A couple of interesting articles appeared in the British press this week. One was headlined The Big Fat Lies about Britain’s obesity epidemic, written by the author of a just-published book titled Big Fat Lies: Is Your Government Making You Fat? (The title is a question. The answer is yes.) I haven’t seen the book and I’m not even sure if it’s available in the U.S., but the article is a great read … like a quick synopsis of Fat Head or Good Calories, Bad Calories. Here are some edited quotes, with my comments:
For the past 30 years we’ve been told to eat less and exercise more, to cut back on calories and on saturated fat and, on the whole, we’re doing it. Our calorific intake between the years 1974 and 2004 decreased by 20 per cent. We are eating about 20 per cent more fruit and vegetables than in the Seventies. We are doing approximately 25 per cent more exercise than we were in 1997. But are our waist lines shrinking? No.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Jogging and joining a gym became popular here in the ’70s as well … along with pet rocks, Jimmy Carter, disaster movies, disco, and calling someone you just met to say, “Uh … I think you might need to go see your doctor for a test.” I don’t remember anyone jogging or working out when I was a kid in the ’60s. I also don’t remember seeing many fat people in our small town.
We’re following Government advice on how and what to eat, but that advice is so wrong it is actually making us fatter. The endless message of ‘eat less, do more’ has never been proven using proper clinical trials. And we’ve only started to get really fat since governments started promoting the current low-fat health messages, back in the early Nineties.
Ah, so we probably are fatter than the British. Our government started pushing low-fat diets in the early ’80s, so we have a ten-year head start.
The Government’s Food Standards Agency (FSA), among others, is pumping out a template of a balanced diet that is based on flawed science that I believe is responsible for thousands of people developing health problems. The co-defendant in the dock with the Government is starch.
Thousands of people developing health problems? What’s the population of the U.K.? I’d say it’s probably more like millions, but I guess she’s being cautious.
Another big fat lie we are fed is that we should eat less fat. The simple message is: saturated fats are high in calories and are making us fat. Saturated fats cause heart disease. And most people believe that the fear of saturated fat is based on robust science - why else would the Government be putting out this advice?
In our country, it’s to sell all those subsidized grains. In Britain, perhaps it’s to provide job security for the National Health Service.
Let’s look at the scientific evidence. When studies have been done with high saturated fat levels combined with low levels of starch and sugar, the subjects not only lost weight faster than the low-calorie, low-fat option but - perhaps more interestingly - the cholesterol profile of the subjects on the high-fat diet was better.
That’s what happened to me when Dr. Mike Eades challenged me to try a high-fat, low-starch diet and check my cholesterol before and after. My cholesterol dropped and my HDL went up. But I have to admit, I was kind of nervous waiting for those results to come back.
And the other lie we are fed: exercise more. There is no doubt that exercise is an excellent tool for weight maintenance and is fantastic for our general health. But what is really misleading is the idea that exercise will significantly help you to lose weight.
I attended the European Obesity Conference in 2006, at which Sir Neville Rigby, the former director of policy on the International Obesity Taskforce, referred to several major European studies showing categorically that exercise had no significant impact on the weight of the participants.
Since the conference, one of the studies that has added fuel to the doubters’ fire is the Early Bird Study in Plymouth. This lost its Government financial backing because it showed that exercise made no difference to the weight or weight loss of children.
Anyone who believes governments fund research because they’re interested in the truth should read that last sentence ten times — out loud. And anyone who believes researchers funded by government grants don’t occasionally fudge their results to keep the money-spigot open should read it twenty times. (I don’t actually believe reading the sentence twenty times will enlighten the “government is our savior” crowd, but given their slow comprehension, it should keep them occupied and out of trouble for a day or two.)
I’ve heard so many media pundits lamenting about all the lazy, fat Americans waddling around these days, I guess it’s oddly comforting to know our friends across the pond are dealing the same issues. And I must admit, I felt the same way when I read about the those Swedish Weight Watchers members who collapsed the floor during their weekly weigh-in. My media-induced impression was that everyone in Sweden is named Helga or Lars and looks like a model.
