Death by Food Pyramid: How Shoddy Science, Sketchy Politics and Shady Special Interests Have Ruined Our Health

by Denise Minger

Warning: Shock and outrage will grip you as you dive into this one-of-a-kind expose. Shoddy science, sketchy politics and shady special interests have shaped American Dietary recommendations and destroyed our nation s health over recent decades. The phrase Death by Food Pyramid isn t shock-value sensationalism, but the tragic consequence of simply doing what we have been told to do by our own government and giant food profiteers in pursuit of health.

In "Death by Food Pyramid," Denise Minger exposes the forces that overrode common sense and solid science to launch a pyramid phenomenon that bled far beyond US borders to taint the eating habits of the entire developed world.

Denise explores how generations of flawed pyramids and plates endure as part of the national consciousness, and how the one size fits all diet mentality these icons convey pushes us deeper into the throes of obesity and disease. Regardless of whether you re an omnivore or vegan, research junkie or science-phobe, health novice or seasoned dieter, "Death by Food Pyramid" will reframe your understanding of nutrition science, and inspire you to take your health, and future, into your own hands."

Genres: Health, Nonfiction, Food, Nutrition, Science, History, Politics

300 pages, Hardcover

First published November 26, 2013

Reviews

[Sam Torode · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Death by Food Pyramid" is both educative and entertaining.

I remember being taught the Food Pyramid around the time it first came out, in my 8th-grade "home ec" class. While learning essential adult skills like keeping a budget and baking cookies, we had to keep a food diary, and I scored points by eating PB & J sandwiches and Combos every day at lunch. Bread was the most essential food, jelly counted as fruit, and Combos satisfied the requirements for both grains *and* dairy--genius! It was hard to figure out whether Pringles and Bugles counted as grains or vegetables, but one thing was certain-- the USDA food pyramid was an infallible guide to health, designed by objective, scientific experts. Right? Well . . .

"Asking the Department of Agriculture to promote healthy eating was like asking Jack Daniels to promote responsible drinking." -- Denise Minger

I won't recap the entire book, which covers a lot of territory with the author's razor-sharp reason and wit. The last chapter was my favorite, comparing the today's Paleo, Mediterranean, and vegan diets, versus the now-vanished traditional diets documented by Weston A. Price.

In sum, this book is highly recommended. Whatever our preferred diet--Combos or kale--we all have room for improvement and a lot to learn.

[CS · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Food Pyramid was constructed under some suspicious circumstances. The meat and dairy lobbies both were upset by their location near the top, near the vile "fats and oils", the ones that had been vilified since Ancel Keys did his infamous Seven Countries Study. There was a lack of clarity of what a "grain" could be defined as - was it whole grain bread or could Pop Tarts fit in that category? And if Pop Tarts could be grains, why wasn't cream cheese a dairy product? And why did it take the government committee a year to finalize the Pyramid when the only changes were some superficial ones to the design?

Denise Minger, who is probably best known for her critique of "The China Study" (the study that many whole-foods, plant-based nutritionists use as evidence for their diet), went on a raw food vegan/fruitarian diet for years, until she realized that her diet destroyed her teeth and gave her 17 cavities. Her dentist blamed the lack of fats in her diet (not sure why he didn't also blame the heavy amounts of sugar and acid from the diet, but since I'm not an expert and can willingly admit I don't know everything, I'll leave it at that). This led Minger onto a crusade to redeem fats, the much maligned macronutrient in our diet.

The thing that comes to mind at the end of this is: "The parts are better than the whole". Because there are numerous parts I can wholeheartedly agree with Minger on:

Do I agree that there is shifty science involved in the creation of food guidelines? Yes.
Do I also think part of it is our growing knowledge about the affects of food on the body and not always some conspiracy? Yes.
Do I agree that there is no one diet that will work for people? A hearty YES here.
Do I think that we should be careful jumping onto the latest, hip diet, whether it is paleo, keto, or veganism? Of course.

But one of the things that irked me throughout the book was Minger's pearl-clutching over vegetarianism and veganism. It felt very much like one of those people who leaves a cult or quits smoking and then cannot say anything but how horrible the cult was or how bad smoking is for a person. I have absolutely no vested interest in either vegetarianism or veganism. I cannot think of a life without cheese, and I will not turn down a well prepared steak. However, many people become vegetarian or vegan for health or religious or ethical reasons, and they are more than capable of providing the appropriate nutrients in their diet (such as the oft-mentioned, B12, Vitamin D and zinc). And I find it peculiar we fret about vegetarians and vegans getting all their vitamins and minerals when the average American diet has just as difficult a time getting appropriate numbers of vitamins and minerals - and fruits and veggies (come on, people, french fries don't count to your veggie intake!!).

