The American Heart Association Bravely Admits They’ve Been Right All Along … Part One

I’ve been predicting for years that the instigators of arterycloggingsaturatedfat! hysteria would back away from their lousy advice one baby step at a time.  That seems to be true of the USDA.  In their most recent guidelines, they removed the limits on total fat intake and declared that cholesterol is “no longer a nutrient of concern.”  The guidelines are still a steaming pile of nonsense, but slightly less steaming.

The American Heart Association, on the other hand, isn’t stepping backwards.  In fact, they just doubled down on arterycloggingsaturatedfat! hysteria.  You’ve probably seen headlines like this one from the New York Post:

Coconut oil is actually worse for your heart than butter: study

Some quotes:

Coconut oil is worse for your heart than butter and beef, a new study claims.

The thought-to-be healthy oil is 82 percent saturated fat — while butter contains just 63 percent, according to The Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease Advisory.

The artery-clogger is also more likely to send cholesterol levels through the roof than beef, which is 50 percent saturated fat, and pork lard, which contains 39 percent of the “bad” fat, according to the report, which was published Thursday.

Artery-clogger!  Cholesterol levels through the roof!  Yup, that’s some fine, objective reporting.  Like many media outlets, the Post swallowed the AHA’s nonsense hook, line and sinker.

Frank Sacks, lead author of the new study, advised people to boost heart health by cooking with less saturated fats.

I wasn’t surprised to see that Frank Sacks was the lead author.  But we’ll come back to him.  The immediate question is, why is the American Heart Association doubling down on arterycloggingsaturatedfat! hysteria when so much recent (and recently discovered) research has pointed the other way?

Well, as some mysterious character in a movie once said, follow the money.  Yes, the AHA is a charity, but that doesn’t mean we’re talking about pass-the-hat sums.  Far from it.  According to Forbes Magazine, the AHA’s revenues in fiscal year 2014 were $774 million.  And according to Charity Watch, the organization’s CEO was compensated to the tune of $1.3 million in fiscal year 2016.

This is major-league money at stake, folks.  And where does it come from?  Let’s just say I’m pretty sure the AHA walk-a-thon sponsored by the company where I work didn’t account for much of it.

As I explained in Fat Head, the AHA takes in millions for licensing its Heart Check logo.  To qualify for the logo, foods must be low in total fat and very low in saturated fat.  (The AHA finally wised up and added a low-sugar requirement as well, which means they’re no longer in the embarrassing position of having the Heart Check logo on boxes of Cocoa Puffs and other sugary junk.)

Corporate sponsors of the AHA are a Who’s Who in Big Pharma and Big Food.  Big Pharma, of course, just loves the AHA’s warnings that high cholesterol causes heart disease – because that encourages people to take statins.  Big Food loves AHA’s hearty approval of grain-based, low-fat foods – because those are industrial foods.

When I listen to the radio, I occasionally hear a public service announcement in which a mom decides that instead of cooking with butter, she’ll use a “heart-healthy” oil like canola.  An announcer chimes in, “You’re a genius!”  At the end of the PSA, we’re told the Canola Council is a proud sponsor of the American Heart Association.

Well, of course they are.  The AHA tells people to buy their industrial oil to protect their hearts.

So here’s the bottom line: The American Heart Association has painted itself into a corner.  No matter what the emerging (and rediscovered) science says, the AHA can never, ever change its position.  It can never, ever be an objective observer and reporter of the science.

Take away the donations by the makers of cholesterol-lowering drugs, industrial “vegetable” oils and low-fat grain foods, and there’s no American Heart Association.  Its very existence depends on people believing that natural saturated fats will kill them, while industrial oils, processed grains and statin drugs will save them.  The bigwigs at the AHA can’t possibly admit they’ve been wrong about saturated fats and cholesterol.  That would be financial suicide.

But of course, suicide isn’t the only way to die.  A major shift in the public’s beliefs could be just as lethal.  That shift is already happening.  More and more people are returning to full-fat dairy products.  More and more people are buying coconut oil.  More and more people are ditching the grain foods.  In other words, more and more people are ignoring the American Heart Association’s outdated, lousy advice.

