sugar and refined carbs – not fat – are responsible for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart desease, as well as causing increased risk of dementia and premature deaths restricting calories makes your body perceive a starvation situation which makes you tired and hungry and slows down your metabolism – things we don’t want Next Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy”: Can he do what he claims for cancer? This book turned my believes upside down regarding diet, fat, the food industry (I may confess I had some doubts about this one). The first part about how we got into this big fat mess is very interesting.

Eat Fat, Get Thin: Why the Fat We Eat Is the Key to Sustained

Harriet Hall, MD also known as The SkepDoc, is a retired family physician who writes about pseudoscience and questionable medical practices. She received her BA and MD from the University of Washington, did her internship in the Air Force (the second female ever to do so), and was the first female graduate of the Air Force family practice residency at Eglin Air Force Base. During a long career as an Air Force physician, she held various positions from flight surgeon to DBMS (Director of Base Medical Services) and did everything from delivering babies to taking the controls of a B-52. She retired with the rank of Colonel. In 2008 she published her memoirs, Women Aren't Supposed to Fly. This reference received a score of 2, indicating that it offers some support for the claim. The study by Elnagar et al. evaluated the effects of a specific plant compound extracted from extra virgin olive oil on breast and prostate cancer cells in the lab. The purpose of the study was to try to find a possible reason why intake of extra virgin olive oil may provide protection from cancer on a cellular level. The paper by Escrich et al. is a review of studies related to olive oil and breast cancer and also discusses potential reasons why olive oil may be protective against the development of breast cancer, the paper largely focused on studies conducted in cell culture and animal models. However, neither of these papers suggest consuming “one to two tablespoons a day” as suggested by Eat Fat, Get Thin. Additionally, the effects of individual components of extra virgin olive oil and their effects on cells may not translate to humans due to a number of factors including diet complexity, bioavailability, etc. It is also important to note that these papers are primarily focused on breast cancer and do not talk about the other cancers listed by Eat Fat, Get Thin such as stomach, colon, or lung cancer and no other references are provided to support the claims for those types of cancer by the book. However, we would like to note that there is evidence that the Mediterranean diet, which uses plenty of olive oil, may be protective against a wide range of cancers. The high use of olive oil is often cited by researchers as a potential reason for the diet’s protective effects and was recently tested in a secondary analysis by the PREDIMED trial. Reference 5 Reference Fat in food shouldn’t be demonized like it is; that’s sugar’s place. (And in some cases due to the individual… bread, dairy and some grains belong on that pedestal of shame as well)I read this right after Always Hungry by Dr. David Ludwig. They both cover similar ground (the food industry is more concerned with profit than creating nutritious foods; the food industry gives lots of money to our politicians-- which is why they aren't doing a better job of creating better food regulations; confusion about the complex science of nutrition have led to bad recommendations over the years-- which is why consumers are confused, to whit: fat isn't as bad for you as you think it is). They both include lots of cited research and cover the science of nutrition. They both recommend increased dietary intake of certain "good" fats, more non-starchy vegetables, reduced carbs, and very little sugar). Dr. Hyman's plan is a little more hard-core and, I think, somewhat unrealistic for: poor people, working people, and/or beginners. I think Dr. Ludwig's approach might be a little more manageable. This reference received a score of 2, indicating that it offers weak support for the claim. The cited study reports on the extraction of polyphenols and lectins from a variety of beans, however, it does not report any data on the quantity of lectins that are contained within beans, how much remains after cooking, whether this quantity is concerning. Additionally, the paper is more heavily focused on the polyphenol content of the beans and the potential for polyphenols to agglutinate erythrocytes in cell cultures, but not in humans. Reference 8 Reference One other key study presented by Eat Fat, Get Thin, is a review paper by Dias et al. The book uses this study to make the argument that saturated fat intake is not problematic for health if there is an adequate intake of omega-3 fatty acids. However, most of the data reviewed by Dias et al. actually shows that higher levels of saturated fat intake contribute to poor cholesterol levels and heart disease risk. The paper does highlight that many previous studies have not accounted for the intake of omega-3 fatty acids in their analyses. As omega-3 fatty acids may have a protective effect against heart disease, the authors suggest that future studies need to consider this as a variable. However, at no point does the cited paper present evidence that directly supports the hypothesis that intake of omega-3 fatty acids will actually provide protection in the presence of high saturated fat intake.

