This is an excellent book. The author is a science writer for the "New Scientist" and as one might expect, the writing is clear and straightforward, apart only from a very occasional lapse into colloquial lanquage. What does "more mouth than trousers" mean as a verdict on a supplement? But a real strength of this book is that it is so well laid out. It is broken down into upwards of 50 sections- "the truth about ......". making it very easy to find the bit that interests you. It is a pity that the "Contents" page missed out on some editing - one or two truths included in the text are omitted from the contents, and one or two are strangely corrupted, as "The truth about healthy smoking" !!!
There was one place in the book where I was brought up short. "The truth about recreational drugs" reports the conclusion of the UK's Independant Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD) that alcohol is the most damaging drug of all, with a harm score of 72 (out of 100), compared to heroin at 55, and crack cocaine at 54. Wow, I thought. Does that mean I would be better taking the odd shot of heroin than the occasional glass of wine with dinner? No, that is not quite what is meant, although the writer seems to be suggesting that.
The ISCD report distinguishes two types of harm, harm to the individual and harm to society as a whole. Alcohol's high overall harm score is because of the amount of harm it does to wider society - domestic violence, drunken driving and so on. But this book is about the effect on the individual of a range different life style choices. Looking only at harm to the individual, alcohol is not nearly as harmful as heroin or crack cocaine, though it is still quite harmful, even at quite low levels, more so than smoking, which surprised me.
But the whole question of how the individual should respond to the wider social impact of a drug is a complex one. My consumption of the odd glass of wine with my dinner is quite irrelevant to the wider social problems of domestic violence, drunken driving, and so on, though it is highly relevant to its harm to my health.
The ISCD report in Lancet is not an easy read. It would be good subject for a New Scientist article. Perhaps it was at the time?
Overall, a very useful book.