This book was the most difficulty, unfriendly read for me. It’s full of tables and scientific stuff that I couldn’t read or refer to easily. I ended up giving it away which is a shame, but what’s the point of collecting so much information if it’s so unappealing to read and ultimately unreadable? They really need to work on improving this, then again, it’s an almanac – perhaps the expectations for a pleasurable read should be dim.
Rating: 1 / 5

dont have the quantity of suplements you need to take if you are not well.
Rating: 3 / 5

Very informative and have the quantity you need to take to fix yours body.
Rating: 5 / 5

When I first came accross the references given of this book in amazon: “This edition has been ‘painstakingly’ expanded and updated to put thousands more of the latest ‘scientific facts’ and findings about nutrition and health..the new Nutritional ALmanac offers…accurate and complete nutritional information” I though entusiastically that this book could be the guide book for the nutritional seminarios in the diploma for educators in diabetes, if so, we had had bought at least 40-50 examples every year, so I first asked for one to review and came accross, in the section of Diabetes (page 206) with important inaccuracies. It is a shame that people like the Kirschmann’s did not properly informed themselfs about the subject, they could have just consulted the Joslin’s Diabetes Mellitus book. 1. The first problem: the definition, they say that “Diabetes is a metabolic disorder characterized by decreased ability, or complete inhability, of the body to utilize carbohydrates” (page 206), if we look at the Joslin’s book (page 193) we find that “Diabetes mellitus is a syndrome characterized by chronic hyerglycemia and disturbances of carbohydrate, fat and protein metabolism associated with absolute or relative deficiencies in insulin secretion and or insulin action. When fully expressed, diabetes is characterized by fasting hyperglycemia, but the disease can also be recognized during less overt stages and before fasting hyperlycemia appears, most usually by the presence of glucose intolerance”. 2. they classified diabetes in terms that do not exist: NDD instead of NIDDM or IDD instead of IDDM 3. they mention that “the tendency to develop diabetes seems to be heredity.” This is not fully so, this statement is inaccurate since in NIDDM the participation of genetic factors or inherited factors suggest an important participation, which is not the case for IDDM in which the genetic or heredity factors have a more limited participation 4. They completely overviewed other classifications of diabetes like “Impaired Glucose Tolerance” (a category that permits classification of individuals whose glucose tolerance is above the conventional range but lower than the level considered diagnostic of diabetes, such persons do have a high risk of developing diabetes, Gestational Diabetes, Malnutrition-Related Diabetes. This IS IMPORTANT SINCE the nutritional treatment varies from one to an other. 5. they don’t state a clear difference between the NIDDM or the IDDM since they write about diabetes, that is, they include all types: “methods of medical treatment for diabetes are used in conjunction with specific diet. In ‘mild cases’(what is mild?) of the disease (first they referred to it as a disorder!), diabetes can be regulated by diet alone. In MORE severe cases (in IDDM or NIDDM?), regulation of the diet is accompanied by oral medicatio or inyection to increase the pancreatic output of insulin” most probably they are speaking here of NIDDM but these is not a popular knowledge, they should be more ACCURATE about their terms and definitions for the sake of those people who do not know this differences but will probably consult their book. This ambuguity, this nos scientific way of refering to the disorder can be so missleading that people, either because they are in denial of their diabetes or because of ignorance can believe that with diate they could control their diabetes. Because of all these reasons it has been impossible for me to recommend this book in the diplomat. I hope they make the necessary corrections so that this Almanac could be used more widely since on the other hand, I found usefull information regarding minerals and vitamins.
Rating: 3 / 5

I have totally enjoyed this book. It has a lot of valuable information. It goes into detail about vitamins, minerals, herbs, illnesses, etc… I use it for everything from weightloss and heart disease to my husbands sunburn. It’s excellent!
Rating: 5 / 5