And so – surprise, surprise! – the AHA produces a new analysis that declares they’ve been right along.  Yeah, I’m sure the study was the result of an objective search for scientific truth.

Gary Taubes wrote a long critique of the AHA study that I’d encourage you to read. I don’t want to repeat all his points, so here’s the very brief summary: Sacks and the other researchers looked at all the studies on saturated fat and heart disease, and by some eerie coincidence, the only four that met their strict criteria for inclusion just happened to support the notion that saturated fat causes heart disease.

Keep that in mind the next time some idiot nutritionist claims (as I once saw on TV) that “thousands of studies” have proven that saturated fat causes heart disease.  Even the people who most want that to be true can only come up with four.  And those four are flawed studies, as Taubes points out in his critique.

The name Frank Sacks jumped out at me right away when I saw him listed as the lead author.  I’ve written about his studies before.  In fact, I wrote my very first post about a study in which Sacks declared that a low-carb diet was no more effective for weight loss than a low-fat diet.

Just one little problem.  His definition of “low carb” was 35% of calories.  If you’re consuming 2000 calories per day, that’s 175 carbs per day.  Just like Dr. Atkins recommended, eh?  Anyone remotely familiar with low-carb diets knows that the idea is to start at less than 50 grams per day to drastically reduce insulin levels.  In other words, Sacks decided to test a “low carb” diet that wasn’t actually a low-carb diet so he could say low-carb diets don’t offer any particular benefits for weight loss.

Later, Sacks pulled the same stunt again … only this time the “low carb” diet was 40% of calories.  Once again, just like Dr. Atkins recommended, eh?

Sacks was also the lead author on a salt-restriction study I poked fun at in my Science For Smart People speech.  He had one group of people eat a “typical” diet full of processed junk, and another group eat a Mediterranean “healthy” diet.  Then over a period of weeks, he reduced their sodium intake by 75%.

The results were not impressive.  In the “healthy” group, the drastic reduction in sodium shifted the average blood pressure from 127/81 to … wait for it … 124/79.  That’s right, a measly three-point drop –after cutting sodium by 75%.  Not exactly the slam-dunk the anti-salt warriors (including Sacks) were hoping to produce.

But heck, no problem.  Sacks simply compared people on the high-salt junk diet to people on the low-salt Mediterranean diet and found a 12-point difference in blood pressure.  That’s like comparing the livers of people on a high-whiskey, high-salt diet to the livers of people on a low-whiskey, low-salt diet and declaring that reducing salt clearly prevents liver damage.

Here’s what Sacks wrote in the study:

The reduction of sodium intake to levels below the current recommendation of 100 mmol per day and the DASH diet both lower blood pressure substantially … Long term-health benefits will depend on the ability of people to make long-lasting dietary changes and the increased availability of low-sodium foods.

Would that be your conclusion if reducing sodium intake by 75% produced a measly three-point drop in blood pressure? I sincerely hope not.

So let’s just say I haven’t been impressed with the scientific integrity of Dr. Frank Sacks.  Some researchers use the tools of science to seek the truth, while others use those tools to design studies that will tell them what they want to hear.  And if the studies don’t tell them what they want to hear, they hear it anyway.

When the “we were right about saturated fat all along!” study hit the news, I went looking to see if Sacks had any previous affiliation with the American Heart Association.  Yup, he sure did.  Here are some quotes from a biography:

Dr. Sacks was Chair of the Design Committee of the DASH study, and Chair of the Steering Committee for the DASH-Sodium trial. These multicenter National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute trials found major beneficial additive effects of low salt and a dietary pattern rich in fruits and vegetables on blood pressure.

For crying out loud!  Once again, how does a three-point drop in blood pressure count as a “major beneficial effect” of a low-salt diet?!  It was clear from the study data that the benefit was in dumping processed junk foods, not restricting salt. Liar, liar, pants on fire.  Anyway …

He is Past Chair of the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee, which advises the AHA on nutrition policy.

Got that?  Dr. Sacks was head of the AHA’s nutrition committee.  That means he was one of the people pushing the arterycloggingsaturatedfat! theory all along.