The other part that irked me is that the author spends quite some time detailing various logical fallacies - only to later dive headfirst into them. For instance, she mentions "appeals to authority", which is the argument that says because someone is an expert, therefore their opinion is right. But after deriding experts MacDougall, Barnard, and Furhman, she proceeds to direct her readers to Chris Masterjohn, a doctor who happens to support the "saturated fats aren't as bad as we have made them out to be" camp. Also of note: it is possible that the appeals to authority fallacy (depending on which definition you use) isn't even relevant in this case, as all the gentlemen mentioned have a background in either medical science or nutrition, so they are relevant authorities to the problem of diet and health, not like saying "Einstein ate meat, therefore we should all eat meat".

The other fallacy Minger dabbles in is anecdotal fallacy. She compares a study of bunnies eating eggs (which is incredibly dumb because rabbits aren't omnivores and don't naturally eat eggs!) with a single case of an 82-year old man eating 2-dozen eggs every day for 15-years. (There is a possibility that this was meant as a joke, but that just makes a bigger point that I have in the following paragraphs.)

Those are only two examples, but it's important to bring up as Minger herself wants her readers to use critical thinking, and if you say something like that, be prepared to have your readers use it on you. (BTW, just so one doesn't think I am going hard on a pro-meat diet, Garth Davis, a WFPB proponent, performs such logical gymnastics in his book, "Proteinaholic", He insists we should make our own decisions based on the evidence, but then proceeds, without evidence, to tell us to eat organic and non-GMO.)

One other crucial point that I slightly touch on above: Minger herself isn't a medical doctor or nutritionist or a statistician but a writer, who happened to do some research and can create a phrase (there's an eye-roll inducing one about how raw food vegans won't have to worry about being burned by an oven). I think her book can be important, to get the conversation going and to make people dig deeper, perhaps even bridge the divide, but she is not an expert in the field of diet, nutrition or the human body. Her book is just one piece of the puzzle and not the final word. And while yes, experts make mistakes and will continue to make mistakes as we learn more and more about the human body, the fact is, they are far better trained than the common lay person (such as myself) in how our bodies function and what we should feed it. While I am on the subject of the layperson countering the expert, I must recommend the fantastic book, The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters, for further reading.

And now, to quite probably the most irritating part of this book: the narrator. David Minger is quite possibly the worst narrator I have ever had to suffer through. By his voice, he was never meant to narrate books, and I would never listen to a book he narrates ever again. He doesn't have the voice for it (I could not help but think he had the voice of an Evil Minion, almost a Ben Stein from "Ferris Beuller's Day Off"), and he reads the titles and captions of the tables and figures, which are meaningless for a person listening on audiobook who didn't also buy the book. Everything about his voice was so dreadful (dry, disinterested, bland), I was half-temped to return this a few minutes in. If you do consider buying it, I heartily recommend you avoid the Audiobook edition at all cost.

I've made several critiques about Minger's work, but one thing I won't critique Minger on is her end advice. Instead of offering woowoo, like "The Gabriel Method", or insisting that such-and-such method will work if you do it right (Sorry, Fuhrman, but that was the entire point of "Eat to Live"), Minger's end words are that there IS no "one diet fits all". Everyone's body is different; what's important is consistency. It's about getting your fruits and veggies in, about avoiding processed foods, and eating in moderation - whether you eat meat or eat tofu. If you can hit all those points, it's a good bet you're also on your way to a healthy lifestyle - and that, more than the number on the scale is what it's all about.

I don't know why diet books can get people into so much debate about the "right diet". Maybe instead of fighting about whether or not meat, wheat, eggs, cheese, carbs, fats, sugars or onions are the ones getting you fat, we can instead start agreeing that there is more than one factor involved in a bad (and good) diet and that maybe there is more than one way to live a healthy life. I may have had severe issues with "Death by Food Pyramid" (one final comment: The Food Pyramid of the title is startlingly absent in most of this book), but I would recommend Minger's work over books like "The Gabriel Method" any day. Just be an informed reader and do your part to research and use your noodle.

[Renée · Rating 1 out of 5]

The majority of the food industry debacle is covered in better detail in a shorter chapter of a university course by Dr T Colin Campbell, hilariously. Ms Minger is a writing/English graduate and it shows - her writing is entertaining and it pulls you in... but her grasp of statistics and interpreting other elements of science falls short. I'm all for proving The Man wrong, which is why I read things outside my plant-based scope. I don't agree wholeheartedly with the aforementioned Man entirely myself, but he's much closer to the mark than what I read here. I want to see independent-minded folks hit home runs... but unfortunately Ms Minger doesn't manage it. This tome persists in pushing a line that has been shown time and again to be about as scientifically valid as homeopathy or astrology. In particular I found the section on amylase in saliva to be full of glaring omissions and the cherry-picked content-of-choice can be found with a few lazy Google searches, but at least Ms Minger is not pushing her own special brand of supplements as a part of her "natural" diet fallacy... So. One star for the odd snatch of insight, the rage against the machine, and some decent writing, minus four for failing to apply her own list of logical fallacies and duping readers less familiar with nutrition and health sciences into thinking plant-based diets are frequently inadequate. Another "Paleo" book, another disappointment. Let's all move on from glorifying/confusing the Stone Age and misinterpreting modern science now, shall we?

