Jim's Reviews > How Not to Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease

Unfortunately, I just couldn't bear to finish this book. It's filled with so much weak and poor science that it disturbs me that this was written by a physician. Of course, I didn't have time to look up every study cited here, but when I did, I found that either the study was extremely small (e.g., 10-30 participants, and usually unblinded) or, in the case of larger studies, it was easy to find studies just as large and similarly constructed with contradictory results. In some cases, a study would be cited that actually had contradictory conclusions to the thesis of the book (that eating meat leads to virtually every negative diet related health outcome that exists).

For example, he cites the study titled "Longitudinal changes in BMI in older adults are associated with meat consumption differentially, by type of meat consumed" as evidence that consuming chicken is associated with increases in BMI (nevermind the dangers in making health recommendations based on "associations"). However, that was just one conclusion. Here's another one: "No association between total fresh meat consumption and prospective BMI change was observed in men and women. Men with the highest intake of beef experienced a significantly lower increase in BMI after 6 and 14 y than those with the lowest intake."

Citing this study only for the effect it found from just poultry, when throughout the book he's demonizing the consumption of all meat, but particularly red meat, is indicative of a level of intellectual dishonesty that calls everything he writes into question.

The flaws in his understanding of the scientific method may be best reflected when discussing the potential health benefits of eating Brazil nuts. He cites a study titled "A single consumption of high amounts of the Brazil nuts improves lipid profile of healthy volunteers" that included just ten subjects. About this, he says:

"Normally, when a study comes out in the medical literature showing some too-good-to-be-true result like this, doctors wait to see the results replicated before they change their clinical practice and begin recommending something new to their patients, particularly when the study is done on only ten subjects, and especially when the findings seem too incredible to believe. But when the intervention is cheap, easy, harmless, and healthy—we’re talking just four Brazil nuts per month—then in my opinion, the burden of proof is somewhat reversed. I think the reasonable default position is to do it until proven otherwise."

This is exactly the opposite of the "reasonable default position" and there's excellent reasons why science doesn't work that way. Not only does he betray a profound misunderstanding of how science works, he does the public a disservice by feeding the distrust of nutrition science. When people hear one year that eating Brazil nuts is good for your heart, then a year later a (larger, better constructed) study comes out that there is no benefit or even harm, many people get frustrated with the "flip flopping" and decide that "scientists" don't know what they're talking about.

I'm not saying that I think his conclusions are wrong. I really don't know if he's right or wrong. I'm saying that I simply don't find him trustworthy. I don't think I'm able to learn anything valuable when the source is so dishonest.