Finally! A self-help book that not only explains WHY you should do the things they suggest, but then tells you HOW to do it. All without rambling or repeating too much just to get the page count up. I mean he basically gives you a damn blueprint for your day! Hallelujah!

Will I do all the things in the book? Probably not. Will it make me an instant success? Ha! But I still appreciate the applicable information that I can consider working into my day. ( )

Not terribly written, but contains some info presented as fact which is definitely untrue, which makes me quite skeptical of the rest of his advice... ( )

Sometimes I make mistakes. Sometimes I give the benefit of the doubt and I'm left feeling like a sucker.

This book made me the sucker.

In short it's "Bro science" done really poorly. There is so much bad science that it makes the few good points disappear into the ether. The writing is so bad and it tries to be the author's version of accessible that comes off as condescending. Oh and the use of pop culture phrases like "HAM." That will age well into the next decade. Using "Fuck" liberally. Throughout the text expletives are used to punctuate the poor writing.

What was good? Use kettlebells, fat isn't bad for you, cholesterol is a non-issue, cold acclimatization can be helpful, loneliness is a killer.

There is a consistent misunderstanding of statistics. "Up to 13%, 54% etc... " is repeated as support for various health claims and health interventions. The problem is reporting "up to" is not valid. Reporting the maximum effect is not a confidence interval is not a report of the variation observed in the population. And populations! Seldom was a study purporting various health claims and interventions was reported by the size of the study. Epidemiological claims without thousands of individuals examined have little statistical power. And then there is the name-dropping of institutions "Harvard scientists," "Stanford researchers" etc. It is as though science can only be sound if it is from an elite institution. This is likely the authors complete ignorance of basic statistics and science. He substitutes the reputation of institutions for citing studies with sound methodology.

Blatant misrepresentations of science surround various claims. Here are some of said claims paraphrased in no order: "roundup wheat [is bad]." Wheat is not genetically modified. Look up wheat ploidy. Wheat is not modified at all. Period. "Eggs with dark yolks are healthier." Nope again. Different varieties of hens lay eggs with different properties. Sweetners are toxic. Again no. They are not health food but they are not toxic. Thousands of epidemiological tests support their safety. Cigarette smoke is bad. Marijuana smoke is good if smoked after work to relax. Goat milk has DNA (implicitly saying goat milk is a self replicating biological entity). Claims like these arm laypeople with science-sounding information that is completely wrong but sounds plausible. The last thing needed is more misinformed persons.

If you want to know more about human nutrition read Taubes' books especially "the case against sugar." Read "the salt fix" by DiNicolantonio. Read Phinney and Volek's books. For a generalist approach to human optimization read Tim Ferris' 4-hour body. It is vastly superior to this eye-rolling book. ( )

Some good ideas, but many I don't agree with, especially around diet. Cherry pick the content that works for you. ( )