[Randy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unencumbered with advanced degrees and reeling from a bad experience with a raw vegan diet, food blogger and investigator Denise Minger set out to explore “How shoddy science, sketchy politics and shady special interests ruined your health.”

It’s an impressive investigation and, often, a fun read, though Ms. Minger’s takedown of raw veganism in the beginning of the book set the wrong tone for me and took me longer to get into her work than it should have. I did raw vegan for a year and had an excellent experience, 180 degrees opposite of her physical and mental decline. Since one of her conclusions is that all diets should be individual, her rant against raw food led me to the quick and wrong conclusion about what this book would be about.

A few chapters later I realized that her approach was much more reasoned than the raw food chapter led me to expect and I got into the rhythm of the piece, enjoyed it and learned quite bit.

Food as a subject is as fraught with danger and controversy as religion and politics. Ms. Minger does a great job of recapping the politics and science that have led to the current food pyramid(s) and all the things that are wrong with them. To this she had to become quite expert on the methodology of so-called scientific testing in order to demonstrate the fallacies of the studies that have led an entire nation to worry about such things as cholesterol and to embark various fad diets which she also analyses in some detail.

Lots was new to me: the history of Crisco, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, the genetics of digestion (see AMY-1), and Ancel Keys.

As a lacto-vegetarian of forty years, interested in the way people eat, I found much that was new and challenging. The author’s conclusions won’t provide you with a diet. Her point is that you have to figure that out for yourself based on your own individual makeup and needs. She does, however, offer suggestions on what not to eat. In the end, what people don’t eat may be as important as what they do partake.

There is a lot of discussion about nutrient density in foods. In the case of this book, more time is spent on advocating organ meats as opposed to muscle meats as being the most nutrient dense. When it comes to vegetables, more important to a vegetarian, she suggests the usual dark leafy greens as being nutrient dense. This is an area where I might know more than she does.

The subject of nutrient dense vegetables is spearheaded by a very small group of gardeners and writers and if I could make a recommendation to Denise Minger, I’d suggest she read two books: The Intelligent Gardener by Steve Solomon and The Ideal Soil by Michael Astera which would bring her up to speed. The fact is that with mostly depleted soils even so-called “organic” food is not nutrient dense. It could be with amendments to the soil.

That said, it’s an impressive book and highly recommended.

[Lena · Rating 4 out of 5]

Denise Minger was a teenager when she discovered an online community extolling the virtues of raw food veganism. Based on the advice on these seemingly scientific websites, she radically revamped her diet and began to experience boundless energy and the disappearance of many chronic problems, including severe acne.

She remained a dedicated convert for many months, until a dental visit revealed the lack of fat in her diet had caused major damage to her teeth. As she underwent major reconstructive dental work, she began asking the question of how she had been led so astray by a website.

That question ultimately lead to this book, which is the result of her in-depth research on the history of modern food science seen through the perspective of a person with a sharp critical mind and an excellent sense of humor.

What makes this book additionally fascinating, however, is not just her reporting on the studies that have shaped current opinions on food, but on the political and often intensely personal arguments surrounding them. Reading about these studies within their historical context is very helpful in understanding why food information so often contradicts itself. Minger also highlights less well known aspects of the food debate, such as how the much celebrated Mediterranean diet study failed to address the impact of the participants' Coptic Christian fasting schedule on their unusually good health.

Another interesting section looks at key differences in starch digestion capabilities between people, a major factor in how the latest fad diet passing through the culture is likely to impact those it ensnares.

Ultimately, the research does not allow Minger to provide any solid answers about what diet is best for everyone (though she closes the book with deep suspicion of processed vegetable oils.) Despite the lack of easy answers, however, the book is a very enjoyable journey towards understanding why we will probably never have a magic bullet diet plan.

[Becky · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I'm not so patiently waiting to read my library's copy of Eat Fat, Get Thin, I decided to read Denise Minger's Death by Food Pyramid. It was quite refreshing after reading Hank Cardello's Stuffed.

Here are a few things I loved about Death by Food Pyramid.

That the goal of the book was to educate you on how to read, understand, and interpret books (and articles) about health, food, and how the body works on your own. That the goal was NOT take my word for it, trust me, I'm an expert, I know everything there is to know, and, if you want to lose weight and be healthy, just follow my advice always no matter what. That readers should stand up, take responsibility for their bodies, and get educated, seek knowledge, seek understanding.

That the book was equal parts history and science. Part of understanding where-we-are-now and how-do-we-know-what-we-know is understanding where we've been, understanding all the steps and missteps along the journey, understanding how scientific research is done, and in some cases not only how it's done, but, WHY it's done. A lot of the book focuses on research done about heart disease, and, to some extent, diabetes and cancer. A lot of the book focuses on how the research was then interpreted. And how that interpreted research was then summarized and conveyed to the public at large. But it also focuses on invention. (For example, the invention of "trans fat" and Crisco.)

