Eat Fat, Get Thin: Why the Fat We Eat Is the Key to Sustained Weight Loss and Vibrant Health: 5 (The Dr. Hyman Library)

Product Information

Dr. Hyman's writing is accessible and enthusiastic, not pedantic. He makes connections between common ailments and common foods and makes a convincing case why switching to high fat/veg, moderate protein, low carb is the way to go. He understands that his word alone isn't enough so he recruited 1000+ people to 'beta-test" the diet prior to the publication of the book. The book contains testimonials of participants about sometimes radical health changes and weight loss. Fatty acids play a starring role in many important functions in the body, including regulating inflammation, hormones, mood, nerve function, and more. Most of us think of them as a form of energy storage...Burning fat for energy is actually better and more sustainable for health; in fact, it’s what your muscles and hearts prefer.” Ch4 He has commercialized himself and, as with all such television-doctor marketing superstars, I would recommend they all read "The Citadel" by Cronin, about a doctor who became a dedicated physician to help the destitute in England, who veered off course and hawked useless remedies to rich people for personal profit, at the possible loss of his soul and loss of original humanitarian aspiration. I've seen some pretty irresponsible, even dangerous, recommendations on these television shows including PBS, and they all cover their butts by either saying it's either for entertainment value, or that they should always consult their own doctor first.

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

seemingly good advice from government, health care industry, and food industry is only “seemingly” – they were wrong about a lot of stuff We randomly selected and reviewed 10 references in Eat Fat, Get Thin. The book received an overall reference accuracy score of 2.2 out of 4. References generally did not support the claims they were associated with or the results were misconstrued or overstated. Specific comments for each reference can be found below. restricting calories makes your body perceive a starvation situation which makes you tired and hungry and slows down your metabolism – things we don’t want We feel that it is important to note that Eat Fat, Get Thin was apparently aware of the strong experimental data connecting saturated fat intake to reductions to cholesterol and heart disease. In a later section of the book, the book references a 2014 review that also concluded that there was convincing evidence from both randomized control trials and prospective cohort studies that partial replacement of saturated fat with mono- and polyunsaturated fats is likely to lead to decreases in total and LDL cholesterol. The paper also concluded that there was convincing evidence that replacement of saturated fatty acids with polyunsaturated fat will decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly in men.No longer about the theory but starts the really practical stuff. What to eat? What not to eat? Etc. 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)

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

The book received an overall scientific accuracy score of 1.2, indicating that its scientific claims are poorly supported. There was virtually no evidence supporting the claim that eating a high-fat diet is superior for weight loss than lower fat diets. In many cases the data provided by Eat Fat, Get Thin actually undermined this claim showing the two diets to be equivalent for weight loss. We found little compelling evidence to support the claim that saturated fat does not cause heart disease and most well controlled studies report that increased saturated fat intake can lead to increased risk for heart disease or at a minimum issues with circulating cholesterol. We did find some support for the claim that fat intake is not related to the risk for developing certain cancers. However, this seemed to vary based on the specific type of cancer being investigated, with some cancers showing potential relationships and others not. We’ve been told lots of falsehoods about fat over the past 50 years that have shaped what we eat, what we buy, how we diet—all of which has had huge and disastrous consequences for our health. It all began with two big ideas about fat that have turned out to be wrong…The first was that all calories operate the same way in your body. Since fat has more than twice as many calories as carbs or protein per gram, the natural conclusion was that if you ate less fast, you would lose weight. That, in effect, the fat you ate turned to fat in your body. The second idea was that since fatty cholesterol deposits caused heart disease, and dietary fat, especially saturated fat, raised cholesterol, then the fat we ate caused heart disease. Seems to make sense, except the body is more complex than this simplistic conclusion would suggest…I’ll explain how the government and the food industry jumped on the bandwagon to create a maelstrom of bad advice. It was the perfect storm of overzealous scientists leaping to premature conclusions, anxious government agencies eager to do something to stem the tide of obesity and heart disease, and a profit-hungry food industry that raced in to capitalize on the low-fat mania, leading, in fact, to a rise in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.” Ch2 This reference received a score of 3, indicating that it provides only moderate support for the claim, primarily for the diabetes claim but only weakly for the obesity claim. The cited paper is a report of a series of experiments in both mice and humans. As studies in mice are preclinical and typically used to generate hypotheses for human studies we will focus on the human studies reported, however the mouse studies are fairly supportive of the diabetes claim made by Eat Fat, Get Thin. The authors report two analyses in humans. The first study describes an analysis of self-reported artificial sweetener intake in 381 individuals. The researchers found that individuals who self-reported higher intakes of artificial sweeteners also tended to have higher waist to hip ratios, fasting blood glucose levels, worse HbA1c levels, and performed worse on a glucose tolerance test compared to those with lower intakes. However, all 381 individuals in the analyses were non-diabetic and it is unclear if the observed differences between individuals were clinically meaningful. The analyses were all controlled for BMI in an attempt to isolate the effect of the sweetener intake from the impact of weight on health. However, as sweetener intake was significantly related to participants’ waist to hip ratio it is curious that the researchers did not perform sensitivity analyses with waist to hip ratio as a control variable rather than BMI. Waist to hip ratio is a stronger health indicator and of body fatness compared to BMI so controlling for waist to hip ratio would have allowed the research team to rule out the effects of body fatness rather than just height and weight. As the research team didn’t do this, we can’t rule out that the relationship between sweetener intake and the other health indicators was not just related to the individuals’ body fatness. The second experiment in the paper describes a feeding study conducted in 7 individuals. The researchers had the 7 individuals in the study consume the maximum amount of artificial sweeteners allowed by the FDA over 7 days, but did not forcibly change any other aspect of their diet or lifestyle. Of the 7 individuals, about half of them (4 individuals) had poorer glycemic response at the end of the 7 days while 3 showed no change. The four individuals who appeared to be negatively influenced by the sweeteners actually started the study with a very different gut bacteria profile than those who were unaffected. However, gut bacteria can be influenced by a variety of dietary and lifestyle factors. We cannot rule out that the observed changes in the four individuals were not induced by some other factors. No dietary or physical activity records were collected or reported by the researchers. Therefore, there is no way to rule out the potential influence of these lifestyle factors during the study. Overall, the study was conducted with an extremely small sample size, the effect of sweeteners was only apparent in half of the individuals tested, and there was no control over other factors that may have influenced response. At best, this data shows us that some individuals with a specific set of gut bacteria may be influenced to some extent by artificial sweeteners. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that artificial sweeteners “alter gut flora or bacteria to promote obesity and type 2 diabetes” as suggested by Eat Fat, Get Thin. Reference 7 ReferenceNo grains, no exceptions. (I could totally see why giving up gluten would be advisable. But this includes healthy grains like quinoa, teff, steel-cut oats, brown rice.) 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 2

