谷物大脑
出版日期:2015-5-20
ISBN:9787111499417
作者:（美）戴维•珀尔玛特（David Perlmutter）,克里斯廷•洛伯格（Kristin Loberg）
页数:242页
作者简介
美国健康类第一畅销书！
★ 出版80周长踞Amazon健康类排行榜第1名！
★ 甫出版，即登上《纽约时报》畅销书榜第1名！
★ 《纽约时报》畅销书榜连续在榜55周！
★ 《美国出版周报》畅销书榜连续在榜超40周！
好莱坞和运动界明星都在使用无麸质饮食法！
● 无麸质饮食法帮助小德获得43连胜、8次大满贯，并坐上了世界第一的宝座！
● 美国名模辛迪?克劳馥、好莱坞女星格温妮斯?帕特洛、麦莉?赛勒斯、美国前第一千金切尔西?克林顿、NBA明星球员史蒂夫?纳什、台湾著名作家胡因梦、日本著名演员中谷美纪等诸多名人都在使用无麸质饮食法！革命性的饮食法，颠覆了欧美人的饮食习惯！
▲ 欧美掀无麸质饮食潮流，有高达1／3的美国人试图避免食用麸质
▲ 美国无麸质食品市场规模增长至42亿美元，无麸质比萨、无麸质啤酒开始流行
你的大脑会生病，并非遗传基因早注定，
罪魁祸首，正是你每天所吃的食物！
麸质、碳水化合物和糖，
就像“沉默的杀手”，
在你毫无知觉的时候，
已对你的大脑与身体造成永久的损害。
◆ 关键词 ◆
无麸质 无麸质饮食 胡因梦 神经退行性 神经退行性疾病 记忆力 认知功能损害 注意缺陷多动障碍 多动症 抑郁症 焦虑 创伤后应激障碍 情绪障碍 癫痫 失眠 慢性头痛 偏头痛 关节炎 妥瑞氏症 肠道问题 糖尿病 体重超重 肥胖 麸质 阿尔茨海默症 老年痴呆
◆ 内容简介 ◆
你的大脑会生病，并非遗传基因早注定，
罪魁祸首，正是你每天所吃的食物！
麸质、碳水化合物和糖，
就像“沉默的杀手”，
在你毫无知觉的时候，
已对你的大脑与身体造成永久的损害。
● 含有麸质和高碳水化合物的食物，是健康杀手！
所有退行性疾病，包括阿尔茨海默症等脑部病症，都是因为发炎，而引发炎症的凶手，就是含有麸质的谷物或高糖的碳水化合物。例如，阿尔茨海默症的元凶就是摄入太多的碳水化合物，导致脑部病变！
● 大脑和身体都喜欢脂肪！别再吃低脂食品了！
我们的基因组已经适应了过去260万年里以脂肪为基础的饮食，胆固醇过高，并不是因为吃下太多高胆固醇的食物，而是吃下太多碳水化合物！
● 无麸质、低碳水化合物、高脂肪，才是理想的饮食！
从今天起，远离面包、面条、馒头，改吃鸡蛋和黄油。
无论你是老年人还是年轻人，身体的新陈代谢都会彻底改变，新脑细胞也会开始生长！
除了保护好大脑这个益处之外，
你还可以轻松达成以下目标！
轻松减重、不易复胖
整日更有活力
睡眠更好
效率和创新能力提高
记忆力更好，头脑更敏锐
甚至性生活更如意！
通过数十年的临床和实验室研究，以及从业30多年以来观察到病人使用此法后的惊人效果，作者戴维?珀尔马特医学博士告诉你一个席卷欧美、好莱坞和运动界明星都在使用的革命性健康饮食法，并提供了一个详细的四周计划，帮助你改变包括饮食、运动、睡眠在内的日常生活习惯，从而获得灵活的大脑和健康的身体，甚至改写基因、延年益寿！
作者保证这个方案在以下方面有所帮助
● 记忆力问题和轻度认知功能损害
● 集中精神和注意力方面的问题
你的大脑会生病，并非遗传基因早注定，
罪魁祸首，正是你每天所吃的食物！
麸质、碳水化合物和糖，
就像“沉默的杀手”，
在你毫无知觉的时候，
已对你的大脑与身体造成永久的损害。
● 含有麸质和高碳水化合物的食物，是健康杀手！
所有退行性疾病，包括阿尔茨海默症等脑部病症，都是因为发炎，而引发炎症的凶手，就是含有麸质的谷物或高糖的碳水化合物。例如，阿尔茨海默症的元凶就是摄入太多的碳水化合物，导致脑部病变！
● 大脑和身体都喜欢脂肪！别再吃低脂食品了！
我们的基因组已经适应了过去260万年里以脂肪为基础的饮食，胆固醇过高，并不是因为吃下太多高胆固醇的食物，而是吃下太多碳水化合物！
● 无麸质、低碳水化合物、高脂肪，才是理想的饮食！
从今天起，远离面包、面条、馒头，改吃鸡蛋和黄油。
无论你是老年人还是年轻人，身体的新陈代谢都会彻底改变，新脑细胞也会开始生长！
除了保护好大脑这个益处之外，
你还可以轻松达成以下目标！
轻松减重、不易复胖
整日更有活力
睡眠更好
效率和创新能力提高
记忆力更好，头脑更敏锐
甚至性生活更如意！
通过数十年的临床和实验室研究，以及从业30多年以来观察到病人使用此法后的惊人效果，作者戴维?珀尔马特医学博士告诉你一个席卷欧美、好莱坞和运动界明星都在使用的革命性健康饮食法，并提供了一个详细的四周计划，帮助你改变包括饮食、运动、睡眠在内的日常生活习惯，从而获得灵活的大脑和健康的身体，甚至改写基因、延年益寿！
作者保证这个方案在以下方面有所帮助
● 记忆力问题和轻度认知功能损害
● 集中精神和注意力方面的问题
● 注意缺陷多动障碍
● 抑郁症
● 焦虑以及创伤后应激障碍
● 情绪障碍
● 癫痫
● 失眠
● 慢性头痛和偏头痛
● 关节炎等炎症问题和疾病
● 妥瑞氏症
● 腹腔不适、麸质过敏等肠道问题
● 糖尿病
● 体重超重和肥胖
● 其他更多
即使你没有上述问题，本书也会有助于你保持健康和大脑的敏锐度。
本书对于老年人和年轻人都适用。
内容概要
戴维•珀尔马特
（David Perlmutter）
戴维•珀尔马特医学博士是一名具有专科医师资格的执业神经科医生，并且是美国营养学院的成员。他创办了佛罗里达珀尔马特健康中心和珀尔马特脑部研究基金会。
在营养对神经病症的影响这个研究领域，珀尔马特博士是世界公认的权威。他曾获多项奖章，包括迈阿密大学医学院颁发的朗特里研究奖、美国营养学会颁发的年度人道主义奖，以及因他在神经退行性疾病领域的开创性研究而荣获的莱纳斯?鲍林奖。
他的文章广泛地出现在医学出版物中，而且他在世界各地举办讲座。珀尔马特医生是《奥兹医生秀》医学顾问团的成员，还在多个全国性电台和电视节目中登场，其中包括美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）和福克斯新闻频道的《20/20》、《今日》、《早安美国》以及《早间秀》。
珀尔马特医学博士已出版的著作有《健脑书》（The Better Brain Book）、《五岁前的IQ大跃进》（Raise a Smarter Child by Kindergarten）和《为大脑充电》（Power Up Your Brain）。《谷物大脑》一书在美国甫出版即跃上《纽约时报》图书销售排行榜第一名以及Amazon健康类排行榜第一名。
发布书评
精彩书评 (总计10条)
-
原始链接：http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R7YAG1F73O4W8摘录如下：This review is from: Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth about Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar--Your Brain's Silent Killers (Hardcover)Update(s):February 2014: Because your brain has a lot of fat, Perlmutter wants you to eat more cholesterol and fat. But that's how you get diabetes, which may lead to Alzheimer's! A recent study that induced diabetes in rats by giving them a high fat diet showed that the diabetic rats had weaker memories than the healthy ones (read all the details in the the article: "Are Alzheimer's and diabetes the same disease?" 28 November 2013 by Jessica Griggs. NewScientist)December 2013: The Atlantic Monthly has just published an article about this book called "This Is Your Brain on Gluten" by James Hamblin. Below are some excerpts:1) "In the Paleolithic Era, human life expectancy was around 30 years... humans did not live past their 50s. I wonder often why these are the times we cite as a standard of health. The paucity of old age should in itself explain why Alzheimer's and cardiovascular disease were basically nonexistent"2) Dr. David Katz is an epidemiologist who has published two editions of a nutrition textbook for healthcare professionals called Nutrition in Clinical Practice. Perlmutter estimates the Stone Age diet was 75% fat, a claim Dr. Katz finds "wildly preposterous. Anthropological research... suggests that in the age before cooking oil, humans ate mostly plants with a scattering of seeds and nuts. Virtually nothing in the natural world is that concentrated of a fat source, except maybe for the brain. Maybe if they just ate the brains of animals? They didn't have oil. They only started adding oil to the diet after the Dawn of Agriculture. What