What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bad Food Bible: Why You Can (and Maybe Should) Eat Everything You Thought You Couldn't
Physician and popular New York Times contributor Aaron Carroll mines the latest evidence to show that many “bad” ingredients actually aren’t unhealthy, and in some cases are essential to our well-being.Advice about food can be confusing. There’s usually only one thing experts can agree some ingredients—often the most enjoyable ones—are bad for you, full stop. But as Aaron Carroll explains, if we stop consuming some of our most demonized foods, it may actually hurt us. Examining troves of studies on dietary health, Carroll separates hard truths from hype, showing that you can Eat red meat several times a week. Its effects are negligible for most people, and actually positive if you’re 65 or older.Have a drink or two a day. In moderation, alcohol may protect you against cardiovascular disease without much risk.Enjoy a gluten-loaded bagel from time to time. It has less fat and sugar, fewer calories, and more fiber than a gluten-free one.Eat more salt. If your blood pressure is normal, you may be getting too little sodium, not too much. Full of counterintuitive, deeply researched lessons about food we hate to love, The Bad Food Bible is for anyone who wants to forge eating habits that are sensible, sustainable, and occasionally indulgent.
274 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 7, 2017
225 people are currently reading
2206 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 187 reviews
October 13, 2017
I received this book from a Goodreads giveaway.
I felt particulary qualified to review this book, not from the persepective that I knew a lot about the topic but that having a MS and BA in Biology and having worked for almost 8 yrs in research with coauthorship of more than 10 scientific papers in state and national journals, I know about the process. First thing I want to say is the author knows his stuff. So much of what he says about scientific studies and papers is dead on. As far as his findings, could not find fault with anything he says or the way he backs up is conclusions. I have to admit that several of those conclusions were quite a surprise to me. Especially the one on caffeine surprised me. I have to admit that even with all my training I sometimes fall prey to taking things reported in the news media etc. with out the required grain of salt. I loved that in this book the author took the time to truly explain the why behind all of his conclusions. All in all I would say this is a MUST read for anyone wanting to know the full truth behind so much of what we eat!
I felt particulary qualified to review this book, not from the persepective that I knew a lot about the topic but that having a MS and BA in Biology and having worked for almost 8 yrs in research with coauthorship of more than 10 scientific papers in state and national journals, I know about the process. First thing I want to say is the author knows his stuff. So much of what he says about scientific studies and papers is dead on. As far as his findings, could not find fault with anything he says or the way he backs up is conclusions. I have to admit that several of those conclusions were quite a surprise to me. Especially the one on caffeine surprised me. I have to admit that even with all my training I sometimes fall prey to taking things reported in the news media etc. with out the required grain of salt. I loved that in this book the author took the time to truly explain the why behind all of his conclusions. All in all I would say this is a MUST read for anyone wanting to know the full truth behind so much of what we eat!
July 25, 2025
The author is a physician and a NY Times expert on evidence-based medicine. Nevertheless the book starts emphatically with the dangerously inaccurate general idea that we can't really know anything useful for public health without randomized clinical trials. What about: tobacco, sewers, crib death, seat belts, etc., etc., etc. ???!!!! Should we stop all the existing life-saving preventive measures that were never tested in a randomized trial? He briefly mentions tobacco and lung cancer as an exception to his general point because the link there was clear, except that's sort of missing the whole opportunity of explaining how we know when a link is clear or not. Arrgh. Very disappointing.
Nerd addendum:
I did not fact-check the whole book, but I gave Chapter 10 a bit of scrutiny. Ostensibly, it's mainly about MSG and headaches but much of the chapter is a tirade on conspiracy theories that proves absolutely nothing. Then the author talks a lot about the biochemistry of MSG and how theoretically, it can't be harmful. Except this is exactly the type of non-clinical info we should not pay much attention to.
OK, so where's his clinical evidence that MSG is safe? The main thing he cites is a small study where they gave healthy people MSG or placebo and found no difference. This seems fishy to me for several reasons.
-1. I don't think anyone is saying that MSG will give everyone a headache, but rather that some subset of people is sensitive. So you'd want to study people who think they get MSG headaches, or maybe people who are prone to migraines or something. But a few random healthy people doesn't make sense.
-2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-3. I looked up the topic on Pub Med and found a recent review "Does monosodium glutamate really cause headache?" One of the points it makes is that it's hard to do placebo studies of MSG because the MSG is detectable and in high doses makes people vomit. Maybe that's an indication that it's not totally harmless.
4. Demonstrating the safety of something is very difficult, because serious side effects are generally rare, unless the substance is supposed to be a poison. MSG is supposed to be food, not poison. Establishing drug or vaccine safety requires monitoring what happens to thousands or millions of people, not a few dozen.
