The book's central idea of returning to traditional fats is criticized for lacking sufficient scientific support. The reviewer questions the validity of the arguments presented.
The reviewer from The Lancet is skeptical about the book's central thesis that Americans should return to using lard, suet, tallow, and butter as their principal fats. They argue that the book's ideas are not well-supported by evidence and raise concerns about the potential health implications. The reviewer suggests that the book's claims are controversial and need more rigorous scientific backing to be taken seriously. They also point out that the dietary advice given in the book could be harmful if followed without proper consideration of the current scientific consensus.
Quick quotes
We find this book—with its unsupported idea that Americans should return to 'lard, suet, tallow, and butter as our principal fats'—to be deeply flawed.
The book's central thesis is not supported by the evidence presented.
The dietary advice given in the book could be harmful if followed without proper consideration of the current scientific consensus.