Biochemistry for Dummies (Rating 2 of 5)
» Steven S. Clark
I am a medical school professor and am familiar with the different biochemistry textbooks. Harper's is a simplified text book that does not have the detail of depth of information one finds in the gold-standard texts of Lehninger or Stryer. There is a reason why these texts and not Harper's are much more commonly found in the undergraduate, graduate and medical school classrooms. Harper's is ok for the educated layperson or for the non-biologist who wants an overview of biochemistry
Complicated (Rating 3 of 5)
» Konstantin Naletov
I'm a second year med student and this is the most difficult book I have to read. No so much because of the difficulty of the subject but cause it's written in so complicated way. Also to fully understand the contents I think one must have somewhat biochemical background. Which alot of people don't have. I find myself reading more from wikipeadia then from the book!
great for review (Rating 5 of 5)
» W. D. Dotson
While this book may not give quite the same level of detail found in some of the more massive and expensive intro to biochem texts, it is nevertheless a valuable reference. The fundamentals are all here, in an admirably clear and concise form. That makes going back to review much easier than with the fat books. In that way, this book fills an important gap in the field of available texts. If however one comes across a particularly difficult concept, the concise explanations may leave them wanting or needing more. In fairness though, I think a lot of the fatter books have the same drawback despite their longwindedness. Afterall, biochemistry can be pretty tough no matter what book you're looking at. If you are using the book as part of a class, then theoretically that is why there is an instructor, lectures and tutorial sessions. Admittedly, and to the student's detriment, the system doesn't always work out that way. I've found the book to be excellent for review because of its brevity and clarity. This book also gets high marks for attempting to point out the clinical relevance of the material, something that cannot be said for the majority of the big textbooks
Way better than the others I tried to read (Rating 5 of 5)
» A Reader
I tried reading two other books, and found this book is much easier to read. It is shorter, which is perhaps why I found it more accessible. Its illustrations and descriptions are clear and understandable. It's well organized and it doesn't waste the reader's time by going on and on about trivial, irrelevant stuff (part of being well organized: one flaw I found in chemistry books of all types was a tendency to go on and on about some totally minute and irrelevant example, so that it was hard to separate core principles from time-wasting detail.)
The depth of coverage is no doubt not so deep as those great big monstrous books, but I feel I learned more even if all I learned were general principles. I really like this book
Not for Everybody (Rating 3 of 5)
» Book Mark
It seems that people like this book a lot or don't like it at all. I must admit, I don't like it very much. However, I think it depends a lot on: 1) your biochem background, and 2) your personal reading style. Someone mentioned to me that Harper's is like a graduate school text - full of detailed information and appropriate if your background in biochem is sound. However, most first year med students are not biochem majors and need a text that is easier to read (and enjoy). I bought Harper's 26th edition and also Lippincott's Illustrated Review (3rd ed.). They both cover similar topics (not necessarily in the same order), but they differ (significantly) in the way each presents the material. Different chapters in Harper's are written by various authors which creates a glaring inconsistency throughout the book. Many of the chapters are well written but some are just plain awful. The chapters that are poorly written make it difficult to nail down the main points. I often find important information embedded in the book's "essay-type" format. Illustrations are ok, but nothing to write home about. Biosynthetic pathways, for example, are squeezed onto one page with very small print. Sometimes these diagrams are so "busy" that it takes more effort than should be necessary to untangle the important concepts, and quite frankly, is simply uninteresting to look at.
Conversely, Lippincott has wonderfully full-coloured illustrations that are professionally drawn, easier to understand, get to the point, and are visually interesting. Besides the great illustrations, the text throughout Lippincott is consistent, clear, and concise. Topics in each chapter are broken down in easy to digest sub-topics and the entire text book is superior in its organization compared to Harper's (which is basically a compilation of essays). Important concepts stand out and crucial information is not couched as it is in Harper's. However, like I said, if your background in biochem is strong, then you already know what is important and Harper's may well suit your needs. My suggestion is: if you have a strong background in biochem, don't mind superfluous language (i.e. "essay-type" text), and don't care for pretty pictures, then go for Harper's. My instructor raves about Harper's, but ironically, has to use many other sources for his lectures and seminars. If biochem is not your "thing" to begin with, and you like subject material that is concise, well illustrated, and easy (enjoyable) to read, then choose Lippincott (and maybe buy a used copy of Harper's as a reference text, as I did)
(Rating 2 of 5)
(Rating 3 of 5)
(Rating 5 of 5)