So the British government, like ours, is handing out advice that makes people fat. That made it especially interesting to learn how a former leader of the British government trimmed down. See if this diet, as explained in the online article, sounds familiar:
She fought hard to get the nation’s finances back in trim. But only now can the secret of Margaret Thatcher’s own diet be revealed - 28 eggs a week. The eggs, along with cucumber, spinach, tomatoes, steak and the odd swig of whisky, went towards a strict meal regime that promised to help her shed 20lb in two weeks.
The diet included a daily breakfast of grapefruit, one or two eggs, black coffee or clear tea. Two eggs were served in each weekday lunch, while steak, lamb chops and fish were the staple of most dinners.
Her political opponents probably wish the four eggs per day had given her a heart attack, but she’s 84 and still alive. The Daily Mail published a graphic of the diet, which I’ve reproduced below.
Looks as if her only significant carbohydrates were grapefruit and a piece of dry toast here and there. A half-grapefruit contains about 12 net carbs. A piece of toast is around 20. That means Ms. Thatcher was on something much like the induction phase of the Atkins diet. Naturally, one of the experts from the British Dietetic Association had to sound a warning:
These kinds of diets are very effective in losing weight quickly but you feel terrible because your blood sugar levels go right down. You feel cold, shivery, lethargic, fuzzy-minded and weak and can get bad breath.
Ah yes, in populations where type 2 diabetes is at epidemic levels, we certainly wouldn’t want our blood sugars to go down. We’ve got to keep that glucose spiking all day long to avoid feeling weak. That’s why cavemen were such wimpy specimens — not enough bread in their diets.
I don’t doubt that some people feel shivery and lethargic after giving up refined carbohydrates. It’s called withdrawal. People who give up heroin don’t feel so hot either, but nobody looks at them and says, “Geez, you look terrible! Shoot up, for Pete’s sake!”
According to the news stories, Ms. Thatcher wanted to lose weight more for the cameras than for her health. Well, it’s sad but true: image matters in politics. (If not, Richard Nixon would’ve been elected president in 1960 … although losing the cemetery vote in Chicago didn’t help his chances either.) It’s tough to live up to the nickname “The Iron Lady” if the iron appears to be jiggling.
But apparently there’s plenty of jiggling going on in Britain these days, just as there is here. Too bad our governments decided they should tell us how to eat. Now they’re piling up huge debts to pay for the consequences (meaning we’re all piling up huge debts, since we pay the taxes.) Pundits in both countries say our health-care systems are broken. That may be true — but our health got broken first.
Entries (RSS)
I live in the UK and have been eating low carb (’primal’) for 9 months and never felt better.
I have heard people use this article against me … “it was on the news that Margret Thatcher ate lots of eggs, but a dietitian said its important to have more carbs in your diet”
Its sad, but not peoples fault, they don’t believe me because I’m not a doctor, they believe the government because ‘why would they lie’.
Ps. I just watched fat Head last night and loved it, its a great introduction I can show to my family about the truth of low carb/high fat…thanks!
How did you get Fat Head in the U.K.? I heard complaints that the U.S. DVD won’t play in that region, so I’m trying to get our distributor to make it available on iTunes.
Thanks for the link. The article is interesting (and strangely familiar). I enjoyed the comments and noticed that the comments supporting the ideas in the article seem to be rated much higher overall than the comments bashing the ideas in the article. Maybe the tide really is turning…
I think more people are getting the message. That’s the beauty of the internet; we don’t have to get all our information from a few sources anymore.
Off topic, sorry….But this is for all Fat Head Humans
Hi, I’m reading ‘The Other Brain’ by Dr. Fields, it’s about the 85% of our FATTY, FAT FAT FAT brain and brain cells that are not neurons, but glia. Fascinating.
I started ruminating on the fact that there is a blood-gut barrier (tight-junction control and regulation between the intestine and blood) that is made leaky by gluten. This is problematic to say the least. So I wondered about gluten and a leaky blood-brain barrier and sure enough there is some speculation about this by a Dr.Kaslow. My interest is peaked for several reasons. I recently heard about non-celiac gluten sensitivity and so you don’t have to be diagnosed with celiac to have problems. Combine that with Lierre Keith of ‘The Vegetarian Myth’ alerting me to the fact that grains are addicting. AND we have zero requirement in our nutrition for grain and wheat….zero, zip, nada. Humans became adapted to eat grains in one and only one dramatic way…..it helps us (and has helped us for a very long time) reproduce like mad. The more we’ve reproduced the more people there have been; the more chance for genius. Up until about 100 years ago, natural forces kept our population in check.