5. I looked up MSG and migraine and found a recent clinical study:(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...) where they had kids with headaches remove assorted things (including MSG) from their diet for six weeks and found a very impressive benefit. The authors interpreted this as showing that it takes repeated exposure to produce headache. One could also infer that it takes exposure to multiple triggers. In any case, it makes studies with a single exposure to healthy people in the lab seem pointless. I'm not sure how to blind a long-term dietary trigger elimination study, but it's presumably possible.
6. The world is strange; I recently read about people getting very ill from eating meat after they get a tick bite. That sounds crazy. But you can't prove it's not real by giving a few healthy people meat and showing that nothing happens.
7. It seems that with this question, as with so many others, there's a shocking lack of solid research.
8. Yes, MSG is a food, but that proves nothing. Salt is a food, but you can commit suicide with salt if you want to. Water is the most basic food but people kill their babies with it by accident. Dose matters.
I'm not saying that MSG is dangerous, but in terms of how we know stuff, I don't think the author provides convincing clinical evidence that it's perfectly harmless. And frankly, if eliminating added dietary MSG resolves migraines in kids without needing to give them medications that have potentially serious side effects, then why not? I'm not an expert in this area; my point is not to recommend that. I'm just saying a discussion of that would have made more sense than a lot of the matter that is in this chapter.
Alternatives:
Designing Clinical Research
What to Eat
The Way We Eat Now: Fortnum & Mason Food Book of the Year 2020
Nerd addendum:
I did not fact-check the whole book, but I gave Chapter 10 a bit of scrutiny. Ostensibly, it's mainly about MSG and headaches but much of the chapter is a tirade on conspiracy theories that proves absolutely nothing. Then the author talks a lot about the biochemistry of MSG and how theoretically, it can't be harmful. Except this is exactly the type of non-clinical info we should not pay much attention to.
OK, so where's his clinical evidence that MSG is safe? The main thing he cites is a small study where they gave healthy people MSG or placebo and found no difference. This seems fishy to me for several reasons.
-1. I don't think anyone is saying that MSG will give everyone a headache, but rather that some subset of people is sensitive. So you'd want to study people who think they get MSG headaches, or maybe people who are prone to migraines or something. But a few random healthy people doesn't make sense.
-2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-3. I looked up the topic on Pub Med and found a recent review "Does monosodium glutamate really cause headache?" One of the points it makes is that it's hard to do placebo studies of MSG because the MSG is detectable and in high doses makes people vomit. Maybe that's an indication that it's not totally harmless.
4. Demonstrating the safety of something is very difficult, because serious side effects are generally rare, unless the substance is supposed to be a poison. MSG is supposed to be food, not poison. Establishing drug or vaccine safety requires monitoring what happens to thousands or millions of people, not a few dozen.
5. I looked up MSG and migraine and found a recent clinical study:(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...) where they had kids with headaches remove assorted things (including MSG) from their diet for six weeks and found a very impressive benefit. The authors interpreted this as showing that it takes repeated exposure to produce headache. One could also infer that it takes exposure to multiple triggers. In any case, it makes studies with a single exposure to healthy people in the lab seem pointless. I'm not sure how to blind a long-term dietary trigger elimination study, but it's presumably possible.
6. The world is strange; I recently read about people getting very ill from eating meat after they get a tick bite. That sounds crazy. But you can't prove it's not real by giving a few healthy people meat and showing that nothing happens.
7. It seems that with this question, as with so many others, there's a shocking lack of solid research.
8. Yes, MSG is a food, but that proves nothing. Salt is a food, but you can commit suicide with salt if you want to. Water is the most basic food but people kill their babies with it by accident. Dose matters.
I'm not saying that MSG is dangerous, but in terms of how we know stuff, I don't think the author provides convincing clinical evidence that it's perfectly harmless. And frankly, if eliminating added dietary MSG resolves migraines in kids without needing to give them medications that have potentially serious side effects, then why not? I'm not an expert in this area; my point is not to recommend that. I'm just saying a discussion of that would have made more sense than a lot of the matter that is in this chapter.
Alternatives:
Designing Clinical Research
What to Eat
The Way We Eat Now: Fortnum & Mason Food Book of the Year 2020
December 24, 2017
I can't give a non-fiction book about food and diets more than 3 stars, but Dr. Carroll is a 5 star scientist to my way of thinking. Imagine, he actually uses common sense when it comes to food. He tells us how studies get done, what they mean, how they get published and get attention, and how they get funded. Politics and marketing play a huge part in getting us all to follow along and accept theories that have no basis in fact. Bottom line: Unless you have a serious food allergy or intolerance, or an actual condition such as Celiac disease, for the great majority of us, particular foods are not going to kill us and they're not going to save us. Relax, enjoy your food, and stop worrying. Moderation is the key.