The book doesn't solely focus on "bad science," "bad government," "bad food industry," or "bad media." It focuses on educating you to make the best choices available for your health based on what we now know to be true, or what we now believe to be true. It is not about choosing "good" diets over "bad" diets. But knowing all the facts, and being aware that there is not one diet that is right for every single person.

The book is well-written, well-organized, packed with just-the-right of information to empower you to think for yourself. It is entertaining; It is fascinating. Some facts may shock you. For example, did you know that the government has known since 1968 that trans fats were dangerous, and, did absolutely nothing--except encourage their use--for decades?! (See page 157-158) I also loved all the chapters on various research studies. Including the Minnesota Starvation Experiment of the 1940s.

The men's physical and mental turmoil emerged on diets averaging 1,500 to 1,600 calories per day, plus consistent physical activity--levels well within the range of many crash-diet fats plenty of us follow today. More important though, the study shows what can happen when we deliberately and severely eat less than our body is asking for. Think about that for a minute. The same health authorities propagating food-pyramid wisdom also tend to fixate on cutting calories and increasing exercise--the "eat less, move more" paradigm. Sounds familiar, doesn't it. What if calorie restricting makes our bodies think we're starving? And what if what happened to the Minnesota men at 1,500 calories is what our government and the billion dollar diet industry has been selling to modern Westerners? The answer seems clear enough: we've set ourselves up to be a nation of disordered eaters, struggling against biology, when what really needs to change is the quality of our food. (91-2).

I love how the author believes the reader can be smart enough, and motivated enough, to learn. The book is very matter-of-fact. These are the words you need to know. These are the phrases you'll see in all the books, all the articles, all the graphs, all the news stories. Here are the definitions so you can know what is being said and evaluate it for yourself. Never automatically agree with someone's spin of it. Weigh all the evidence, consider all points of view, and decide for yourself.

I loved that the message was: YOU CAN DO IT. CHOOSE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN HEALTH. YOU CAN BECOME INFORMED. YOU CAN BECOME EDUCATED. Don't be a victim of circumstances. Don't say "Well, I didn't know any better."

If you choose to put a label on your diet, make sure it doesn't undergo a sneaky "mission creep" into the realm of your self-identity. Your current food choices may be low-carb, or lowfat, or plant-based, or any other number of descriptors--but you are not low-carb; you are not lowfat; you are not plant-based. You're a human being trying to make choices that best serve you and your specific goals at this point in time. You are not defined by the foods you eat. You are not a slave to an ideology. (243)

So why is it titled Death by Food Pyramid?! The Food Pyramid is more the work of politics and business than anything else. And that's keeping it polite. It is not actually representative of what is good and healthy for you to eat. In fact, just the opposite. Even though it has been "updated" or even "replaced," it still influences how people think about what to eat or not eat--at least for certain generations.

I loved learning about Luise Light who began working on the Food Pyramid in the 1970s. Her version never saw the light, you might say.

Unlike previous food guides, Light's version cracked down ruthlessly on empty calories and health-depleting junk food. The new guide's base was a safari through the produce department--five to nine servings of fresh fruits and vegetables each day. "Protein foods" like meat, eggs, nuts, and beans came in at five to seven ounces daily; for dairy, two to three servings were advised. Instead of promoting what would soon become a nationwide fat-phobia, Light's guide recommended four daily tablespoons of cold-pressed fats like olive oil and flaxseed oil, in addition to other naturally occurring fats in food. The guide kept sugar well below 10 percent of total calories and strictly limited refined carbohydrates, with white-flour products like crackers, bagels, and bread rolls shoved into the guide's no bueno zone alongside candy and junk food. And the kicker: grains were pruned down to a maximum of two to three servings per day, always in whole form. (The lower end of that range was for most women and less-active men, for whom a single sandwich would fill the daily grain quota.) Satisfied that their recommendations were scientifically sound and economically feasible, Light's team shipped the new food guide off to the Secretary of Agriculture's office for review. And that's when the trouble began. The guide Light and her team worked so hard to assemble came back a mangled, lopsided perversion of its former self. The recommended grain servings had nearly quadrupled, exploding to form America's dietary centerpiece: six to eleven servings of grains per day replaced Light's two to three. Gone was the advisory to eat only whole grains, leaving ultra-processed wheat and corn products implicitly back on the menu. Dairy mysteriously gained an extra serving. The cold-pressed fats Light's team embraced were now obsolete. Vegetables and fruits, intended to form the core of the new food guide, were initially slashed down to a mere two-to-three servings a day total--and it was only from the urging of the National Cancer Institute that the USDA doubled that number later on. And rather than aggressively lowering sugar consumption as Light's team strived to do, the new guidelines told Americans to choose a diet "moderate in sugar," with no explanation of what that hazy phrase actually meant. (Three slices of cake after a salad is moderate, right?" With her science-based food guide looking like it had just been rearranged by Picasso, Light was horrified. She predicted--in fervent protests to her supervisor--that these "adjustments" would turn America's health into an inevitable train wreck. Her opinion of the grain-centric recommendations was that "no one needs that much bread and cereal in a day unless they are longshoremen or football players," and that giving Americans a free starch-gorging pass would unleash an unprecedented epidemic of obesity and diabetes. (23-24)

