fatty steak, the chemical pathways and hormone responses will look different but in the short term the net result is the we get the calories we need for fuel. But what result will that diet have in the long term? Hall and Belluz tease out the answers, examining the underlying truth about popular food plans (keto, vegan, pescatarian), the critical impact of micronutrients, what we really know about the microbiome, and the truth that in terms of weight loss – but not necessarily our health – a calorie is a calorie.
Nutrition isn’t rocket science; it’s harder. This accessible, illuminating, often funny book will change how you think about food forever.
The more expert advice we hear about diet, the less clarity we have about what to eat. Leading researcher Kevin Hall and award-winning health journalist Julia Belluz want to cut through the smoke screen thrown up by the food industry on one side, and the diet gurus on the other, with this definitive book about food, diet, metabolism and nutrition.
We evolved to eat everything. If we eat a starchy potato or a fatty steak, the chemical pathways and hormone responses will look different but in the short term the net result is the we get the calories we need for fuel. But what result will that diet have in the long term? Hall and Belluz tease out the answers, examining the underlying truth about popular food plans (keto, vegan, pescatarian), the critical impact of micronutrients, what we really know about the microbiome, and the truth that in terms of weight loss – but not necessarily our health – a calorie is a calorie.
Nutrition isn’t rocket science; it’s harder. This accessible, illuminating, often funny book will change how you think about food forever.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published September 23, 2025
336 people are currently reading
2540 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
February 1, 2026
If losing weight was easy there would be no overweight people. These two authors explore the reasons for this. There are multiple brain areas and intertwining hormones involved in appetite and weight. We have less control over what we eat than we would like to believe—our bodies have secret override codes that can frustrate the most devoted dieter. Combined with our food environment (what foods are easily available, their cost, their palatability, etc.), our personal tastes, and our social cues, what we eat becomes very complicated very quickly.
”With something as fundamentally important to life as eating, biology wasn't messing around.”
I was surprised at how little the microbiome was discussed. Instead, the authors wrote about the companies offering personal nutrition guidance, sometimes using glucose monitors as a guide. The evidence for this is anemic at best, but it is a measure of people's worries about their health that many are willing to spend significant amounts of money for this advice. I tend to believe that if a particular program, supplement, or food provided a true dietary advantage, it would be featured in news headlines and on the cover of Time magazine. I occasionally get suckered into buying a bottle of vitamins—just recently it was Vitamin B complex. I'll finish them, mostly because I paid for them, but I know I'm better off eating foods with B vitamins in them.
Many of the issues discussed are what I think of as first world problems. Hunger is still a reality in many parts of the world (and among the poor in our own societies). The future of food production will have to deal with more equitable distribution of food. We are also going to have to face climate change and depleting water supplies.
In the end, Michael Pollan gave some of the best advice: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
”With something as fundamentally important to life as eating, biology wasn't messing around.”
I was surprised at how little the microbiome was discussed. Instead, the authors wrote about the companies offering personal nutrition guidance, sometimes using glucose monitors as a guide. The evidence for this is anemic at best, but it is a measure of people's worries about their health that many are willing to spend significant amounts of money for this advice. I tend to believe that if a particular program, supplement, or food provided a true dietary advantage, it would be featured in news headlines and on the cover of Time magazine. I occasionally get suckered into buying a bottle of vitamins—just recently it was Vitamin B complex. I'll finish them, mostly because I paid for them, but I know I'm better off eating foods with B vitamins in them.
Many of the issues discussed are what I think of as first world problems. Hunger is still a reality in many parts of the world (and among the poor in our own societies). The future of food production will have to deal with more equitable distribution of food. We are also going to have to face climate change and depleting water supplies.
In the end, Michael Pollan gave some of the best advice: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
November 13, 2025
Thesis: Ultra-processed food is addictive, calorie-dense and nutrient poor. It would be great if we could avoid it on our own, but this problem would be better addressed by changes in public food and public health policies.
Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall construct some compelling stories around this premise, with The Biggest Loser as a launch pad. It starts to get weaker about 3/4 through the book, with research findings that don't quite pan out and the usual true but frustrating conclusion that "more research is needed." I recommend it, if only because this book raises some puzzling questions and generally encourages us to spend less money on gimmicks and trying to discover what's wrong with us.
From a very different approach, Hall and Belluz draw the same conclusions as Michael Pollan in Omnivores' Dilemma: eat whole foods, mostly vegetables, and not too much. For me, listening to research and discussion and good stories helps me keep these ideas in the forefront and make good individual choices. Like these authors, I hope we are gathering the political will to get poor options off the shelves and make whole foods more accessible.
Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall construct some compelling stories around this premise, with The Biggest Loser as a launch pad. It starts to get weaker about 3/4 through the book, with research findings that don't quite pan out and the usual true but frustrating conclusion that "more research is needed." I recommend it, if only because this book raises some puzzling questions and generally encourages us to spend less money on gimmicks and trying to discover what's wrong with us.
From a very different approach, Hall and Belluz draw the same conclusions as Michael Pollan in Omnivores' Dilemma: eat whole foods, mostly vegetables, and not too much. For me, listening to research and discussion and good stories helps me keep these ideas in the forefront and make good individual choices. Like these authors, I hope we are gathering the political will to get poor options off the shelves and make whole foods more accessible.
February 3, 2026
Food Intelligence was a fascinating read—a smart, easily accessible dissection of food science and myths. It steers us away from quick fixes and fad diets and towards an appreciation of what our body does (even body fat!), understanding both adaptive and maladaptive responses to food and why we eat the way we do. I don’t think it’s possible to grow up in America without some sense of food shame, and I appreciate that the authors not only explain the science, but address how our food and wellness culture has so heavily influenced how we feel about what we eat (and the emotional baggage that comes with it).
Some takeaways:
1) The myth of “it’s my metabolism’s fault.” Many of us were taught people are naturally thin or have a tendency to gain weight due to “fast” or “slow” metabolisms. And, we were told, any weight we did lose would likely be regained due to dieting putting the breaks on our metabolism even more. Dr. Hall decided to put this hypothesis to the test by studying contestants involved in the Biggest Loser weight loss show — the data showed something entirely different.
