He plays the conspiracy card. He says that scientists who question state-sanctioned paradigms like low fat diets, mutations as a cause of cancer, and HIV as a cause of AIDS are denied grants and silenced. In fact, some of them are very loud for people who have been “silenced,” and they may have been denied grants simply because their research was not as worthy as competing grant proposals.

Eat Fat, Get Thin? | Science-Based Medicine Eat Fat, Get Thin? | Science-Based Medicine

sugar and refined carbs – not fat – are responsible for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart desease, as well as causing increased risk of dementia and premature deaths In conclusion, there does seem to be some initial evidence for a link between some specific cancers and fat intake while evidence for others are more tenuous. The strength of the relationship appeared to vary based on the type of cancer. We specifically found conflicting information when investigating the relationship between fat and prostate cancer. Regardless, the general advice provided by most of the studies reviewed was that individuals should seek to decrease their intake of saturated fat and increase the intake of omega-3 fatty acids. Diet patterns that encourage low saturated fat and high omega-3 fatty acid intake such as the DASH diet and the Mediterranean diet also appeared to be more beneficial for reducing cancer risk. Criterion 1.2. Are the references cited in the book to support the claim convincing? The claim received a score of 2, indicating that the claim is moderately overstated. In some cases, such as with prostate cancer, there did appear to be conflicting evidence. However, for other types of cancer, such as breast cancer, the relationship with fat was more apparent. Overall (average) score for claim 3 The recipes are interesting, but to be honest I don’t know how much use I’ll be able to make of them. Many of them include nuts or milk from nuts, and I am allergic to ALL nuts. Tree nuts, coconuts, peanuts – all that stuff. So the number of recipes I can use is pretty small. As well, the recipes use lots of ingredients. Even if lots of them are spices, it’s quite daunting. The claim received a score of 1, indicating that the claim is greatly overstated. As noted previously, while there is epidemiological evidence to support the claim made by Eat Fat, Get Thin there is also much that disputes it. Stronger forms of evidence such as randomized controlled trials and metabolic ward studies are unsupportive of the claim made by the book. Additionally, dietary patterns low in saturated fat appear to be beneficial for both cholesterol and heart disease outcomes, particularly when compared to dietary patterns higher in saturated fat. Overall, the claim made by the book does not line up with the bulk of the scientific literature available. Overall (average) score for claim 2Moreover, the diet he proposes is pretty much unattainable for anyone living on a budget and anyone with little time to cook. I mean, grass-fed organic meat, line-caught fresh fish (I'd like to see that happen when you live far away from oceans and lakes!), everything organic (which, by the way, has not been proven to be healthier, especially organic fruits and veggies), all kinds of nuts and seeds, homemade broth/milks, etc. It's very expensive and highly impractical. The book’s references received a score of 2, indicating that they provide moderate support for the book’s claim. Although the cited studies did examine the association between fat and cancer they are often mischaracterized or crucial pieces of information are withheld from the reader. Criterion 1.3. How well does the strength of the claim line up with the strength of the evidence?

The Eat Fat Get Thin Cookbook: Over 175 Delicious Recipes for

that a low fat/high carb diet is a human-made disaster comparable to wars and economic meltdowns and to natural disasters like hurricanes, the Ice Age and asteroid impacts; four types of fat: saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat PUFA (omega-3 and omega-6), and trans fats Fat in food shouldn’t be demonized like it is; that’s sugar’s place. (And in some cases due to the individual… bread, dairy and some grains belong on that pedestal of shame as well) I am one of those “my tummy always hurts!” girls, and this book my just well have changed my entire perspective on food. I feel great for the first time in forever, and I have Dr. Mark to thank.I almost wish that Eat Fat, Get Thin had been divided into two books. One book presenting the historical overview, the scientific research, and the essential philosophy behind the concept of eating fat to lose weight. The other book presenting his 21 day weight-loss plan. The first book which I imagine consisting of Part I and Part II (How Did We Get Into This Big, Fat Mess? and Separating Fat From Fiction), I would have given three stars. The second book which I imagine consisting of Part III and Part IV (The Eat Fat, Get Thin Plan and Eat Fat, Get Thin Cooking and Recipes), I would have given one star--or perhaps two--if I'm generous. Hey everyone! I’ve been trying to improve several aspects of my life lately. And I thought that the book Eat Fat, Get Thin might help me with my weight problem. And after having read it, I think it definitely will! I care as much as Dr. Hyman does, so I felt compelled to speak out. Was a certified Natural Therapeutics Specialist and Licensed Massage Therapist for more than twenty years, have a firm foundation. Also worked for physicians for about fourteen years and know how and what they think. I believe Hyman cares, but... I do have concerns. Guys like Chopra and Oz, with their new-age piecemeal unqualified advice outside their profession, worry me. This claim received a score of 1, indicating that the evidence is neutral or nonexistent for the claim. While low-carb diets may be a beneficial tool for some individuals attempting to lose weight, the current evidence, including that cited by Eat Fat, Get Thin, appears to show that in the long run, low-carb diets are no more or less effective than other dietary options on average. Overall (average) score for claim 1

Eat Fat Get Thin Cookbook: Over 175 Delicious Recipes for The Eat Fat Get Thin Cookbook: Over 175 Delicious Recipes for