Asking the Department of Agriculture to promote healthy eating was like asking Jack Daniels to promote responsible drinking: the advice could only come with a wink, a nudge, and a complementary shot glass. (25)

Folks with low genuine skill in their field [nutrition] suffer from double trouble: not only do they grossly overestimate their own abilities, but they also don't even have the knowledge necessary to realize what they're saying is inaccurate. (53)

Anyone who's certain they're right about everything in nutrition is almost definitely wrong. (53)

Out of all the food pyramid's victims, the most brutally slaughtered was fat--particularly the saturated form. (82)

The burden is on our own shoulders to stay educated, informed, shrewd, critical, proactive, and unyielding in the face of the Goliaths that loom before us. (247)

[Robin · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you do even a moderate amount of reading on the topic of food and health, you can quickly become exasperated with the preponderance of belief-systems, each with its own quiver of scientific proofs. As a statistician by trade, I have always been skeptical of many of the studies used in defense of various beliefs, which leaves you wondering what, if anything, you can believe about food. In "Death by Food Pyramid," Denise Minger brings a whole lot of common sense to the conversation - both from a statistical and critical-thinking standpoint.

It's very easy to build a simple linear regression model with two variables, find some correlation between them, and then declare "statistical evidence" for a certain viewpoint, ignoring any possible confounding variables and other statistical basics. It's much harder to do a thorough, honest statistical analysis, and even when this is done, conclusions - especially any involving cause and effect - should be drawn with the utmost care. But this approach is sorely lacking in the food wars, where it seems that finding any kind of "evidence" that defends one's viewpoint is of primary importance.

In this book, Denise Minger doesn't really endorse any of the major food-belief-systems (which isn't to say that she doesn't make any recommendations), and in my opinion the book is stronger for it. It allows her to take an honest look at the evidence in each camp and discuss the strengths and weaknesses. There wouldn't be so much debate if it was such a slam dunk case for any single diet.

The other strength of this book is Minger's willingness to note that the question of food and diet is complex and much more individualistic than most diet gurus will admit. Beyond a few relative-absolutes (which Minger discusses), there is no diet that is exactly right for everyone. Acknowledging that will only help future research in this area.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. It isn't your typical diet book or even really a nutrition book.

Denise takes you through the history of the creation of the USDA's Food Pyramid. Those recommendations have become the underpinnings of most of the western world's governmental advice on what to eat. How it was created is fascinating. And upsetting. In most countries this is still the orthodoxy and it is leading to more disease, not less (Sweden and Denmark are two countries only just starting to move in a different direction).

The other part of the book then takes you through how to analyse all of the dreck that comes out as peer reviewed nutrition studies. You know, all those things picked on by an uneducated media who scream about the latest "finding". Most of which are wrong, based on bad science or distorted through overt or unconscious bias.

Denise made her name as a blogger and in particular with a massive dissertation that ripped apart the findings in the China Study. She taught a well respected scientist how to do basic statistics on the data he was using! After a few to and fros Dr Colin Cambpell basically gave up. Unfortunately The China Study still sells very well and most people have no idea how bad the analysis was that lead to the book's recommendations about what to eat. I assume this was what drove Denise to write this book.

It isn't too "sciency" and is full of caustic and witty comments. It is also short. Get it and read it. If nothing else its a fun read.

[Justin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a comprehensive and relatively non-biased approach to diet that agreed with much of what I've read. It's lack of bias and detail were commendable though not perfect. My main complaint is that the book could have been more granular and had discussions regarding things like TMAO and mTOR. That being said, this is better than 95% of diet books (although I have read better) and well worthy of a read.

[Sarah Clement · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel conflicted about this book. Denise Minger is a brilliant writer, and in my view her work is better suited to book form than the long blog entries she posts a few times per year. The beginning of this book does a great job of laying out how we got where we are today, and though this has been done before in many books (e.g. Food Politics by Marion Nestle), Minger puts her own spin on it. I thought she was far more balanced than I expected. As a revered figure in the ancestral health/paleo community - who became so because of a massive debunking of The China Study - I expected a book a bit more like her 'colleagues' in this community who have also published books. She provides, instead, a much more balanced view of contested figures like Ancel Keys and his nemesis. Yet as the book progresses, Minger slips a bit, and begins using more logical fallacies. She is suddenly much more positive in her take on observational data, and though she still dances around people like Price by caveating their work, the tone completely changes. She begins the "Meet your Meat" chapter with a disclaimer that she rarely eats land animals, but doesn't begin the "Herbivores Dilemma" chapter with a similar caveat that the paleo community is what got her to where she is today. Though her presentation of different diets is much more balanced than you will read in the blogosphere, it is clear that there is a shift in the standard of evidence that she believes is needed to support her personal conclusions from the research. She's still fairly reserved in those conclusions, but I think she should have been a bit more reflective on how she used the research to support her pre-existing beliefs. Still, this is a well written book that deals with a lot of important topics, and I was happy to see that Minger did not completely throw other diets (including whole foods plant based diets) completely under the bus in crafting this book. It's worth reading, but I would exercise as much caution in reading her own take on nutrition as you do in reading about those individuals and agencies that had a hand in crafting USDA recommendations, as they are still built on a very shallow and shaky foundation of research.