Eat Fat, Get Thin expert review • Red Pen Reviews Eat Fat, Get Thin expert review • Red Pen Reviews

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. I read a lot of books like this. I enjoy the research and and posture the authors adopt. They all think their book is the definitive answer to what ails people. But putting that aside, I also love the research that is coming out and how this area is constantly evolving to a better understanding on how the body functions and what it needs to stay healthy. I grew up on the four basic food groups and the food pyramid that replaced that. I grew up thinking eating fat was bad, so I find that where modern research is taking us now, is kind of fascinating. 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?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 four types of fat: saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat PUFA (omega-3 and omega-6), and trans fats When considering review papers, Eat Fat, Get Thin also misrepresents the data. For example, Eat Fat, Get Thin cites a review paper of clinical trials comparing low-carb and low-fat diets. This review reported that 4 out of 8 randomized control trials showed better weight outcomes for low-carb diets when compared to low-fat diets at 6 months. However, the rapid initial weight loss for low-carbohydrate diets is well known and may involve changes in body water compared to low-fat diets. Importantly, this initial benefit in overall weight loss does not typically last over time. When we look at differences in weight loss at one year rather than just the first 6 months, we see that the difference is small and not statistically significant. This data is available in the same paper cited by Eat Fat, Get Thin. The book cites one other review paper worth discussing which is presented as the “final nail in the coffin for proving that high-fat diets did much better than low-fat diets for weight loss”. The main conclusion of the review, however, is that low-fat diets and high-fat diets show similar amounts of weight loss. There was a small but statistically significant difference observed between very rigorously delivered versions of very-low-carb diets when compared to low-fat diets. But even the difference in weight between these two groups was only about 2 pounds, which is clinically insignificant. Additionally, there was no difference in weight loss between low-carb and low-fat diets when comparing the less restrictive low-carb diets, which is the diet pattern prescribed by Eat Fat, Get Thin. Again, this data ultimately undermines the claim made by the book.

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

you can lose weight on a high fat diet, as long you eat the right kinds, and as part of a healthy diet But when I see someone like Dr. Hyman doing what looks an awful lot like a late night infomercial on PBS, it raises my suspicions-what is he selling? Well, besides books and DVD's and appearance fees, he must believe he's helping. Among other diet gurus, we've previously had Drs. Roizen and Oz doing same thing on PBS and Oprah. Now, Dr. Oz has his own show and is talking to people who have returned from the dead. Although some of the dietary advice in Eat Fat, Get Thin is likely to improve health, the amount of saturated fat it recommends is likely to have negative consequences. That the 21 day plan is the minimum, that, "the plan" is for however long it takes you to lose the weight you want to lose, need to lose. So your "21-day plan" might last a year or more. Eat Fat, Get Thin’s references received a score of 1, indicating poor support for the book’s claims. The majority of the studies cited by the book do not support its claims. In some cases Eat Fat, Get Thin appears to mischaracterize, overstate, or withold elements of the studies that are cited. Criterion 1.3. How well does the strength of the claim line up with the strength of the evidence?

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. He refers to questionable sources of information like the Weston Price Foundation and the notorious AIDS denialist Peter Duesberg. Taubes says as long as you avoid carbs you can eat all the protein and fat you want and not gain weight. Miller goes even further, claiming that a high fat diet will make you lose weight. I think any influence on weight loss is due to a decrease in calorie intake; admittedly, the satiety from fat might reduce total calorie consumption, but this has not been proven to have any practical effect on dieters. 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