Rapid Review or BRS for biochem

[makesomerheum]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Anyone have any thoughts on these 2 books. I wanted a book that was shorter than Lippincott's. BRS and Rapid Review Biochem seem to fit the bill.

Thanks for any help.

 

[mesoderm]

Look at both and see which you prefer. I had BRS as an M-1, and now use RR. I like RR because it integrates the clinical correlations better than BRS does.

 

[Ursus Martimus]

See the new BRS Biochem, full of clinical correlations

 

[HunterGatherer]

are there questions in RR biochem?

 

[MikeyLu2010]

yea..RR has 100 Q and explanations in the book...with 250 more on studentconsult.com when u register your book on it.

 

[blkkd]

BRS biochem is really lacking a 'true' vitamins an minerals section. By that I mean they list some vitamins here and there, some with the symptoms of a deficiency but most without. And it has very little on minerals.
There is no heme metabolism section either. Also I find there are too many unnecessary details.
Saying this I have not used RR, but i'm suggesting that you use something besides BRS.

 

[DragonWell]

BRS biochem is really lacking a 'true' vitamins an minerals section. By that I mean they list some vitamins here and there, some with the symptoms of a deficiency but most without. And it has very little on minerals.
There is no heme metabolism section either. Also I find there are too many unnecessary details.
Saying this I have not used RR, but i'm suggesting that you use something besides BRS.

Are you sure you're talking about the new 4th edition? It has both :

CH 18 - Nucleotide and Porphyrin Metabolism - Section II- Heme metabolism
CH 19 - Integrative Metabolism and Nutrition - Table 19-1 Vitamin Deficiencies

The old edition was definitely lacking. I haven't used RR for biochem, but compared to Lippincott, the outline format of BRS is pretty nice.

 

[Terpskins99]

I've got the classic case of toomanybookitis.

I've been using Rapid Review Biochem, Kaplan Biochem (I'm taking the class), Lippincott's Biochem and even HY Biochem on and off.

My thoughts:
HY Biochem is worthless (I think I had the previous edition to whats available now, but I doubt the newest one is any better... the book is completely inadequate.)

If you're in the course, Kaplan Biochem is excellent and has nice large diagrams that help put everything together. It focuses on the highest yield diseases (e.g. G6PD deficiency), but tends to gloss over many of the others (e.g. maple syrup urine disease). If you're not actually taking Kaplan, then I think the book is a bit inadequate. You're going to need another reference to supplement it.

Rapid Review Biochem (2nd edition version) is good, but feels a little heavy with extraneous information. You can see Goljan's fingerprints all over it as they incorporate virtually everything into a clinical presentation. But sometimes the chapters get a little unorganized. And it doesn't do a very good job emphasizing key high yield points. I'd recommend this only if you have plenty of time to review.

Lippincott's. HUGE, but extremely thorough. I actually really like this book, but again... only if you have plenty of time in advance to review. At this point, I only use it as a reference in instances where my Kaplan book doesn't do a solid job explaining things.

I think its important to avoid choosing a reference based upon the types of questions they may or may not have in it. You have qbank and exam masters for that sort of thing.

 

[Inquisitive]

FA has both Biochem/ Molecular bio in the same section. Does RR bio chem do it like that as well? or is there another rapid review for Molecular bio?

 

[fun8stuff]

FA has both Biochem/ Molecular bio in the same section. Does RR bio chem do it like that as well? or is there another rapid review for Molecular bio?

bump.. i am wondering this too...

 

[winsicle]

I have an old version of the Kaplan BioChm (~2002) and I can't seem to find a good discussion of heme biochem (other than a snippet in glycolysis).
i assume there is other missing important details so...

i was considering getting RR - how is the heme section? and how are the practice questions if you've done them?

thanks

I've got the classic case of toomanybookitis.

I've been using Rapid Review Biochem, Kaplan Biochem (I'm taking the class), Lippincott's Biochem and even HY Biochem on and off.

My thoughts:
HY Biochem is worthless (I think I had the previous edition to whats available now, but I doubt the newest one is any better... the book is completely inadequate.)

If you're in the course, Kaplan Biochem is excellent and has nice large diagrams that help put everything together. It focuses on the highest yield diseases (e.g. G6PD deficiency), but tends to gloss over many of the others (e.g. maple syrup urine disease). If you're not actually taking Kaplan, then I think the book is a bit inadequate. You're going to need another reference to supplement it.

Rapid Review Biochem (2nd edition version) is good, but feels a little heavy with extraneous information. You can see Goljan's fingerprints all over it as they incorporate virtually everything into a clinical presentation. But sometimes the chapters get a little unorganized. And it doesn't do a very good job emphasizing key high yield points. I'd recommend this only if you have plenty of time to review.

Lippincott's. HUGE, but extremely thorough. I actually really like this book, but again... only if you have plenty of time in advance to review. At this point, I only use it as a reference in instances where my Kaplan book doesn't do a solid job explaining things.

I think its important to avoid choosing a reference based upon the types of questions they may or may not have in it. You have qbank and exam masters for that sort of thing.