Anyway, I’m starting to see that the idea of an inviolable (to mischievous gluten) blood-brain barrier is a dangerous assumption.
I don’t think you have to be diagnosed with celiac to have problems with gluten. I had the celiac test and it came back negative; but when I eat more than a couple of bites of wheat, I feel fatigued, I wheeze, and my left shoulder aches for hours.
How I look forward to your posts!!
Thank you
And I love the word “edutainer”
Keep spreading the good word, I don’t understand why so many friends that I refer to your site, or lent the movie, can’t seem to make the switch.
Marc
I do understand, actually. Giving up sugar and starch is like giving up smoking. It’s tough. Plenty of people in my own extended family have seen the film, believe everything I say in the film, but can’t shake the sugar habit.
‘Edutainer’ was my wife’s suggestion.
Henry Kissinger once said, “If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.”
It looks like he was very, very right. Our governments, along with 5 agri-businesses have been manipulating the food supplies in order to control the people.
What’s going to happen when there’s not enough food to go around? Hungry, desparate people do hungry, desparate things…like overthrow governments.
Governments have gotten pretty good at using hunger to make sure people are too weak to put up a fight. In most of the countries that faced a famine in recent decades, the famine was intentionally produced by a dictator. Then, like well-meaning morons, we all sent food, which was immediately seized by the same dictator who produced the famine.
How much do you want to bet that the USDA guidelines will actually change for the worse? I bet they recommend less fat (via saturated, they seem mostly OK with MUFAs and the huge quantity of PUFA Omega-6 Americans eat), and maybe even less cholesterol.
The government really believes that it is right about Eat Less Exercise More, so we must all be fat, lazy slobs. Add in the wonderful world of Ag. subsidies, and what do you get? MORE OF THE SAME! You idiots are just doing it wrong.
You know, that’s why communism doesn’t work, right? All the failed communistic states…they were just doing it wrong.
If the nutrition geniuses follow the same pattern as the pro-communism leftists, they will eventually stop claiming low-fat diets work and instead attack the inequalities produced by high-fat diets: Sure, a lot more people lose weight on them, but IT’S NOT FAIR that some people lose so much more than others.
‘Ah yes, in populations where type 2 diabetes is at epidemic levels, we certainly wouldn’t want our blood sugars to go down. We’ve got to keep that glucose spiking all day long to avoid feeling weak. That’s why cavemen were such wimpy specimens — not enough bread in their diets.’
Ha ha ha. Of course.
It’s true governments raise citizens just as farmers raise animals, best keep them fat and doped up and dump the health costs on to them at the same time.
When I look around there are definitely a lot of fat people here in the UK, and there is no shortage of TV Programs about diet and weight loss packed full of morons.
Cheers
So I guess in many ways we’re still one people separated by a common language, as the man said.
My, my - good ol’ Margaret went on the British version of the “Mayo Clinic Diet” that was so popular for awhile in the late 80s and early 90s - and we were warned was so dangerous. It also looks suspiciously similar to the old Overeater’s Anonymous “Greysheet Diet” - the one they’ve disowned, because it’s supposed to be so bad for you.
People who give up heroin don’t feel so hot either, but nobody looks at them and says, “Geez, you look terrible! Shoot up, for Pete’s sake!”
And this made me out and out guffaw. Yes, guffaw.
We all need a guffaw now and then.
The diabetes epidemic may be just as fabricated as the obesity epidemic. If you switch the limit for diabetes from 140 mg/dl to 126 mg/dl you surely get a great rise in diabetics on paper. Now you only have to extrapolate and you have a lucrative epidemic on your hands and get tons of funding and popular support. Same shit, different topic.
A look at the actual data shows no such epidemic rise and danger to our health. If anything, the deaths caused by diabetes are getting less and less.
If the definition was changed to create a rise in diagnosed cases, that is suspicious. Did that actually happen? I wouldn’t want my glucose hovering around 130 anyway, even if it’s considered normal.
So it’s not just us? Wow. It’s almost like the governments of the world want us to be diseased and out of shape. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that we are more easily controlled and dependent on the government if we’re sick and out of shape, and especially if we depend on them for healthcare.
