Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss

Just purchased and read this book. It was an enjoyable and educational read, although a few warning flags did come up as I read. We'll discuss those in a moment; first, some background comments.Dr. Joel Fuhrman's name was vaguely familiar to me before reading his book, but I didn't remember much except he was connected with sports somehow. After looking up his bio, I learned why the name rang a bell; he is a former world-class figure-skater-turned-family-medicine-physician. OK, figure skating is not my strong point in the sports world, I'll freely admit :-). At any rate, Dr. Fuhrman went on to educate himself to become something of a nutrition expert as well as a practicing MD, and has been preaching a largely vegan-type diet (read: anti-animal protein) for years, so let's take a look.Regarding Dr. Furhman's own preferences, the first thing we should note is that- while not necessarily advocating a 100% vegetarian diet- he certainly believes animal protein is mostly an evil thing. With chapters like "the dark side of animal protein" in the book, we learn where he stands on animal protein very quickly :-). This should really be no surprise to anyone looking further into Furhman's own background (always a good thing to do when looking at any nutrition advice), since Dr. Fuhrman is a spokesman for the controversial organization "Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine" (hereafter referred to as "PCRM" for short). Alas, warning flag #1 should be coming up at this point, if anyone is familar with the antics of this quasi-cultish organization.What's so suspicious about the PCRM? Readers interested in true objectivity in nutrition information should do some background reading on this organization, which seems to have some troubling history. For those who are unaware, PCRM is a fanatical animal-rights group that seeks to remove eggs, milk, meat, and seafood from the American diet, and to eliminate the use of animals in scientific research. The American Medical Association (AMA) has issued several strong public rebukes of PCRM, including a 1991 statement in Newsweek by the AMA's senior vice president for science and medical education, who said: "They are neither responsible nor are they physicians." Fact is, only a very small percentage of this organization are physicians, estimated to be only around 4-5 percent! (This is hardly the publicity image you are fed from this group). It's an important point for the public to realize, when attempting to evaluate nutrition advice from someone in this group- despite their title, PCRM has very few physicians advocating their spiel; they certainly do NOT represent the medical establishment in any way. In fact, PCRM has had continual battles with establishment medicine for many years, and the AMA (which actually represents the medical profession) has called PCRM a "fringe organization" that uses "unethical tactics" and is "interested in perverting medical science." Alas, it gets much worse when one really starts delving into the activities of the PCRM; they have been linked with several violent animal-rights groups which the FBI has labeled "domestic terrorists". I don't have space to say more here about their ethics and tactics. To his credit, Dr. Fuhrman seems to keep his discussion fair and completely avoids any animal-rights rants, but it certainly isn't clear to me why he would want to lend his support to a fringe group like this one.The important question for most readers, however, is not primarily Dr. Fuhrman's link to a fringe group, but rather- does his diet really work? We'll get to that in a moment, let me just say first that in light of Fuhrman's association with the PCRM, his recommendations against meat and dairy products need to be viewed with healthy detachment, and readers should realize the possibility of getting a slightly skewed agenda from square one. Dr. Fuhrman generally does a good job presenting the clinical basis for his program, but there are areas where his comments can be selective. For instance, he slams the meat and dairy lobbies, and rightly so. But how about the soy lobby? Because soy is a plant-based food, he doesn't even mention politics in connection with this huge lobby, and any discussion of food politics should certainly include the soy crowd. So, readers might do well to be a little suspicious of possible selective bias coming from Fuhrman, or ANY of the vocal members of the PCRM (some of whom have given Fuhrman's book glowing reviews), such as T. Colin Campbell, John McDougall, Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., Neal Barnard, etc.)Be that what it may, the real issue to most regular folks is, what's REALLY the best dietary advice, and whom can we trust out there with all these competing claims? In other words, what does the best current scientific evidence really suggest?Since Fuhrman and Co. heavily lean toward a vegan diet (although to his credit, Fuhrman allows minimal amounts of animal protein if dieters can't hack his totally vegetarian protein advice), what are the strong points of an anti-animal-protein diet? For one thing, Fuhrman seems scientifically credible - his association with the PCRM aside- observing that our current obsession with animal protein in many cases could actually be contributing