[Zane · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I'm on a mission to figure out my food plate, this book is one I was advised to read by food coach. And I would advise anyone who is concerned/ interested about the nutrition to check it out.
For me sometimes it strayed from the main point, but managed to get back to food in time for it to still get the point across. I received a lot of useful information and explanation about several diets that are trending, about some studies done (and their backgrounds and shortcomings) which put things nicely in "bigger picture".
I also received hints of what we should change in our daily foods, but without 10step guide (so no strict steps to follow for perfect figure) - as the nutrition is something we have to understand A LOT of still. And each individual should practise everything individually (within reason) and find their perfect diet.
No surprise that food industry is messing with the "official food pyramid" or "food plate" etc. so if there is one thing to take away from the book, it's - be sceptic about country recommendations. As countries are also interested in Economics and taxes. Health of people is a tougher nut to prove that it's being poisoned day by day than steep decline in tax funds due to discouragement of eating processed foods.

[Stefani · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book! Ms Minger has dredged through countless studies (derailed many of their conclusions) and found that there is no one answer. Our bodies, lives and environments are a complicated, intertwined set of variables giving each of our dietary choices a personal impact. Despite the heavy technical material, the writing is superb and engaging; the history is fascinating.

Here are my favorite parts of the book.

"If nothing else, each leg of the adventure has affirmed for me--again and again--one simple fact: nobody has all the answers. Science is still evolving. So is our understanding of what it's dredged up. And most importantly, there's no magic-pill diet that will work equally well for all people. "

"Whether the diet-damage strikes fast or creeps stealthily, we rarely gain the competence or foresight to steer our health in the right direction on our own.
"And it's not because we're a nation of bumbling fools, either.
"The reality is that most of us grow up strapped in an educational system that favors obedience over independent thinking. We're rewarded for trusting authority, and punished for challenging it. We focus on memorizing the stuff other people came up with... rather than grasping the logic behind our most important breakthroughs and tracing the footsteps of their discovery. We answer test questions with what we think our teacher wants to hear. We chase grades instead of knowledge. And worst of all, we leave the classroom woefully unequipped with the thinking skills that matter most: how to balance open-mindedness with skepticism, how to identify bias, and how to challenge assumptions--including our own--in a way that's truly objective."

"A rat study will never have any bearing on your life, because unlike lab animals, you are not eating a purified diet of sucrose, corn oil, casein, and synthetic vitamins from birth until death."

"Another way of stating these findings is to say that, if you wish to increase the number of people dying from accidents, violence, cancer or strokes, then give them a diet low in cholesterol and fat." [Yudkin] (In the next chapter, we'll look at these very studies and see how his assessment wasn't far off the mark.)

"Ultimately, Price's work captures the message behind this chapter--and in some sense, behind this book at large--that chasing a single ideal diet is the wrong way to approach health. While we frantically hop from one eating plan to the next, searching for physical perfection by eating the right amount of carbs or fat or synthetic vitamins or grapefruit slices, we miss the bigger picture--and with it, the opportunity to truly nourish our bodies."

[Martynas · Rating 4 out of 5]

My takeaways:
1) The Health Food Shoppers Study, which followed nearly eleven thousand health-conscious omnivores and vegetarians in the United Kingdom over the course of twenty-four years, found no difference in overall mortality between those who ate meat and those who didn’t.
2) If you choose to include legumes, grains, or nuts in your diet, you can neutralize some of their troublesome components and increase mineral availability by first soaking them in warm water and an acidic medium (like vinegar) for at least seven hours in the case of grains and nuts, and twenty-four hours in the case of legumes.
3) Nutritional robbery. A quick comparison between 100 grams of muscle meat and equal weight of brain, heart, liver, kidney, or other organs shows that muscle is a sad lightweight as far as vitamins and minerals go. While it may be rich in protein and iron, muscle tissue misses out on a host of other goodies like copper, vitamin A, potassium, magnesium, pantothenic acid, and more. Organs are some of the most nutritionally dense foods in existence—and skipping them for chicken breast or ground beef is a lost opportunity for first-class nourishment.
4) You’re not just what you eat: you are what your mom ate. And what your grandmother ate. And what your food eats, given how soil and pasturage quality influenced the nutritional status of native diets.
5) If you choose to put a label on your diet, make sure it doesn’t undergo a sneaky “mission creep” into the realm of your self-identity. Your current food choices may be low-carb, or lowfat, or plant-based, or any other number of descriptors—but you are not low-carb; you are not lowfat; you are not plant-based. You’re a human being trying to make choices that best serve you and your specific goals at this point in time. You are not defined by the foods you eat. You are not a slave to an ideology. Make your diet work for you; don’t work for your diet.

