Pollan gives good, sound and often logical advice on how to reinsert food (think non-processed, fresh stuff) into our diets. His main theme is "eat food. Not too much. mostly plants."Some of my favorite 'rules' he developed are: don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize, don't eat food that doesn't rot (watch out french fries!), and only eat at the table (a desk does not count). A good positive reinforcement of those food principles everyone should be following to escape the 'western diet' and all it's accompanying health problems.**I'm giving this book 4 stars because you can still remember what you read at the beginning of the book once you get to the end (it's pretty short)! Unlike his other works which are basically just doorstops. ( )

People that read The Omnivore's Dilemma are going to rush out and buy this before opening to find ... a slightly rancid, re-cooked smell. Kind of a mess really for such an experienced writer. Who, in heaven's name, does he think is reading this? People a lot dumber than those that read OD, apparently.

He goes on long jags citing huge percentage of Americans that are obese, that are consuming more of x, y or z. And the people most likely to read this, including me, are thinking: "I'm not fat. I don't eat stuff like that. They don't resemble my friends or cohorts. Who precisely are we talking about? Would hints about a particular region or class help out?" Does anyone now reading this need to be told to avoid eating Twinkies and nondairy creamer? Pollan thinks so! When he launches into Wonder Bread, you start to wonder if he's back in a time warp, say circa 1970. He may next have disclosed shocking news about Pringles, fast food, TV dinners, and Cheez Whiz, but I admit I didn't read the whole book. I'm pretty sure, though, that he never explained where transfats are lurking.

He does mention the problems of aborigines and Native Americans, their sudden shift in diet, high rates of diabetes ... and how an experiment in back to nature reversed many of their problems s ...but once again, how many of those folks are reading this book? The big appeal of OD was that the middle-class, picky eater reader could vicariously accompany the author on his quest and in his cooking.

OK, I didn't finish it, but I read almost the whole thing, including the final two chapters and I didn't learn much after the first few chapters. For example, apparently animal fat (for cooking, in meat and in dairy products) isn't as bad as was once thought. Yet Americans drastically reduced consumption of it in the past few decades. Maybe cooking with corn oil is worse, Or maybe not. Nevernonetheless, does he mean it doesn't make much sense to be drinking soy milk instead of cow's milk? Or 2 percent cow's milk instead of the whole milk? What kind of oil should one be cooking with? Only olive oil? You do not get answers to such questions. Butter can be substituted for margarine with a clear conscience? Not that I've ever bought the stuff but ...

Of course there are interesting parts. Such as: how the wholesale shift to grains was relatively recent in human existence. And how we're very suddenly consuming a great deal of soy products (so tofu? and tempeh and what have you?) and soy ingredients ... but what should you do about that or how much is too much? Well, he doesn't get into that.

Late in the game he refers approvingly to "the ancient Asian practice of fermenting soy and eating soy in the form of curds" (but isn't too much soy bad?). My mind wandered off ... Indians don't eat tofu, or any soy products that I can think of.. To the extent that Thais, Malaysians or Indonesians do, they've picked it up fairly recently from Chinese immigrants. Even in Japan, the word for tofu is obviously Chinese.Shouldn't he know how it fits into Chinese cooking?

I just opened the book, near the end, where we get back to his ahem sage advice about not eating too much and to mostly eat plants (so soybeans are ok?). And he goes into a chapter re "don't eat what your grandmother or great-grandmother wouldn't recognize." Starting with some kind of tube yogurt.

Now altogether readers are griping, "But I don't eat that crap!" After all, it's so easy to make yogurt at home. (Except, wait a minute, are we or are we not supposed to be consuming whole fat/2 percent and/or skim milk?) Only one of my grandmas is likely to have recognized yogurt or any soy foods. Neither would have eaten yogurt. Definitely none of the great-grandparents. So I shouldn't? Next item on the shopping list he mentions is something like a sugary "breakfast bar." Are warnings about such processed food really news for his readers?

The warning about great/grandparents is also stupid because today in markets there are so many veggies and fruits and spices and grains and noodles and such that are wonderful, even better foods than our grandmothers regularly consumed. How many of them had refrigerators their whole lives?