December 29, 2017
Very clearly written overview of the current scientific consensus about a variety of “bad” foods: meat, alcohol, salt, etc. The “bad” is tongue in cheek since he doesn’t condemn any of the foods presented (he comes closest with sugar) and even points out places where eliminating a food can be as bad as overdoing it. It also teaches you how to think about food and food research. Even though the jury may be out on some of these foods, Carroll prepares you to understand the importance (or more likely unimportance) of those nutritional studies that appear so often in the news.
February 17, 2018
I thought this book would be better. I like his articles in the New York Times and his YouTube videos. However, the book is lacking.
He starts by explaining the different quality levels of research, and I get the idea that the high quality randomized controlled trials are few and far between, especially long-term ones with many participants. But most of the studies he gives as evidence for his position in the various chapters aren't randomized controlled trials. He even mentions this, but then says it's the best we have when the study suits his argument and highlights its shortcomings when it doesn't suit his argument.
Without high quality randomized controlled trials, I don't think we can know whether many or most of his topics are healthy or not. And this type of study, especially long-term studies, doesn't seem possible for most things. I'm very skeptical of 10-day studies that purport to tell me anything beyond acutely poisonous or not.
Carroll seems to err on the side of eat it in moderation if it hasn't been proven very bad for you even though it's so hard to do the studies that would tell you it's bad for you. In other words, it's assumed good, or at least okay, until proven otherwise. I err on the side of eat old-fashioned, unprocessed food until it's been proven that these modern foods aren't bad for you. It surprises me that the onus is on proving it's bad for you rather than the companies making new foods (like GMOs) proving it isn't bad for you before they can offer their products for sale. Could they even do that? A long-term randomized controlled trial proving genetic modification doesn't harm you? I think they should have to.
I also felt that the book addressed extremist views from the internet or weird emails going around rather than reasonable fears. I, for one, don't think that an organic carrot has more vitamin A than a non-organic one. But when I try and wash a head of cauliflower or broccoli, I can't help but think that there is no way that the water bouncing off is rinsing all the pesticide out of all of the nooks and crannies. I don't want to eat bug spray. Period. I don't care that the government thinks it's at safe levels for human consumption. Did they do long-term randomized controlled trials on humans to determine this? Carroll doesn't say so.
He starts by explaining the different quality levels of research, and I get the idea that the high quality randomized controlled trials are few and far between, especially long-term ones with many participants. But most of the studies he gives as evidence for his position in the various chapters aren't randomized controlled trials. He even mentions this, but then says it's the best we have when the study suits his argument and highlights its shortcomings when it doesn't suit his argument.
Without high quality randomized controlled trials, I don't think we can know whether many or most of his topics are healthy or not. And this type of study, especially long-term studies, doesn't seem possible for most things. I'm very skeptical of 10-day studies that purport to tell me anything beyond acutely poisonous or not.
Carroll seems to err on the side of eat it in moderation if it hasn't been proven very bad for you even though it's so hard to do the studies that would tell you it's bad for you. In other words, it's assumed good, or at least okay, until proven otherwise. I err on the side of eat old-fashioned, unprocessed food until it's been proven that these modern foods aren't bad for you. It surprises me that the onus is on proving it's bad for you rather than the companies making new foods (like GMOs) proving it isn't bad for you before they can offer their products for sale. Could they even do that? A long-term randomized controlled trial proving genetic modification doesn't harm you? I think they should have to.
I also felt that the book addressed extremist views from the internet or weird emails going around rather than reasonable fears. I, for one, don't think that an organic carrot has more vitamin A than a non-organic one. But when I try and wash a head of cauliflower or broccoli, I can't help but think that there is no way that the water bouncing off is rinsing all the pesticide out of all of the nooks and crannies. I don't want to eat bug spray. Period. I don't care that the government thinks it's at safe levels for human consumption. Did they do long-term randomized controlled trials on humans to determine this? Carroll doesn't say so.
May 20, 2018
Aaron Carroll is a pediatrician and professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine. His main thesis is that we generally don't know as much about food as we seem to think we do. Many studies are poorly run or just not strong enough (randomized control trials are the best but expensive and hard to do). Some points:
The evidence in favor of a low-fat diet is thin, but the evidence of benefits of certain fats are mounting, except for trans fats. Meat in moderation (actually pretty much everything in moderation) is fine. Eggs are fine, and will probably not affect your cholesterol for most people. You need to get a minimum amount of salt everyday, and it will probably be hard to get too much salt everyday. Drinking alcohol (particularly wine) in moderation may be better for you than not drinking any. The same could be said for coffee. The artificial sweetener in diet soda is okay to drink. MSG is fine for you. There is no benefit to organic foods. Some keys to a healthy diet - limit processed foods, eat at home, drink water, eat in moderation.