2) The low carb versus low fat diet wars. This was honestly my favorite chapter, having grown up under the low carb era. While champions of the low-carb and low-fat positions will argue their way is best, Dr. Hall studied this empirically — and found marginal differences in body fat loss between the two. I will eat my pasta in peace.
3) Eating is like breathing. Dieting culture tells us what we really need is willpower to make smart food choices, and if we just had enough motivation, we would lose weight. While our decision-making does play a role in what we eat, Food Intelligence teaches us the significant behind-the-scenes biology that drives subconscious decision-making in our food choices. They liken it to breathing — yes it’s true you can tell yourself to breathe faster or slower, but over the long-term, our behind-the-scenes biological drivers are really running the show when it comes to respiratory rate (and that’s a good thing). Trying to go against our biological cues is HARD, which is why the just-will-yourself-to-eat-less approach often fails over the long-term.
4) It’s the food environment. While popular dieting wisdom puts the blame of weight gain squarely on the shoulders of each individual, when you step back, this explanation begins to unravel. The percent of individuals who are overweight or obese¹ has increased dramatically in the last several decades across age groups — did we all collectively lose our willpower at the same time? Food Intelligence argues that changes in individual willpower is largely not to blame for rising obesity rates. Instead, the book provides evidence that the ubiquitous availability of ultraprocessed foods (especially energy dense, hyperpalatable ones) have hijacked our subconscious drivers of eating, leading us to eat more. Again, he put this hypothesis to the test — in a landmark study comparing ultraprocessed and unprocessed diets, those eating ultraprocessed food ate an average of 500 more calories per day. Ultraprocessed foods now make up 70% of food available at grocery stores (and not all ultraprocessed foods are “bad.”) If we want America to eat healthier, addressing the food environment — which foods we have access to and can afford — is a critical first step. (¹The book also has a nicely nuanced explanation about the shortcomings of Body Mass Index (BMI), and explains it’s not so much the number on the scale, but the quality and function of fat tissue that impacts health.)
These are just the first few chapters — the book also discusses the pitfalls of personalized nutrition programs that claim your microbiome can tell you what to eat, takes a critical look at continuous glucose monitoring for people without diabetes, looks back at how the vitamin and supplement industry have often gotten ahead of the science, and makes recommendations for what we can do as individuals and as a society to move towards a healthier diet.
My take: there is so much noise and conflicting information about food right now. Nearly everyone agrees American diets have become problematic, but blame is spread in a myriad of directions. The billion dollar wellness industry focuses on selling quick fixes marketed towards individual consumers — just take this supplement, try this diet, or cut out these particular foods, and your problems will be solved. The MAHA movement gets some things right — recognizing the impact of ultraprocessed foods and bringing the problem of American nutrition to national attention. But it also misses the mark by villainizing individual ingredients, celebrating removing food dyes from fruit loops, fries made in beef tallow (animal fat), and Coca Cola made with cane sugar as health “wins.” Switching around the ingredients in these ultraprocessed foods isn’t going to make them healthy. Perhaps the real problem is in America, it is so much easier to buy fries, fruit loops, and soda than it is to buy less processed foods.
Some takeaways:
1) The myth of “it’s my metabolism’s fault.” Many of us were taught people are naturally thin or have a tendency to gain weight due to “fast” or “slow” metabolisms. And, we were told, any weight we did lose would likely be regained due to dieting putting the breaks on our metabolism even more. Dr. Hall decided to put this hypothesis to the test by studying contestants involved in the Biggest Loser weight loss show — the data showed something entirely different.
2) The low carb versus low fat diet wars. This was honestly my favorite chapter, having grown up under the low carb era. While champions of the low-carb and low-fat positions will argue their way is best, Dr. Hall studied this empirically — and found marginal differences in body fat loss between the two. I will eat my pasta in peace.
3) Eating is like breathing. Dieting culture tells us what we really need is willpower to make smart food choices, and if we just had enough motivation, we would lose weight. While our decision-making does play a role in what we eat, Food Intelligence teaches us the significant behind-the-scenes biology that drives subconscious decision-making in our food choices. They liken it to breathing — yes it’s true you can tell yourself to breathe faster or slower, but over the long-term, our behind-the-scenes biological drivers are really running the show when it comes to respiratory rate (and that’s a good thing). Trying to go against our biological cues is HARD, which is why the just-will-yourself-to-eat-less approach often fails over the long-term.
4) It’s the food environment. While popular dieting wisdom puts the blame of weight gain squarely on the shoulders of each individual, when you step back, this explanation begins to unravel. The percent of individuals who are overweight or obese¹ has increased dramatically in the last several decades across age groups — did we all collectively lose our willpower at the same time? Food Intelligence argues that changes in individual willpower is largely not to blame for rising obesity rates. Instead, the book provides evidence that the ubiquitous availability of ultraprocessed foods (especially energy dense, hyperpalatable ones) have hijacked our subconscious drivers of eating, leading us to eat more. Again, he put this hypothesis to the test — in a landmark study comparing ultraprocessed and unprocessed diets, those eating ultraprocessed food ate an average of 500 more calories per day. Ultraprocessed foods now make up 70% of food available at grocery stores (and not all ultraprocessed foods are “bad.”) If we want America to eat healthier, addressing the food environment — which foods we have access to and can afford — is a critical first step. (¹The book also has a nicely nuanced explanation about the shortcomings of Body Mass Index (BMI), and explains it’s not so much the number on the scale, but the quality and function of fat tissue that impacts health.)
These are just the first few chapters — the book also discusses the pitfalls of personalized nutrition programs that claim your microbiome can tell you what to eat, takes a critical look at continuous glucose monitoring for people without diabetes, looks back at how the vitamin and supplement industry have often gotten ahead of the science, and makes recommendations for what we can do as individuals and as a society to move towards a healthier diet.
My take: there is so much noise and conflicting information about food right now. Nearly everyone agrees American diets have become problematic, but blame is spread in a myriad of directions. The billion dollar wellness industry focuses on selling quick fixes marketed towards individual consumers — just take this supplement, try this diet, or cut out these particular foods, and your problems will be solved. The MAHA movement gets some things right — recognizing the impact of ultraprocessed foods and bringing the problem of American nutrition to national attention. But it also misses the mark by villainizing individual ingredients, celebrating removing food dyes from fruit loops, fries made in beef tallow (animal fat), and Coca Cola made with cane sugar as health “wins.” Switching around the ingredients in these ultraprocessed foods isn’t going to make them healthy. Perhaps the real problem is in America, it is so much easier to buy fries, fruit loops, and soda than it is to buy less processed foods.
