Breaking the Food Seduction: The Hidden Reasons Behind Food Cravings---And 7 Steps to End Them Naturally

Dr. Barnard appears in the documentary Super Size Me touting a couple of the ideas in this very book, namely concerning casomorphins in cheese and the supposed opiate effect of chocolate. I scarcely have enough time to write how awful this book is or how much he misrepresents legitimate research.

First of all, an introduction: Neal Barnard heads the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. What is this group? Mostly, a group of people who are not physicians, but who ARE vegans. Membership requires nothing but $20- no degree, no research experience, nothing. A strange policy for an organization calling itself a "Physicians Committee." This is a political interest group so incompetent that it can't even do its own research. Do a search on PsychINFO or Medline for anything Barnard has published in scholarly literature, and you will find precious little there. That's because he's too busy writing books like these for people who don't necessarily have the academic background to know full of it he is.

Take for example the chapter on chocolate in this book. Barnard asserts that chocolate is addictive, that it has a drug effect on the brain. He even notes one study where naloxone (a drug that blocks the effect of opiates like heroin), also blocked the desire for chocolate. Wow that's pretty interesting stuff!

Barnard didn't mention a few things about this study though. First of all, there was more than one group tested. There were normal subjects, and then there were obese bulimics, people who were quite mentally ill. Barnard doesn't mention that naloxone ONLY HAD AN EFFECT ON THE BULIMICS. Hey, that might be inconvenient for making his point, so you can see why it's okay for him to mislead you. This indicates that the blocking effect had nothing to do with chocolate, but it DID have to do with mental illness. Moreover, they didn't even test chocolate! They used several popular snack foods that CONTAINED chocolate. That didn't keep Barnard from zooming in on one single ingredient though, and not mentioning that the people in this study consumed several other things as well.

Another problem with the chocolate chapter is that he cites a study to support his point that no component of chocolate quells cravings quite the way chocolate itself can. He is referring to a study in which people who crave chocolate ingested either chocolate, a pill containing the pharmacological equivalent of chocolate, or both. It turns out that ingesting the pill won't satisfy a chocolate craving, you actually have to eat the stuff.

Not to be deterred, even though this study is actually working AGAINST his point, Barnard compares chocolate to nicotine, and writes that smokers are usually not satisfied with just the patch, they need to actually smoke (he doesn't cite any study in support of this assertion). Well, actually nicotine patches DO reduce cravings for cigarettes, as anyone who does a cursory search of the literature could easily find out. More than that, what exactly is Barnard concluding here? That the taste of chocolate has a drug effect through our tongues, but ingesting it has no effect? Can anyone really read such garbage without laughing? I could go on, but you can get this book from your library and see the rest of it for yourself. When in doubt, look up the references he uses to support his points. Pretty often, you'll find that the articles he refers to really don't say what he makes them out to say.

I thought Super Size Me was a really good film that pointed out what a vested interest many companies have in keeping us unhealthy. Unfortunately, Dr. Barnard has his own vested interests, and they don't include science or truth.

Granted, Dr. Barnard's diet is solid, and the science behind his reasoning is solid; however, the reasoning itself isn't as great as he himself believes. Let me explain:

Dr. Barnard advocates vegetarianism and the 4 four group diet: grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits. This, obviously, excludes meats and dairy. From personal experience alone, I will agree that this type of diet does make one feel better and manage weight, not because it excludes meat dairy, however. Instead, this type of diet works better for the body because it limits processed junk foods by keeping natural foods in the system. So while I agree on the level of the diet working for a better sense of wellness, I disagree with his reasoning.

Another problem I have with his method is that it excludes meat and dairy totally, going to the point of using soy meats and soy milk to replace what your body naturally needs from these foods. I would also argue that your body craves this groups not because one is necessarily addicted to them, but because your body needs vital nutrients from them. For example, vitamin B-12. He suggest taking a vitamin pill to replace what is not received. To limit is one issue, but to totally eliminate is another.

The science behind his beliefs are solid. For example, cheese and chocolate are addictive because they release natural opiates in the body (evidence also suggest the same for meat, which is interesting, but I wouldn't personally jump to put my faith in this and thus eliminate it from my diet). I favor taking his science and argument that one can adjust your cravings to more suitable foods, like oatmeal, and form my own thinking to believe that -any- kind of food can boost seratonin levels and become addicting, not just "unhealthy" foods.

Thus, reading this at some chapters was kind of like a "Fahrenheit 9/11" for meats, dairy, and sugar. I say this in the sense that the argument seemed legit, but it was so one-sided in leaving out the other side - the positives of the other food groups - that his own position seemed too shakey to put my firm faith in.

So in terms of the his diet plan: a good plan and it will change the way you feel about yourself, but mainly if your diet and especialy weight has big problems as is. But be aware that this diet isn't the answer to a happy and complete life. Other options to good living exist outside of the organic food aisle.

Regarding the actual title, Breaking the Food Seduction, I would tend to put more faith in his methods and reasoning. He offers valuable information and more solid reasoning as to how and why one should adjust their diet, keep blood-sugar levels steady, and thus feel better overall.

Also, I have a problem with the fact that this book devotes 1 measly chapter to exercise. Yes, one can lose wieght on diet alone, assuming you ot fat on diet alone. Except America didn't. American got fat on poor diet and no exercise. You have to use your body, people! If you want your body to flow, you have to make it flow! Nothing boosts happiness, adrenaline, and personal strength than moving your body, whether it be raking leaves, walking the neighborhood, and running an hour. Yes, diet will make your skinny... just look at anorexics who don't exercise. The problem is that they don't have the strength or metabolism to feel their best. The same is true for the 140 lb, 5-10 20 yr. old male. Skinny, but no energy or drive to move throughout the day. I speak from experience.

I know I have sugar addiction, so this book really caught my attention. The book itself is very informative and interesting. The problem comes when trying to make the recipies. I know that eating healthier means eating more natural ingredients, which, in turn, means more preparation time. But our house is a two-full-time-worker house, and it's nearly impossible to create the three meals per day in this book without spending every spare moment of your life in the kitchen. If you're rich enough to have a chef, or lucky enough to have a stay-at-home mom or dad, then I'd say go for it. So far the meals have been tasty, and resulted in more energy. And the claims that it will even out blood sugar, resulting in fewer binge cravings, is absolutely true. I will say that many of the recipies result in output that covers more than one meal (for instance the banana cake with frosting, which can be a dessert over many days), especially if there are only two mouths to feed. But I'm just not sure how long I can stick with this diet, considering the meal preparation time. I guess that's why we Americans are all so fat and unhealthy; we're all too busy to eat anything except preprocessed foods.

I started out looking at this book because of reflux problems and I wanted a lighter diet. In a very short time, however, this book changed the way I eat completely. The proof truly is in the doing. I saw another reviewer wish that the book had other recommendations besides a vegan diet but that is precisely the Dr's point - the foods we crave make mixing and matching very difficult. 3 weeks eating as a vegan I have lost 10 pounds, reflux is practically nil, I don't crave food all day and in fact seldom even am anxious about meal times. I'm energetic - the absence of milk and meat has if anyting improved my energy levels. I urge anybody who has tried and failed finding a way to eat sensibly and maintain the habit to read what the good Dr. has to say.

The title of this book was cleverly chosen. Had it been more descriptive, I don't think I would have purchased the book. The bottom line from reading this is that one needs to become a Vegan in order to truly break the food seduction cycle. Not really any other alternatives in the view of the Dr. While the information was interesting and yes I will try to eat more fruits and vegetables, I can't commit to a true vegan lifestyle. I was hoping for some simple common sense tips on how to break food seduction habits without such a radical change in diet.