the hell could they possibly have eaten that would be that fatty?'"I have an excellent example of how absurd Perlmutter is to say our diet used to be 75% fat. In the amazing chronicle of Lewis and Clark Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West, venison and elk meat was so lean (per 3.5 ounces: 4% fat, versus 35% fat in beef), that even though each expedition member ate up to 9 pounds of meat a day,...they were still hungry (p 165). Later in the book, Lewis remarks "that he didn't care what kind of meat he got, whether elk or dog or horse or wolf, so long as it was fat". Sacagawea brought the men some roots to eat which was a welcome addition to "the virtually all-meat diet...which if not complemented by other food might lead to scurvy, ... the men of the expedition at various times did suffer from scurvy. It was an age in which almost nothing was known about a balanced diet." A diet that sounds a lot like what Perlmutter is recommending!3) Dr Katz goes on to say that Perlmutter's "book is filled with a whole bunch of nonsense, that's why it's a bestseller. ...That's how you get on the bestseller list. You promise the moon and stars, you say everything you heard before was wrong, and you blame everything on one thing. You get a scapegoat; it's classic. Atkins made a fortune with that formula. we now have Perlmutter saying it's all grain. There's either a scapegoat or a silver bullet in almost every bestselling diet book. The recurring formula is: Tell readers it's not their fault. Blame an agency; typically the pharmaceutical industry or U.S. government, but also possibly the medical establishment. Offer a simple solution. Cite science and mainstream research when applicable; demonize it when it is not.Dr. Katz gives Perlmutter too much credit for the few scientific citations he has -- if he had read the papers cited (I read all of the original papers), he would have discovered that they do NOT support Perlmutter's claims about whole grains and dementia (which is what my review below focuses on since it would take a book to refute every piece of nonsense -- See #10 below).4) Perlmutter's advice is POTENTIALLY LETHAL. Hamblin asks: "What is the worst that can come of avoiding gluten and limiting carbs? That depends entirely on what you replace those calories with. I read the book with an eye for the most dangerous claim. What stuck out to me was Perlmutter's case for cholesterol. He basically says that we can't have too much. Beyond that, Perlmutter says that cholesterol-lowering statin medicines like Lipitor, which are prescribed for a quarter of Americans over 40, should actually be vehemently avoided. Cholesterol is necessary for the brain in high levels, he says, and lowering it is contributing to dementia. Dr. Katz replies: "..can we totally ignore both dietary cholesterol and LDL? Absolutely not...Ignoring LDL could absolutely result in heart attacks and strokes". Katz acknowledges that dietary cholesterol may be an innocuous part of an overall healthy diet. "The problem is that people are going to get their dietary cholesterol from things other than fish and eggs; they're going to get it from meats and dairies. The problem with diets like that is if you eat more of A, you're probably going to eat less of B. So people who are eating more meat and dairy and high-fat, high-cholesterol foods are eating fewer plants--they're not eating beans; they're not eating lentils. So yes, I think it's entirely confabulated and contrived, and potentially dangerous on the level of lethal."5) "We do not have reason to believe that gluten is bad for most people. It does cause reactive symptoms in some people. Peanuts can kill some people, but that does not mean they are bad for everyone. Diets consistently shown to have good long-term health outcomes---both mental and physical--include whole grains and fruits, and are not nearly as high in fat as what Perlmutter proposes. I hope people don't give up on nutrition science, because there is a sense that no one agrees on anything. An outlier comes shouting along every year with a new diet bent on changing our entire perspective, and it's all the talk. That can leave us with a sense that no one is to be believed. When a person [like Perlmutter] advocates radical change on the order of eliminating one of the three main food groups from our diets, the burden of proof should be enormous. Everything you know is not wrong."