October 16, 2025
Book was somewhat educational regarding the chemical process of body metabolism. It makes some points that stick well, like the "flex fuel" point, and makes a good case that focus on macro-nutrient balance is probably wrong. It disabused me of some ideas I had in my head, like that glucose spikes necessarily are causal of developing insulin resistance (science is still undecided).
Organization was a little frustrating at times with a lot of hand-waving of a concern "we'll cover that in chapter xyz". I think this is generally unnecessary and distracting the to reader.
Also seemed incurious about the causes of modern metabolic disease. It spent chapters dancing around causal factors for this saying they would address it later. It had a good treatment of The Greatest Loser results. It talked about ultra-processed foods, and introduced some very interesting alternative metrics that be the molecular thing that matters for it - calorie-dense and ultra-palatable. It still suggested that processing agents and additives might be what makes ultra-processed foods particularly harmful... but all presented as speculation. All good set up, but then kind of throws up its hands like "maybe it's fiber". And then throws out some familiar diversionary arguments like "different people's DNA work differently", even though this kind of stuff obviously doesn't work for the population-scale trends. Just missing a bit of closure.
Organization was a little frustrating at times with a lot of hand-waving of a concern "we'll cover that in chapter xyz". I think this is generally unnecessary and distracting the to reader.
Also seemed incurious about the causes of modern metabolic disease. It spent chapters dancing around causal factors for this saying they would address it later. It had a good treatment of The Greatest Loser results. It talked about ultra-processed foods, and introduced some very interesting alternative metrics that be the molecular thing that matters for it - calorie-dense and ultra-palatable. It still suggested that processing agents and additives might be what makes ultra-processed foods particularly harmful... but all presented as speculation. All good set up, but then kind of throws up its hands like "maybe it's fiber". And then throws out some familiar diversionary arguments like "different people's DNA work differently", even though this kind of stuff obviously doesn't work for the population-scale trends. Just missing a bit of closure.
November 18, 2025
Food Intelligence shows how our bodies handle food, why we often eat more than we need, and how modern diets shape our health. Belluz and Hall break down big myths about calories, metabolism, and protein, and explain how ultra-processed foods and today’s food environment push us toward overeating. They show how biology, hormones, and industry practices work together to guide what we eat and how we gain weight. The book also calls for smarter food policies and small daily choices that help people eat in ways that support long-term health.
Top Takeaways
· The old 3,500-calorie rule doesn’t predict real weight loss because metabolism changes as we eat less.
· Protein myths are common; the body can’t store extra protein, and supplements offer little gain without exercise.
· Low-carb and low-fat diets work about the same when calories are equal.
· Ultra-processed foods drive overeating because of their taste, low fiber, and heavy marketing.
· The food environment shapes diet more than willpower, so policy changes matter as much as personal choice.
Top Takeaways
· The old 3,500-calorie rule doesn’t predict real weight loss because metabolism changes as we eat less.
· Protein myths are common; the body can’t store extra protein, and supplements offer little gain without exercise.
· Low-carb and low-fat diets work about the same when calories are equal.
· Ultra-processed foods drive overeating because of their taste, low fiber, and heavy marketing.
· The food environment shapes diet more than willpower, so policy changes matter as much as personal choice.
December 19, 2025
I actually stopped reading this about two-thirds of the way through, when they started talking about what a great guy RFK Jr. was.
Some of the info was interesting but a lot of it was just beating the same old drum, and the chapter on policy solutions was totally unrealistic.
Some of the info was interesting but a lot of it was just beating the same old drum, and the chapter on policy solutions was totally unrealistic.
Read
February 8, 2026On the one hand, I enjoyed the takedown of various dieting and health fads (including ones I'd fallen for like "glucose revolution") which did not hold up in randomized, heavily-controlled trials. On the other, with all the nuance and complaining about the state of the food world and regulation, it was difficult to derive useful guidelines. It was also a bit annoying that while there was room to tell the personal stories of the authors and others', there was hardly mention of the practical difficulties of fruits and vegetables: that they spoil (creating food waste), that cleaning and chopping takes time, etc. (I had a coworker who would chop vegetables during our Zoom meetings, and I have to say I understood, it is not a trivial task to prep those things).
February 4, 2026
I found this book disappointing, as I had heard good things about it. I was hoping for more clarification on our food (particularly in the US) as it related to our health, but I had a tough time with this one. It felt much like a science class textbook, not at all what I was expecting or looking for.
March 6, 2026
This is one of those books where I feel like the authors didn’t actually have enough information to write a whole book. The research that is presented is fascinating and debunked a lot of things I had assumed were true (like calories are kind of nonsense and unsubstantiated by real world studies), however it is accompanied by chapters on historical stuff that just feels like padding to bring it to book length. Annoying but I would still very much recommend the book for the science it does contain.
December 21, 2025
Too boring to be generalized nonfiction, too casual to be a textbook. I'm not sure what the point of this book is. It contains a lot of "science" without anything meaningful.
This also had the most blatant strawman argument I've seen (and I now realize that I've used the word "strawman" in two straight reviews, at least the last one was sarcastic). The authors use the actual Liver King as the face of high-protein diets, as if anyone ever took him seriously.
This also had the most blatant strawman argument I've seen (and I now realize that I've used the word "strawman" in two straight reviews, at least the last one was sarcastic). The authors use the actual Liver King as the face of high-protein diets, as if anyone ever took him seriously.
March 16, 2026
Really interesting, if at times a bit dense, eye-opening read about food and why your monkey brain is so easily tricked into eating an entire Costco sized bag of Dot's garlic parmesan pretzels. Surely that's a universal experience...? Jokes aside, since finishing this over the weekend I have been to the grocery store twice and found myself thinking much more deliberately about what I would normally be chucking into my basket on auto-pilot. I bought a box of extra fiber Raisin Bran for christ's sake. I'd recommend this read to just about everyone I know.