[Kerry · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was a roller coaster ride of highs and lows. On one hand, the brief history of the Food Pyramid was well-written and interesting, and the overview look of "successful" diets was thought provoking. On the other, the book sometimes took on a patronizing tone.

Maybe I was the wrong audience for this book, or perhaps this book failed to nail down the correct one, but I felt condescended to in the chapters about reading scientific papers and determining who is an authority (the latter of which listed the typical tricks of propagandists as a means of warning, without actually giving credit to the origins of those ideas). Additionally, the transitions written along the lines of "Let me explain," or "To simplify," were unnecessary and either made me wonder why the writer didn't explain clearly the first time or why she assumed that I wouldn't be able to understand.

In the end, I would have preferred an in-depth investigation of the Food Pyramid's evolution and results rather than a book of chapters only loosely connected in theme. What merits this book had were undone by the forced "expert" tone and the lack of focus.

[Kassie Saenz]

Denise Minger’s “Death by Food Pyramid” was assigned as the first book to read in my Chemistry of Food course. The purpose of Minger’s book was to essentially debunk the validity that was accepted in the food pyramid for so long. Minger uses her book to share her findings on how the relationship between the government and the food industry was built upon the premise of getting Americans to buy into the idea of these recommended food groups and their servings as means to be “healthy”. Although I won’t say that I believe and align with all that Minger presents, I would say that I did learn some ideas about dieting and health that I wasn’t aware of before. Minger taught me that health and fitness are both concepts that are individualized, and it’s nearly impossible to have one definition of what that looks like within a world filled with people of various backgrounds. Out of the entire book, I most appreciated Minger’s tips in what she calls “evaluating the experts” when it comes to health and nutrition. Minger’s analysis from some of the first faces of health to the government’s regulation of “ideal” health presents the information in a logical, chronological order that allows this book to be accessible to all people that simply want to learn about the way that health has been taught and regulated in the past, present, and future. With a society that is currently obsessed with all things health and fitness, there are certainly many sources that add more confusing jargon to the already massive pool of knowledge on what it means to be healthy. All in all, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in health, the government’s recommended regulations it, and the way that science connects to it all. Overall, I’d rate it a 4.0.

[Derek Pankaew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well written guide on evidence-based health. The book walks the reader through the basics of a scientific study, common ways studies can be misrepresented, and finally walks the reader through the current state of knowledge around health.

[Carolina · Rating 3 out of 5]

"You're a human being trying to make choices that best serve you and your specific goals at this point in time. You are not defined by the foods you eat. You are not a slave to an ideology. Make your diet work for you; don't work for your diet."

[Conrad Mason · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating look through the history of research on food and health and how ideas have been shaped and changed by new science. I really liked the chapter about how to critically analyse research about food.

Highly recommended for anyone interested to know about food and health from a subjective and scientific point of view.

[Chris Bartos · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this book was the best, least biased book on nutrition I've ever read.

First, it shows you what a sound scientific study looks like. Denise explains what some of the "science-ese" looks like and how to interpret what it means. This chapter alone was enough to give this book a 5 star rating.

Second, Denise takes you on a tour of the history of the USDA Food Pyramid. She explains how the USDA was essentially bought by some of the country's biggest food industries.

Third, Denise gives a synapsis of some of the most popular diets in existence. The Paleo Diet, Mediterranean Diet, and the "Plant Based" (no animal product) Diet made popular by people like McDougall and Esselstyn. She completely obliterates all three diets and explains why.

Fourth, she takes us on an a journey around the world to look at what some of the healthiest hunter-gatherers traditional cuisine was like. This is also where she explains some of the genetic complications that come from any one diet.

The conclusion is don't listen to what people tell you to eat to stay healthy. Denise explains what all healthy diets have in common. She gives you the facts on why all healthy diets have these in common and why modern humans should use the same advice.

By far the best book on nutrition I've ever read. Please read it if you're worried about modern diseases and genuinely want to know the truth about the food that we eat.

5 stars!

[Mike Angelillo · Rating 3 out of 5]

With the title "Death By Food Pyramid" and a statement such as "Warning: Shock and Outrage Will Grip You As You Dive Into This One-Of-A-Kind Expose" (back cover) I was not expecting the book to unfold as it did.

The main strengths of this book are the details on the scientific method and types of studies (Chap 5), tips on how to evaluate your source (Chap 4) the history/politics behinds George McGovern and the Federal Governments intervention into the duets of Americans (Chap 3 titled, with the rather late night show mock headline "Amber Waves of Shame").

What I kept waiting to read was support for what the title led me to believe this book would be about, the assertion that the USDA Food Pyramid has increased the rate of death in Americans by increasing the prevalence of chronic diseases (heart diseases, diabetes etc.). The book never heads in this direction. Instead the focus is on the history of health research, the main players involved, some very good critical reviews of key studies and an overall tone of "one size does not fit all." And all that may be a fine book, but perhaps should have been titled "What We Know and What We Think We Know and What We Don't Know."

The health advice given in the concluding chapter certainly seems sound but nothing you haven't read in may other places (except perhaps this idea of eschewing muscle meat for "nose to tail").