He mentioned something new to me, that eating fat does not make you fat. He didn't go into it but recommended another book on the subject (The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz).
Overall this book was just meh. His writing was just okay, and I may have learned some, but nothing that impactful. Probably 2.5 stars.
The evidence in favor of a low-fat diet is thin, but the evidence of benefits of certain fats are mounting, except for trans fats. Meat in moderation (actually pretty much everything in moderation) is fine. Eggs are fine, and will probably not affect your cholesterol for most people. You need to get a minimum amount of salt everyday, and it will probably be hard to get too much salt everyday. Drinking alcohol (particularly wine) in moderation may be better for you than not drinking any. The same could be said for coffee. The artificial sweetener in diet soda is okay to drink. MSG is fine for you. There is no benefit to organic foods. Some keys to a healthy diet - limit processed foods, eat at home, drink water, eat in moderation.
He mentioned something new to me, that eating fat does not make you fat. He didn't go into it but recommended another book on the subject (The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz).
Overall this book was just meh. His writing was just okay, and I may have learned some, but nothing that impactful. Probably 2.5 stars.
January 2, 2018
Great antidote to all those diet books that overwhelm you with rules and advice based on shaky nutritional studies. Carroll's made his bones analyzing nutritional studies and the advice that he gives makes sense: anything in moderation unless you have a medical condition that precludes it. We all want to believe that there is a magic combination of nutrients that will extend our lives but the reality is we will probably never know what that magic combination is. Also, I took away a very important point: don't trust a study just because the media is talking about it, take the hype with a grain of salt (even a few grains, they're not going to hurt you.)
April 7, 2018
I think I read this one in less than a day, because who doesn't want to read justification for drinking, eating what you really enjoy, and not feeling guilty - in moderation - all while learning fun facts, great anecdotes and personal stories, and laughing at how stupid humans are about our food choices.
The author does a great job of explaining research, his research methods, and how most research is stupid. This alone is worth reading if only to make you smarter about how to read studies about food (and why they contradict each other so often).
Every chapter breaks down why one thing or another isn't as bad for you as we've been told, and why, and as someone with huge eating issues, this was the perfect way to take my anxiety down a few notches. The chapter on coffee came in handy when, at the time I was reading it, a judge in California decided coffee needed to be labeled as dangerous and I could tell anyone who was willing to listen why that judge ought to stick with the law, rather than proclaiming potential carcinogenic dangers where they are clearly not.
If you have a mother who has made you unbalanced about what you eat and drink, this is all you need to get her fears out of your head and get your own life back to enjoying one or two of the pleasures in life.
The author does a great job of explaining research, his research methods, and how most research is stupid. This alone is worth reading if only to make you smarter about how to read studies about food (and why they contradict each other so often).
Every chapter breaks down why one thing or another isn't as bad for you as we've been told, and why, and as someone with huge eating issues, this was the perfect way to take my anxiety down a few notches. The chapter on coffee came in handy when, at the time I was reading it, a judge in California decided coffee needed to be labeled as dangerous and I could tell anyone who was willing to listen why that judge ought to stick with the law, rather than proclaiming potential carcinogenic dangers where they are clearly not.
If you have a mother who has made you unbalanced about what you eat and drink, this is all you need to get her fears out of your head and get your own life back to enjoying one or two of the pleasures in life.
June 26, 2019
An excessively provocative title.
The author debunks the faulty research that has led to the demonization of several foods:
Butter
Meat
Eggs
Salt
Gluten
GMOs
Alcohol
Coffee
Diet Soda
MSG
Non-organic foods
He examines the history surrounding the attacks on these foods and points up the weaknesses in the research while highlighting contradictory research.
His reports are necessarily hedged with disclaimers (everything in moderation, folks) and exceptions (i.e., salt really does need to be limited for people with high blood pressure, although for people whose blood pressure is within healthy limits, limiting salt is not helpful and can even be harmful).
I didn't learn much that was new; hence the 3-star rating.
The author debunks the faulty research that has led to the demonization of several foods:
Butter
Meat
Eggs
Salt
Gluten
GMOs
Alcohol
Coffee
Diet Soda
MSG
Non-organic foods
He examines the history surrounding the attacks on these foods and points up the weaknesses in the research while highlighting contradictory research.
His reports are necessarily hedged with disclaimers (everything in moderation, folks) and exceptions (i.e., salt really does need to be limited for people with high blood pressure, although for people whose blood pressure is within healthy limits, limiting salt is not helpful and can even be harmful).
I didn't learn much that was new; hence the 3-star rating.