Our first Lady has taken it upon herself to tackle childhood obesity. The statement below explains why she’s going to fail:
“Mrs. Obama officially launches her anti-obesity initiative, and during a speech before the U.S. Conference of Mayors, she told them, “We’re looking to you to be leaders on the front lines of this effort across the country.”
“Mrs. Obama..highlighted some innovative programs that encourage kids to get and stay fit…to Somerville, Mass., outside of Boston, where restaurants agreed to offer low-fat menus”
“Mrs. Obama plans to announce a comprehensive initiative on childhood obesity in the next few weeks, including programs that will be run by various departments and agencies of the federal government and partnerships with the private sector.”
The key words you can probably pick out “law fat”, “looking towards Mayors” and the last nail in the coffin “federal government and partnerships with the private sector.”
Same ‘ol same ‘ol. I don’t think Mrs. Obama is going to be taking on big agra and the government subsidies.
Amazing, isn’t it? So far in my lifetime, the feds have screwed up welfare, agriculture, the health-care system, the education system, and the housing market. Why anyone still has faith in them to fix the obesity problem, or anything else, is beyond me.
These kinds of diets are very effective in losing weight quickly but you feel terrible because your blood sugar levels go right down. You feel cold, shivery, lethargic, fuzzy-minded and weak and can get bad breath.
NONE of those things happened to me.
Beth
The first time I tried the Atkins diet, I did feel foggy and tired. I didn’t know it was temporary withdrawal and gave up after a few days. They’ve since done a better job of warning people about the induction-phase blues and explaining that it will pass after the body adjusts.
Yes, indeed over here in blighty we are just as plagued. Years before going paleo I used to eat copious amounts of full fat cheese, butter and milk heralding my dr to send me tout suite for cholesterol tests. Surprise but they were double healthy. Now I have kicked the grains, sugar and processed foods the weight is slipping. I just need to find a supplier of pastured foods so I can eat dairy I have inspired
my mother and friend to go paleo and excema and oesteoporosis are getting better. Our government want to keep use doped up and compliant.
That’s what I’m always saying about politicians, whether we’re talking economics or health policies: I can’t decided if they’re intentionally dishonest, or just plain stupid.
Although I can’t vouch for her breath, “cold, shivery, lethargic, fuzzy-minded and weak” could hardly describe ole Iron Panties. Julia Child’s critics blasted her for her liberal use of butter and fats, but she outlived them.
Why are we taking dietary advice from politicians? I wish more people would ask that question.
Yes, those wouldn’t be good traits for a politician in most of the world. In California, however, being fuzzy-minded is a requirement to serve in the assembly.
I read somewhere that the “induction-phase blues” or “Atkins flu” as it’s been termed is probably due to lack of salt and/or potassium. The “cure” is to eat a dill pickle. Hope that helps!
Now that’s a nice, simple cure. I certainly don’t suffer from a lack of salt these days.
The WHO changed the criteria for diabetes and all of a sudden many people “became” diabetic:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p88q7838p2713898/
They try to lower it even more, making diabetes even more of a “rising threat”. It’s a shame. I mean, I have nothing against changing the diagnostic criteria to better help people, but to then turn around and say “OMG!!!! Diabetes is on the rise, we are all gonna die!!” is not really the sensible thing to do.
Looks as if they recognized that the old criteria were failing to diagnose potential blood-sugar problems soon enough. I certainly wouldn’t my glucose level hanging around the 130 range. It also appears that the new standards took effect in 1999 (at least from the single page I can read here), so while there may have been some statistical exaggeration when comparing this decade to 30 years ago, type 2 diabetes has indeed been on the rise in the past decade, even using the newer standard.
I just sent an email to Michelle Obama asking her to be sure that her program focuses on eating whole, natural, unprocessed foods rather than focusing on eating low fat processed foods. I’ll keep you posted on what I get in response.
Yeah, I’d like to know what, if anything, you hear back.
I blogged about this a couple of days ago.
http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2010/01/outbreak-of-sense-in-mainstream-media.html
I also pointed to a related interesting study saying that overweight women are less highly viewed in important situations:
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/oby2009492a.html
“These findings suggest that weight bias exists for obese female political candidates, but that larger body size may be an asset for male candidates.”