The book’s references received a score of 0, indicating that they generally undermine the book’s claim. As noted above many of the references provided by Eat Fat, Get Thin show no differences between low-fat and low-carb diets on weight loss. Criterion 1.3. How well does the strength of the claim line up with the strength of the evidence?There are several other studies cited by Eat Fat, Get Thin that we found to be misrepresented or overstated. For example, Eat Fat, Get Thin references the DIRECT trial and claims that this trial shows that a low-carb, high-fat diet showed greater weight loss than a low-fat diet. However, the group that was given the “low-fat” label by the researchers were not actually following a low-fat diet, as has been previously noted by others. Additionally, the carbohydrate levels were not very different between the two groups with the low-fat group consuming ~50% of their calories from carbohydrate whereas the low-carb group consumed ~40% of calories from carbohydrate. Instead the participants in the “low-fat” diet group were instructed to consume their typical diets and did not make any significant changes to their daily diets. There was, however, another group in the study that was not mentioned by Eat Fat, Get Thin. That group was following a version of the Mediterranean diet which instructed participants to keep their fat intake to under 35% of their daily calories. This level of fat intake was similar to the “low-fat” group, with only a 3% difference in calories from fat between groups. Of note, 35% fat intake is within the suggested fat intake range found in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. When comparing this lower-fat Mediterranean diet to the prescribed low-carb diet there was no difference in weight outcomes. This study’s findings ultimately undermine the weight loss claims made by Eat Fat, Get Thin. His epiphany came from reading an article in Nexus in 1999 that led him to question Dean Ornish’s low fat advice. He was further influenced by the book Eat Fat, Lose Fat by Mary Enig and Sally Fallon (co-founders of the Weston A. Price Foundation, which has been criticized by medical experts as purveying misleading information) and by the writings of notorious cholesterol denialist Uffe Ravnskov. This reference received a score of 3, indicating that it offers moderate support for the claim. In this study mice were placed onto 1 of 4 diets: a ketogenic diet (78.9% fat, 9.5% protein, and 0.76% carbohydrate), a typical chow diet (6.5% fat, 23.5% protein, and 56% carbohydrate), a high-fat, high-sugar “obesogenic diet” (24% fat, 24% protein, and 41% carbohydrate), and a calorie restricted diet (66% calorie restricted). The obesogenic diet group gained weight, the low-fat diet group appeared to maintain their weight, and the ketogenic and calorie restricted diet groups both lost about equivalent amounts of weight even though the keto group consumed more calories. It is clear that Eat Fat, Get Thin is trying to compare the keto group to the control group (which has a higher carb content than the keto group) as the quote from Eat Fat, Get Thin states “weight loss was greater than in rats fed a high-carb diet, even though they ate exactly the same number of calories”. While the results of the study do support the weight loss claim we do note that the mice on the low-carb diet lost their weight from the nonfat component of their weight, likely water weight. So, although there was a difference in weight between the control diet and the keto diet mice there was no difference in body fatness. Therefore, this study actually raises some questions as to how beneficial the reduction in weight from nonfat tissue is for health. We would also like to clarify that the cited paper reports on an experiment in mice, not rats as claimed by Eat Fat, Get Thin. Overall (average) score for reference accuracy Coconut oil is extracted from the dried flesh of the coconut. Coconut oil is made up of 86 percent saturated fat, 6 percent monounsaturated fat, and 1.4 percent polyunsaturated fat. About half of the saturated fat in coconut oil is a rare, special type of saturated fat called lauric acid…In the body, lauric acid converts to monolaurin, one of the compounds found in breast milk that boost a baby’s immune system…It is like superfuel for your cells, your metabolism, your bones, and your brain…The saturated fat in coconut oil is aa very rate, very beneficial type called medium-chain triglycerides (MCT). These saturated fats actually reduce the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL and promote weight loss and can even heal fatty lover caused by obesity…In the body, MCTs convert easily into energy; therefore, very little MCT oil is stored as fat…This is how MCTs help you burn fat and lose weight…Look for coconut oil that is virgin, organic, cold-pressed, unrefined, and never deodorized or bleached. You can use expeller-pressed, unrefined coconut oil for cooking at up to 400F, so this is a go-to oil for high-heat stir fries, medium-high heat sautéing, and most baking.” -Ch8 Eat Fat, Get Thin also tends to withhold study nuances from the reader. An example of this is a study by Kennedy et al. In this study mice were placed onto 1 of 4 diets: a ketogenic diet (78.9% fat, 9.5% protein, and 0.76% carbohydrate), a typical chow diet (6.5% fat, 23.5% protein, and 56% carbohydrate), a high-fat, high-sugar “obesogenic diet” (24% fat, 24% protein, and 41% carbohydrate), and a calorie restricted diet (66% calorie restricted). The obesogenic diet group gained weight, the low-fat diet group appeared to maintain their weight, and the ketogenic and calorie restricted diet groups both lost about equivalent amounts of weight. Eat Fat, Get Thin decided to compare the keto group to the control group (which has a higher carb content than the keto group) as they specifically state that “weight loss was greater than in rats fed a high-carb diet, even though they ate exactly the same number of calories”. While the results of the study do support the weight loss claim we do note that the mice on the low-carb diet lost their weight from the nonfat component of their weight. So, although there was a difference in weight between the control diet and the keto diet mice there was no difference in body fatness. The significant change in weight is mentioned but the non significant change in fat is withheld from the reader.