----------------------------And now here is my review:The blurb for this book reads: "carbs are destroying your brain. And not just unhealthy carbs, but even healthy ones like WHOLE GRAINS can cause dementia, ADHD, anxiety, chronic headaches, depression, and much more".Wow! This is such an incredible claim, and there is not one shred of evidence in the book to back it up. Here are some of the reasons why:#1: Mediterranean & DASH diets both recommend whole grainsThese diets have lots of carbohydrates and LOWER dementia, blood pressure, cancer, strokes, heart attacks, and so on.People eating a Mediterranean diet are among the longest-lived on earth and they've been studied for decades. Italy has the 4th longest lifespan in the world!U.S. News and World report has a fantastic overview and details of the best diets (and worst). The DASH and Mediterranean diets were considered to be the best diets by experts across many fields There were 22 experts - mainly physicians and professors of food science and nutrition, who evaluated and ranked a variety of diet plans based on: how easy to follow, ability to produce short and long-term weight loss, nutritional completeness, safety, and prevent diabetes and heart disease. The Paleo diet came in dead last.----------------------------------------#2 If whole grains or carbohydrates caused any of these maladies, it would be headline news on Time magazine, medical journals, the New York Times, and TV news.But it isn't.----------------------------------------#3 Grains have been the basis of civilization for over 10,000 years. We evolved to eat grain. So did dogs. Two-thirds of people on the planet depend on grains to get enough calories.Our genetics have even changed to adapt to this -- anyone with ancestors from a farming region has up to 7 times as many amylase genes to digest starch as a hunter-gatherer. Read The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution to learn more about how we evolved faster the past 10,000 years than the previous 6 million years to adapt to the new agricultural diet (and milk, etc).One of the top peer-reviewed science journals in the world, Science Magazine, has an article titled "Diet Shaped Dog Domestication" published 23 January 2013. DNA from wolves and dogs was obtained, and the most surprising difference between wolves and dogs was that dogs were highly evolved to digest starch, with 4 to 30 copies of the amylase gene, which breaks down starch in the intestine. Wolves only have 2 copies, which means amylase genes in dogs are 28 times as active than in wolves, making dogs 5 times better at digesting starch than wolves. The same is true of people - Europeans, Americans, Japanese and other cultures that eat a lot of grains have much higher numbers of copies of amylase genes than people who eat starch-poor diets like the Mbuti in Africa."We have adapted in a very similar way to the dramatic changes that happened when agriculture was developed," concluded evolutionary geneticist Erik at Uppsala University in Sweden."Axelsson thinks these results support the idea that wolves began to associate with humans who were beginning to settle down and farm. Waste dumps provided a ready source of food, albeit not meat, the usual diet. Thus early dogs that evolved more efficient starch digestion had an advantage".I thought a paleo diet made sense many years ago, and was both surprised and delighted to discover we'd evolved to eat grains and legumes in mere millenia. Grains and legumes are the basis of civilization and always will be, since grains don't need refrigeration and can last past several bad harvests. The Buddha said to avoid attachment, and this applies not just to things but ideas.----------------------------------------#4 Before agriculture, most cultures, even Native Americans, ate lots of carbohydrates.In California, half the diet of most hunter-gatherer tribes was acorns. Tribes across America depended heavily on acorns, as well as tribes across the Eurasian continent. Acorns are 43% carbohydrate. Whole wheat is 68% carbohydrate - but grains and lentils are only a quarter of the food plate, while Native Americans were depending on them for half of their diet. So it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.Bits of starch grains have been found on the grinding stones from 30,000 year old sites in Italy, Russia, and the Czech Republic, where our ancestors made flour from ground up plants, combined it with water and made a pita bread on stones heated in fires. Our ancestors were smart to grind roots so the flour could be stored or carried, since often game animals were seasonal and no meat was to be had many times of the year.Eating carbohydrates could go back for millions of years. Fossil hominids had such sturdy premolar teeth it's believed they were probably used to open seeds and chew starchy underground tubers and bulbs. Even Neanderthals ate starch, which we know from studying the plaque on their teeth.Anthropologist Frank Marlowe studied the eating patterns of 478 groups around the globe. He found that no matter where you live, at least a third of your diet is going to come from plants (and in many places nearly all of your diet), so the idea our ancestors were mainly carnivorous is not true.