"Reading this book, we sincerely hope, will make you see the stuff on your dinner plate as more than stuff on your dinner plate. We hope to simultaneously ramp up your sense of awe about food and your body and decrease the chances of being swindled by influencers, while helping you to be kinder to yourselves and each other. We might answer questions you never knew you had about your body and what happens after you take your first bite. This knowledge won't necessarily fix our food landscape or reverse obesity, but it is, we think, the first step to truly intelligent eating."
"Reading this book, we sincerely hope, will make you see the stuff on your dinner plate as more than stuff on your dinner plate. We hope to simultaneously ramp up your sense of awe about food and your body and decrease the chances of being swindled by influencers, while helping you to be kinder to yourselves and each other. We might answer questions you never knew you had about your body and what happens after you take your first bite. This knowledge won't necessarily fix our food landscape or reverse obesity, but it is, we think, the first step to truly intelligent eating."
January 25, 2026
There is a wealth of information in this book regarding our food "system" and how the body reacts to it. At times it was a tad too scientific for me, but I am not a PhD. However, thank goodness for all the research that has been done by both authors and bringing to the publics attention. There is a reason why human health is going down the tubes and Big Food isn't helping us. Henry Dimbley said it the best on the back of the jacket, "Junk-food giants hijack your biology. Wellness hucksters sell you false hope. In a food environment rigged against you, this is your guide to fighting back." We all need to start owning the responsibility of our health, this book will help some of the decision making.
February 14, 2026
loved the blend of science and journalism in an effort to effectively communicate a heated topic!
kevin hall is an applied physiologist with a basic science background and i always love hearing stories of how people transfer fields in science because that’s what i’ve done too and it’s cool to see where people with similar patterns to my own who are further along in their career end up (Dr Hall may be the exception to the rule with his tremendous success)
some shout outs to my PhD supervisor in the protein section of this as well!
kevin hall is an applied physiologist with a basic science background and i always love hearing stories of how people transfer fields in science because that’s what i’ve done too and it’s cool to see where people with similar patterns to my own who are further along in their career end up (Dr Hall may be the exception to the rule with his tremendous success)
some shout outs to my PhD supervisor in the protein section of this as well!
March 2, 2026
Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall bring groundbreaking and common sense nutritional science together into an approachable and accurate manual for understanding how nutrition science works. This is a must read for anyone who eats.
January 31, 2026
Great mix of insight into the present nutritional landscape, history of its foundations, and thoughts on the future!
January 19, 2026
I learned a lot actually
January 28, 2026
Interesting information in small amounts but the book suffers from serious mission creep. They tried to address too many topics without resolution.The mention of RFK Jr near the end negated any useful purpose for this book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 17, 2026
Good information and a far more engaging explanation of the Krebs cycle than I received in college biology. But the book was a bit of a slog for me.
January 16, 2026
”The same brain regions involved in alcoholism and drug addiction are the ones that respond to food cues.”
I feel like I need to rate this book in two halves.
Part 1: 5 Stars
Solid! Really enjoyable, fascinating read on how the body breaks down food and what a calorie really is. I loved this, would have given the book 5 stars if it ended there. It was very educational, and I found the part where he described why the body doesn’t want to lose weight to be very liberating.
Part 2: 1 Star
Lord. Where to begin? The second half of this book was far more technical, and even for someone with a reasonable science background I found it hard to follow at times. The chapters felt more disjointed. Then, 2 cardinal sins were committed.
1. If you’re writing a research book, maybe don’t contradict yourself in the last chapters
The entire first half of the book we talk about how bad ultra processed foods (UPFs) are and why we need to filter them out of our diet as much as we can. Got it. Makes sense. Looks sound. But then…in the final chapters Kevin makes a push for meat alternative foods. What?? It’s widely known that meat alternatives are UPFs. They may not be as bad for you as the average Dorito, but they’re still HIGHLY processed, essentially chemical cubes. So we spend the entire book on how bad UPFs are…except when it comes to the Vegan agenda?? He even acknowledges this contradiction in the book, saying he knows they are UPFs…and then immediately moved on.
”To get there, many of us are going to have to move past the generalized panic over UPFs and lab-grown meats.”
Dude. You just spent the first part of the book telling me how bad UPFs are. There’s an entire chapter on it. Make up your mind.
2. If you’re writing a research book, maybe don’t laud Robert F. Kennedy as a pioneer of modern medicine
In the book, Kevin specifically praises “MAHA Moms” or “MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN” moms for partnering with RFK Jr. to bring healthy food back to America. Now, I don’t disagree with this. I’m all for improving our food environment. But we have seriously lost the plot if we are using the greatness of RFK as an example in a RESEARCH book.
”MAHA’s leader, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has elevated the discussion of toxic food environments in the way of no other national leader we can think of. Among his first initiatives while in office: He directed the FDA to look into eliminating the self-affirmed GRAS loophole.”
Yes, and he also decried Tylenol and vaccines for causing autism. We cannot celebrate someone who directly defies legitimate research to pass harmful legislation in a research book about how we need better legislation…
All in all, it’s tough to rate this book. The first half was great, the last half was pretty bad and I struggled through it. I wouldn’t recommend it overall.
I feel like I need to rate this book in two halves.
Part 1: 5 Stars
Solid! Really enjoyable, fascinating read on how the body breaks down food and what a calorie really is. I loved this, would have given the book 5 stars if it ended there. It was very educational, and I found the part where he described why the body doesn’t want to lose weight to be very liberating.
Part 2: 1 Star
Lord. Where to begin? The second half of this book was far more technical, and even for someone with a reasonable science background I found it hard to follow at times. The chapters felt more disjointed. Then, 2 cardinal sins were committed.
1. If you’re writing a research book, maybe don’t contradict yourself in the last chapters
The entire first half of the book we talk about how bad ultra processed foods (UPFs) are and why we need to filter them out of our diet as much as we can. Got it. Makes sense. Looks sound. But then…in the final chapters Kevin makes a push for meat alternative foods. What?? It’s widely known that meat alternatives are UPFs. They may not be as bad for you as the average Dorito, but they’re still HIGHLY processed, essentially chemical cubes. So we spend the entire book on how bad UPFs are…except when it comes to the Vegan agenda?? He even acknowledges this contradiction in the book, saying he knows they are UPFs…and then immediately moved on.
”To get there, many of us are going to have to move past the generalized panic over UPFs and lab-grown meats.”