 

[FrogE7]

How is Undergrown Clinical Vignettes? I was thinking of anotating it with my lipincotte biochem because I have the time. What do you think?

 

[phudrix]

BRS is a pretty good book. The problem is you never get the big picture. Too solve that, I taped a bunch of printer paper together and drew out every biochemical pathway and how they interconnect. Also drew in enzymes and where enzyme deficiencies can occur. I find that it helps me get the big picture.

 

[Medikit]

So far I like the pictures in RR Biochem, I'm using it as a reference rather than reading through the whole thing.

 

[fun8stuff]

So far I like the pictures in RR Biochem, I'm using it as a reference rather than reading through the whole thing.

what are you using for your main source for biochem?

 

[Taus]

I recently finished going through RR Biochem along w/ First Aid (and filling in/annotating FA along the way). I can honestly say that I have a better understanding of Biochem now then I ever did before (though that could also have something to do w/ taking it in college...then medschool...then this...ha). Anyway, I think it was very well done and really gets to the main points w/o too much useless b.s. that most biochem books are filled w/. If you are a fan of Goljan (and using his RR Path), then this will be an excellent resource for just about every pathological process with a biochemical basis. I was able to answer all of the biochem practice questions in several sources after using this and First Aid.

My only complaint (and this goes for the entire RR series)....they could really use some bolding/underlining along w/ the outline format.

in short.....I liked it...a lot.

 

[surprisedgirl]

taus, how long is it, how long did it take you to go through it? i was banking on just going thru FA and qbank and learning it that way....i guess thats a bad idea haha

 

[Taus]

taus, how long is it, how long did it take you to go through it? i was banking on just going thru FA and qbank and learning it that way....i guess thats a bad idea haha

w/o the questions its 205 pages...of which 170 or so are straight up biochem and the rest are cell & molecular.

Its probably not a necessity to go through anything besides FA for biochem as long as you completely understand the meaning/significance and can apply everything thats in there.

It took me about a week to go through....but I was only putting in a few hours per day b/c of classes.

 

[Terpskins99]

Just for future reference, it'd be easier to pm me directly to get a quicker response... I don't surf SDN nearly as often as I use to...

To inquisitive/fun8stuff: To confess, I haven't really started studying molecular bio yet (been focused on general path lately)... but my Kaplan book (2006 edition) is pretty light on the subject. Like most others on SDN, I'd highly recommend getting an additional reference to address Molecular Bio. I have HY Cell and Molecular Biology 2nd ed (2006); however its quite a bit chunkier than the previous version and most people have mentioned that the thinner (by over 100 pages) 1st edition one is more than enough. I've only flipped through it at this point, but I do like what I've seen so far. 😳

To winsicle: Well, the most current edition of Kaplan Biochem has roughly 2 pages devoted to heme synthesis (and disorders thereof)... really basic info. Obviously, Rapid Review and Lippincott's go into considerably more detail. I don't know, I think as long as you understand the rate limiting enzyme along with key enzymes that are targetted by drugs/toxins/mutation and their consequences (the various porphyrias, basically), you should be fine. Heheh, this pretty much applies to everything else in biochem, really.

 

[Ypo.]

Lippincott's. HUGE, but extremely thorough. I actually really like this book, but again... only if you have plenty of time in advance to review. At this point, I only use it as a reference in instances where my Kaplan book doesn't do a solid job explaining things.

That is a great book. I'm planning on using it for board review-but I'm just going to look at the diagrams at the end of each chapter.

I wouldn't recommend buying it AS a board review book. you need to spend some time with it.

 

[Ypo.]

bump.. i am wondering this too...

I've heard from a lot of people that High Yield Molecular Bio is a great review. I bought it last week and have read a couple of chapters and have been impressed so far.

 

[beastmaster]

lippincott biochem is a waste of paper. I marvel at how it's rumored to be of any value. All the important clinical correlations are in Robbins anyway.

 

[guitarguy09]

I think RR Biochem is pretty good. I've been looking at it recently and the diagrams are excellent, and for someone who hates biochem and never was the best at it, I think it explains things pretty well. 👍

 

[blz]

Really lippincotts doesn't take that long to read if you only read the relevant chapters. That's what I did and annotated FA. Now I don't even have to look at lippincotts.

 

[HunterGatherer]

Really lippincotts doesn't take that long to read if you only read the relevant chapters. That's what I did and annotated FA. Now I don't even have to look at lippincotts.

chapters you are weak in or are you talking about high yield chapters?

 

[blz]

chapters you are weak in or are you talking about high yield chapters?

No, I just flipped through FA and read the corresponding chapters in lippincotts as they showed up in FA. That basically turns into reading all the chapters having to do with carb, fat, nucleic acid, and protein metabolism (which is definitely less than half the book). Lippincott's actually does a good job of going over all the metabolic diseases. I have HY biochem and it's pretty blah - never used it. It's pretty short though, I have my test scheduled on June 11th so if I got a free day I might just skim it as a quick review.

I also read HY cell and molec bio (good read - really detailed though) to cover those other areas in the FA biochem chapter.