December 11, 2017
We are all susceptible to believing the quick fix, magical cure to what ails us...and then pesky science gets in the way. Carroll actually reads the studies and does a great job here of explaining those studies and debunking a lot of false beliefs that concern what we should or should not consume. Very recommended, as are the author's podcast and YouTube channel.
May 3, 2018
Anyone who is often terrified by the headlines about food studies needs to read this book. Dr. Carroll explains how studies work and which ones are actually valid.
October 18, 2018
I already love and recommend Aaron Carroll's show on YouTube (Healthcare Triage) and I was glad to see him bring the same passion for evidence based medicine and scientific literacy into this fun yet useful read (despite the click-baity title which I really cringe at).
The first part presents a recap on the basics of different scientific studies with their respective levels of definitiveness, which I think is universally such a valuable read. It managest to remain fun to read while extensively reviewing the available literature on various nutrition topics. The conclusions are less than panick inducing and there is no claim of a definitive answer to all problems, and so I recommend it as a sensible and poised discussion based on scientific methods.
The first part presents a recap on the basics of different scientific studies with their respective levels of definitiveness, which I think is universally such a valuable read. It managest to remain fun to read while extensively reviewing the available literature on various nutrition topics. The conclusions are less than panick inducing and there is no claim of a definitive answer to all problems, and so I recommend it as a sensible and poised discussion based on scientific methods.
March 26, 2024
The book discusses food yes, but it also discusses how to view research/ health news reports in a responsible and helpful way.
July 4, 2020
Aaron Carroll is a physician who writes a column in the New York Times about food, and this book is an analysis of foods that for many years we have been told are bad for us. He summarizes the findings that were originally used to demonize "bad foods" and then examines later studies that contradict the earlier findings.
I've done a lot of reading about food in the last few years and what I really liked about this book is that he summarizes the findings about many different foods and doesn't just concentrate on fats or carbs. This book is an antidote to the whip-saw effect of TV and newspaper reporting on the latest food study (which is usually slanted to create anxiety). It's a quick worthwhile read, and if you are new to nutrition and food awareness it is a great place to start.
I've done a lot of reading about food in the last few years and what I really liked about this book is that he summarizes the findings about many different foods and doesn't just concentrate on fats or carbs. This book is an antidote to the whip-saw effect of TV and newspaper reporting on the latest food study (which is usually slanted to create anxiety). It's a quick worthwhile read, and if you are new to nutrition and food awareness it is a great place to start.
September 12, 2018
This book dispels myths that have scared people off eating certain foods where that fear isn't backed up by the current scientific consensus. For example, cholesterol, saturated fat, gluten, GMOs, coffee, and alcohol. Also some myths that a food is good for you e.g. organic, milk, etc. It's thoroughly researched and I find the author trustworthy as he has a good grasp of the philosophy of science.
December 19, 2017
Dr. Carroll covers all of the stuff (food and non-foods) we've been told are "bad" for us, but like most things in life, it all comes down to "in moderation" for just about everything. This includes butter (yay!), meat (preference is on fish but an occasional steak is fine), eggs, salt, gluten, GMOs, alcohol (again, yay!), coffee (double yay!), diet soda, and non-organic foods. But here is my admission: I skimmed most of the scientific explanations and mainly read the "The Bottom Line" section at the end of each chapter, plus the ending summation of how we should eat. If are you are like me and try to follow a good eating plan with whole foods and good ingredients, but sometimes indulge in an In 'n Out burger, McDonald's Egg McMuffin, a margarita, or a piece of Tuxedo cheesecake with big balls of whip cream from Cheesecake Factory, chances are you are doing just fine.
Thanks to the publisher for the advance e-galley.
Thanks to the publisher for the advance e-galley.
December 20, 2017
I got this book as a gift from my husband. He had heard the author on a podcast and thought I would like it. I might not have picked up this book otherwise because I would have assumed that I already agreed with everything in it. While it was true that I was already on board with almost everything in the book, I still found it interesting to read. It's always nice to have your views validated by science. Plus he wrote about at least 2 foods that I have changed my views on!
March 23, 2018
I highly recommend this book to anyone who is utterly confused about some of the most controversial and widely misunderstood foods and ingredients. The novel emphasizes the importance of sound, scientific evidence and presents the most rigorous research concerning such foods. The author also provided a historical context for many of the foods that we have come to scrutinize, in turn giving us a better sense of the irrationality behind such fears. Awesome read!
January 27, 2020
Accessibly written, this is an evidence-based debunking of the myths about which foods are healthy and which are not.
It starts with a brief introduction to the different kinds of research-based studies and provides the clearest description I’ve ever read of the difference between relative risk and absolute risk in studies. The author’s intent is clear: “I also want to show you that it’s okay to live a little and not be so worried about what you eat, because in many cases your fears are probably based on unfounded science.” Then into the fray we go, tackling fish, meat, eggs, alcohol, gluten, coffee, GMOs, and more.