Dude. You just spent the first part of the book telling me how bad UPFs are. There’s an entire chapter on it. Make up your mind.
2. If you’re writing a research book, maybe don’t laud Robert F. Kennedy as a pioneer of modern medicine
In the book, Kevin specifically praises “MAHA Moms” or “MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN” moms for partnering with RFK Jr. to bring healthy food back to America. Now, I don’t disagree with this. I’m all for improving our food environment. But we have seriously lost the plot if we are using the greatness of RFK as an example in a RESEARCH book.
”MAHA’s leader, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has elevated the discussion of toxic food environments in the way of no other national leader we can think of. Among his first initiatives while in office: He directed the FDA to look into eliminating the self-affirmed GRAS loophole.”
Yes, and he also decried Tylenol and vaccines for causing autism. We cannot celebrate someone who directly defies legitimate research to pass harmful legislation in a research book about how we need better legislation…
All in all, it’s tough to rate this book. The first half was great, the last half was pretty bad and I struggled through it. I wouldn’t recommend it overall.
December 31, 2025
The science is there, to some extent, but the authors are annoying. I made it to 75%, but when they started to talk about «good and bad» cholesterol I gave up. That myth has been debunked long ago. The science on cholesterol says this: the HDL («good cholesterol») is what predicts death risk. Low HDL = high risk. The «bad» cholesterol is not a predictor of death. Actually, without cholesterol, you die. Cholesterol prevents cancer and repairs blood veins and arteries damaged by excessive sugar intake. And yes, too much sugar will give you diabetes. Read Robert H. Lustig instead, or watch him on YouTube.
December 15, 2025
I was expecting more hard science than I got and got way more policy manifesto than I wanted. I don't even necessarily disagree with them, I just resent such an obvious attempt at "stirring me to action." And yes, I do disagree with some of their proscriptions. I'm leery of anyone who leans on government to protect me from myself. I would have been much happier with a hard science book that taught me more about nutritional science and empowered me to make my own choices instead of hearing "it's not you, sweetie, it's your food climate." This book is an opportunity wasted.
October 15, 2025
This felt like another book pushing veganism.
October 24, 2025
I was really disappointed by this book. As a member of the nutrition and dietetics field, I’ve been a big fan of many of Kevin Hall’s studies for awhile; he always controls for the right confounders and investigates questions that we need answers to and others don’t seem to be addressing.
My first problem with this book was the chapter on protein. Although many people consume enough grams of protein, this is occurring in the context of significantly overconsuming calories. Meaning, if they ate smaller portions of the same diet, their total protein intake would be far too low, as we see so often in older adults who lose their appetite and consume barely any protein (right when their total grams needed increases due to anabolic resistance associated with aging). It’s therefore really important to advise people to eat more protein dense foods. I would have thought a world renowned obesity researcher could make this connection. Not to mention that he didn’t touch on issues such as timing or getting enough grams at a time to stimulate muscle protein synthesis. Given that obesity is a major cause of anabolic resistance that further increases this amount, I again would have expected better insights from an obesity researcher. And yes, protein deficiency is not a risk in western society; but by that logic we don’t need any carbohydrates and only a small amount of essential fatty acids, yet their RDAs are not based on the minimum to survive. Having enough to survive is not the same as what’s optimal. Given how essential our muscle mass and muscle health is for the chronic diseases this entire book is meant to focus on addressing (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, etc), I can’t figure out how he took the stance he did.
My second biggest issue with the book was the approach taken to the environmental considerations. He referenced the EAT-Lancet report in a footnote, despite this being an extremely unrepeatable source. Its greenhouse gas emissions only focus on production and consumption, rather than considering the entire production cycle (transportation, refrigeration, etc). This leads to inaccurate figures disfavouring the consumption of animal based foods. For example, it does not consider that there are tons of non-food uses of animal agriculture byproducts (shampoos, cosmetics, medicines, tires, ceramics, plastics, etc); without animal agriculture, alternative ingredients for these products must be used, producing greenhouse gases that are not accounted for in these calculations. The overall body of evidence on how to eat more sustainably shows that it’s complex and depends on where you live, but includes a mix of animal and plant based foods (a diet extremely high in meat is of course not ideal environmentally either, but that’s not to say that optimal is plant based. For example, think of all the transport costs to make plant based meats).
Third, although there is a small section where he says he is not trying to encourage chemophobia, many of his messages contradict this. He even goes as far as to say supportive things regarding RFK Jr and the MAHA movement which could be a whole review in itself.
Additionally, there were also a couple misleading sentences such as that Kevin Hall “debunked the 3500 calorie rule” which just isn’t true; yes it’s complicated and eating 3500 calories extra or less per day will not result in exactly 1lb of fat loss or gain. But, being in a 3500kcal surplus or deficit will. It’s just that getting in exactly a 3500kcal deficit or surplus is not accomplished just by eating that much more/less, but is affected by factors such as absorption and changes in energy expenditure (in metabolic rate, NEAT, etc). I do believe Kevin Hall understands this (as he does touch on these), but some of his phrasing is misleading nonetheless, and likely leads readers to draw incorrect conclusions.
Some other smaller issues I had: It was too focused on historical facts and figures; some of them were interesting but they were excessive and I found myself zoning out in parts and waiting for the book to get to the point. Also, a lot of the stats and figures given to make a point were not contextualized - ie is 3000(insert unit of something) a lot?
I did, however, enjoy the description of what “metabolism” actually means; it was one of the best I’ve seen. Similarly, the descriptions of the biggest loser studies and the quality over quantity of fat being what matters in terms of health were well done.
My first problem with this book was the chapter on protein. Although many people consume enough grams of protein, this is occurring in the context of significantly overconsuming calories. Meaning, if they ate smaller portions of the same diet, their total protein intake would be far too low, as we see so often in older adults who lose their appetite and consume barely any protein (right when their total grams needed increases due to anabolic resistance associated with aging). It’s therefore really important to advise people to eat more protein dense foods. I would have thought a world renowned obesity researcher could make this connection. Not to mention that he didn’t touch on issues such as timing or getting enough grams at a time to stimulate muscle protein synthesis. Given that obesity is a major cause of anabolic resistance that further increases this amount, I again would have expected better insights from an obesity researcher. And yes, protein deficiency is not a risk in western society; but by that logic we don’t need any carbohydrates and only a small amount of essential fatty acids, yet their RDAs are not based on the minimum to survive. Having enough to survive is not the same as what’s optimal. Given how essential our muscle mass and muscle health is for the chronic diseases this entire book is meant to focus on addressing (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, etc), I can’t figure out how he took the stance he did.