----------------------------------------#5 We already know what the causes of dementia and Alzheimer's are from tens of thousands of studies. Carbohydrates have nothing to do with it.The risks are: Being over 65, genetic (5%), female (women live longer), severe or repeated head trauma, lack of exercise, smoking, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, poorly controlled diabetes, not enough fruits & vegetables, lack of social engagementPeople at a lower risk have higher levels of formal education, a stimulating job, mentally challenging hobbies like reading or playing a musical instrument, and lots of social interactions.----------------------------------------#6 Thousands of studies over 50 years that show whole grains can reduce your risk of stroke by up to 36%, heart disease by up to 28%, and type 2 diabetes up to 30%The March 2008 issue of Consumer Reports says that eating whole grains is the #1 action you can take to improve your health (besides quitting smoking).According to the World Health Organization Global Burden of disease 2010 study, the 16th leading cause of early death and disability is not eating enough whole grains (The Lancet).Whole grains also appear to lessen or lower the risk of: Artery-narrowing plaque, Asthma, Atherosclerosis, Blood pressure, Cancer: Bladder, Breast, Colon, Esophagus, Gallbladder, Kidney, Liver, Larynx, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Ovarian, Pancreatic, Prostate, Rectal, Stomach; C-reactive protein, lower LDL Cholesterol and triglycerides, Constipation, Diabetes, Diverticulitis, Gallstones, Gastrointestinal disorders, Gum disease, Hemorrhoids, Hypertension, Inflammatory diseases, Macular degeneration, Metabolic syndrome, Obesity, Varicose veins of the legs, Weight regulation (loss), lower BMI, and increase your life span (wholegraincouncil).In 2010, the American Society for Nutrition brought researchers together to review the evidence of whole grain health benefits. Current scientific evidence shows that whole grains play an important role in lowering the risk of chronic diseases like coronary heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, and also contribute to body weight management and gastrointestinal health. The findings were published as a supplement to The Journal of Nutrition in May 2011In 2004 (Nutrition Research Reviews, May 2004; Vol 17: 99-110), Dr. Joanne Slavin of the University of Minnesota published a comprehensive article that reviewed and compiled scores of recent studies on whole grains and health, to show how whole-grain intake is protective against cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity.The wholegrainscouncil has thousands of studies listed at their "health studies on whole grains" and "What are the health benefits" pages. If you think the wholegrainscouncil is a biased institution then you need to counter with peer-reviewed scientific evidence, not name-calling.----------------------------------------#7 Did Perlmutter single-handedly disprove decades of peer-reviewed studies in both medicine and nutrition?I can't find any reference(s) in his book to support his claims. Nor did the the New York Times, the 2 top scientific magazines Science and Nature, NBC, ABC, CBS, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, the Mayo Clinic, or any other medical or science journal.There are very few 2013 references. Many of those are non-science references (i.e. Dr. Oz, cookbook author Mark Bittman - my favorite cookbook author, but the citation is not a peer-reviewed study) and most of his scientific references that have anything to do with wheat are for people with celiac disease (1-2% of the population) or sensitive to gluten, at most 7% of people.----------------------------------------#8 the references that do exist only apply to the 1% with celiac disease or 5% with gluten intoleranceSo if there's a grain of truth to anything he's saying, it doesn't apply to those of us in the 90% majority. But I don't know if I can believe anything he's saying, and it's too much work to sort the wheat from the chaff.