The advice is bound to be controversial for our black-and-white thinking about food (some alcohol during pregnancy is ok, too little salt is unhealthier than too much, etc.). Unfortunately, he sets himself up as an expert and then makes statements that conflict with that: while stating that there is no health risk in consuming GMOs, he allows that: “[a]n added complication in this debate is that much of the research on GMOs is being done by companies that have an inherent conflict of interest.” And he paints too broad a brush: “bitter tastes, for the most part, are warnings something isn’t good for us, and maybe even poisonous”. Bitter tastes - like brussels sprouts, cabbage, kale, radishes, arugula, coffee, citrus peel, cranberries, cocoa, green tea, and olive oil?!
In the end, his philosophy that “moderation is key” is sound and he lays out his common sense food rules, the most important of which is to “eat with other people, especially people you care about, as often as possible”
To learn more about common sense eating, read:
In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, by Michael Pollan
-Marjorie
It starts with a brief introduction to the different kinds of research-based studies and provides the clearest description I’ve ever read of the difference between relative risk and absolute risk in studies. The author’s intent is clear: “I also want to show you that it’s okay to live a little and not be so worried about what you eat, because in many cases your fears are probably based on unfounded science.” Then into the fray we go, tackling fish, meat, eggs, alcohol, gluten, coffee, GMOs, and more.
The advice is bound to be controversial for our black-and-white thinking about food (some alcohol during pregnancy is ok, too little salt is unhealthier than too much, etc.). Unfortunately, he sets himself up as an expert and then makes statements that conflict with that: while stating that there is no health risk in consuming GMOs, he allows that: “[a]n added complication in this debate is that much of the research on GMOs is being done by companies that have an inherent conflict of interest.” And he paints too broad a brush: “bitter tastes, for the most part, are warnings something isn’t good for us, and maybe even poisonous”. Bitter tastes - like brussels sprouts, cabbage, kale, radishes, arugula, coffee, citrus peel, cranberries, cocoa, green tea, and olive oil?!
In the end, his philosophy that “moderation is key” is sound and he lays out his common sense food rules, the most important of which is to “eat with other people, especially people you care about, as often as possible”
To learn more about common sense eating, read:
In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, by Michael Pollan
-Marjorie
January 27, 2020
Accessibly written, this is an evidence-based debunking of the myths about which foods are healthy and which are not.
It starts with a brief introduction to the different kinds of research-based studies and provides the clearest description I’ve ever read of the difference between relative risk and absolute risk in studies. The author’s intent is clear: “I also want to show you that it’s okay to live a little and not be so worried about what you eat, because in many cases your fears are probably based on unfounded science.” Then into the fray we go, tackling fish, meat, eggs, alcohol, gluten, coffee, GMOs, and more.
The advice is bound to be controversial for our black-and-white thinking about food (some alcohol during pregnancy is ok, too little salt is unhealthier than too much, etc.). Unfortunately, he sets himself up as an expert and then makes statements that conflict with that: while stating that there is no health risk in consuming GMOs, he allows that: “[a]n added complication in this debate is that much of the research on GMOs is being done by companies that have an inherent conflict of interest.” And he paints too broad a brush: “bitter tastes, for the most part, are warnings something isn’t good for us, and maybe even poisonous”. Bitter tastes - like brussels sprouts, cabbage, kale, radishes, arugula, coffee, citrus peel, cranberries, cocoa, green tea, and olive oil?!
In the end, his philosophy that “moderation is key” is sound and he lays out his common sense food rules, the most important of which is to “eat with other people, especially people you care about, as often as possible”
To learn more about common sense eating, read:
In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, by Michael Pollan
It starts with a brief introduction to the different kinds of research-based studies and provides the clearest description I’ve ever read of the difference between relative risk and absolute risk in studies. The author’s intent is clear: “I also want to show you that it’s okay to live a little and not be so worried about what you eat, because in many cases your fears are probably based on unfounded science.” Then into the fray we go, tackling fish, meat, eggs, alcohol, gluten, coffee, GMOs, and more.
The advice is bound to be controversial for our black-and-white thinking about food (some alcohol during pregnancy is ok, too little salt is unhealthier than too much, etc.). Unfortunately, he sets himself up as an expert and then makes statements that conflict with that: while stating that there is no health risk in consuming GMOs, he allows that: “[a]n added complication in this debate is that much of the research on GMOs is being done by companies that have an inherent conflict of interest.” And he paints too broad a brush: “bitter tastes, for the most part, are warnings something isn’t good for us, and maybe even poisonous”. Bitter tastes - like brussels sprouts, cabbage, kale, radishes, arugula, coffee, citrus peel, cranberries, cocoa, green tea, and olive oil?!
In the end, his philosophy that “moderation is key” is sound and he lays out his common sense food rules, the most important of which is to “eat with other people, especially people you care about, as often as possible”
To learn more about common sense eating, read:
In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, by Michael Pollan
May 27, 2023
“When I talk to doctors about this issue [consumption of alcohol during pregnancy], I find that their public and private stances are often very different. Publicly (especially in conversations with patients), they are much more likely to say that no amount of alcohol is safe for pregnant women. Privately, they will almost always admit that there’s pretty much no evidence showing that the occasional drink is going to harm a baby in utero.
Doctors don’t trust the public with such nuance. Better to be safe than sorry, they think. But I’m going to hold you to a higher standard.”
This is a great book. It’s well written, down to earth, full of common sense, and especially good at examining various kinds of research and paying the most attention to high quality research (there’s a lot of cruddy, poorly designed studies out there). Most of the book debunks the hysterical claims of the media that this or that food must be avoided at all costs because it will KILL YOU.
He covers things like relative versus absolute risk (“The media likes to focus on relative risk increases. That’s because they are always bigger and scarier than absolute risk increases. Bigger and scarier makes for better news stories, but not better or more informed health decisions. For those, absolute risk matters much more.”). Where risks exist, he puts them in perspective by comparing them to other kinds of risks we run every day.
The chapters on GMOs and MSG are priceless (heading: “Come on, people—EVERYTHING is a chemical”). And now I feel validated for allowing my kids to lick raw batter or eat raw cookie dough: “you could eat one raw egg every week for one hundred years, and still have a good chance of never eating an egg with salmonella. Even if you did encounter that egg, you most likely wouldn’t get sick. And even if you did get sick, you most likely wouldn’t care.”
Doctors don’t trust the public with such nuance. Better to be safe than sorry, they think. But I’m going to hold you to a higher standard.”
This is a great book. It’s well written, down to earth, full of common sense, and especially good at examining various kinds of research and paying the most attention to high quality research (there’s a lot of cruddy, poorly designed studies out there). Most of the book debunks the hysterical claims of the media that this or that food must be avoided at all costs because it will KILL YOU.
He covers things like relative versus absolute risk (“The media likes to focus on relative risk increases. That’s because they are always bigger and scarier than absolute risk increases. Bigger and scarier makes for better news stories, but not better or more informed health decisions. For those, absolute risk matters much more.”). Where risks exist, he puts them in perspective by comparing them to other kinds of risks we run every day.
The chapters on GMOs and MSG are priceless (heading: “Come on, people—EVERYTHING is a chemical”). And now I feel validated for allowing my kids to lick raw batter or eat raw cookie dough: “you could eat one raw egg every week for one hundred years, and still have a good chance of never eating an egg with salmonella. Even if you did encounter that egg, you most likely wouldn’t get sick. And even if you did get sick, you most likely wouldn’t care.”
May 5, 2018
The Bad Food Bible is a thoughtful, science-based analysis of the foods and beverages that all of those conflicting articles and studies either warn you about or recommend. As with many things, the key is moderation. And most of the widely touted diets are about anything but moderation.
Aaron Carroll is a pediatrician and medical researcher who picks apart these studies and points out the questionable statistics and conclusions. I love Aaron’s Healthcare Triage podcast, and his delightful sense of humor comes through equally in this book.
Nutrition studies are difficult and expensive. Randomized controlled trials are challenging because you can’t blind people as to whether they're eating steak or tofu and it's really hard to get people to stick with a very strict diet for the length of time it takes to observe a meaningful effect.
For most people, torturing yourself with extremely low fat, low carb, low sugar diets can actually be as almost as bad as going in the opposite direction. And sometimes, such as with very low salt diets, it can actually be much worse for you.
Aaron Carroll is a pediatrician and medical researcher who picks apart these studies and points out the questionable statistics and conclusions. I love Aaron’s Healthcare Triage podcast, and his delightful sense of humor comes through equally in this book.
Nutrition studies are difficult and expensive. Randomized controlled trials are challenging because you can’t blind people as to whether they're eating steak or tofu and it's really hard to get people to stick with a very strict diet for the length of time it takes to observe a meaningful effect.
For most people, torturing yourself with extremely low fat, low carb, low sugar diets can actually be as almost as bad as going in the opposite direction. And sometimes, such as with very low salt diets, it can actually be much worse for you.