My second biggest issue with the book was the approach taken to the environmental considerations. He referenced the EAT-Lancet report in a footnote, despite this being an extremely unrepeatable source. Its greenhouse gas emissions only focus on production and consumption, rather than considering the entire production cycle (transportation, refrigeration, etc). This leads to inaccurate figures disfavouring the consumption of animal based foods. For example, it does not consider that there are tons of non-food uses of animal agriculture byproducts (shampoos, cosmetics, medicines, tires, ceramics, plastics, etc); without animal agriculture, alternative ingredients for these products must be used, producing greenhouse gases that are not accounted for in these calculations. The overall body of evidence on how to eat more sustainably shows that it’s complex and depends on where you live, but includes a mix of animal and plant based foods (a diet extremely high in meat is of course not ideal environmentally either, but that’s not to say that optimal is plant based. For example, think of all the transport costs to make plant based meats).
Third, although there is a small section where he says he is not trying to encourage chemophobia, many of his messages contradict this. He even goes as far as to say supportive things regarding RFK Jr and the MAHA movement which could be a whole review in itself.
Additionally, there were also a couple misleading sentences such as that Kevin Hall “debunked the 3500 calorie rule” which just isn’t true; yes it’s complicated and eating 3500 calories extra or less per day will not result in exactly 1lb of fat loss or gain. But, being in a 3500kcal surplus or deficit will. It’s just that getting in exactly a 3500kcal deficit or surplus is not accomplished just by eating that much more/less, but is affected by factors such as absorption and changes in energy expenditure (in metabolic rate, NEAT, etc). I do believe Kevin Hall understands this (as he does touch on these), but some of his phrasing is misleading nonetheless, and likely leads readers to draw incorrect conclusions.
Some other smaller issues I had: It was too focused on historical facts and figures; some of them were interesting but they were excessive and I found myself zoning out in parts and waiting for the book to get to the point. Also, a lot of the stats and figures given to make a point were not contextualized - ie is 3000(insert unit of something) a lot?
I did, however, enjoy the description of what “metabolism” actually means; it was one of the best I’ve seen. Similarly, the descriptions of the biggest loser studies and the quality over quantity of fat being what matters in terms of health were well done.
November 4, 2025
An excellent overview of our food system and the role the food environment plays in our health including:
-the basics of human metabolism and how the ability to adapt to a wide variety of macronutrient ranges keeps us alive
-early nutrition science (i.e., how we discovered vitamins)
-the biological/genetic components of obesity
-the power and influence of food companies (both through engineering food so you'll eat as much as possible of it and through lobbying)
-how our food system evolved to produce a glut of calories (at the expense of the environment and our health)
-current research on the impact of ultra processed foods (UPFs) on our health
As a nutrition professional weary of non-nutrition experts trying to capitalize on the next nutrition craze, I love that this book is written by a true expert and that it doesn't overinflate the evidence or promise "one quick fix!" (or even claim to know conclusively exactly why UPFs are harmful. It is a balanced take on the history of our food environment and what the science says about how it impacts us. Sadly, this likely also means it will be underappreciated.
My only complaint is about the last chapter. The author goes into details about "food 2.0" (e.g. lab grown meat, alterative proteins) and notes that these will likely be ultra processed foods but important for achieving a more sustainable food system. I appreciated the approach of "let's let science guide us here" (which was the overall tone) but it felt like the author glossed over the fact that these foods will almost inevitably have the same characteristics (e.g., food matrix being broken down and foods being engineered to by hyperpalatable) which the author positioned as the most likely culprits in the unhealthiness of UPFs earlier on in the book. I would have liked more discussion about how (if at all) the author thinks these could be different and why these won't just be "business as usual" products from food companies looking after their bottom lines. Personally I feel that the author made a great case (up until the Food 2.0 discussion) for the focus on less processed foods and the systems and policies that would need to be in place to support this type of eating and could have left this bit out.
-the basics of human metabolism and how the ability to adapt to a wide variety of macronutrient ranges keeps us alive
-early nutrition science (i.e., how we discovered vitamins)
-the biological/genetic components of obesity
-the power and influence of food companies (both through engineering food so you'll eat as much as possible of it and through lobbying)
-how our food system evolved to produce a glut of calories (at the expense of the environment and our health)
-current research on the impact of ultra processed foods (UPFs) on our health
As a nutrition professional weary of non-nutrition experts trying to capitalize on the next nutrition craze, I love that this book is written by a true expert and that it doesn't overinflate the evidence or promise "one quick fix!" (or even claim to know conclusively exactly why UPFs are harmful. It is a balanced take on the history of our food environment and what the science says about how it impacts us. Sadly, this likely also means it will be underappreciated.
My only complaint is about the last chapter. The author goes into details about "food 2.0" (e.g. lab grown meat, alterative proteins) and notes that these will likely be ultra processed foods but important for achieving a more sustainable food system. I appreciated the approach of "let's let science guide us here" (which was the overall tone) but it felt like the author glossed over the fact that these foods will almost inevitably have the same characteristics (e.g., food matrix being broken down and foods being engineered to by hyperpalatable) which the author positioned as the most likely culprits in the unhealthiness of UPFs earlier on in the book. I would have liked more discussion about how (if at all) the author thinks these could be different and why these won't just be "business as usual" products from food companies looking after their bottom lines. Personally I feel that the author made a great case (up until the Food 2.0 discussion) for the focus on less processed foods and the systems and policies that would need to be in place to support this type of eating and could have left this bit out.
October 23, 2025
I was genuinely delighted to read Food Intelligence by Kevin Hall, PhD (with Julia Belluz). This is a rare nutrition book that manages to be balanced, evidence-based, and refreshingly free of hype.
If you have a strong stance in the diet wars, this book is not for you.
If you’re a charlatan hoping to cash in on the latest miracle food or supplement, it’s definitely not for you.
Hall has been one of the most respected researchers in metabolism and obesity science for years. His work has always been firmly rooted in data rather than dogma. Now, with Belluz’s help, his insights finally reach a general audience in a clear and engaging way.
