very basic

av .

bon

This is the worst course I have ever taken on coursera. I expected a course based on scientific facts and unbiased, not the anti-meat propaganda, that I had to get through. Additionally, the level of this course is really low (grammar school, kindergarten ..)? There is not a single reference to scientific studies when presenting facts! A lot of these so called facts are wrong. Carbohydrates are essentiell? Since when? Fat profile of a steak shows only saturated fats, really? Fiber is essentiell (Have the authors told this to the Inuit, Massai or other tribes, who like our ancestors during the ice ages ate almost exclusivily animal products?). Eggs and fish obviously contain a complete profile of proteins according to the course material but meat??? Not mentioned. Did the authors say anything about bio-availibilty of certain nutrients (especially in the case of plants? Nope. And then the typical nonsense about calories in and calories out (humans are not a calorimeter bomb nor a closed up thermodynamical system!), everything is allowed in moderation, eat a variety of plant based foods ... Aren't these not the exact same concepts that are at the root of the obesity epidemic? Coca Cola formulates it a little bit more fancier: Move more, eat less! So why should it work this time? Are there real people testimonials that show, that by changing their diet the way this course suggests, had worked for them both in the short term and also the long term (greater than 5 years!). And here I am not talking about metabolically healthy younger people but people over 50 with metabolical issues. What animal eats in moderation and a huge variety of different foods? Well only humans ... What animal has an epidemic of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cancer ... Well, humans and their pets. Maybe a paradigm shift would be helpfull? And then there are those healthy recipes. First a crepe recipe with added sugar! Was'nt added sugar according to the course a problem? And why at all add sugar to a crepe batter? The message of this course is to reduce highly processed foods (which will surely help) with the major part of the consumed food to consist of vegetables and fruit. The sugar content of said fruit obviously doesn't count (because the WHO said so) but added sugars are bad! Really? Because the sugars in fruits like mangos or bananas don't magically rise blood sugars. Where are the references to studies that show this? If this is the quality of courses coming from Standford, then I won't take any more in the future!

week 2-4 shares a lot of empty knowledge, shares basic idea about health, but it is so general and basic to a point I would consider as a secondary school syllabus, not a university course. Week 1 is fine, but again, it is already covered in secondary school syllabus (referring to GCSE / IB syllabus). Also, informational like these can easily be gathered through some health magazines.

Please reconsider the educational targets, and increase actual, scientific knowledge / theories related. I will not recommend this course except for the certificate purpose.

So much outdated nutritional information! This course tarnishes the Stanford brand. Do yourself a favor, skip this course and read a book by an actual nutritional expert. Google: The China Study by T. Colin Campbell, The Starch Solution, Dr. Neal Barnard PCRM, Fiber Fueled, and so many more who had been preaching the answer since at least the 80's.

The answer is simple, eat a diet of diverse plants. I was hoping this course would delve deeper and present it in a way that made it accesible to a wide audience.

Very disappointed.

I really am shocked to see that an institution of higher learning is teaching a course about health that talks about the BMI (Body Mass Index) number in its lessons. If you've studied health and nutrition you would know that a calculation that only takes in two factors (your height and your weight) is not an accurate or conclusive way to measure someone's health. It also plays a huge part in perpetuating fat phobia in the medical field. I am highly disappointed in this course and how outdated its definition of health is.

Waste of time. Didn't expect this from any university.

Basic nutritionology course looks like an advertisement for a cook book from the lecturer of this course with recipes that I would not cook for myself, not only for children (fried, flour, sweet, food of animal origin). As if this lecturer still lives in the last century and is trying to teach us to eat rightI. I can find more advanced nutritional information in youtube or instagram. Only many making, no science and health care. Wouldn't recommend!

Very weak course. Little useful information and remains on the fence when it comes to condemning ultra-processed carbohydrates as promoters of non-communicable coronary diseases, such as diabetes. It clearly avoids confronting the interests of the food pyramid defended by the food industry by claiming that "the reasons for the epidemic of obesity, diabetes, etc., in recent decades are not known", even though there are thousands of studies proving the causes.

Very basic information, great if this is your first time learning about food and health, but if you've ever read a Michael Pollin book on the subject of food, no new information. Not the sort of college class I would have expected from Stanford. The cooking videos with the gal and her kids are actually adorable, and had some cool gluten free recipes associated with them. Not sure it was worth slogging through the rest of the class for, so skip to the end.

Very subjective course. At one point they say 'don't look at the centre isles of supermarket where packaged goods are kept' and then they say 'always keep tinned fish at home?!'

I was also wondering that why a school so famous for medicine could not find a nutritionist for interview and instead had to choose a prof in journalism for discussions about nutrition ?!! So strange!

it's looks more like a very very long health commercial for american television.

Has really very little new information. It's not bad to watch it, as it might bring some understanding to eating behaviors but i watched it on 1.25 speed to go way faster through the biggest food commercial of america. Could have been so much more! Really disappointing of Stanford

This was more like a documentary than what I would call a course. I was expecting a scientific approach to the subject. Nonetheless, this "course" highlights very well the cultural gap between Europe and the US so if you are from Europe (mostly France, Italy, Spain...) don't waste your time as I just did!

This started off being quite fun and informative, then just turned into an advert for Grokker, Michael Pollan's books and Maya's gluten-free books and videos. Add in the outrageous misinformation about non-organic foods being "pesticide laden" and it reduces to the level of a well orchestrated farce.

I was expecting much more from a Stanford or Coursera course. Lack of scientific evidence .Processed foods have become an easy villain among many people and the idea that processed foods are dangerous to our health and the responsible for all our problems is a mistake. Very disappointing.

The course is outdated. The first reviews about it date back to 2016 and in my opinion even then it was superficial and irrelevant. If you are looking for some deep knowledge, then you should not watch this course.I recommend checking course reviews before signing up for any of them.

Outdated nutrition advice throughout the whole course. They are pushing the same old "whole foods", "whole grain" WHO approved nonsense. Fill your plate half full with vegetables and add, and I quote, "very little protein and fats" is their advice. Very low quality for Stanford.

Não façam. O certificado vem com um belo "sem créditos autorizados pela stanford" estampado, além de, apesar de toda propagando com numero de horas antes de iniciar o curso, isso tb nao vir no diploma. Uma bela de uma propaganda enganosa. Tentando um reebolso ja!

Курс оказался очень низким по уровню предоставленных знаний. В стране, где я живу, у каждого есть кухня и никого не нужно учить готовить элементарную еду. Что вредно есть транс-жиры и так давно всем понятно. Ничего полезного я для себя не извлекла.

Truly disappointed in this course and upset I spent the money to get the certificate of completion. The only module that was informative was the macro + metabolism. I would have rather preferred a course in depth from Michael Pollan himself.

I DONT LIKE THE CONTENT , IS REPETING WHAT WEE HAVE IN SOCIAL MEDIA , NOTHING NEW ,BUT WHAT IS MORE SERIOUS IS WHEN THEY RECOMEND YOU TO HAVE WHITE SUGER IN YOUR KITCHEN AS "MUST' INGREDIENT , CRAZY . I WANT MY MONEY BACK

This course is mostly based on common knowledge. I did learn a few new terms but not the way I expected it to be. Also I do not thing an entire model should be focused on recipes. This is not a cook book

This course has no interesting information and does not go into details. All the information given is quite vague and to be found easy on the internet if you are interested in the topic.

This is not a course - this is a 90 minutes lecture.

The idea is greate. But this lecture is only start. Its very brief and not profound.

This more advices and not scientifically oriented.

an entire classist and fatphobic misunderstanding of nutrition and science to shame americans instead through fear of disease instead of knowledge and empowerment. gross, honestly.