Eat Fat, Get Thin: Why the Fat We Eat Is the Key to Sus… Eat Fat, Get Thin: Why the Fat We Eat Is the Key to Sus…

The book’s references received a score of 0, indicating that they generally undermine the book’s claim. As noted above many of the references provided by Eat Fat, Get Thin show no differences between low-fat and low-carb diets on weight loss. Criterion 1.3. How well does the strength of the claim line up with the strength of the evidence? No longer about the theory but starts the really practical stuff. What to eat? What not to eat? Etc. When we looked for more recent studies and meta-analyses related to prostate cancer we found conflicting evidence. For example, a 2015 meta-analysis found no link between total fat and prostate cancer. However, in a more recent population level study published in 2019, known as the SABOR study, a relationship was observed between both total fat intake and saturated fat and the risk of developing prostate cancer. Although we do note that this study was published after Eat Fat, Get Thin was released. Another recent paper reviewed the current state of the literature and also highlighted that there is some disagreement in the literature. They found that most preclinical trials show a relationship between fat and prostate cancer while only some human trials demonstrate this relationship. They do however note that dietary patterns that are low in saturated fat (specifically, the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet) appear to have more reliable evidence for their efficacy in protecting against developing prostate cancer. Overall we found that for prostate cancer the connection with fat does appear to be conflicting as Eat Fat, Get Thin suggests.

Dr. Hyman's writing is accessible and enthusiastic, not pedantic. He makes connections between common ailments and common foods and makes a convincing case why switching to high fat/veg, moderate protein, low carb is the way to go. He understands that his word alone isn't enough so he recruited 1000+ people to 'beta-test" the diet prior to the publication of the book. The book contains testimonials of participants about sometimes radical health changes and weight loss. The book’s references received a score of 2, indicating that they provide moderate support for the book’s claim. Although the cited studies did examine the association between fat and cancer they are often mischaracterized or crucial pieces of information are withheld from the reader. Criterion 1.3. How well does the strength of the claim line up with the strength of the evidence? This claim received a score of 1, indicating that the evidence is neutral or nonexistent for the claim. While low-carb diets may be a beneficial tool for some individuals attempting to lose weight, the current evidence, including that cited by Eat Fat, Get Thin, appears to show that in the long run, low-carb diets are no more or less effective than other dietary options on average. Overall (average) score for claim 1 Another curious thing we wanted to highlight was that there are many statements and claims made by Eat Fat, Get Thin (including entire studies and sections of the book) that are never supported by references. We felt it fair to list a handful of these statements here:

Eat Fat Get Thin: Eat As Much As You Like And Still Lose Eat Fat Get Thin: Eat As Much As You Like And Still Lose

I’ve been trying to lose weight for several months now, and this book really helps me determine what I should eat, and helps me feel good about those decisions. We feel that it is important to note that Eat Fat, Get Thin was apparently aware of the strong experimental data connecting saturated fat intake to reductions to cholesterol and heart disease. In a later section of the book, the book references a 2014 review that also concluded that there was convincing evidence from both randomized control trials and prospective cohort studies that partial replacement of saturated fat with mono- and polyunsaturated fats is likely to lead to decreases in total and LDL cholesterol. The paper also concluded that there was convincing evidence that replacement of saturated fatty acids with polyunsaturated fat will decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly in men.

More recently, Ge et al. meta-analyzed 121 dietary randomized control trials which allowed for high-quality comparisons between 17 specific dietary patterns. This included low-carb and low-fat diets. The authors found that overall, low-fat and low-carb diets had similar weight outcomes at both 6 and 12 months. It would appear, based on the bulk of the scientific literature, that there is no meaningful long-term difference in weight loss between low-fat and low-carb diets. In conclusion, there is little to no evidence to support the claim that low-carb, high-fat diets are superior to low-fat diets for weight loss either in the broader literature or in the studies presented by Eat Fat, Get Thin. In fact, much of the research cited by the book undermines their claim and shows that there is little, if any, long-term difference between the effectiveness of these diets for weight loss. Additionally, Eat Fat, Get Thin often misinterprets and overstates the conclusions of studies discussed and withholds critical nuances of the studies presented to the reader. Criterion 1.2. Are the references cited in the book to support the claim convincing? That the 21 day plan is the minimum, that, "the plan" is for however long it takes you to lose the weight you want to lose, need to lose. So your "21-day plan" might last a year or more. Following the “21-day detox” participants can transfer to the first stage of a “pegan” diet. The “pegan” diet still has a high level of food restriction but allows for more fruit, legumes, and grains. The “pegan” diet also maintains a high fat intake. Continued supplement use is also recommended. In the second stage of the “pegan” diet individuals are moved to a less restrictive eating pattern. This less restrictive diet allows for the reintroduction of most foods. It is still recommended to consume the prescribed dietary supplements. Condition targeted by the book, if applicable