toward our modern ailments, such as cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Why? One factor, using his own model of "nutrient density", is that the more animal protein one consumes, the less one will be consuming healthy foods loaded with phyto-nutrients and polyphenols- i.e., mainly veggies and fruits. This - the "food density" argument- is a strong argument, make no mistake. Most Americans are not getting nearly enough vegetables into their diets, and probably not enough fruits either. And worse, even if folks try to get in the "five-a-day" veggies-and-fruits advice from standard guidelines, this is not NEARLY enough. One should be shooting for, according to Dr. Fuhrman (and we should probably agree with him), the equivalent of a head of lettuce PER DAY in just salad greens (not iceberg lettuce, but real greens), and that's just the salad-type portion of his recommendations; one should be including large portions of other raw veggies and fruits. Clearly, Americans are way off-track here. If cutting down on processed meats helps folks consume vastly more portions of greens, raw vegetables and fruits, then one has certainly moved closer to an optimal diet.But that's not all. Many meat proteins, specifically hormone-pumped meats from typical grocery-chain stores, tend to increase inflammation in the body, while plant proteins tend to reduce it. Studies have shown that processed meat can contribute toward increased inflammation, and the effect is made worse when grilled (this comes as a hard admission to a confirmed steak lover like myself, but that's the facts). So everyone should be toning down consumption of commercially-processed meats, and grilled meats in general...we'll talk about replacing them with healthier versions later. Regardless of how one stands on meat-vs.-vegan issues, the take-home point is that one should carefully look at how various dietary items decrease or increase low-grade systemic inflammation. Note here that most of our modern ailments have inflammation as a root cause...cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease as well. Foods that DECREASE inflammation should be the focus of any healthy diet, so in principle a plant-protein-based diet is acceptable. Whether it is ESSENTIAL or not is a complex issue, and turns out to be a rather debatable premise.Let's look at this further. In view of all of the benefits of consuming plant proteins, why would eliminating animal protein completely be a controversy at all? Well, things aren't that simple, alas. Mankind's evolutionary history shows that humans are OMNIVORES, NOT VEGANS. This is an important point, since any dietary advice that flies in the face of human evolutionary history must be looked at with some suspicion. Please take a good look at your canine teeth, vegans, and ask yourselves what these are for...and ask yourselves why humans evolved with these meat choppers still present in our evolutionary development... The answer is simple, and won't go away simply because some vegan advocates hate meat. Fact is, human beings were designed by Nature to eat meat, as well as plant-based foods. That is what the anthropological designation "hunter-gatherer" means- early humans basically ate anything they could find, whether bringing down a woolly mammoth or scavenging for raw greens and fruits. Any dietary viewpoint that suggests early humans were mostly vegetarians is playing fast and loose with well-known anthropological data, and thus it is completely dishonest (a better word is "unscientific") for non-meat advocates to push vegetarian diets as our supposed "paleo" history... Folks who choose a vegetarian diet do so for other reasons -religious, philosophical, ethical - but NOT because our human history evolved that way. Let's quit trying to make pseudo-scientific claims for vegetarian diets based on erroneous "paleo" models of nutrition.The main problem with modern-day meats has less to do with eating meat in principle, and more to do with the unhealthy forms we typically consume today- i.e., pumped full of antibiotics, steroids and hormones, artificially grain-fed rather than naturally grass-fed, etc.) That animal protein in principle is NOT a dietary "evil" can be seen simply by considering pre-modern cultures, who (universally) consumed animal protein but nonetheless managed to evade many of our modern nutrition-related health conditions: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, various cancers, etc.. Everyone offering nutrition advice (including Fuhrman) realizes the above-mentioned health epidemics are more of a modern phenomenon, and DESPITE earlier cultures eating meat, the occurrence of these modern ills was much rarer before the 1900s...that is, until the advent of modern methods of processing and the replacement of raw foods with modern high-glycemic carbs. If we're going to pick a target to blame for modern illnesses, then, simple logic should place the blame more at the increased availability of PROCESSED CONVENIENCE-FOODS, not animal protein per se, which shows no such correlation. Yes, before the 1900s people ate animal protein, but their meat came from farm-raised poultry, eggs and livestock direct to the dinner table; it wasn't pumped up with antibiotics, hormones, and special grain-fattening diets like much grocery-store meat is today. The