Interesting. Jon Corzine tried make an issue of Christopher Christie’s weight in the New Jersey governor’s race. The voters chose the fat guy anyway.
Another thought on the sugar cravings - I know a lot of people find it’s a hard habit to break. (That sentence makes me think of a song…) But I know that if you take L-Glutamine, it will stop a sugar craving (or alcohol). You may have to take it for a while while you’re on induction until your body moves to using the ketones. Between the ketones and the l-glutamine you’re sure to stay on your diet without looking for carbs or sweets, though. Not a craving in sight!
I know that stress also increases your need for l-glutamine… With the same idea in mind (stress increases the need), I don’t know if sugar increases your need for l-glutamine…
I’ve heard Julia Ross talk about how amino acids help with those cravings. I should pick up her book one of these days.
It’s just too bad I really don’t like eggs all that much.
That would put a crimp in the diet. I love eggs. I still remember people warning me about all that cholesterol because I ate so many of them in college.
This has nothing to do with your post, I just wanted to tell you how much I was looking forward to meeting you on the cruise. Unfortunately my ex husband, my children’s father has been gven a few weeks to live due to esophageal cancer. I think it is best I cancel our vacation.
I’m very sorry to hear that, Tina. We’ll meet some other time. Prayers for you and your family.
“but nobody looks at them and says, “Geez, you look terrible! Shoot up, for Pete’s sake!””
The people selling the drugs would
As you alluded to in this post, it’s no wonder why the guidelines aren’t changing.
Good point. And people are addicted to effects of sugar and white flour.
I was quite young in the 60’s, cough cough, but I have a clear memory from a sports camp my parents sent me to. We were at the University of Tennessee track and field facility in Knoxville. Our counselor, who was a track athlete himself, pointed out the one or two people on the track who were running just for the sake of running and derisively called them “health nuts.” It was said in a sort of head shaking, can you believe it, look at those oddballs kinda way.
Later, when running for the sake of running became wildly popular, I always thought that it had been rather wrong headed and old fashioned of him to have said that. Now I think maybe he’d got it right.
I think long-distance running’s great for sport, but in my experience it’s not a weight-loss program.
Tom:
Well, here I am 90 days into Dr. Eades PP regimen and here are the results. First, here are baseline results from last August just before I started low-carbing from mid-October to mid-January: H: 5′-8″ W: 203 lbs; BP 130/80 HDL:47; LDL:150; TG:191; TC:235.
The new me and new results are now: W:178 lbs; BP 120/75; HDL:68; LDL:118; TG:59; TC:202; LDL Size Pattern: A; ApoB100: 87; Lp(a): 10.
I’ve already seen the ‘answer’ to the moderately high Lp(a) in Protein Power Life Plan - eat more saturated fat!
There’s nothing like reading and following the science of low-carb then watching it happen and make a gigantic improvement in my health. The whole experience has been interesting AND healthy!
Paul
Way to go, Paul. The 25 pounds is impressive, but the change in your Trig/HDL ratio is fantastic. You’ve gone from just over 4.0 to less than 1.0. Even if you hadn’t lost a pound, that’s all the proof you need the diet is working for you.
I’ve just blogged about those 2 same subjects. Have ordered the Big Fat Lies book.. will review when I’ve read it…..should be a good read!
Is it available in the U.S.?
Thanks for the interesting post. I never understood all the horror stories about low carb diets because none happened to me. I’ve been eating low carb for years and the very first day I cut out starches and sugars I felt better right away. And one of the nice surprises about low carb is how, um, manageable one’s bathroom habits become.
Re: Michelle Obama, there was a story on the Today show (a regular pusher of worthless diet and nutrition advice) about her staff and their efforts to teach kids how to “eat healthy.” The first recipe they shared as part of this effort? A sandwich made from two toasted waffles, sliced bananas, and peanut butter and jelly. All starch, sugar, and trans fats (in the PB). Virtually no protein or saturated fat. What a way for your kids to start the day!
I’d like to say I’m surprised, but I’m not.