----------------------------------------#9 Testimonials are not proof. Only peer-reviewed science in top-tier journals countsMost of Perlmutter's "proof" are the testimonials of patients.Testimonials are NOT SCIENCE --and Dr. Perlmutter MUST know this if he has an advanced degree.Only double blind studies that can be repeated are valid evidence. Because people forget what they've eaten, or over/under estimate what they've eaten, the reports of people in scientific studies are the least reliable, and this isn't even a scientific study, it's his patients who probably like him or they'd go to another doctor.The most trustworthy studies look at the diets of millions of people across nations or large groups of people over decades. Many studies of national diet and thousands of people have shown many benefits from eating whole grains for decades.If you want to seriously debate the merits of this book, you need to counter with peer-reviewed science, not attack my character or invent something I wrote and then rebut an argument I never made.I feel like I disturbed a hornet's nest of True Believers, a religious Paleo diet cult. Hey, I'm not trying to take your bacon away -- believing in bacon makes more sense than believing any of the 3,000 plus Gods you can choose from across the various main and tribal religions.But as Eric Schlosser showed in Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal there are ethical and ecological repercussions to consider. So before you fry up that next pan of bacon, you might find that Raising a Stink: The Struggle over Factory Hog Farms in Nebraska (Our Sustainable Future) will give you food for thought.Bacon, eggs, and red meat do not lead to a long life. Quite the opposite: According to the World Health Organization's "Global Burden of Disease 2010″ study, American causes of early death and disability are: High total cholesterol #9, Diet high in processed meat #12, Diet high in red meat #32----------------------------------------#10 Perlmutter provides no evidence to support his idea. None.Perlmutter hasn't published peer-reviewed papers about anything -not in his field of neurology our outside of his field in nutrition.To prove his point, he often cites what he calls a Mayo clinic paper in Grain Brain, TV, radio, and internet articles. He says that "Relative Intake of Macronutrients Impacts Risk of Mild Cognitive Impairment or dementia", shows people favoring carbohydrates in their diet had an 89% increased risk of developing dementia. But those who ate the most fat had a 36% reduction in risk.Not true. In this study:1) No one developed dementia.2) Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a controversial diagnosis. It just means someone has mild problems with language, thinking, memory and judgment. Many physicians think these are normal symptoms of aging. MCI often goes away. Most people diagnosed with MCI do not go on to develop dementia or Alzheimer's.3) The words "whole grain" or "whole wheat" do not appear in this study. No effort was made to distinguish healthy whole grains from refined carbohydrates.4) This was an observational study. It can only show a correlation between two things, not cause-and-effect. There could be other factors in the participants' lives that explain the results.5) The subjects self-reported their dietary intake. Its well-known people aren't good at this.There are only 7 peer-reviewed references in Grain Brain that have anything to do with both carbohydrates and dementia. Not one of these papers mentions whole grains or whole wheat. Two of the papers apply only to the 1% of the population with Celiac Disease. Five of these 7 papers apply only to people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivities (at most 6 to7% of the U.S. population).Perlmutter says that because 70% of our brains are fat, we should be getting 50-60% of our calories from fat. That's more than twice what the Mayo Clinic and every other expert says. They all recommend 20-35% of total daily calories from fat, 45-65% of your daily calories from carbohydrates, and 10-35% of calories from protein (Zeratsky, Mayo Clinic Staff, U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services).Goodbye nutrition, hello cardiology.I know people are really angry that sugar and white flour may be as bad as fat, but that doesn't mean going to the other extreme and eating so much fat you'll get a heart attack.Perlmutter cites studies to show fat prevents dementia, but if you actually read these studies (free and available online), it backfires. He advises not eating