Seems especially dumb when so many, maybe the majority, of readers, like Pollan himself, have immigrant grandparents. When it gets to great-grandparents, that probably is a majority of Americans. He himself mentions how quickly the diet changed--from his Eastern European grandmother to his mother to his present household. then he seems to forget all about it. In my case, cabbage and potatoes doesn't sound like an especially healthy or appealing diet. Corned beef was a real luxury, Grandma said. And an orange only for Xmas? I doubt her family ever had that.

Thinking of great-grandmothers and foods I frequently eat is a subtraction exercise: out rambutans, mangos, probably grapefruit and pineapples, definitely guava, pita bread, chick peas, eggplants, bulgar, everything in fatoosh, olives, various mushrooms and seeds. Even manaw, the spherical limes I use in tea everyday. Tonight I was eating some humble 50 cents phat thai, surely fried in palm oil (supposedly bad for the heart, but you won't learn from this book). Maybe the great-grandmothers would recognize the noodles as food, but the tofu? chillis? bean sprouts? Definitely not bamboo shoots or little greens from banana plants.

When you start thinking about why people emigrated ... look for ideas of the narrow diet and nutrition related illnesses in the developing world.

I also have my doubts about some of the trad'l cuisines he applauds in passing. Take the Japanese. I've lived in Japan. Fish sounds fine, tho I don't know about such huge amounts of raw fish. But the trad'l way of consuming vegetables is by pickling them. Having gotten refrigerators rather late, and having very small cooking facilities, whatever ... Japanese still eat a lot of pickled and salted stuff. Is that so healthy? Ditto frying (not just stir frying) so much fish and chicken. Not to mention the very decided preference for white rice (to the extent brown rice is appearing, probably gaijin are to blame).

It's not a culture that you associate with leafy greens (that would be Vietnamese) or year-round fresh fruit. When Japanese started getting microwaves, they had never had convection ovens. Do we really want to throw out the lore through the ages of oven cooking?

Do I sound too picky? Well, I'm not a foodie, I don't know much about food, I don't really cook. Yet I know that, any food critic would, and I want to read someone that knows more than me, an authority.

But the biggest problem is the lack of focus. The earlier book looked at the ethical dimensions of our food choices, This one is supposedly built around how to make healthy choices, I think, but he got sidetracked by an arguably more interesting idea: how a lot of nutrition advice of recent decades is faulty, misguided. or discredited. The he got sidetracked by food habits and evolution and so-called civilization. imho ( )

Michael Pollan takes a fresh look at the American diet and pronounces it unfit for human consumption. The food he defends is food our grandparents would recognize--fresh (or frozen), grown close to home, 5-items or less on the nutritional label, ingredients you can pronounce. Avoid corn 'products' such as corn oil and high-fructose corn syrup, additives, artificial flavorings and other chemical additives. Words of wisdom we have all heard before, but this time with a resounding voice. Well done. I made an impression on me that no 'diet' book has ever done before. He does an effective job of getting across the point that eating right is essential to good health and we shouldn't be misled by food marketing ploys of 'low-fat', 'low calorie' and 'enriched'. ( )

Interesting and instructive. I object to the way he used the term "reductionist science".
There's good science and bad science; having a narrow focus might lead to irrelevance,
but is not a sin in itself. ( )

Pollan, Michael. (2008). In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. New York: Penguin. ISBN: 978-1-59420-145-5

How much actual food do you eat? That is the somewhat disconcerting premise that underlies this book. Michael Pollan suggests that, because of the great many processed food products with many additives and the policies of seeking to make more food at a lower cost, much of the food in the American diet today is not actually real food.
He suggests that if we made it a point not to eat any foods or food products that our great grandmothers would not recognize as food, we would go a long way to helping world ecology and our own health (p.148). He says we should also avoid ingredients that are unfamiliar, unpronounceable, and products with more than five ingredients. He says we should also avoid high fructose corn syrup. Pollan is quick to point out that these thins by themselves are not necessarily bad for us, “but all of them are reliable markers for foods that have been highly processed” (p.150).
Great detail is taken in this book to explain all the nasty details of why corporate food manufacturing, contemporary farming practices and government policies have conspired to make the things we eat not as healthy and nutrient rich , plus more harmful to the environment, than in the past. He explains why the various traditional and aboriginal diets are good models to copy, because these cultures discovered over a long period of time what food combinations work well together in terms of health and longevity. Contemporary and nontraditional foods have not been tested by time, and their effect on our bodies cannot be measured.
The book outlines eating guidelines that are basically a balanced approach, and common sense: eat more plants, especially leaves; eat meals rather than snacks (preferably at a table and not alone), eat slowly, and don’t look for magic quick solutions to dietary issues.

In addition to the practical advice, the book is an eye-opening view at the way our thinking about food has shifted from food itself to the nutrients food provides, and how we have begun trying to replicate these nutrients with synthetic substitutes. Pollan paints a picture where the cult of nutrition has taken over and allowed us to be jangled around by marketing claims of health issues that may or may not be true.
His argument against nutritionism is worth considering and his practical points worth beginning to implement. ( )

A well-written and compelling argument that nutrition science serves only to make us less healthy. Pollan's thesis that most of what we buy in the supermarket is not food at all is very convincingly presented; it had me making internal resolutions to buy fewer processed foods and more basic ingredients.

His guidelines for healthy eating are innovative, although they will require a fundamental lifestyle change for most Americans. His rules for eating are relatively simple and his arguments in favor of more time commitment to our food are persuasive, yet I wonder if they are persuasive enough to cause anyone but already environmentally-conscious to change the way they cook and eat.

I fear the people who most need to hear Pollan's message are those who are least likely to be moved by his arguments. ( )

If you're looking to revise your diet, or just interested in nutrition in general, this is a fantastic book. ( )

An interesting read for anyone who is fed up with the 'industrial food chain' as Pollan says, and advice for those who want to change. It is an interesting look into the politics of food and what to do about them. Low fat doesn't always mean better! ( )

I did not enjoy this book, I think he goes on a little too long about the evils of corn. ( )

Substance: A journalist looks at nutrition in America. On assignment (and not out of personal zeal), Pollan researched the history of food marketing and production in the US after WWII, and came to the conclusion that what we eat is making us sick. He proposes: eat food; not too much; mostly plants. The rest of the book explains what, why, and how. Mostly common-sense, backed up with solid information. Will not be popular with Big Agriculture or Big Business, but not a raging Greenie either.
Style: Pollan's a journalist, but he's not a hypester. Some repetition is unavoidable in expanding one sentence to 256 pages, but his style is clear, straight-forward, and convincing. ( )

An excellent explanation of how the field of 'nutritionism' and marketing forces in the US have changed the diet (and-- the author posits--the health) of the western world, specifically the US.

He gives easy to understand explanations, somewhat supported by experts, although I'm not quite ready to totally buy something because "scientists commonly report", or 'are heavily leaning toward', etc. The author does point out that all of these theories about what is healthy or not is cyclical, and heavily dependent on the science of the moment.

He makes a cogent agument for returning to the days of grandma, before we started tinkering with foods and making claims for health by eating this or that. He is especially believable in the campaign against engineered foods (or food products as he is quick to emphasize.)

The book features several "food statements" AKA rules that make quite a bit of sense drawn up to help people return to eating the diet he claims human beings are biologically designed to eat. Among them:

Eat well grown food from well-known sources.
Have a glass of wine with dinner.
Do all your eating at a table.
Try not to eat alone.
Cook your own food and plant a garden.

I learned a lot reading this and would recommend it to anyone interested in sorting through the current maze of food/eating gospels. ( )

Here's some straight talk about what passes for food in our culture, and what is wrong with our eating habits. Nutrition experts mostly agree that a plant-based diet is the most healthy type. On the other hand, industry knows what our bodies crave and how to profit the most from the processed substances that satisfy those cravings. Here are just a few of the really good ideas presented in this book.

-Do all of your eating at a table.
-Try to never eat alone.
-Don't fuel your body from the same place you fuel your car.
-Regard non-traditional foods with skepticism.
-Eat diverse foodstuffs. Most supermarket items are fabricated from corn, soy and wheat.

Thinking differently about our eating habits might alleviate our endless quest for the perfect diet.

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

In Defense of Food chronicles the changes in the American diet over the past few generations, and describes the dual phenomenon of, on the one hand, over-processing our food so that its nutritional value is largely destroyed, and then adding back "nutrients" - discreet bits and pieces, vitamins and minerals, maybe some fiber, or whatever the medical research community or food scientists have declared is the Wonder Ingredient of the Month.

The first part of the book describes nutritionism, a reductionist way of thinking that holds that any given food is no more than the sum of its parts. Pollan disputes this way of thinking, and argues that food needs to be taken not only as a whole, but together with all the foods a person consumes. It is this interaction that makes us healthy or sickly, not one magic ingredient in our dish.

