Twitter RSS

Video: Tom Naughton of Fat Head on Obesity, Fat and Raising a Low Carb Family

Published on May 29, 2013,

Sam Feltham of the ‘Smash The Fat’ blog has posted an excellent interview he did with Tom Naughton of Fat Head in which Tom gives an overview into much of his thinking on obesity, including why being fat isn’t your fault, why standard dietary advice to eat carbohydrates and limit fat is so wrong (and why the wrong message has become the default), what’s wrong with ‘calories in = calories out’, why dietary fat doesn’t cause heart disease and much much more…

It’s a great refresher and would be an excellent introduction to share with anyone frustrated with their weight, body or health…

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

See more at: Big Fat Lies with Tom Naughton

Toddlers Who Drink Low Fat Milk Gain More Weight And More Likely To Be Obese Than Those Who Drink Full Fat Milk

Published on March 27, 2013,

A new study by scientists at the University of Virginia School of Medicine is being reported as showing that, even after adjusting for ethnic and economic factors, children aged 2-4 who drink low fat (skimmed or 1%) milk (as recommended by the American heart Association) had higher body mass index scores than those who drank whole or 2% fat milk. They they were also more likely to be obese. The research is covered in an article in the LA Times which has been updated with desperate backtracking from researchers and ‘an American Heart Association spokeswoman’ who say the study was never intended to focus on weight control but instead to curb saturated fat intake. Somehow I don’t think they would have mentioned that had the results been the other way around. This is from the Los Angeles Times…

A glass of milk Français : Un verre de lait

A glass of milk (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Giving toddlers skim or 1% milk to keep them from growing overweight doesn’t seem to work, according to a study out Monday that gives pause over the common advice to avoid whole milk from age 2.

Researchers led by Dr. Mark DeBoer of the University of Virginia School of Medicine looked at 10,700 U.S. children at age 2 and 4, and found that even after adjusting for ethnic and economic factors, the kids who drank skim or 1% milk had higher body mass index scores than those who drank whole or 2% fat milk.

“Compared to those drinking 2%/whole milk, 2- and 4-yer-old children drinking 1%/skim milk had an increased adjusted odds of being over weight or obese,” the researchers wrote in the Archives of Disease in Childhood.

Drinking lower-fat milk was more common among overweight children, but that “does not appear to restrain body weight gain between 2 and 4 years,” the researchers said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Assn. have recommended 1% or skim milk for children 2 and older to reduce consumption of saturated fat. If a child drinks 3 cups of 1% or skim milk a day, rather than fattier milk, he or she would reduce intake by about 200 calories.

Data on the success of that strategy have been mixed, the authors of the current study wrote. And it’s possible that the parents of children who are more overweight are the ones who are more likely to follow the advice, the researchers noted.

Those who regularly drank 1% or skim milk who were not overweight at age 2 were 57% more likely to be so by age 4, the researchers said.

More at:  Low-fat milk doesn’t help toddlers’ weight, study says

Why The American Heart Association Can’t Admit They’re Wrong

Published on February 20, 2013,

If you read articles on this site and related publications you may wonder why, if the evidence is so clear, major organisations like the American Heart Association continue to tell a different story by arguing, for example, that people should avoid saturated fat and blaming this for obesity rates and heart disease. Tom Naughton considers an explanation in his Fat Head blog…

AmericanHeartAssociationLogoColorIf you’re a sympathetic sort, you could almost feel sorry for people who work for the American Heart Association, the British Heart Foundation, the Australian Heart Foundation, etc.   They’ve been promoting anti-fat hysteria for more than 40 years now, people have dutifully cut back on their saturated fat intake and consumed more “heart-healthy” grains, and yet our societies are witnessing record rates of obesity and diabetes. Even if these organization believe their advice is correct, I don’t see how they could feel successful in their missions.

But of course, their advice isn’t correct…

[As a result of their advice] well-meaning people filling their grocery carts with products bearing the American Heart Association’s seal of approval could easily end up on a diet high in refined starches and sugars and think they’re doing their hearts a favor.  I’m sure many have.

Meanwhile, more and more studies are suggesting that the whole arterycloggingsaturatedfat! theory was wrong.  I just posted on one of those last week.

So image you’re a dedicated member of the American Heart Association.  Evidence is piling up that the advice your organization has been handing out since the 1960s not only didn’t help, it probably caused actual harm.  What can you do?