point of all this? Vocal quasi-vegitarians and especially vegans should consider they may be targeting the wrong villain.At the least, if vegans want to push an anti-meat agenda, they need some clinical studies (done for extended periods of time) using NATURAL MEATS (grass-fed beef, free-range poultry, wild Alaskan fish, etc). We would want to show increased inflammation, endothelial disturbances, etc...after consumption. To my knowledge, these studies for beef and poultry do not exist, and certainly for fish, at least, the OPPOSITE results are the case- inflammation simply goes down markedly in clinical studies done with fish consumption or Omega-3 oils. Speaking of clinical studies, folks should realize that the design, methodology, and conclusions of published studies can leave much to be desired. Sometimes researchers don't do a good job isolating the relevant variables, hence reach conclusions that can be extremely flakey. A case in point is numerous studies involving animal protein where researchers reach questionable conclusions about meat consumption but did a very poor job controlling other variables, such as the inclusion of very high amounts of carbohydrates in the same studies. In other words, it's difficult to come to accurate conclusions when the initial study design is faulty and the variables were poorly controlled. Unfortunately, however, the public reads snippets of such studies in the popular media, usually accompanied by sensational attention-getting headlines from health reporters, and the end result is misguided information. This kind of thing occurs frequently on the internet, especially noteworthy with topics such as nutrition or exercise, and the public ends up swallowing a lot of "advice" that they should be questioning more.That aside, the question then becomes: can a diet with all plant-proteins nonetheless help with various conditions that people face, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.? Some clinical studies with plant-protein diets (Jenkins et al) show reductions in markers such as inflamation and (slightly-reduced) LDL cholesterol, but the literature is also clear that high-starch/low-fat diets tend to lower HDL ("good" cholesterol) levels and increase triglycerides, which are undesirable. Consuming only "plant proteins" can be a real mixed bag. Modest reductions in LDL cholesterol may look impressive, but this must be weighed against the negative impact of starch-based foods on insulin (and leptin) levels (which are responsible for wayward HDL/triglyceride ratios in the first place). In other words, the impact of nutrition on hormones - and then hormones on lipids - weighs in heavily here, a topic that is often minimized or completely overlooked. It's not just a question of nutrition philosophies, it's also a question of basic endocrinology - i.e., hormonal responses to various major macro-nutrients over time. Insulin response is a key variable for considering what is responsible for our major modern epidemics. And the importance of ultra-low LDL levels (which diet by itself doesn't accomplish anyway) is believed by some researchers to be an over-hyped goal, generated by Big Pharma in the never-ending quest for larger statin-drug profits (not to mention, LDL particle size is more important than just a generic LDL number...a topic I won't bother with here). However, in view of the hype on soy in particular as a "superior plant protein", I must say a few words (soy is also a staple in the Jenkins plant-protein diets mentioned above). Soy is a mixed bag, period- one that continues to cause much controversy pro and con. While consuming soy (preferably, in fermented form) in moderation seems not to be a huge problem, a reliance on soy (especially the forms we consume in the Western world) as a daily staple may not be as wise as soy manufacturers would like you to believe. I won't argue this controversial issue here, but particularly for men and young children, soy seems to have a real downside. Even its potential for reducing LDL cholesterol, evidently, has been overblown. At any rate, folks need to keep an open mind on soy, read both sides of the issue (and the cautions), and not just hang one's hat on enthusiastic literature from the soy lobby. Especially vegans, who are more likely to depend on soy than others.At any rate, folks having various conditions would do well to include vastly more plant-based foods (mostly greens, non-starchy veggies and some fruit) and watch as their inflammation levels drop and their conditions improve. These contain most of your important anti-disease nutrients such as polyphenols (many still unknown to science). The clinical studies are pretty strong on the benefits here.Fuhrman's dietary advice, then, is generally fairly solid on the benefits of eating more produce. No wonder many of the reviews on Amazon are glowing with praise; people with various health conditions will undoubtedly show a big improvement by greatly increasing their produce intake vs. their usual processed-carb eating habits. One of Fuhrman's strong points, particularly, is his stance against large amounts of grains and refined carbs, which some of his vegan-promoting friends have wrongly advocated in their own diet advice. No quarrels here, Fuhrman's emphasis on veggies and fruits instead of high-starch grains