The second part of the book soundly condemns the Western Diet and lays at the feet of our eating habits a litany of the medical ills that plague us today: heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, stroke...the list goes on.

How have we ended up in this situation? Pollan's next section provides a brief history of food processing by the food industry. Some of the problems have been caused by the needs of large-scale food production, some by political decisions, but all add up to the final conclusion that food just isn't what it used to be.

So what to do? Eat food: in other words, unprocessed items. Mostly plants: fruit, vegetables, and prefer leafy foods to seeds. Finally, not too much: Pollan cites studies which indicate that simply consuming less of everything can promote longevity and better health.

Pollan's book is accessible and makes its case clearly and with admirable brevity. While not a dietitian himself he has sourced his work extensively. Overall, a nice summary on the state of food affairs. ( )

Revolutionary book that lays out in easy to understand terminology everything that is harming the Western diet eaters, and how to change that for yourself for the better. I immediately starting rethinking what I was eating, how I was eating, and how I could start making little changes to help my body and health.

Goes into some of the science and "nutritionism" of food, and how through the years, food has been taken from something delicious and culturally significant, to imitation food products that pollute the body and the earth. While not as "shock and awe" as say, The Jungle or Skinny Bitch, it does have persuasive arguments for changing your lifestyle. ( )

An easy to follow and straight forward, sensical book on food. It points out the fundamental fallacies (and the power of the big money making industries in North America) that have led us to the point of 65% obesity and sky-rocketing diabetes and heart disease rates. There are lots of references to actual studies so he's not just making stuff up.

Of course, there really isn't anything unknown in this book. Everyone with half a brain knows that white flour and high doses of sugar (as found in pop and cakes and pretty much anything that comes in a box) is not conducive to a healthy lifestyle. But, then again, everyone also knows that smoking is bad for our health but smokers still don't stop smoking, so why should we expect that knowing we shouldn't drink that big bottle of cola or eat a family size bag of potato chips in a single sitting by ourselves would make us not do it?

The book can be summed up with its subtitle: Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants. But, of course, that ain't gonna happen, is it... ( )

Starting with some clear, heuristic guidelines on improving health, Michael Pollan's book "In defense of food. An eater's manifesto" ends in a morass of misguided and failed suggestions.

The first part of the book is entirely convincing. An analysis of what is wrong with nutritionalism and some very clear advice on how to remedy that.

However, in the final part of the book, is becomes clear that the author and his advice are not of this world. It sounds almost like Star Trek: "Eating is communication, with people and with species." It must be understood that the plea here is to include as many species as possible, not at but on the dinner table, i.e. to eat them.

Especially in the final part of the book, it becomes clear that's Pollan's cause is a lost battle. To achieve better health on a national scale would involve a revolutionary change of habits and attitudes, a rejection of the American way of life, and a way of curbing capitalism. It is clearly as the sub title suggest: a manifesto. A political statement, on a scale comparable with the Communist Manifesto. Anyone with a grain of sense will understand that this is a highly unlikely scenario.

So does the author.

Obviously, any author has a particular audience in mind when writing a book. Is does not happen often that the author explicitly starts addressing that audience. There are not many authors who will tell their readers: “You would not have bought this book and read this far into it if your food culture was intact an healty.” (p. 134). Pollan continues addressing the reader as “you”, giving advice and councelling on food choices, but in the process tells us more about that audience he has apparently in mind. And in doing so, one thing becomes very clear: Salvation is not for everyone.

So who are the chosen? Well, first of all “typically, they are more health conscious, better educated and more affluent.” The author’s advice is to be that kind of person. (p. 172). Elsewhere, Pollan states that spending more money on higher quality food is not for everyone, but attainable for some Americans: his lucky few. To be better educated is also advisable when the author suggests to go foraging for edible greens and wild mushrooms in the park (p. 197). This advice is clearly not for everyone: the picture of Pollan’s reader is becoming clear.

Clearly, Pollan is not only interested in our health. However true the life-style argument may be, it always carries dark undertones of condemnation: “Avoid eating alone!” I this a plea for the traditional family?

Altogether, a very readable book, with a lot to think about. ( )

I heard Pollan in an NPR interview/book peddling session, where he captured my interest with his response to the question, [paraphrase] “So what foods do you recommend?” He replied with something like, “well to start with, if the package brags about how healthy it is, don’t buy it because it’s not healthy.”
Indeed it seems likely that I represent the intended target of this book. For one thing, as I frequently found myself reading this with a fistfull of Doritos in one hand and a diet soft drink in the other, it stands to reason that I might revisit my dietary intake. Another point expounded upon by the author – and one that I’ve always utilized to carry on with my dismal nutritional system – is that the onslaught of “scientific” studies by nutritionists is mostly a load of crap. I started sensing this in the eighties when every two weeks or so the nutritional paradigm would transform (“It’s the fat stupid!” … “No, no, it’s the carbs” … “turns out that study last Tuesday is false - we need more ethoxylated diglycerides…”). “Screw it – where’s the Fruit Roll-ups!” I might have thought had I not already realized those are a bit disgusting.

Am I now only eating from an organic Farmers Market stall or planting some fruit tree in my landlord’s backyard? Highly unlikely as I was recently introduced to Five Guys Burgers in DC (at least they assured me that “today’s potatoes” are straight from Griggs, Idaho). But I might eat a fruit once in a while, and I already reintroduced carrots a couple weeks back. So, if the cigs don’t do me in, perhaps I’ll add a couple diabetes-free years. This is a very interesting book.

If I have to be critical – and certainly I do – I would point out that, whereas the criticism of “Nutritionism” as a reductive exercise is right on (that is, one that forgets about “food” holistically to merely analyze individual chemical components), I feel the author’s argument is a bit too non-scientific, as seemingly common sense as much of it is. Indeed, he points out that the complexity of nutrients and their interrelations are perhaps impossible to really get a handle on. Therefore, as we’ve all seen, nutritional studies, claims, and sale’s pitches are always subject to revision three days hence. But his response tends to come off as too pat, occasionally lacking the desired footnote or supporting evidence. One in particular was his quick dismissal of the life expectancy increase in the US since 1900 as mainly due to a reduction in the rate infant mortality. That makes sense but I don’t recall ever reading that this was “the” primary factor (and don’t they statistically correct for this anyway? I dunno…). No other reference is provided. Additionally, towards the end he gets a bit too cozy with the possible health benefits of Omega 3 while denouncing our current excess of it’s #6 counterpart. This may be correct but it’s the one area of the text where he sounds like the food scientists he’s critiquing (admittedly he throws in a “maybe” towards the end).

But all-in-all, direct pronouncements and certain brevity are the hallmark of any good manifesto, and I feel this is a convincing diatribe against the “Western Diet.” At the very least I can make better informed, obnoxious comments about the low fat, 2% skim milk cheese sticks my wife frequently purchases. I can also add this supermarket analogy to Pollan’s “if it says ‘healthy,’ it ain’t” observation. Yesterday when rolling my processed-food-filled cart by the impulse aisle, I noticed some frightening “Collectors Edition” Michael Jackson tribute magazine. As a former baseball card connoisseur I would advise that if something says “Collector” anything – don’t buy it as it will lose value quicker than the 1923 Deutsche Mark. ( )

really enjoyed this book-- beautiful prose, a fine sense of humor and I learned a ton about food. Highly recommend this

Michael Pollan follows up The Omnivore's Dilemma with an action plan to take back our food. The book is neatly summarized on the front cover: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Pollan devotes the first two sections of the book to all that's wrong with the Western diet and the "nutritional industrial complex." In spite of spending millions on nutritional research, obesity and obesity-related diseases (particularly diabetes and heart disease) are skyrocketing in the U.S. All this focus on nutritional components isn't making us any healthier; instead, it's making us sick.

In the last section of the book, Pollan offers simple advice for a healthier approach to food. From, "Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food," to, "Don't get your fuel from the same place your car does," his advice is fun, easy to understand, and memorable.

While I love The Omnivore's Dilemma, this book is definitely an easier read. It's also shorter, which means I've been more successful getting family and friends to actually read the book. ( )

This is the first book that I've read by Pollan and it will not be the last. This book was very well written; Pollan is a journalist, not a nutrition expert, so the book read like a long, but very interesting and educational, news essay.

The organization of the book made it easy to read and understand, and the reports and articles that he quotes are helpful, as are the sources and resources that he lists. ( )

Saw the interviews on TV. CAn't wait to read the book.