much fruit, yet the conclusion of one of the papers "Dietary Patterns and Risk of Dementia: The Three-city Cohort Study" concluded "Frequent consumption of fruits and vegetables, fish, and omega-3 rich oils may decrease the risk of dementia and Alzheimer disease".At his website [...] he cites "Evidence-Based Guideline of the German Nutrition Society: Carbohydrate Intake and Prevention of Nutrition-Related Diseases". Oops again. Perlmutter spends a lot of time trying to show that carbohydrates (and therefore whole grains) lead to diabetes, which leads to dementia), but this paper says the opposite: "a high dietary fibre intake, mainly from whole-grain products, reduces the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer".--------------------------#11 What is Perlmutter's motivation?At amazon.com I have been accused of profiting somehow from my 1-star review of this book. This is called an "ad hominem" attack because it distracts people from my 11 criticisms by not addressing any of them. (By the way I don't work -- I'm retired, make no money from my book about home made whole grain & legume chips & crackers, and don't care if I ever do. I'm way too busy with other activities, such as volunteering to take 4th & 5th graders from the inner city on hikes at Audubon Canyon Ranch near Bolinas, blogging about nutrition and other food related topics at my website, etc. My grandfather was a nutrition professor at the University of Chicago so I've been interested in this topic for a long time. He died before he could publish his book about the extent to which a well-fed an army was likely to win a battle. Napoleon thought good food was essential and had first-rate bakers making high-quality bread for soldiers on the front-lines).So these strange attacks on me rather than my arguments and accusations that I was somehow doing this to make money brought up another argument I hadn't thought of, so I went back to this review to add what's below.In murder mysteries the killer is often found by discovering a motivation. Why would Perlmutter slam WHOLE GRAINS rather than white flour? And he's not the only one doing this, which makes me all the more suspicious that the industrial food companies are funding people who speak out against whole grains.Why would they do that?The basis of processed food is using unhealthy cheap ingredients. Fat, sugar, salt and white flour are almost as cheap as water. Read my review of Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us at wholegrainalice.If there's anyone who makes money off of this, it would be the processed food industry, and they'd do it by sponsoring "experts" to slam whole grains so they can keep using cheap unhealthy white flour. There are many ways to do this, one would be making lucrative speaking engagements on TV, radio, and conferences available to Perlmutter and other "experts" who slam whole grains. The multi-billion dollar food industry has a very strong motive to fight whole grains because they're quite expensive compared to white flour, have a shorter shelf life, and are more trouble to predictably make "perfect" because whole wheat varies in protein and other content.But there are many other ways that corporations pay "experts" and also keep it a secret. The best book on this is Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research. Also see Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global WarmingBasically Perlmutter is making a claim that refutes thousands of studies of the health benefits of whole grains -- he deserves to be criticized just like those who deny climate change, evolution, or that tobacco causes cancer.Why didn't Perlmutter criticize white flour?White flour has had the bran and germ removed so it's just a starch. It no longer behaves like flour, so up to 30 chemicals are added (many of them banned in Europe -- see my article at wholegrainalice). White flour has no fiber, up to 88% of 21 vitamins and minerals are removed (they're mostly in the missing bran & germ), and all the essential healthy oils, and most of the protein too.David Kessler, former head of the FDA, writes in The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite that more than any other product, baked goods have more sugar, salt, and fat than other products to hide these sour, bitter chemical flavors.I can understand that the average person is totally confused by all the advice out there and wouldn't know that testimony counts for nothing, but Dr. Perlmutter knows he can't refute decades of studies showing the benefits of whole grains. Health claims for whole grains are one of the few claims allowed by the FDA. It's how two-thirds of people in the world get enough calories to survive.So to blame dementia etc., on wheat when he knows full well that other factors are mainly to blame, now why would he do that? Yet another way to make money off of this quack idea is obvious - to sell this book to gullible new age, Dr. Oz, Andrew Weil, gluten-free and Paleo diet followers.A third way to make money, in addition to corporate money and selling this book is that he's on the advisory board of the company that makes the Protandim pill he recommends taking.