is solid advice and goes "against the grain" (pun intended). This alone makes his dietary advice superior to the advice of his PCRM peers, or that of standard medical organizations such as the AMA and ADA, for that matter...So what's not to like? I have some qualms about his low-fat advice, which seems to be a bit old-fashioned this day and age, as consumption of "good" fats is more healthful than he wants to admit. Because Fuhrman is a low-fat advocate, he takes a rather dim view of items like olive oil (ignoring recent research finding benefits in extra-virgin polyphenols and so on) and even fish oil. Fuhrman's downplaying of fish in general is a weak point in his diet - because he is strongly committed to a mostly-vegan lifestyle, he again gets selective in his comments about fish. In fact, the part in the book where he evaluates fish (chap. 6, I believe) could serve as a model in how to selectively present the data. Yes, there are concerns about increasing contamination of both wild and farm-raised species of fish, but the same could be said concerning unnatural pesticides in non-organic produce. Nobody is saying "let's eliminate produce because of pesticide problems"- isn't the point simply to look for healthier versions? And the same holds true for fish (and grass-fed beef, range-free poultry and so on). Fact is, small low-food-chain fish (sardines, etc.) are one of the healthiest foods one can choose. Fuhrman surely knows this but obviously has trouble fitting fish into his own paradigm. He begrudgingly admits a possible case for extra DHA (an essential fatty acid), which he naively believes can be easily supplied from plant-based foods (such as walnuts). Fact here is, however, experts on omega-3 oils tell us that humans need to convert plant-based omega-3s (ALA, or alpha linolenic acid) further, into a more usable form- i.e., the long-chain omega-3s of EPA and DHA, found in fish and fish oil. The truth is, clinical studies showing many benefical effects from omega-3s almost inevitably used fish oil sources, but Fuhrman won't tell you that because it's not in the interest of his paradigm. The body prefers these long-chain omega-3s from seafood sources (although humans can get some EPA/DHA from algae sources, just like fish do). Reading through Fuhrman's remarkably subdued comments on the benefits of fish (while being quick to dominate the discussion with issues like contamination) should give the reader some pause... Hey, anything to keep animal nutrients out of the limelight, eh?And, sorry Fuhrman and your (stricter) vegan peers, this need by humans for essential fatty acids from long-chain sources unfortunately blows away the vegan premise as a whole...last time I checked, fish aren't a plant source of protein :-)))). It makes absolutely no sense to advocate a dietary philosophy for "mankind" which plainly lacks such essential nutrients, and hence is forced to include "supplements" (i.e., fish oils) to counter the problem, as Furhman does with his own diet. Reader, use some common sense here. If a plant-based diet lacks certain essentials, let's be honest about it and not just wink at the incongruities and recommend "supplements"...Readers confused on the issue of omega-3s should consider this next quote: "The good news is that omega-3s from fish oil can reduce the risk of heart attack, and the research is building on other health benefits," said Center for Science in the Public Interest senior nutritionist David Schardt. "But get your omega-3s from fatty fish like salmon, or take fish oil or algal oil capsules. Many foods with omega-3 claims have only or mostly ALA, which may not prevent anything." Schardt recommends eating fatty fish like salmon twice a week to average 500 to 1,000 mg a day of DHA plus EPA. (The American Heart Association recommends 1,000 mg a day of DHA plus EPA omega-3s for people with heart disease.) A six-ounce serving of Atlantic salmon has more than 3,000 mg of DHA and EPA, over 100 times what you'd get in a serving of DHA-fortified yogurt, milk, or soy milk. "If your omega-3s are not from fish, algae, or fish oil, you're likely paying extra for snake oil," said Schardt.And let's face it, even if the human body converted ALA from plants better, one would find it impossible to achieve optimal levels based on Fuhrman's recommendations of only 1 oz. of nuts or seeds daily, plus maybe a small piece of avocado. This is a blatant case of Fuhrman's low-fat recommendations coming back to haunt him. And let's also mention that omega-3s found in fish and other seafood have a huge anti-inflammatory effect...and since Dr. Fuhrman is so keen on anti-inflammatory foods, he should at least mention fish in any discussion of foods that fight inflammation. But, of course, that would run counter to his plant-based paradigm... Hmmm, do we see instances of nutrition bias here or not? I'll let you decide.Let's talk about low-fat issues, briefly. One can't argue with Fuhrman that over-consumption of oils and fats can derail a weight-loss plan, so if the issue is mainly about losing weight, if people are consuming too much of ANY macro-nutrient, they will have problems losing weight. And, of course, fats and oils rank very poorly on Fuhrman's density-scale. But they were never meant to compete on a "density" scale...(we'll talk about that later). The problem with low-fat advice in general is that clinical studies have proved over and over that providing ample amounts of "good" fats (monounsaturated and fish oils) have very positive benefits to health- probably most importantly, they help keep HDL ("good") cholesterol levels high and keep triglycerides low. Because much of the population has problems with this ratio (which goes south as more and more carbs replace the mono fats), they don't need more low-fat advice. What they DO need is education on choosing healthy forms of oils. What you WON'T see mentioned in a low-fat book like Fuhrman's is the numerous clinical studies showing that mono-fat-enriched diets routinely kicked the butts of the AHA's standard low-fat recommendations in head-to-head comparisons, using insulin-resistant or diabetic subjects. In fact, the AHA (grudgingly) has revised their general fat recommendations (up to 30%), as long as it comes from mostly unsaturated sources. And it could even be higher for those who do badly on higher-carb, lower-fat protocols.One more point before I sum up, sorry this is long but important nutritional issues need to be clarified here. Fuhrman's main eating plan, as we know, is based on the "density" factor of foods, which we already agreed is a strong point. But it is also crucial to realize that density isn't everything. One cannot just posit a density equation, as Fuhrman does, as the last word on what foods to pick...the logic is flawed. Fish, for instance, cannot be expected to provide the phyto-nutrients that an equivalent amount of veggies and fruits would give- that is a no-brainer. Yet, to Fuhrman, because fish cannot do so, it is an inferior food to veggie/fruit produce. In fact, fish rates rather low on his hierarchy of foods to choose from. But wait a minute- do you see the flawed logic here? He has deliberately stacked the deck in setting up density as the only criteria. We could easily turn his argument around by selecting a different criteria where veggies don't look as good- in fact, I just did earlier with fish and omega-3s :-). Meat isn't supposed to win any "density" contest- that's not a relevant criteria for it at all.Fuhrman would have presented a better argument, I believe, if he had completely left out meat in a discussion of "density" ratings and focused his remarks squarely to items for which density is a relevant criteria.To sum up, in spite of some flaws the book really SHOULD be purchased and practiced (even if a modified version) by everyone. The dietary advice is generally strong. Fuhrman's observations on the superiority of nutrient-dense, raw foods making up the vast majority of your diet is well-founded, and should help ease or even reverse much of our modern health conditions. Everyone should make an effort to increase their veggies and fruits and cut down on (or eliminate) processed versions of animal protein. Doing so is unquestionably good for your health.So why not 5 stars here? Well, for several reasons mentioned already- I have some qualms about his low-fat advice, plus his near dismissal of healthy proteins such as fish, and a possible agenda coming from an animal-rights group like the PCRM. Other than that, his book is generally a winner. Buy it and apply it. Just don't turn into violent animal-rights domestic terrorists, people :-). LOL

So, six weeks later and I'm done the first stage of Dr. Fuhrman's "Eat to Live" diet. I'm really excited about this diet and thought I'd spread the word. This looks a bit like some sort of infomercial but I promise you I'm not getting paid for this, and these questions are a big summary of the ones I've been getting for the past 6 weeks.What is this diet?In short, it is six weeks of vegan food with no booze, caffeine, salt, or fat. That means no olive oil, nuts, or fatty things that are still good for you like avocados. After 6 weeks you transition to a diet that can include meat and alcohol plus days where you can eat whatever the heck you want. That's where I'm going now.Why did you go on it?My cholesterol was too high. I was slowly putting on weight and not liking the way I looked. I was sick of pretending that doing nothing was going to work.Does it work?In short, yes. I lost a total of 24 pounds in 6 weeks. It kind of blows my mind that I still don't look the way I want and I had 24 pounds on TOP of that. That's what years of gradual weight gain will do to someone I guess.Do you get hungry?Actually, no. This one surprised me the most. The basic premise is that you should eat 1 pound of raw vegetables, 1 pound of cooked vegetables, and 1 cup of beans a day. Think about that, it is a lot of food (you can also add more to that as long as it is healthy stuff). I often had trouble finishing the meals I was supposed to eat.What do you eat?Breakfast consisted of a bunch of fruit or some oatmeal a few times a week. Lunch was pretty much always an enormous salad. Dinner varied and I learned to cook a lot of different things and make extra for leftovers. I'd usually have a small(er) side salad, some sort of main entree (beans, mushrooms, some sort of fat free sauce), and some more veggies. You're allowed a little bit of bread now and then (as well as some starchy vegetables) so I never got massive carb cravings or anything.Do you get enough nutrients?Yes. This was a big eye opener for me, but