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
322 people are currently reading
2347 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 53 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
December 31, 2025
I recently read Ultra-Processed People: Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food and felt really dissatisfied with it. It left me with so many questions about why ultra-processed food is bad, and whether it is really the ultra-processed part that is bad or not. Food Intelligence was SO MUCH BETTER than Ultra-Processed People. The authors are the perfect team of a journalist and food scientist, and they do a great job of balancing readability with correct facts and references to actual studies. I came away with a much clearer plan for how I want to eat and create my eating environment, while at the same time understanding that there is still a lot we don't know. Anyway, I'd highly recommend this book to anyone interested in better understanding nutrition!
October 29, 2025
This book rewards patient, thoughtful readers who appreciate the nuance of saying UPFs might be OK so long as they are not both calorie-dense and hyper-palatable.
(Listened to the audiobook, which edition is not apparent in GoodReads yet, and I'm not taking the time to upload it).
With nonfiction of this sort, I prefer a hard copy or e-book so I can skim it and skip to the conclusion. Too many are overlong magazine articles or blog posts, stretched to book length as a money grab.
Not so with Food Intelligence! I listened to every word. Granted, I had heard Julia on a podcast (and maybe Kevin on another) so I expected empirical support for all the recommendations. Indeed, much of the empirical support served to dissuad received wisdom recommendations.
Pleased to have listened to the whole thing.
(Listened to the audiobook, which edition is not apparent in GoodReads yet, and I'm not taking the time to upload it).
With nonfiction of this sort, I prefer a hard copy or e-book so I can skim it and skip to the conclusion. Too many are overlong magazine articles or blog posts, stretched to book length as a money grab.
Not so with Food Intelligence! I listened to every word. Granted, I had heard Julia on a podcast (and maybe Kevin on another) so I expected empirical support for all the recommendations. Indeed, much of the empirical support served to dissuad received wisdom recommendations.
Pleased to have listened to the whole thing.
December 29, 2025
3.5. I love food science books, and there is a lot to like here. The science is well represented, with studies presenting varying viewpoints examined and explained. The history of food, food processing and food policy is also well articulated. And I love that it gives no easy answers nor does it try to sell a diet plan or supplements.
That said, this book is not fantastically organized, with far too much “we’ll get to that in a later chapter”. The writing voice is odd too, in an attempt to blend two author voices into one, what results is something that feels vaguely patronizing and a little robotic. But the real death knell for this book is that large swaths are boring. The whole section on individualized nutrition planning felt like it was 30,000 pages. I’m sure it’s a good bunch of investigative journalism, but good lord it droned on and on and on…
That said, this book is not fantastically organized, with far too much “we’ll get to that in a later chapter”. The writing voice is odd too, in an attempt to blend two author voices into one, what results is something that feels vaguely patronizing and a little robotic. But the real death knell for this book is that large swaths are boring. The whole section on individualized nutrition planning felt like it was 30,000 pages. I’m sure it’s a good bunch of investigative journalism, but good lord it droned on and on and on…
January 19, 2026
Decent overview of our modern understanding of nutrition. Advice on healthy eating remains the same as we've known for a long time: eat more vegetables and whole foods (grains, nuts, beans, fish, fruits). Limit ultra-processed foods, trans fats, sugars.
A primary theme in the book, and a somewhat novel framing to me, is the claim that we are being led into eating unhealthy by our "food environment": ultra-processed foods, unhealthy and full of insufficiently researched additives, are cheap, everywhere around us, and heavily marketed by their producers. This nutrition situation causes abundant disease and health issues in society (US in particular), which imposes a large personal and societal cost (early death and high health care expenditures, for example). It compares this status quo to the unregulated tobacco industry in the middle of the 20th century, indeed quite similar.
A primary theme in the book, and a somewhat novel framing to me, is the claim that we are being led into eating unhealthy by our "food environment": ultra-processed foods, unhealthy and full of insufficiently researched additives, are cheap, everywhere around us, and heavily marketed by their producers. This nutrition situation causes abundant disease and health issues in society (US in particular), which imposes a large personal and societal cost (early death and high health care expenditures, for example). It compares this status quo to the unregulated tobacco industry in the middle of the 20th century, indeed quite similar.
January 22, 2026
An excellent review of the many debates and swivels within nutrition science, by most qualified expert communicators. There are so many forceful assertions made on best foods and best diets; Kevin Hall and Julia Bulluz clearly unpick the many confused claims made and present data and conclusions to provide definitive steady guidance on eating well. Perhaps final conclusions are the pragmatic dietary messages that are familiar to us all (less meat & more vegetables/beans), but reading the book perhaps allows greater resistance to the next wave of hyped good food/bad food claims.
Very interesting; very readable; very useful
Very interesting; very readable; very useful
January 28, 2026
Some good points well made and interesting chapters about metabolism.
However, seemed to be very focused on how protein actually isn’t all that important and demonising meat processes and production.
They suggest that we need to create meat alternatives which are fine and dandy o, but definitely get rid of all ultra processed foods eg ice cream. The ice cream I buy has 3 whole, natural ingredients. Whereas meat substitutes would surely be classed as an UPF with allsorts of chemicals and processing involved in their manufacture.
I broke my own rule about reading any more books on nutrition. They just wind me up.
However, seemed to be very focused on how protein actually isn’t all that important and demonising meat processes and production.
They suggest that we need to create meat alternatives which are fine and dandy o, but definitely get rid of all ultra processed foods eg ice cream. The ice cream I buy has 3 whole, natural ingredients. Whereas meat substitutes would surely be classed as an UPF with allsorts of chemicals and processing involved in their manufacture.
I broke my own rule about reading any more books on nutrition. They just wind me up.
February 1, 2026
I learned a lot about food science, nutrition, and food policy history. It helped widen my perspective on food make up, the food environment, and how food affects health. I found it to be a great read on a subject that I don’t research or investigate too often.
I thought the opinions on food sustainability and meat processing were noble, but lacked realistic solutions.
Considering we’re all humans and we all need to eat to live, I would recommend this book to anyone and everyone.
This book provides perspective and considerations for how we each should individually eat and how we should think about the modern food ecosystem.
I thought the opinions on food sustainability and meat processing were noble, but lacked realistic solutions.
Considering we’re all humans and we all need to eat to live, I would recommend this book to anyone and everyone.
This book provides perspective and considerations for how we each should individually eat and how we should think about the modern food ecosystem.
November 12, 2025
This book surprised me. I am just a regular person but, I am curious about what we should eat and what supplements we should take. This book does not tell you what to do but, I do feel a lot more comfortable making these decisions for myself. I found this a very interesting and readable book. I bought a real physical copy of the book but I think I could have gotten the audible version and still have gotten what I needed from it and been entertained. I definitely think it was a book worth reading.
October 5, 2025
A state-of-the-art summary of what real nutrition scientists know about food, and how it works (or doesn't work) for health and wellness.
Much of the book focuses on studies done by Kevin Hall and colleagues, as well as the personal experiences and interviews of ace journalist Julia Belluz, but there's plenty of history and other new data covered too.
Highly recommended!
Much of the book focuses on studies done by Kevin Hall and colleagues, as well as the personal experiences and interviews of ace journalist Julia Belluz, but there's plenty of history and other new data covered too.
Highly recommended!
October 16, 2025
Written by a science journalist & an expert in nutrition and neuroscience, this breezily readable book offers research and information about nutrition, food, and the surfeit of subsidized crops used in ultra processed “foods” full of empty calories. This calorie glut creates a toxic food environment for Americans. This book offers good advice about what and how to eat.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews