unscientific - almost purely motivational videos without any scientific basis or theory behind them. Professor of journalism as an expert - even more questionable. Lack of specifics - even list of products that are compared by amino acids so it's clear how to get all 9 essential from plant-based food. Finally, glycemic index doesn't lead to hunger - there are studies that prove that. Shouldn't be mentioned here.

Probably my delusion has been caused by different kind of expectation: nothing about this course is "wrong" I just found it excessively simple and basic, perhaps directed to a public that never took a knife and cut some vegetables before. I was hoping in some more technical information, and nutritional biology.. it looked more like a well made commercial for a healthy life stile.

Perhaps helpful for someone looking to change their western diet for health reasons. However, I wouldn't recommend this course for anyone feeling like they will gain a dense (even introductory) knowledge of the science within nutrition. The first week has some insight that was new to me, but everything after was just about how to change your diet, shop and eventually recipes.

They talked a little about LDL and HDL which is good.

But the rest was just a summary of avoid processed foods, eat less and eat less meat and ways to do it. It is important, but I thought the course lacked science and it was very very short.

Pleasant and informative but VERY simplistic which was surprising for a Stanford course; I was expecting more on the bio/chemistry of nutrition and digestion, but this was more of a cooking show...

Did not go into enough detail, reiterated home cooking and spoil rate but did not get into specifics. Perhaps another class on what foods do what in your body would be beneficial.

Seemed more geared toward people planning to change their eating habits. Also did not consider barriers to eating balanced meals like not having access to a nearby grocery store.

Extremely basic in content but professional in presentation. Frankly, I'm surprised that this is a Stanford course. I expected something less elementary.

A very general information is given. I was expecting to have more information on how to divide my protein in take or carbs throughout everyday meals.

very basic and obvious content

The course does not challenge the student, especially if you already have some prior knowledge to nutrition and health

Though this course was informative, I was hoping it would focus more on the biology and chemistry of foods, why they would be beneficial etc.

This is ok if you know absolutely nothing about nutrition. Otherwise, it's basically information I'd expect to be relayed to kindergarteners.

rather than teaching how to cook, the teaching should be about the nutritional value of a particular food item.

Started off promising, then took a dive. A deep dive into the sea of useless information and irrelevance.

I was expecting a little more focus on the chemicals and the nutrients that we use to cook

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

watching this was like having teeth pulled. It is produced like a bad netflix documentary and comes across as propagandistic rather than scientific learning.