I never realized how much protein is actually in vegetables. Calorie for calorie, vegetables have WAY more protein than meat. That is why you have to eat huge salads though, you need to eat more to get the same amount of protein in chicken or steak, for instance.What would you change about the diet?Some of the recipes in the book are rather ridiculous. I spent 4 hours cooking his "famous" anti-cancer soup and if I never have that crap again I'll be a happy man. Also, he kept wanting me to have simple green salads that I would soak in orange juice. Um...no thanks, I'll pass. So I bought the fat free balsamic vinagrette at Trader Joe's ate that with all of my salads (only 25 calories per serving). I probably had a pinch more salad and fat because of it but it was worth it to me to have food that tasted normal. I ended up getting a lot of my recipes online through google searches for "eat to live recipes".Can you go out to eat?Basically no. I did a few times and it was always depressing as the options were basically crappy salads with no dressing. I can get that at home. Some Ethiopian and Indian places had barely passable options but that was mainly with my eyes closed pretending that there was only a bit of oil in them. Stay home if you can manage. He mentions that some people live on this strict diet the rest of their life. Personally, that seems insane and I could NOT do that. I really miss going out to eat.What was the hardest part?Going out with friends. Life is based around food and alcohol. I figured I could plow through 6 weeks of it, and I did, but it was NOT easy. Not eating wasn't a big deal, and not eating most of the food was OK too, but not doing both was basically torture.Now what?Well, I move into the "rest of my life" diet. That means eating basically what I've been eating the last 6 weeks for the majority of my meals (especially easy for breakfast and lunch by myself at my desk at work). The rest of my meals I can eat a healthy non-vegan meal or splurge and get what I want. My weight should drop a little more, just more slowly, and then level off. You can also drink at this point. That will be a welcome relief. I'm also really glad I learned how to cook really healthy food. I actually learned to love to cook which was a lot of fun.Why do you recommend this diet?1) it works.2) the books is really good and educational. I would recommend it even if you don't go on the diet. It really breaks down why it works and the science behind it. It also takes a really objective look at other diets which, in the end, made me not want to try them.3) I was never hungry4) It gave me a lot of tools I can use the rest of my life to make better and more informed decisions.So, that's it. I know this whole things sounds ridiculous and corny, but I've really never felt so damn awesome and enthusiastic before. It was hard in some ways, as people really do want to find reasons to get you off a diet. The temptation to cheat can be intense, but I stuck to it, and feel great. Mind you, I'm dying for a martini, but in the end six weeks wasn't the worst thing in the world.

My wife developed diabetes at the age of 50. Treatment by the medical profession (following a strict diet and taking prescribed medications) her disease became progressively worse. They finally decided to persuade her to inject a higher dose of Insulin instead of taking insulin tablets. Consequently, we decided to do some research and came across Dr. Fuhrman's books. Employing his advice (in the book "The End of Diabetes") her blood sugar dropped dramatically became normal and her weight went down by 15 Kilograms. My wife had not to starve herself during that time instead we enjoyed the recipes and the lifestyle presented in his books.His recommendations are valuable for people suffering from heart disease, diabetes, and most other chronic diseases.

This book has changed my life, my shape and energy. And that of those around me to which I have recommended it. I have been looking to loose some weight for years. It is thanks to this book that I have reached my goal of loosing 6 kg and it happened effortlessly, in only two months. Information of this quality on nutrition is hard to find. The book has been written by a qualified Doctor and it is based on a wide number of scientific studies. The explanation is in depth but clear to understand. There is repetition of some points, I guess to ensure retention of the concepts. The book has been written with an American audience in mind but don't let this be a deterrent as I have seen it work well for people from other counties including myself. I have been looking for something that helped me understand nutrition in depth so to be able to make healthy choices and with this book I have found just that. It includes easy and appetising recipes.

I would give zero star, if I could! No information, broken images in a very few pages. I used to have the paper version of the original book by Dr Fuhrman (loved it) and wanted to get the kindle version. This one has nothing to do with it.This is pure scam!I am gutted.

All pictures and diagrams- which hardly have been thought out for a digital read as the layout is awful. More a leaflet than a book.

This just had diagrams and absolutely no text. Complete waste of money. Better to buy the more expensive full book "Eat to Live".