Pollan's latest builds on his last, 'The Omnivore's Dilemma.' In the latter, he avoids, to a large degree, value judgments and prescriptions. In this book, he does no such thing. The basic advice "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." is expounded upon in three sections. In the first he talks about how we as a society (particularly in America, but all over the Western world) have moved from eating "food" -- i.e. whole foods, or things that humans throughout history would recognize as foods -- to having food-like, processed items marketed to us in the guise of health foods at best, convenience foods at worst. In the second part, he discusses the damage the "Western diet" has caused, and continues to cause to societies who adopt it. In the third part, he gives a few rules of thumb for eating to help move beyond fad diets and super foods, "nutritionism" (nutrition as dogma, rather than science), relying too heavily on food labels to eat more happily and healthily without the stress that has plagued eating and food in modern America.

This is an interesting, important book, and a fairly quick read. Pollan again enters the food debate with a clear head, and firmly grounded in science on the one hand, and common sense on the other. His suggestions are for the most part easily adopted by anyone, and even a step in the direction he suggests is sure to begin to ease the pain of modern eating. ( )

In Defense of Food is the latest from Michael Pollan, whose previous The Omnivore's Dilemma examined the environmental impact of modern food production. In Defense, Pollan sets his sights on the modern Western diet, including some of the thinking that has gone into producing and justifying it. As Pollan lays it out, the modern diet has been shaped too much by the profit motives of large food producers and too little by the needs of human beings. While traditional diets were a product of a culture's trials and errors over centuries, the attempt to apply scientific methods to modern food production has resulted in food that is less healthy.

Pollan has a name for the allegedly scientific framework which has come to dominate the way that we think about food: nutritionism. Nutritionism, as distinct from nutrition, is a quasi-scientific set of ideologies about food which reflect little about the real impact of diet on health. Nutritionsim creates the illusion of being a scientific perspective on eating. And though it would seem that the scientific method, powerful as it is, should be able to determine what foods are or aren't healthy, it has failed for several reasons. In part, this is due to the sheer complexity of any diet, which renders it nearly impossible to look at x nutrient or y food item in isolation.

Additionally, the nutritionist impulse to view foods as collections of nutrients instead of whole units can result in bad conclusions. If a study finds that a diet high in red meat and low in fruit lead to higher rates of cancer and heart disease, what would be the logical conclusion? Through the nutritionist lens, that means that the goal should be to cut saturated fats (and cholesterol) and increase fiber (or antioxidant) intake. But switching to leaner meat and ramping up on oat muffins (and antioxidant supplements) does not appear to yield the same benefits as the high-fruit diet.

What then is the solution to the complicated thicket of competing health claims that present themselves in the marketplace? Pollan's recommendations are elegant in their simplicity: Eat food (as opposed to food-like stuffs). Not too much. Mostly plants. He also recommends a return to more traditional forms of eating, especially preparing food from scratch and eating with people instead of in isolation (and on the run).

It seems there is a growing number of people questioning the effect of the modern diet, a trend that Pollan has both helped fuel and benefited from. I would recommend the book to anyone considering a new look at the way we eat now and how much harm it might be doing. Pollan's non-dogmatic approach to the subject makes it an enjoyable read. His thesis about nutritionism may be stark, but his presentation and advice are not. ( )

Loved this book-- it's smart, it's funny, well-written and I learned a ton. (Eat food grown closer to home, talk to the growers, shop the outer edges of the supermarket where the fresh fruit resides.) Can't wait to read Omnivore's Dilemma next. ( )

Listened to the audiobook - I've enjoyed it, learned a lot, wondered about changes I can make. The last disc bothered me,though - I resented some of the advice and commentary. Most couples have to work 2 jobs, and yes, we often are too exhausted to prepare A Dinner when we get home. I disagree with the dictum of eating three Meals a day - some of us have grazer metabolism, and most people's blood sugar is more stable with grazing rather than confining all eating to heavy meals. Etc. Still, this ...more Listened to the audiobook - I've enjoyed it, learned a lot, wondered about changes I can make. The last disc bothered me,though - I resented some of the advice and commentary. Most couples have to work 2 jobs, and yes, we often are too exhausted to prepare A Dinner when we get home. I disagree with the dictum of eating three Meals a day - some of us have grazer metabolism, and most people's blood sugar is more stable with grazing rather than confining all eating to heavy meals. Etc. Still, this book is worthwhile and written well - and who can resist an author who draws from Middlemarch for examples of those who would seek a unified theory of food? ( )