Well, you could call a press conference or take out ads in national newspapers and announce that you’ve been wrong all along, but that would likely spell the end of your organization.  It would also mean looking yourself in the mirror and saying, “Oh my god … have I been promoting foods that turned people into fat diabetics?  Have kids been diagnosed with ADHD and sent to special-ed classes because I told their parents Honey Nut Cheerios are a heart-healthy food?  Have I told people to eat foods that sent their triglycerides through the roof and caused their bodies to produce small LDL particles? Has my advice killed people?”

Nope.  You won’t do that.  You probably can’t do that.

I’ve mentioned the excellent book Mistake Were Made (but not by me) several times.  It covers a range of ideas, but here are three of the most important points:

  • Once we’ve taken a public position, it’s very difficult to admit we were wrong.
  • Psychologically, most of us need to believe we’re both good people and good decision-makers.
  • We are quite capable of fooling ourselves into believing things that simply aren’t true, even if that means ignoring clear evidence.

The book provides interesting (and unfortunately common) examples of those points in action.  What happens when, say, a woman marries a guy who turns out to be an abusive creep?  She runs out and gets a divorce, right?

Nope.  Odds are she’ll spend years with the guy before dumping him, if she dumps him at all.  Think about the three points above.  When you get married, you’ve made a dramatic public statement:  this is the one. It would be embarrassing to admit to your family and friends a year later that your marriage was a huge mistake – telling them, in effect, that in making perhaps the most important decision of your life, you chose badly.  (I broke off an engagement in my early 30s, so I know all about that one.)

So the abused wife can, against all evidence, convince herself that her husband is actually a decent guy.   Sure, he’s abusive, but it’s not really his fault.  He’s just under a lot of stress, you see.  It’s because other people treat him badly.  It may even be her fault for aggravating him.  And he’s nice to her once or twice per month, and that’s the real him, you see.  He just needs more time and few breaks, and he’ll be nice all the time.

Another example the book gives is police and prosecutors who arrest an innocent man and send him to prison, only to see him exonerated years later by DNA evidence.  You’d expect the prosecutors to say to themselves, “Wow, that’s horrible.  We put an innocent guy away.”  You’d also be wrong.  Despite the large number of people who have been exonerated by new evidence, it’s exceedingly rare for a prosecutor to admit he or she put the wrong man in prison.  As the authors recount, most prosecutors are still convinced – despite the evidence – that the guy they put away was guilty.

Once again, we’re talking about people who took a very public position (ladies and gentlemen, this is guy who committed the crime) and who need to think of themselves as good people (I’m the good guy because I put away bad guys.)  To protect themselves psychologically, they can explain away the evidence that they were wrong.  The alternative is to look in the mirror and admit they ruined an innocent person’s life, not to mention his family’s life.

As the authors note, people who insist they were right all along even when the evidence says they’re wrong aren’t usually lying.  To lie, you have to know what you’re saying isn’t true.  These people truly believe they’re right.   That pesky new DNA evidence was probably planted, you see.  The lab made a mistake.  The guy committed the murder, but the DNA that doesn’t match his was left behind by an accomplice we didn’t know about.  The guy we put in prison is guilty, damnit.  Never mind the fact that the DNA left behind on the victim doesn’t match.  You have to look at the totality of the evidence.

The American Heart Association and its sister organizations have been spreadingarterycloggingsaturatedfat! hysteria for decades – in effect, prosecuting the innocent.  They’ve recommended processed vegetables oils instead of animal fats.  They’ve taken very public positions warning people away from high-fat foods and promoting breads, cereals, pastas, juices, and other foods low in fat but high in carbohydrates.  And of course, they think of themselves as the good guys.

So no, they’re not going to admit they were wrong.  They’re not going admit their advice may have killed people.  They’re incapable of believing that.  They’re going to show up in media articles and TV shows and blogs and insist they were right all along.  Never mind that latest study, they’ll insist.  You have to look at the totality of the evidence.

Actually, no, we don’t have to look at the totality of the evidence.  We just need to examine some key evidence that falsifies their theories.  I’ll cover that in my next post.

More at:  Why The American Heart Association Can’t Admit They’re Wrong

Here’s Tom’s follow up post: Studies The American Heart Association Doesn’t Want You To Read

 

© Low Carb Diet News