Slight rant about NT-type books (even though I mostly agree with them!) - Page 2

[Panserbjorne]

For rock hard science definitely check out N&PD or Pottenger's work. You really can't find any flaws there.

[bananahands]

In response to the OP, I just finished Real Food this week and found it extremely powerful. As an adult, I've always considered myself open and educated when it comes to what I eat, but it has brought to light several cases where I haven't looked carefully enough at what I choose or wasn't fortunate enough to come across a counterargument. I'm eager to make some changes, but I also have this nagging feeling because it's a familiar pattern -- eliminating or embracing certain foods after reading in depth, only to find out later that the science wasn't great, or that new evidence shows otherwise. A part of me is just tired of thinking so hard (and then working so hard to do what seems right), you know? And with Planek's book I'm really losing faith in a lot of institutions that it would be more comforting to trust -- like the scientific method. I, too, prefer the hard facts, but when I read about the science that became "conventional wisdom" about certain foods like eggs and fats, I started feeling very discouraged about believing anything at all.

That said, it's a book I will recommend to a number of friends and family, because I think it's persuasive in a way that will appeal to a variety of people.