[Samantha Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a bird's-eye view of nutrition as a whole, and presents the history that has led to the current state of nutrition, including the missteps and blunders. It ends with a breakdown of the three most popular diets, and tackles how they can each see many success stories, even though they are so different. What I appreciate is her level-headed presentation of the facts and her frequent admonition to think for yourself - and question everything. And she teaches you how to question everything. The title would make one think it is a finger-pointing, alarmist presentation like documentaries about food, but I found her arguments much more gracious and rational than many nutritional zealots manage.

I recommend this for anyone who has any interest in nutrition. It is valuable in beginning to learn how to navigate the studies, claims and multitude of diets that are out there. If you ever find yourself reading articles attached to headlines that say "New studies say eating [insert any food] will [insert alarming or awesome result here]!" consider reading this first.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Of all of the diet books I have read so far (which is a lot compared to most people, but very little compared to those who take the subject of nutrition very seriously), this has been my favorite. Denise Minger's writing is witty without being scathing, and she does a good job of avoiding bias while analyzing various studies.

While drawing out some general conclusions about the best foods to eat or avoid, and how the modern diet has contributed to the increasing rates of disease and decay, Minger doesn't advocate one diet plan over another. She urges caution in following trends, and gives pointers on how to recognize whether health advice is based on good science or faulty conclusions.

Above all, Minger advocates individual choice and responsibility, which must be based on solid research and education. We must also be aware that what works for one person may not work for another, and that something that works for us at one time might not work for us later.

[Ricky Gladney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bravo!!! Smart, revealing, unbiased and logical.

I have been doing a lot of soul searching lately and this book has brought the vital issues to light, in an increasingly dark nutritional word. We all know what foods are good for us, we just get caught up in what is convenient and sadly cheap. Through the course of reading this book I have really found a new vitality and energy that I haven't had since I was a teenager. For me gluten was a killer. Without the advice to try to remove certain foods besides the obvious like hydrogenated vegetable oil, I may not have found out what was right for me to eat. Thank you for arming me with the knowledge I needed to make the smart choice. Nutrition over convenience. Sustenance over price.

[Sally · Rating 3 out of 5]

Contains an interesting history of the development of US government nutrition guidelines and recommendations, showing the economic, political and other biases that have had a stronger influence on their content than citizen health. The author also analyses a number of influential scientific studies on diet. She compares three of the currently popular diets - paleo, Mediterranean and whole food/plant strong - and finds that they all eliminate processed vegetable oils, refined sugar and processed refined grains. All of this was valuable. Her early, uninformed experience with an extreme vegan (really a fruitarian) diet has left her with a skepticism of veganism generally. Didn't care much for her breezy, blog-like style.

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been reading Denise Minger's blog for a little while. I had been eating a la China Study for a few months, and she about had me convinced. I read most of my way through this book, and think her analysis of the China Study and a few other things are very persuasive. But after criticizing numerous studies, she suddenly winged off into a Weston A Price Foundation paean, fulminating with praise for his "excellent" studies. Um???? She couldn't find anything to criticize there? Are you kidding me? And then I went online and found TONS of studies that she didn't even attempt to explain, that contradicted much of the book. Sigh. So I'm not sure I know a lot more than I did.

[Warren Benton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rating: 3.25

Death by food pyramid is an energetic exploration on what went wrong with the food pyramid. Minger starts out talking discussing her own trials with raw veganism as a teenager and how it ruined her teeth. One thing she tries to do throughout the book is help explain and simplify lots of the ideas on foods. This must have been an exhausting undertaking compiling modern and historic ideas on foods and trying to eloquently explain. Parts of the book was over my head scientifically. The takeaway I have from the book is there is no diet that is perfect for everyone and it is a chore to find all the proper nutrition.

[Stephanie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting, but not what I expected. Jostling for placement in the food pyramid was in there, but not the entirety of the book. The problems with developing the food pyramid were there, but I hoped it would move on to the newer issues with the newer my plate recommendations.

The breakdown of common eating habits was interesting, but more so for someone in the field. I am not shopping around.

[Gavin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some decent info, but I don't think the author does what she says she sets out to do in this book. She discusses tons of studies but claims in the end she will give the reader a clear eating plan going forward. I was left more confused as to what her stance is in the end.

Also, the author's husband narrates the audio book. He's the worst narrator I've ever heard. If you're planning on listening to the audiobook, do yourself a favor and don't.

[morbidxmagpie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not a diet book, but a book ABOUT diet, including how we got here and broad suggestions for how to proceed. Unsurprisingly, there is a small handful of things that clearly everyone should NOT eat, but it's up to the individual to figure out what to eat. The history of Western diets and nutrition is also fascinating and gives some insight into why conventional wisdom doesn't seem to be working. I wish she'd done MORE, delved a bit deeper, but what she provided was solid and interesting.

[Hannah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thoroughly researched and beautifully written explanation how and why diet has changed in this country and the world over the last fifty years or so. Amazing.