A report by the Robert Koch Institute in Germany shows that between 1990 and 1998 there has been no rise in the relative incidence of diabetes per age-group and that the rise in actual incidence is just a rise in average age. The same can be said about the time till 2005 (which is when this report was written), based on the data from the MONICA study. The same can be said, the report says, about other available data from northern Europe like Sweden and Norway: They show no rise in relative diabetes incidence. And even a rise in relative incidence could be explained by a rise in diagnosis of the disease, as since the change of definition, diabetes has all of a sudden become a “big killer” and is therefore suddenly being tested for, while a blood-sugar test has been rather rare before.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rki.de%2Fcln_151%2Fnn_216470%2FEN%2FContent%2FHealth__Reporting%2FGBEDownloadsT%2Fdiabetes__mellitus%2CtemplateId%3Draw%2Cproperty%3DpublicationFile.pdf%2Fdiabetes_mellitus.pdf&sl=de&tl=en
chapter “Alteration”, page 12
If the epidemic has come, it must have come in the last 5 years, without any prior indication, which I doubt is very likely, especially given that the death rates from diabetes (as well as many other diseases) are falling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/health/08stat.html?_r=1
I’ll check into it more. We’re seeing type 2 diabetes in teens and young adults at alarming rates, and I don’t think it’s just a change in diagnosis. It would be hard for doctors to miss the effects of diabetes in teens.
A high incidence of type 2 diabetes in teens and young adults (again presuming kindly that this is actually the case) can be explained by a dieting (i.e. starving) population:
http://hstalks.com/main/browse_talk_view.php?t=126&s=126&s_id=20&c=252
(You can only watch the first few minutes, but the information is there)
Interesting stuff. Reminds me of some of the information in The 10,000 Year Explosion. But we haven’t had a starving population in the U.S. for a long time. I don’t think dieting counts. And when the rate of diabetes among Native Americans is sky-high (and they weren’t starving when they were hunters, so that doesn’t explain it), when it used to be low, something has gone wrong in our diets. That was what made “My Big Fat Diet” interesting, the number of people who were able to stop taking their diabetes medications.
I checked another source and found that the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes was indeed changed in 1998, with glucose above 125 defined as the cutoff. So if the incidence has been going up even under that definition, it’s a problem — perhaps exaggerated in terms of the rate of increase, but still a problem. If 1/4 of our senior citizens are walking around with glucose levels above 125, they are going to suffer for it.
Well, if the relative incidence did not change, they at least won’t be worse off than people before, actually they are better off due to better options for medical care, which shows in the lowering of diabetes-related deaths. I’m not sure if dieting is not to blame of h. I’ve found this on Dr. Eades’ blog:
Based on a considerable amount of research it’s looking like the mother’s diet during pregnancy has a whole lot to do with what happens to the fetus long after birth and even into middle and old age. Babies who are malnourished (or inappropriately nourished) during their time as a growing fetus end up developing problems with obesity and heart disease later in life. According to my reading on the subject the optimal dietary steps a pregnant woman should take are to reduce consumption of refined carbohydrates during the first trimester and increase protein intake significantly during the last trimester. Why? The first trimester is when the fetus is forming many of its organs, including its pancreas. The volatile blood sugar and consequent insulin swings refined carbohydrate intake occasions in the mother are transmitted to the fetus, who then develops a pancreas filled with beta cells that are less sensitive. In other words, the fetus develops a pancreas that is prone to insulin resistance even prior to birth.
In a time when low-fat and high-carb was all the rage, this may have been enough of a trigger. But there are many other reasons. Less sunlight due to less time spent outside is a cause. So is less sleep. Another change is the rise in TV-time for kids. Television time has been causally related to insulin resistance in intervention studies (it does its effect by raising cortisol levels).
From what I have read, many Native American tribes were put on governemental food support after they couldn’t support themselves anymore, so there may have been a period long enough to trigger fetal programming. It’s true that if you have high blood sugar, this is effectively lowered by a low carb diet.
I agree that dieting is not a good idea during pregnancy. I also of course agree that low-fat dieting is never a good idea. But I see plenty of fat parents with fat kids who appear to already be insulin-resistant, and I doubt the mothers dieted during pregnancy. I believe we have a genuine problem with chronically elevated blood sugar, and the root of the problem is that we consume way more carbohydrates than most of us can handle.
The fetal programming concept is interesting. Perhaps it explains some of what’s happened to Native Americans, but perhaps not. I believe the farther back in time your ancestors began eating a particular food, the more likely you’re adapted to it. Roughly 95% of northern Europeans can tolerate lactose, but very few Asians can, as was explained in the video you linked. People whose ancestors came from the Middle East, where grains first became domesticated, are far less likely to have celiac disease than northern Europeans, etc. The Native Americans were forced to start living on wheat and sugar less than 150 years ago. I think it’s highly likely they simply can’t tolerate those foods, just as they can’t tolerate alcohol.
Amazon UK first promised I’d get it on 2nd Feb but now say they can’t get it yet and I’ll have to wait. Amazon USA say ‘out of print’, so I guess it isn’t available yet.
When I do get it, I’ll put a lengthy review on my blog. Apparently the author is a whizz corporate lawyer. Should be interesting!
Let me know when you post the review.
That thrifty gene idea doesn’t appear so absurd to me. Diabetes has a strong genetic component.
“If both you and your partner have type 2 diabetes, your child’s risk is about 1 in 2.” says the ADA website diabetes.org on the genetic components. So parents with diabetes will often get diabetic children. If being relatively insulin-resistant is a genetic advantage in dire times, it makes sense that this gene doesn’t get thrown out of the pool. It saves your life during famines and usually only kills you in old age when you are no longer reproductively active. In that sense it’s quite similar to sickle cell anemia in regards to providing an advantage where malaria is present.
I’ve just ordered the book “Survival of the sickest”, a book on this concept of Darwinian medicine. The notion that what counts as a disease under certain circumstances is a blessing and a survival advantage in other cirtumstances seems a very good explaination for the high prevalence of certain diseases. In fact, once I’ve read it, it seemed pretty obvious to me that something like this exists. It’s really an interesting topic.
That makes perfect sense. I don’t think our bodies are designed to kill us. We have fattening mechanisms because it’s good to fatten up for the winter, for example. Trouble is, now we fatten up for the winter all year long.
There’s something funky about this page. It’s far too wide to read comfortably on my computer.
Look fine on all three of mine.
Ah, sorry Tom, Kiran is right. The page has now gone out to heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere and more. I thought it was just me .
Okay, this is weird. It looks fine on my computers (IE) but then I fired it up in Firefox and it’s stretched -but only if I click the link to the page. If I just scroll backwards to it from the home page, it’s fine. I dunno, something goofy in Wordpress, I guess.
I think it is stupid to complete cut out carbs you need that and study after study show a balance low cal diet is better, healthier, and keep weight off longer.
I don’t advocate a zero-carb diet, either. I eat a bit of fruit, plenty of vegetables, onions, nuts. Even if people follow the Atkins diet — and do it as described in his book — they start low and eventually work up to 60-80 grams of carbs per day.
On the fast-food diet I did in the film, I averaged around 100 grams per day.
My wife read the comments and reminded me it’s not polite to mention a woman’s weight in public. Sorry, sweetie. Won’t happen again. I also won’t tell anyone you’re 37.
In response to Felix, you wrote, “we haven’t had a starving population in the US in a long time”, which might be true as far as “food” supply itself is concerned. However, what if people on the high carb/low fat diet we’ve been fed are actually “starving” from lack of proper nutrients? Things I have recently read about gluten intolerance, leaky gut syndrome and bariatric surgery have me wondering.
A person can pig out on all sorts of nutrient-poor and/or nutrient-rich food, thinking they are “well fed” and still be nutritionally starved if the body can’t process the necessary nutrients for good health due to a damaged or rearranged nutrient processing system. Dr. Eades has stated on his blog that fat is a necessary complement to process any fat-soluble nutrients in vegetables and thanks to the long recommended low fat diet, a lot of people may not be benefiting from eating or juicing a ton of good vegetables. And then you have to factor in that modern agra has been stripping all the nutrients from the soil those good vegetables are grown in and throwing in tons pesticides to boot and who knows what all those chemicals actually do to the availability of the nutrients in the food. Plus farmed fish and beef, fed unnatural diets. Mankind has a lot to answer for, screwing around with nature, and may be paying for it by “starving” himself of proper nutrients or literally sending them down the drain first thing in the morning….
Very good point. I’m not sure if eating lots of nutrient-poor food would prompt a thrifty-gene response in the same way that starving does, but it’s an interesting idea.
Ciao Tom,
The ‘Big Fat Lies’ book arrived, I have read it and put a quick review HERE.
Well done. I may have to order a copy myself.