---------------------------------------------------#12 Perlmutter knows other factors are to blameAnd get this -- only a very small number of his citations are about grains, the title of this book. And only one chapter, the rest are about fats, statins, sleep, fasting, and other topics.ConclusionThe only way to protect yourself from bad ideas is to understand what bad versus good evidence is, develop critical thinking skills, and read about a topic. If you don't know what we know and how we know it, or have a basic understanding of nutrition, then you may fall prey to any quack that sounds good to you. Inoculate yourself by reading a nutrition textbook. My favorite by far (and I've looked through hundreds of textbooks at the University of California library) is Nutrition for Health and Health Care. Get it from a university library, or buy an older edition, the basics don't change much.One of the comments says that wheat has a gluten content 500 times what it was in the past which "disturbs the digestive tract by making it more permeable and "leaky" even in people who aren't gluten-sensitive". Another said they are "enriched" with chemical laden "nutrients" and it's not the same as it used to be. Another that mutagenesis has changed the wheat somehow. Prove these statements with peer-reviewed references, the more the better, and I'll change my mind.I noticed that the 3 Most Helpful Customer Reviews that appear on the main page, which few people would click past to reach this review, are written by Amazon Vine Reviewers. According to episode #492 of National Public Radio's "Planet Money", they receive the items reviewed for FREE. This would lead to positive reviews in two different ways -- the obvious one is that we are wired as human beings to be return gifts (that's why the Hare Krishna's liked to hand out flowers at the airport), and #2 the reviewers get to pick which items they want to review out of many -- so they're going to pick books that they might be interested in. I spent a good deal of time looking at the books and products these reviewers reviewed, and they tended to give nearly all four or five star reviews, and they write thousands of them, across thousands of not just books, but all the other products they get for free. I wonder if maybe Amazon is picking Vine reviewers by those that highly rate most products so they can sell more books (or whatever).Perlmutter also buys into the Paleo diet, which has been soundly shown to be a fantasy (see my book review of Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We Live )Here's what the Whole Grains Council had to say about this book:Celiac disease and gluten intolerance are real and serious issues. People with celiac disease (1-2% of the population) or non-celiac gluten intolerance (estimated at about 6% of the population) can indeed have medical issues not only with their digestive systems but with other organs including the brain, and these people will benefit from removing the four gluten grains - wheat, barley, rye and triticale - from their diets.Even the 7-10% of people with a reaction to gluten, however, can continue to enjoy all the non-gluten grains: amaranth, buckwheat, corn, millet, oats (if certified as non-contaminated), quinoa, rice, sorghum, teff, and wild rice. The rest of the population can enjoy these ten grains along with the four gluten grains. Leading medical researchers in the area of gluten intolerance and celiac disease attest that there is no need for 90 percent or more of our population to avoid any grains.Put simply, there is no evidence for the idea we should all avoid all grains. Perlmutter must realize this himself, since Grain Brain contradicts its main premise that all grains are injurious to brain health, and recommends eating, in moderation, "amaranth, buckwheat, rice (brown, white [sic], wild), millet, quinoa, sorghum, teff and [gluten-free] oats."In fact, evidence for the health benefits of whole grains is well-documented at the whole grains