The overarching message is simple but powerful:
Nutrition science is complicated. Don’t believe anyone who claims to have it all figured out. Don’t accept any dogmatic approach.
Some of my key takeaways:
• “Broken metabolism” is a myth — your metabolism adapts, it doesn’t fail.
• Protein fads are nothing new — the body is remarkably adaptable.
• Keto and low-fat diets perform about the same when calories are matched.
• Supplements rarely help beyond correcting deficiencies.
• Ultra-processed foods matter, but context matters more.
• Individuals can’t fix a broken food environment alone — that’s where policy comes in.
• “Precision nutrition” gadgets sound impressive but don’t yet deliver meaningful insights.
Hall and Belluz don’t oversimplify or overpromise. They remind us that nutrition is a living science, full of nuance, uncertainty, and humility.
If you’re tired of reductionist headlines and influencer advice, this book belongs on your shelf.
📍 Full review originally posted on my blog: NavigateWeightMD.com
Visit for more reflections on obesity medicine, metabolic health, and evidence-based weight care.
#FoodIntelligence #KevinHallPhD #NutritionScience #ObesityMedicine #NavigateYourWeightWithDrN
If you have a strong stance in the diet wars, this book is not for you.
If you’re a charlatan hoping to cash in on the latest miracle food or supplement, it’s definitely not for you.
Hall has been one of the most respected researchers in metabolism and obesity science for years. His work has always been firmly rooted in data rather than dogma. Now, with Belluz’s help, his insights finally reach a general audience in a clear and engaging way.
The overarching message is simple but powerful:
Nutrition science is complicated. Don’t believe anyone who claims to have it all figured out. Don’t accept any dogmatic approach.
Some of my key takeaways:
• “Broken metabolism” is a myth — your metabolism adapts, it doesn’t fail.
• Protein fads are nothing new — the body is remarkably adaptable.
• Keto and low-fat diets perform about the same when calories are matched.
• Supplements rarely help beyond correcting deficiencies.
• Ultra-processed foods matter, but context matters more.
• Individuals can’t fix a broken food environment alone — that’s where policy comes in.
• “Precision nutrition” gadgets sound impressive but don’t yet deliver meaningful insights.
Hall and Belluz don’t oversimplify or overpromise. They remind us that nutrition is a living science, full of nuance, uncertainty, and humility.
If you’re tired of reductionist headlines and influencer advice, this book belongs on your shelf.
📍 Full review originally posted on my blog: NavigateWeightMD.com
Visit for more reflections on obesity medicine, metabolic health, and evidence-based weight care.
#FoodIntelligence #KevinHallPhD #NutritionScience #ObesityMedicine #NavigateYourWeightWithDrN
February 25, 2026
Food Intelligence is an interesting argument about nutrition in modern times. I like the structure of the book which lays the foundations of nutrition then builds diverse discussions on top of it. Also, various parts introduce parts of the history of science which I did not expect but I enjoyed nonetheless.
The discussions are very interesting and the points made are sound. I will start with the things that mildly annoyed me. Sometimes, I felt like a bit of "contrarian" or "the Truth against the rest" while reading. Not that I disagreed with the authors -- the complexity of nutrition science, the broken food system, and the commercialization of "healthy eating" are all valid but I felt the argument slightly forceful. Also, I was surprised by the "Food 2.0" chapter, despite the disclaimer at the end, I found Julia's enthusiasm not matching the overall critique of the book being: new research are consistently misused and the overall system is harmful. Therefore, how would new shiny research help? They would take place in the same environment, the same actors will make profit instead of slowly building the research field.
Besides these minor points, the "intelligence" of the book and the argument convinced me. I found that stressing the environmental cause of bad nutrition is very important to understand the situation. Sadly, the book is USA-centric -- no problem with this -- but now I would like to have European/France data to compare the situations. I would predict, by the seat of my pants, that the health situation is not as bad but the same in essence. All the "pure" nutrition chapters were really interesting and well explained (maybe a few paragraphs were a bit too abstract). There are a lot of nuggets of insight in the book that make it worth the read.
The discussions are very interesting and the points made are sound. I will start with the things that mildly annoyed me. Sometimes, I felt like a bit of "contrarian" or "the Truth against the rest" while reading. Not that I disagreed with the authors -- the complexity of nutrition science, the broken food system, and the commercialization of "healthy eating" are all valid but I felt the argument slightly forceful. Also, I was surprised by the "Food 2.0" chapter, despite the disclaimer at the end, I found Julia's enthusiasm not matching the overall critique of the book being: new research are consistently misused and the overall system is harmful. Therefore, how would new shiny research help? They would take place in the same environment, the same actors will make profit instead of slowly building the research field.
Besides these minor points, the "intelligence" of the book and the argument convinced me. I found that stressing the environmental cause of bad nutrition is very important to understand the situation. Sadly, the book is USA-centric -- no problem with this -- but now I would like to have European/France data to compare the situations. I would predict, by the seat of my pants, that the health situation is not as bad but the same in essence. All the "pure" nutrition chapters were really interesting and well explained (maybe a few paragraphs were a bit too abstract). There are a lot of nuggets of insight in the book that make it worth the read.
February 10, 2026
This is a book about the energy we get from food and how our bodies use it. The authors explore centuries of nutrition science, research findings that challenge myths, and outdated policies that still influence how we approach food. Topics include the well-known Biggest Loser study, metabolism, flex fuel, body fat, food environment, personalized nutrition, calorie gut, and more.
“Reading this book, we sincerely hope, will make you see the stuff on your dinner plate as more than stuff on your dinner plate. We hope to simultaneously ramp up your sense of awe about food and your body and decrease the chances of being swindled by influencers, while helping you to be kinder to yourselves and each other” (p. 13).
The book avoids quick fixes and fad diets. Unlike other self-help diet books, this one offers a detailed explanation of how much our environment, nutritional claims, and the vitamin and supplement industry influence us.
Some myths are debunked with well-presented, scientifically supported studies. Others fall short; for example, the argument against eating animal-based foods. It references the EAT-Lancet study, which received strong backlash after publication for incorrect references, flawed conclusions, and misleading environmental claims.
There are excellent explanations of foundational nutrition science; however, the scientific rigor may deter the average reader.