So here’s the situation: with more researchers and more common folks rejecting the belief that saturated fats cause heart disease, the American Heart Association basically said, “Hey, Frank!  Go conduct a fine, objective, strict-criteria study to determine if the theories you’ve been promoting for years are actually correct.  And hey, if it turns out you were partly responsible for us giving out bad dietary advice to millions of people, no problem.  It’s not like admitting we got it all wrong would sink us financially or anything.”

That’s the backdrop.  In my next post, we’ll look at the (ahem) “science” behind the AHA’s announcement that they were right all along.

Share

80 thoughts on “The American Heart Association Bravely Admits They’ve Been Right All Along … Part One

    1. Tom Naughton

      I trust people who 1) respect basic principles of science … such as “don’t just ignore dozens of well-done studies that run counter to your hypothesis”, 2) don’t require donations from Big Food and Big Pharma to exist, and 3) take our evolutionary history into account when deciding which foods are likely good or bad for us. The AHA fails on all three counts.

      Reply
      1. Firebird7478

        I recently went to a GI because of digestive problems. He ordered blood tests to see what my magnesium and B-12 levels are. I originally thought he was looking into why I feel sluggish all the time. Here, he handed me samples of a new PPI called Dexilant. Told me to start taking them immediately (I HAD trouble swallowing and a lumpy feeling in my throat which he says is related to reflux) BEFORE I even took the blood test.

        Turns out Dexilant’s side effects include causing deficiencies in…magnesium and B-12. So this doctor wanted to make sure I wasn’t deficient in these two important nutrients so he COULD make me deficient in these two important nutrients.

        Criminal. I hope he enjoyed the lunch from Panera that the Pharm Rep brought in that day.

        Reply
        1. Lori Miller

          I had trouble swallowing, which magnesium supplements cured. I take supermag from GNC; there are other good brands out there, too. Just avoid magnesium oxide–it’s a laxative.

          Reply
    2. Tom Welsh

      I know you asked the question of Tom Naughton, and he answered it. And I fully agree with his answer.

      If you were looking for specific names – and of course Tom is right, we shouldn’t depend too heavily on authority – I would start out with Tom himself, along with Gary Taubes, Zoe Harcombe, Mark Sisson and Denise Minger. Richard David Feinman comes at it from a biochemist’s point of view. Dr Peter Attia, while he doesn’t have time to blog much recently, co-founded the Nutrition Science Institute (nusi.org) with Taubes. And while Dr Malcolm Kendrick doesn’t say a lot about diet as such, his books and blog are absolutely fabulous sources for the kind of scientific method and numeracy – as well as plain old scepticism – that should underlie all research.

      Reply
      1. Bob Niland

        re: I would start out with…

        And on the specific propaganda in the news, see also Nina Teicholz, who lately turned up this revealing press release:
        https://www.cropscience.bayer.us/news/press-releases/2017/03022017-bayer-and-libertylink-soybeans-help-protect-hearts-in-americas-heartland
        “…
        For each bag of LibertyLink® soybean seed sold for the 2017 season, Bayer will contribute 5 cents to the AHA’s Healthy for Good movement for a total maximum donation of $500,000. In addition to monetary donations to support the cause, Bayer will help raise heart health awareness across America through educational activities targeted to growers in rural communities.

        …”

        So if anyone is wondering what informs any positions the AHA might have on Soy, GMOs, or Omega 6 linoleic acid, science might not be the top priority.

        Reply
  1. Mike Cortopassi

    Thanks for covering this Tom. I saw the article and it drove me nuts, glad I have you guys to set things straight.

    Reply
      1. Firebird7478

        From what I see with journalists, there should be a psychological study on journalists. They make a career out of criticizing others but are so thin skinned when the criticism comes back to them. They just cannot handle it.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton

          Probably depends on the journalist. The legendary columnist Mike Royko seemed to relish being attacked so he could mix it up, but he was from another era.

          Reply
  2. tw

    Haven’t got the book yet, but the book: The Salt Fix is out. And after listening to a couple of podcasts by the author, a well qualified individual, I dare say those guys are going to be wrong on this one as well. Big time.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      I trust people who 1) respect basic principles of science … such as “don’t just ignore dozens of well-done studies that run counter to your hypothesis”, 2) don’t require donations from Big Food and Big Pharma to exist, and 3) take our evolutionary history into account when deciding which foods are likely good or bad for us. The AHA fails on all three counts.