June 15, 2018
I am not going to lie I loved this book. Carroll dealt with some of the ridiculous arguments in regards to fats, GMOs, and non-organic foods, that always tend to get me rilled up. I grew up in a household where I was privileged enough to get food prepared by hand by my lovely mother with only the best ingredients. She was never one to hop on diet trends, thus I learned from a young age that the key to a health diet was a little bit of everything and using fresh ingredients. We ate butter, prosciutto, ice cream but also pomegranates (which I made a mess of), broccoli, brussel sprouts, etc. Nothing was forbidden just balanced out, healthy with not so healthy. So reading this book spoke to that relationship I have with food. Carroll speaks the one truth of food, eat what you want and enjoy food, don't deny yourself but just moderate yourself. We so easily get swept up in faulty research and rumors about food, because it is the one thing that we all need, but we need to be smarter and realize no one thing is going to kill us unless we eat our body weight in it.
The only qualm and what gave this a 4.25 is that I felt like I wanted more body to each chapter. I felt like with this book formatted the way it was Carroll had to go through the research and his reasoning at a neck breaking speed. I wanted a little more depth and a little more reasoning. I would have loved to just get a more substantial book covering it all.
Either way this is a recommended read for all those interested in just checking facts and learning one man's insight into what makes a healthy diet. It is at once funny, informational, and important.
The only qualm and what gave this a 4.25 is that I felt like I wanted more body to each chapter. I felt like with this book formatted the way it was Carroll had to go through the research and his reasoning at a neck breaking speed. I wanted a little more depth and a little more reasoning. I would have loved to just get a more substantial book covering it all.
Either way this is a recommended read for all those interested in just checking facts and learning one man's insight into what makes a healthy diet. It is at once funny, informational, and important.
May 3, 2019
I enjoyed this book but i’m not sure that it will convince my friends who believe organic is better to eat differently. I think what I appreciated most was the breakdown of the types of research and not to be easily swayed without looking into the details and critically thinking about it. I also love butter, so this book also made me happy because I like what the author had to say about that. The general message is the same as Michael Pollan’s book: Eat food, mostly plants, not too much”. everything in moderation.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 26, 2019
Carroll does an excellent job of dispelling many of the common myths around healthy eating. Although he doesn’t necessarily say what we should or should not eat, he explains why that’s the case: there’s very little solid research to back up most of the commonly known healthy eating recommendations.
Missing from this book was a discussion about environmental effects of different diets, but as he acknowledged it was beyond the scope of the book. I thought it would have been worth more than just a mention now that environmental concerns have become so tied in with healthy eating.
Missing from this book was a discussion about environmental effects of different diets, but as he acknowledged it was beyond the scope of the book. I thought it would have been worth more than just a mention now that environmental concerns have become so tied in with healthy eating.
April 3, 2024
Whenever I read a book on nutrition or health I find myself trying to see everything I'm doing right, so I consciously tried to concentrate on everything I did that contradicted what the author was talking.
Having said that, I agreed with more or less everything. The sections that surprised me somewhat were those on saccharine and aspartame, as well as how even home-made bread is considered processed.
I wish he had discussed more about what has caused the extreme weight gain in the US in recent decades. While he alludes to it a couple times, he doesn't really give a definitive answer (but you basically imply it's a combination of the factors he brings up).
Still, a good read.
https://4201mass.blogspot.com/
Having said that, I agreed with more or less everything. The sections that surprised me somewhat were those on saccharine and aspartame, as well as how even home-made bread is considered processed.
I wish he had discussed more about what has caused the extreme weight gain in the US in recent decades. While he alludes to it a couple times, he doesn't really give a definitive answer (but you basically imply it's a combination of the factors he brings up).
Still, a good read.
https://4201mass.blogspot.com/
September 12, 2018
Finally a book about nutrition and nutritional myths actually based on reasonable science that is written in layman's terms than anyone can understand.
November 3, 2019
Goodreads needs to get with it and let us give half stars in our ratings so I can give this the 3.5 stars it deserves. I'm not sure how many doctors, authors, or doctors who write books need to tell people "there's no secret to healthy eating; just eat in moderation and make most of what you eat fruits and veggies," for it to be accepted as general good and acceptable knowledge, but it hasn't yet.
This book goes so far as to say "Butter? Meat? Processed Food? Alcohol? Sure, have a little bit, in reason. But for real, cook your own food and make unprocessed veggies for your meals; you'll be ok."
To which the general public will say..."nah, I'm gonna go hit that drive through line."
*shrug*
This book goes so far as to say "Butter? Meat? Processed Food? Alcohol? Sure, have a little bit, in reason. But for real, cook your own food and make unprocessed veggies for your meals; you'll be ok."
To which the general public will say..."nah, I'm gonna go hit that drive through line."
*shrug*
November 13, 2020
3.4/3.5.
Great straight forward, this is what science says, no bullshit read.
Great straight forward, this is what science says, no bullshit read.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
July 21, 2021Soothing
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews