Bibliography and Sources

⚠️ A note on how this bibliography is built, because it is not conventional and the reason matters.

⚠️ This book followed a citation discipline set out in its own methods (Ch 3): named studies are named only where they are real, identifiable and checkable; hedged generalities are hedged; and nothing was given a fabricated DOI, sample size, p-value or journal pairing to look authoritative.

⚠️ So this page lists WHAT TO LOOK UP and WHERE, rather than a formatted reference list padded with citations nobody will check. ⚠️ Every named source below is real and findable.

⚠️ 1. Named studies and programmes cited in the text

⚠️ These are the Tier 1 sources — real, identifiable, and worth reading directly.

⚠️ Where this book gave a figure from one of these, it gave the figure the study reported. ⚠️ The two that trip the book's own citation validator — Ch 22's n = 20 and Ch 24's n = 14 — are logged, legitimate, and deliberately not "fixed," because they are real enrolled samples in named trials and both chapters state the limitation openly.

2. Named researchers and bodies of work

⚠️ Adam Drewnowski — energy cost and diet quality; the source of Chapter 32's central point. ⚠️ Kent Berridge and Terry Robinson — wanting versus liking; incentive salience. ⚠️ Leann Birch — development of children's food preferences; restriction and pressure. ⚠️ Ellyn Satter — the division of responsibility in feeding. ⚠️ Christopher Fairburn — CBT-E, and Overcoming Binge Eating. ⚠️ James Lock and Daniel Le Grange — family-based treatment. ⚠️ Wendy Wood — habit, and the self-control finding Chapter 33 §33.12 rests on. ⚠️ Peter Gollwitzer — implementation intentions. ⚠️ Christopher Gardner — DIETFITS, and unusually candid about a null result he did not want. ⚠️ Carlos Monteiro and colleagues — the NOVA classification. ⚠️ Ancel Keys — Minnesota, and the wider dietary fat history. ⚠️ Evelyn Tribole and Elyse Resch — Intuitive Eating. ⚠️ Ben Goldacre — Bad Science, Bad Pharma; the general training in reasoning.

3. ⚠️ Institutional and reference sources

⚠️ These are where to go for anything current, because a book cannot be.

4. ⚠️ How to check anything in this book

⚠️ Four steps, and they take about fifteen minutes.

⚠️ 1. Find the claim in Appendix E. ⚠️ It gives the verdict and the chapter.

⚠️ 2. Read the chapter's argument, not just the verdict. ⚠️ The reasoning is the content (Ch 38 §38.2).

⚠️ 3. Search the named study or body of work above. ⚠️ Most are free or have free abstracts, and several are open access.

⚠️ 4. Then run Appendix D's six questions on what you find — ⚠️ including on this book.

⚠️ Chapter 38 §38.4's question 4 asked you to name the claim you are least confident the author got right. This section is how you would check it.

5. ⚠️ What is not cited here, and why

⚠️ No fabricated references. ⚠️ The book's methods forbade inventing DOIs, journal pairings, sample sizes or precise statistics to create an appearance of rigour, and this bibliography follows the same rule.

⚠️ No exhaustive reference list. ⚠️ A general-audience book with four hundred formatted citations nobody checks is performing rigour rather than exercising it, and Chapter 3 is about that distinction.

⚠️ No citations for Part VI's practical content. ⚠️ Chapter 31 §31.16 conceded plainly that it is craft rather than science — "closer to craft than to science, and I would rather say so than dress practical advice in the vocabulary of trials."

⚠️ And no primary sources for the hedged generalities. ⚠️ Where the book said "the evidence generally suggests" without naming a study, that was deliberate — the claim rests on a body of work rather than on a paper, and naming one paper would have overstated it.

⚠️ If a claim in this book matters to you and has no named source, that is information: it means the book is reporting a general direction rather than a specific finding, and you should hold it accordingly.

6. Chapter-by-chapter further reading

⚠️ Every chapter has its own further-reading.md with sources specific to it, annotated, and with "read with caution" sections where the literature has known problems.

⚠️ The ones most worth reading directly, if you read only a few: