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.
If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ve also been on the no-carb diet for a long time and there is no doubt in my mind that it works. So will not eating, doing excessive exercise and loving only on water. The trick to slim down your weight and keep it off, is to have a variety of foods. You need carbs, fat, sugar, protein and all the all other nutrients – in a normal manner. On top you have to, have to, do some excercise and cadio workout. Make it a normal routine in your life.
Thanks for pointing some of this stuff out Tom!
I’ve also been on the no-carb diet for a long time and there is no doubt in my mind that it works. So will not eating, doing excessive exercise and loving only on water. The trick to slim down your weight and keep it off, is to have a variety of foods. You need carbs, fat, sugar, protein and all the all other nutrients – in a normal manner. On top you have to, have to, do some excercise and cadio workout. Make it a normal routine in your life.
Thanks for pointing some of this stuff out Tom!
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.