      Reply
      1. Firebird7478

        I recently went to a GI because of digestive problems. He ordered blood tests to see what my magnesium and B-12 levels are. I originally thought he was looking into why I feel sluggish all the time. Here, he handed me samples of a new PPI called Dexilant. Told me to start taking them immediately (I HAD trouble swallowing and a lumpy feeling in my throat which he says is related to reflux) BEFORE I even took the blood test.

        Turns out Dexilant’s side effects include causing deficiencies in…magnesium and B-12. So this doctor wanted to make sure I wasn’t deficient in these two important nutrients so he COULD make me deficient in these two important nutrients.

        Criminal. I hope he enjoyed the lunch from Panera that the Pharm Rep brought in that day.

        Reply
        1. Lori Miller

          I had trouble swallowing, which magnesium supplements cured. I take supermag from GNC; there are other good brands out there, too. Just avoid magnesium oxide–it’s a laxative.

          Reply
          1. Firebird7478

            Thanks. I haven’t really had the problem in a couple on months and I have told him so. I think right now I am just humoring him. I was taking Magnesium Citrate when all this first started but I have since switched to Dr. Davis’ Magnesium water.

            Reply
          2. Elenor

            I actually make “magnesium oil” for transdermal application (i.e., spread it on skin and it soaks in). It’s actually not oil at all, just feels a bit oily: it’s just water and magnesium flakes: like making ‘hummingbird soup” you boil water, throw on the mag flakes and stir till suspended, then cool. No ‘digestive’ effects at all.

            Reply
    2. Tom Welsh

      I know you asked the question of Tom Naughton, and he answered it. And I fully agree with his answer.

      If you were looking for specific names – and of course Tom is right, we shouldn’t depend too heavily on authority – I would start out with Tom himself, along with Gary Taubes, Zoe Harcombe, Mark Sisson and Denise Minger. Richard David Feinman comes at it from a biochemist’s point of view. Dr Peter Attia, while he doesn’t have time to blog much recently, co-founded the Nutrition Science Institute (nusi.org) with Taubes. And while Dr Malcolm Kendrick doesn’t say a lot about diet as such, his books and blog are absolutely fabulous sources for the kind of scientific method and numeracy – as well as plain old scepticism – that should underlie all research.

      Reply
      1. Bob Niland

        re: I would start out with…

        And on the specific propaganda in the news, see also Nina Teicholz, who lately turned up this revealing press release:
        https://www.cropscience.bayer.us/news/press-releases/2017/03022017-bayer-and-libertylink-soybeans-help-protect-hearts-in-americas-heartland
        “…
        For each bag of LibertyLink® soybean seed sold for the 2017 season, Bayer will contribute 5 cents to the AHA’s Healthy for Good movement for a total maximum donation of $500,000. In addition to monetary donations to support the cause, Bayer will help raise heart health awareness across America through educational activities targeted to growers in rural communities.

        …”

        So if anyone is wondering what informs any positions the AHA might have on Soy, GMOs, or Omega 6 linoleic acid, science might not be the top priority.

        Reply
  3. Mike Cortopassi

    Thanks for covering this Tom. I saw the article and it drove me nuts, glad I have you guys to set things straight.

    Reply
      1. Firebird7478

        From what I see with journalists, there should be a psychological study on journalists. They make a career out of criticizing others but are so thin skinned when the criticism comes back to them. They just cannot handle it.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          Probably depends on the journalist. The legendary columnist Mike Royko seemed to relish being attacked so he could mix it up, but he was from another era.

          Reply
  4. tw

    Haven’t got the book yet, but the book: The Salt Fix is out. And after listening to a couple of podcasts by the author, a well qualified individual, I dare say those guys are going to be wrong on this one as well. Big time.

    Reply
  5. Orvan Taurus

    It was fascinating to watch what happened when this story hit Fark.com. The first several commenters were pretty much, “Well, duh! Told ya!” but then as time went on there was a shift to pointing out the recent and rediscovered search showed the opposite. And experience showed that, hey, good food _satisfies_.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton

      That’s the good news in all this. I believe more people these days don’t give a hoot what the AHA says.

      Reply
  6. Kaitlin

    I was wondering where my mom got the nonsense that coconut oil is bad for you. Now I know.

    Thanks a lot, AHA, for an argument that could have been avoided.

    Reply
    1. KidPsych

      I’d just taken a few tablespoons of MCT oil (which is derived entirely from coconuts) before I headed out to the gym the other day. I’d just read this study, so I was super worried I might just expire on the spot. Autopsy would show arteries clogged with coconut mush.

      It’s simultaneously sad and hilarious. I’m sure the Germans have a word for this.

      Reply
  7. Dianne

    There’s a moral issue here which doesn’t appear to bother the AHA, although it should. If you continue to give dietary advice which you know is bad, and those who trust you take that advice and suffer damage to their health because of it, you are at least partly responsible for their ill health. If they die before their time because they followed the advice you knew was all wrong, you are responsible for their deaths. Deliberately being responsible for the death of another is called murder — on a rather large scale in this case. Somehow, doing it for money as the AHA and others pushing bad advice and bad food do, makes it even worse. Even if I didn’t believe there was going to be a judgment day, I wouldn’t want that on my conscience. Or maybe the folks at the AHA just prefer not to think that far.

    Sorry if I’m being melodramatic, but I calls ’em as I sees ’em.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton

      I agree, but after reading “Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)” I realized people at the AHA are probably convinced their advice is correct. We apparently have a huge capacity to ignore evidence if accepting the evidence would mean admitting we made a huge mistake. DNA evidence will exonerate a guy who’s been in prison for 15 years, and the prosecutor remains convinced he convicted the right guy … the DNA lab must’ve screwed up, or sure, someone else’s DNA was there, but the guy was still involved in the murder somehow.

      So no matter what the evidence, I suspect the AHA to cling to its advice until the bitter end.

      Reply
      1. Walter Bushell

        And they have “social proof” that their position is correct. “Social proof is, of course, not proof at all. Remember those psychology experiments that show that people can be convinced by stooges to agree that the longer line is actually shorter and so on.

        When all their associates have a position it’s hard or impossible to hold out at least for many people.

        Reply
    2. Pierre

      “Deliberately being responsible for the death of another is called murder — on a rather large scale in this case.”

      I would use the term “genocide”

      Reply
      1. chris c

        I prefer “eugenics”. But that’s just me . . .

        . . . whatever, both competent research and the Real World shows that the majority of the population is unable to eat HCLF, especially veg(etari)an based on Holy Health Grainz and industrially produced Omega 6 seed oils, without developing obesity and/or diabetes and/or other metabolic diseases. So they must be eliminated. But first they can be sold profitable drugs for the side effects of the profitable diet.

        When my generation is (prematurely) dead no-one will be left who actually remembers a time BEFORE these “diseases” became “epidemics”. So they will be home free. Oh, wait . . .

        Reply
  8. Firebird7478

    “Once again, how does a three-point drop in blood pressure count as a ‘major beneficial effect’ of a low-salt diet?!”

    I had a physical in 2011. My cholesterol was 334. I started taking niacinamide and lecithin. My doctor ordered new labs three weeks later. My cholesterol went down 34 points. My ratio HDL/Trigs was perfect. My doctor however, was not impressed and wanted me to take a statin. I am sure he’d be tickled if Lipitor did that.

    I refused to take the stain, then he wanted to Rx me…wait for it…time release niacin! $40 Rx for something I can get at the Vitamin Shoppe for $6.

    Reply
      1. Firebird7478

        I went for a hair cut yesterday and shared my cholesterol experiences with the girl who cuts my hair. She also had a couple of elderly women there (in their 70s). When I told them about my RECENT experience with my doctor (different from the one I was seeing in 2001) and she, too, recommended Lipitor, they both laughed and called it “garbage” and “dangerous”.

        Reply
  9. Orvan Taurus

    It was fascinating to watch what happened when this story hit Fark.com. The first several commenters were pretty much, “Well, duh! Told ya!” but then as time went on there was a shift to pointing out the recent and rediscovered search showed the opposite. And experience showed that, hey, good food _satisfies_.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      That’s the good news in all this. I believe more people these days don’t give a hoot what the AHA says.

      Reply
  10. tony grenier

    thanks tom….i was hoping you would address this…after reading this on several well known news outlets, i was amazed and pissed off….looking forward to your next blog discussing the “science”…now on to gary’s site to see what he had to say…

    Reply
      1. tony grenier

        wow he certainly did….with all due respect gary is a brilliant man…i just wish he could bring his writing down a couple of notches for those of us you don’t have a harvard degree in applied physics….

        Reply
  11. Kaitlin

    I was wondering where my mom got the nonsense that coconut oil is bad for you. Now I know.

    Thanks a lot, AHA, for an argument that could have been avoided.

    Reply
    1. KidPsych

      I’d just taken a few tablespoons of MCT oil (which is derived entirely from coconuts) before I headed out to the gym the other day. I’d just read this study, so I was super worried I might just expire on the spot. Autopsy would show arteries clogged with coconut mush.

      It’s simultaneously sad and hilarious. I’m sure the Germans have a word for this.

      Reply
  12. Dianne

    There’s a moral issue here which doesn’t appear to bother the AHA, although it should. If you continue to give dietary advice which you know is bad, and those who trust you take that advice and suffer damage to their health because of it, you are at least partly responsible for their ill health. If they die before their time because they followed the advice you knew was all wrong, you are responsible for their deaths. Deliberately being responsible for the death of another is called murder — on a rather large scale in this case. Somehow, doing it for money as the AHA and others pushing bad advice and bad food do, makes it even worse. Even if I didn’t believe there was going to be a judgment day, I wouldn’t want that on my conscience. Or maybe the folks at the AHA just prefer not to think that far.

    Sorry if I’m being melodramatic, but I calls ’em as I sees ’em.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      I agree, but after reading “Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)” I realized people at the AHA are probably convinced their advice is correct. We apparently have a huge capacity to ignore evidence if accepting the evidence would mean admitting we made a huge mistake. DNA evidence will exonerate a guy who’s been in prison for 15 years, and the prosecutor remains convinced he convicted the right guy … the DNA lab must’ve screwed up, or sure, someone else’s DNA was there, but the guy was still involved in the murder somehow.

      So no matter what the evidence, I suspect the AHA to cling to its advice until the bitter end.

      Reply
      1. Walter Bushell

        And they have “social proof” that their position is correct. “Social proof is, of course, not proof at all. Remember those psychology experiments that show that people can be convinced by stooges to agree that the longer line is actually shorter and so on.

        When all their associates have a position it’s hard or impossible to hold out at least for many people.

        Reply
    2. Pierre

      “Deliberately being responsible for the death of another is called murder — on a rather large scale in this case.”

      I would use the term “genocide”

      Reply
      1. chris c

        I prefer “eugenics”. But that’s just me . . .

        . . . whatever, both competent research and the Real World shows that the majority of the population is unable to eat HCLF, especially veg(etari)an based on Holy Health Grainz and industrially produced Omega 6 seed oils, without developing obesity and/or diabetes and/or other metabolic diseases. So they must be eliminated. But first they can be sold profitable drugs for the side effects of the profitable diet.

        When my generation is (prematurely) dead no-one will be left who actually remembers a time BEFORE these “diseases” became “epidemics”. So they will be home free. Oh, wait . . .

        Reply
  13. Firebird7478

    “Once again, how does a three-point drop in blood pressure count as a ‘major beneficial effect’ of a low-salt diet?!”

    I had a physical in 2011. My cholesterol was 334. I started taking niacinamide and lecithin. My doctor ordered new labs three weeks later. My cholesterol went down 34 points. My ratio HDL/Trigs was perfect. My doctor however, was not impressed and wanted me to take a statin. I am sure he’d be tickled if Lipitor did that.

    I refused to take the stain, then he wanted to Rx me…wait for it…time release niacin! $40 Rx for something I can get at the Vitamin Shoppe for $6.

    Reply
      1. Firebird7478

        I went for a hair cut yesterday and shared my cholesterol experiences with the girl who cuts my hair. She also had a couple of elderly women there (in their 70s). When I told them about my RECENT experience with my doctor (different from the one I was seeing in 2001) and she, too, recommended Lipitor, they both laughed and called it “garbage” and “dangerous”.

        Reply
  14. tony grenier

    thanks tom….i was hoping you would address this…after reading this on several well known news outlets, i was amazed and pissed off….looking forward to your next blog discussing the “science”…now on to gary’s site to see what he had to say…

    Reply
      1. tony grenier

        wow he certainly did….with all due respect gary is a brilliant man…i just wish he could bring his writing down a couple of notches for those of us you don’t have a harvard degree in applied physics….

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          Gary can write the general public when he wants to. That post was written as a reply to be published in a medical journal.

          Reply
  15. Galina L.

    Unfortunately, medical bureaucrats themselves are not immune against their bad diet advice. Not long time ago the minister of health died in Austria at the age of 53 after a long battle with an intestinal cancer http://www.politico.eu/article/austrian-health-minister-dead-at-53/. IShe was experienced pediatrician, her husband was a doctor. I have checked the recommended diet in Austria – http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/austria/en/, – the usual, don’t eat more, than 3 eggs a week, only seed oils but limited 1 -2 Tbs a day, just a little bit of meat is allowed,but only white one, on a bright side, you can eat more of such goodies as “Step 2. Vegetables, legumes and fruits. Eat five servings of vegetables, legumes and fruits every day. The ideal would be to eat three servings of vegetables and/or legumes and two servings of fruit (one serving = one clenched fist). Eat vegetables partly raw and consider seasonal and regional availability when selecting fruits and vegetables.
    Step 3. Cereals and potatoes. Eat four servings of grains, breads, pasta, rice or potatoes a day (five servings for active athletes and children). Prefer wholegrain products.
    Step 4. Milk and dairy products. Eat three servings of milk and dairy products every day. Prefer low-fat versions.”

    Reply
  16. lemoutongris

    Saturated fat is so bad that since I’ve competely abandonned grain – and therefore got 40-50% of my calories from fat like eggs and meat – ALL my blood stats have improved (LDL, trigly., cholesterol, etc.). They weren’t that high to start with (I’m only 34), but it goes to show that one must always do the opposite of what Bug Gov says

    Reply
    1. chris c

      Not a surprise if you are capable of thought. Stuff your body overfull of glucose and it never gets around to metabolising the fats. When it can metabolise the fats it also metabolises the transport trucks – lipoproteins – and the rest of their contents. How cool is that?

      Reply
  17. Galina L.

    Unfortunately, medical bureaucrats themselves are not immune against their bad diet advice. Not long time ago the minister of health died in Austria at the age of 53 after a long battle with an intestinal cancer http://www.politico.eu/article/austrian-health-minister-dead-at-53/. IShe was experienced pediatrician, her husband was a doctor. I have checked the recommended diet in Austria – http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/austria/en/, – the usual, don’t eat more, than 3 eggs a week, only seed oils but limited 1 -2 Tbs a day, just a little bit of meat is allowed,but only white one, on a bright side, you can eat more of such goodies as “Step 2. Vegetables, legumes and fruits. Eat five servings of vegetables, legumes and fruits every day. The ideal would be to eat three servings of vegetables and/or legumes and two servings of fruit (one serving = one clenched fist). Eat vegetables partly raw and consider seasonal and regional availability when selecting fruits and vegetables.
    Step 3. Cereals and potatoes. Eat four servings of grains, breads, pasta, rice or potatoes a day (five servings for active athletes and children). Prefer wholegrain products.
    Step 4. Milk and dairy products. Eat three servings of milk and dairy products every day. Prefer low-fat versions.”

    Reply
  18. lemoutongris

    Saturated fat is so bad that since I’ve competely abandonned grain – and therefore got 40-50% of my calories from fat like eggs and meat – ALL my blood stats have improved (LDL, trigly., cholesterol, etc.). They weren’t that high to start with (I’m only 34), but it goes to show that one must always do the opposite of what Bug Gov says

    Reply
    1. chris c

      Not a surprise if you are capable of thought. Stuff your body overfull of glucose and it never gets around to metabolising the fats. When it can metabolise the fats it also metabolises the transport trucks – lipoproteins – and the rest of their contents. How cool is that?

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Firebird7478 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.