council website - and was touted by Grain Brain's author in his earlier book The Better Brain which included foods like whole grain couscous, oatmeal, spelt pasta, and quinoa-stuffed peppers throughout its menu plans. In an interview promoting The Better Brain on CBN-TV, for instance, Perlmutter advocated replacing junk food with "real food such as unprocessed whole grains and fruits and vegetables." He does not acknowledge or explain his flip-flop in Grain Brain, giving us no clue why he has now turned against what he previously acknowledged to be sound science.While Grain Brain goes off the deep end in imagining that the very real health problems of the 7-10% of the population with gluten intolerance or celiac disease somehow extend to all of us, the book rightfully details many important components of good health that Oldways and the Whole Grains Council have long supported. These include the key roles of physical activity and sleep; the essential contribution of good fats; the value of the Mediterranean Diet (which Perlmutter cites as "very similar to my dietary protocol"); and the importance of avoiding inflammation and choosing carbohydrates with a low glycemic impact.Our advice? Don't let Grain Brain scare you away from appropriate-size portions of healthy forms of whole grains (yes, a whole grain cookie is still a cookie!). Enjoy a balanced diet including a delicious variety of real, whole foods, an approach followed in traditional diets backed up by proven science, like those championed by Oldways. -
基因表达(gene expression)是指细胞在生命过程中，把储存在DNA顺序中遗传信息经过转录和翻译，转变成具有生物活性的蛋白质分子。基因是生命体的规律，类似我们的世界遵循牛顿力学，基因和牛顿力学都是漫长时间进化的结果，就是无数哲学家科学家宗教追求的真理。因为我们生活在特定的时空中，无法脱离这些规律，所以只能遵循，违反的后果就是逆天而行。拉长时间轴，狩猎时代人类的饮食和农业时代以后的饮食对比是作者的中心思想。其实脱离人类生理结构谈论高脂肪和高碳水化合物的优劣没有意义，就像一只母青蛙绝对不会对林志玲产生性欲，你赖以生存的世界只是进化的结果，想在你的世界里活得顺风顺水就要清楚这个世界的进化由来。如果我们的生理结构是上百万年高脂肪高胆固醇狩猎生活的进化结果，那么碳水化合物饮食的合理性在哪里？狩猎历史塑造了人类基因，这个基因现在主宰着我们的生活，我们最好乖乖的顺着它，至于改变基因适应碳水化合物还是别做这个炮灰了。 -
看了梗概，我就是很好奇 作者说我们的祖先都是吃肉的，但是谷物这种也是很早的被发现的。难道这个就没有在基因么？难道猴子猩猩就不吃大米小麦碳水化合物了么。碳水化合物和糖的确要少吃 。不知道作者有没有研究过以碳水化合物为主的亚洲国家的人。总感觉这本书写的未免太以偏概全 太绝对，如果真的是过敏的话就算了 不用当圣旨版看待
精彩短评 (总计50条)
-
意见保留。 -
看这种书是最头疼的，因为你根本不知道书里的观点是否是对的，你甚至也无法验证。就我个人而言，是不太认可本书对谷物的观点的。这类书看多了，发现健康一事，几乎只有两个观点是所有书都认可，那就是勤于锻炼、规律睡眠。 -
个人实践感觉有效 -
一看评论吓一跳，不做只会说的人呗？可以试试阿，低碳水确实令人精神焕发头脑清醒， -
从理论上确实没什么破绽，值得一试 -
指导我的生酮之路吧 -
颠覆了很多我对食物的想法 -
一半不能认同，但是决定不吃面食，因为原来也不爱吃 -
外国养生学，颠覆性的观点，姑妄听之；各路专家的观点太多，到底哪个才是真相呢？ -
信则灵 -
很颠覆的观点，试过了摄入碳水化合物很容易产生强烈饥饿感，没有碳水化合物摄入反而不容易感到饥饿 -
凡事不可极端，尽信书不如无书 -
说来说去，其实就是提倡低碳水化合物，低糖，高脂肪，高胆固醇，高蛋白质饮食。不知真伪，实践出真知。 -
碳水化合物和糖确实供能。但也引发炎症，加速衰老，这是在皮肤科学领域有大量文献证实的，对于人类个体来讲，还是控制量。坚持低糖低碳水的吃法 -
原来方舟子还骂过这本书 不过话说回来他论文也才四篇吧…… -
听书 -
.... I Donot Know -
非常棒的书，值得一读 -
术语太多，基本是跳着看完的。其实就一个观点，值得尝试 -
很简单的道理，缺说了一大堆玄乎的东西 -
前不久，读过一篇揭示制糖业的丑闻。上个世纪制糖巨头资助科学家发表的论文，夸大了脂肪的危害，掩盖了超量摄入糖的危害。读《谷物大脑》，可以拓宽我们的视野，了解不同的健康理念。可是毕竟每个个体都是不同的，有没有效，信不信，悉听尊便了。 -
本书主要作用对象是大脑，不包括身体其他部分，对于大脑有坏处的东西，是否对身体是需要的呢？本书争议很大，作为非专业人士，只能说适量即可，切勿暴饮暴食哈哈 -
这是一个专家告诉我们该吃什么的时代。既然众说纷纭，还是想吃什么就吃什么吧，只要记得一切过犹不及。 -
看到最后，能接受这些观点，但是如果真的实施起来，人与咸鱼还有什么区别！
(道理我都懂，可是臣妾做不到啊！) -
借鉴一下 -
非常新的观点，打破了我原来对于食物的固有认知。 -
中老年养身入门 -
总觉得写得有点夸张，但是有些饮食习惯还是可以参考一下 -
18/60 -
全新的营养学思维，打破旧有的模式，说了低碳水高脂肪与身体，特别是大脑之间的关系，值得好好学习！ -
这或许是我看的第一本饮食方面的书籍，大概是因为知识量的匮乏，看得比较慢。
引起我看这本书的主要原因是它讲述了糖与脂肪的问题。
书中谈到比较多的是阿尔茨海默症和糖尿病，它们与糖代谢都有一定的关联。
该书主要强调了脂肪不一定是什么坏东西，相反，糖或许才给我们带来了大麻烦。增加饮食中正常脂肪的摄入，我们的身体会收获更大的益处。
最后作者提供了四周的新的生活方式练就的具体做法。这能起到借鉴的作用。
书中有部分反常识的内容。如鸡蛋中的胆固醇并不会增加体内的胆固醇，而甚至会有利于降低体内胆固醇。
这本书告诉我，生活中听到的一些关于健康的说法，可能是错误的。因此如果我们要对真正的健康有更多的认识，应该要主动去学习相关知识，不能盲目听信。 -
确实不可信，一万年的谷物没办法接受，一千年的牛奶居然接受了 -
记住，大脑真正的爱人，是脂肪。
那我拥有整个后宫。 -
很多评论都太偏激了。打五星是因为低糖、低碳水化合物的饮食的确在几个月内大幅改善了我的胰岛素抵抗问题，当然我看了更多的研究，不仅仅是这本书。对于健康的成人来说，没必要完全截断碳水化合物，但是糖类摄入过多的确不好。 -
颠覆了一些传统的看法，不管怎样…少吃糖吧～～～ -
在陈述观点和举例说明方面有点啰嗦，但还是本不错的书，主要讲述麸质，碳水化合物和糖在代谢中引发脑部炎症和神经系统损伤，作为知识了解挺好的，最后的菜谱很西式，在国内基本没什么操作性 -
借用译者总结的提纲挈领的句子：避免摄入麸质和过多的碳水化合物，适量服用补剂，摄入足够的优质脂肪和胆固醇；锻炼身体；饮食作息规律。我的基因检测“乳糜泻”（-肠道“第二大脑”疾病）高于一般人5倍. 所以这本书为我解惑答疑了很多. 饮食的调整+运动+睡眠=大脑+肠道健康（尤其对于麸质过敏人群） -
然而我还是相信的。知乎上也没几个人能反驳的很明确很有根据。质疑作者的背景履历，可是发起质疑的知乎上那些傻逼也并不是专业的权威啊。而且我觉得这书写的很通俗恳切，不像其他畅销书那么空洞。并不是说只有麸质过敏才不应该吃谷物，而是炎症可能是由麸质和高碳水化合物饮食引起的，炎症导致大脑退化，而大脑一旦有炎症，神经系统是无声的没有任何外部迹象和线索。人类的饮食习惯发展到现在是有点奇怪，怎么会一餐百分之六十以上都是在吃谷物。这真的太古怪了。书里的做法我会去尝试。纯粹是因为极简主义更喜欢这种不复杂不麻烦比较省事的饮食选择。 -
听樊登读书会的时候，简直都听不下去了，漏洞百出 -
得到听的，消遣听了下。 -
别信。翻了几页，没谱。 -
生酮这个概念颠覆了我的世界观，大口吃肉还能减肥！麸质问题在国内也越来越重视，所以尝试下低碳水也未尝不可，但是前两天真的饿炸了好么？ -
生酮饮食实践者必读的一本书。 -
陕西人不要看这本书！ -
多多运动 饮食自己注意些 -
存疑 -
理论大体明白了。
实践缺乏勇气。
感觉采集者和狩猎者的定位不大合适。
可能他说的是远古时代吧。
想要打破有谷物主食的饮食习惯也是比较难搞。
-
一本正经的胡说八道，一开篇竟然引用黄帝内经，这么胡说八道的书也能被引用？！而且找不出前言是谁写的，难道是作者，作者看黄帝内经？已经证明了这本书是本谣言，低级的逻辑推断，毫无理论的判断。垃圾书！ -
颠覆性的观点，尤其对于农耕文化深厚的大中国 -
生酮饮食的启蒙老师，学到了不少东西的同时，也必须说明。文中提及的观点个别的确颇为偏激，在未做全面了解之前不要做轻易尝试。比较一切良好效果都不应该以个人体健康为代价。