“Reading this book, we sincerely hope, will make you see the stuff on your dinner plate as more than stuff on your dinner plate. We hope to simultaneously ramp up your sense of awe about food and your body and decrease the chances of being swindled by influencers, while helping you to be kinder to yourselves and each other” (p. 13).
The book avoids quick fixes and fad diets. Unlike other self-help diet books, this one offers a detailed explanation of how much our environment, nutritional claims, and the vitamin and supplement industry influence us.
Some myths are debunked with well-presented, scientifically supported studies. Others fall short; for example, the argument against eating animal-based foods. It references the EAT-Lancet study, which received strong backlash after publication for incorrect references, flawed conclusions, and misleading environmental claims.
There are excellent explanations of foundational nutrition science; however, the scientific rigor may deter the average reader.
January 27, 2026
This was a difficult book to get through, although I do have a greater understanding of metabolism, appetite-regulating hormones, the real function of dopamine, and more reasons to avoid eating ultra-processed foods. This quote gives you an idea of the writing:
“Since [ultra-processed foods] are made from whole foods broken down in factories, their nutrients are readily available for digestion and absorption earlier on in the process, possibly starving lower regions of the gut; its associated microbiome potentially affects hormone secretion patterns and the immune system. This matrix effect is one of the theories of how UPFs might harm our health.“
Good to know, but dense writing, eh?
I’m already well-read on modern food production since the Green Revolution, food deserts, food waste in the U.S., the cons of meat production, and the vitamin and supplement industries scam. The authors give kudos to RFK Jr.’s MAHA movement, praising his directive to “reorient NIH research to chronic disease PREVENTION as opposed to its past emphasis on finding treatments.” And they mentioned this without conceding that vaccines are good preventative medicine.
After reading this book, it is clear that following Michael Pollan’s aphorism, “Eat Food. Mostly plants. Not too much,” still holds. But I now have sympathy for people who are never sated due to their misfiring hormones.
“Since [ultra-processed foods] are made from whole foods broken down in factories, their nutrients are readily available for digestion and absorption earlier on in the process, possibly starving lower regions of the gut; its associated microbiome potentially affects hormone secretion patterns and the immune system. This matrix effect is one of the theories of how UPFs might harm our health.“
Good to know, but dense writing, eh?
I’m already well-read on modern food production since the Green Revolution, food deserts, food waste in the U.S., the cons of meat production, and the vitamin and supplement industries scam. The authors give kudos to RFK Jr.’s MAHA movement, praising his directive to “reorient NIH research to chronic disease PREVENTION as opposed to its past emphasis on finding treatments.” And they mentioned this without conceding that vaccines are good preventative medicine.
After reading this book, it is clear that following Michael Pollan’s aphorism, “Eat Food. Mostly plants. Not too much,” still holds. But I now have sympathy for people who are never sated due to their misfiring hormones.
March 15, 2026
In Food Intelligence, Julia Belluz, a nutrition journalist, and Kevin Hall, a physicist turned nutrition researcher, take a fresh look at nutrition, dieting, and the U.S. food environment. Everyone agrees there is a problem. More than 70% of American adults are overweight or obese. Diet-related conditions contribute to more than half a million deaths per year and cost almost 9% of GDP.
Belluz and Hall argue that much of the "wisdom" regarding nutrition is unfounded. With the same decrease in calories, there's little difference in the effectiveness of low-fat versus low-carb diets. Despite claims that certain foods or exercises will boost metabolism, if you lose weight, your metabolic rate drops, and stays down. Unless you have a specific nutritional deficit, there is little evidence that vitamins, supplements, or precision nutrition improve health.
What does matter? They argue that if you eat an energy-dense, hyperpalatable diet, you will gain weight. If you eat a minimally processed diet that is not energy-dense and not hyperpalatable, you will lose weight. Interestingly, the people in the minimally processed group report a similar level of satisfaction with this food offering as with the others.
More research is needed. There's not much out there, and quite a bit of it is Hall’s, but if the premise holds, this argues for a radical revision of U.S. food policy.
Belluz and Hall argue that much of the "wisdom" regarding nutrition is unfounded. With the same decrease in calories, there's little difference in the effectiveness of low-fat versus low-carb diets. Despite claims that certain foods or exercises will boost metabolism, if you lose weight, your metabolic rate drops, and stays down. Unless you have a specific nutritional deficit, there is little evidence that vitamins, supplements, or precision nutrition improve health.
What does matter? They argue that if you eat an energy-dense, hyperpalatable diet, you will gain weight. If you eat a minimally processed diet that is not energy-dense and not hyperpalatable, you will lose weight. Interestingly, the people in the minimally processed group report a similar level of satisfaction with this food offering as with the others.
More research is needed. There's not much out there, and quite a bit of it is Hall’s, but if the premise holds, this argues for a radical revision of U.S. food policy.
March 5, 2026
Food Intelligence from health journalist Julia Belluz and nutrition scientist Kevin Hall delivers exactly what the subtitle promises: a clear eyed examination of how food affects our bodies, cutting through the noise of diet fads and superfood claims.
The book's strength is its refusal to oversimplify. Nutrition, as the authors note, isn't rocket science it's harder. They break food into constituent parts, explaining how protein, fat, carbs, and vitamins actually work. They explore metabolism, blood sugar trackers, ultra-processed foods, and how our food environment shapes eating behaviors.
The humane framing matters: obesity and type 2 diabetes are not failures of willpower but consequences of food systems working as designed. This shifts the conversation from blame to understanding.
Sanjay Gupta calls it essential reading. I agree. For anyone seeking genuine food intelligence the ability to understand what's on your plate, how it got there, and why you eat it this book delivers.
The book's strength is its refusal to oversimplify. Nutrition, as the authors note, isn't rocket science it's harder. They break food into constituent parts, explaining how protein, fat, carbs, and vitamins actually work. They explore metabolism, blood sugar trackers, ultra-processed foods, and how our food environment shapes eating behaviors.
The humane framing matters: obesity and type 2 diabetes are not failures of willpower but consequences of food systems working as designed. This shifts the conversation from blame to understanding.
Sanjay Gupta calls it essential reading. I agree. For anyone seeking genuine food intelligence the ability to understand what's on your plate, how it got there, and why you eat it this book delivers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews