Tom Naughton is a Fat Head
February 19, 2012
There is an amazing amount of misinformation in the world today. Some of it is unintentional and is simply repeated so often people assume it’s true. These are misconceptions or myths such as you only use 10% of your brain or Jesus was born on December 25th.1 However, there is other misinformation in the world that is more sinister. Misinformation of this sort is usually designed to manipulate you into buying a product, or it could be used as propaganda to convert you to a certain belief system.2 Unfortunately we are a trusting species and most of this manipulation works surprisingly well! That’s why the less scrupulous among us have used quack medicine and scams and cons to get rich quick at the expense of the more trusting among us.
I don’t consider Fat Head to be on the level of a scam, but it is filled with quite a bit of misinformation, manipulation, and disingenuous statements. In fact, most of the “experts” involved with this film have a vested interest their version of reality being true. That is to say, if you end up believing the main thrust of the movie then they can directly profit off that belief by selling you their books, supplements, DVDs, etc.
Why do I care so much about what other people believe? Usually I don’t. If Scientologists want to form a club of celebrities that believe in stuff like thetans and Xenu and engrams and other such nonsense I could not care less. Go nuts, I say. Other things, however, don’t sit well with me. I don’t exactly know why, but if it’s demonstrably false it really gets under my skin… especially if it is in my field of education and training.
Let’s get to the actual meat and potatoes of the movie, shall we? If I had to sum up the thesis of this movie it would be this: There is a large conspiracy in this country and it involves the media, scientists, the government, and non-governmental organizations. You should eat more meat because it’s actually really good for you; anyone that says otherwise is either brainwashed or in the pocket of Big Vegetable. Vegetarians are radical nutjobs. I hate the government. I hate Morgan Spurlock. Do you think I am exaggerating this? You must not have seen the movie. It breaks down like this: You know those studies that claim cholesterol and saturated fat are bad for you? Well it turns out they are all bogus. Every. Single. One. There was a dude named Ancel Keys some years ago that published a fake study linking cholesterol to heart disease. Then every other research scientist ever decided to piggyback off of his data and published studies that showed the same link even though it was false.3 Why would they do this?? Because the government said to. Yeah, see we actually live in a fascist state where you can’t get any funding for research unless you promise to publish more fake studies that promote eating more fruits and vegetables. Why would the government do such a thing? I dunno, maybe Del Monte bought all the politicians. Did I mention I hate our government? I really do. I’m not a big fan of Morgan Spurlock or CSPI, either.
It just cannot be believed by any rational, thinking person. There is a conspiracy against the public to make us unhealthy? Why? Just because the government hates us? First of all can you imagine the effort needed to carry this out? Picture 99% of all the scientists and medical doctors being involved, plus all (or at least most) of the US government. That would be some X-Files level operation right there, and we’re just scratching the surface! What about other countries? They also have research scientists. What do their studies show? As it turns out essentially every study around the world supports the FACT that circulating levels of cholesterol and intake of saturated fat play a huge role in atherosclerosis. So there goes that little conspiracy theory, unless you want to go even further and claim it’s not just a US conspiracy but a global conspiracy!!!
Meet the Experts
Michael and Mary Eades
According to their own website, they appear to be kind of a husband and wife team that both received MDs from the University of Arkansas. Now I respect anyone that has the brains and patience to get a medical degree. No doubt they take time and an incredible discipline. I will say, though, that the University of Arkansas is not exactly Harvard Medical School or Johns Hopkins University. In fact it’s as pretty far from them as you can go while still remaining an accredited medical school. All things being equal I’d rather take medical and/or dietary advice from someone that went to a more elite university rather than one located in the Ozarks. Also, I looked for any published studies by the aforementioned doctors Eades and was able to only find one that was co-authored by a Dr. Loren Cordain of my old alma mater Colorado State University. It’s nothing ground-breaking, just a review article detailing why you don’t want a ton of circulating insulin in your blood. Why do I bother to bring this up? The Eadeses style themselves as nutrition experts but have only been involved in authoring one review article back in 2003. This makes me skeptical of their claims about being nutrition experts and their pursuit of “research into metabolic and nutritional medicine,” as they put it on their website. What is a review article? Basically it’s a summary of one particular area of research. That means there are not any actual scientific experiments conducted on the part of the author(s).
If you visit their website you will notice that they also sell several pop diet books that promote low-carb diets, so I don’t know if they are exactly a source of objective and unbiased information. Remember what I said earlier about a vested interest? Whaddya know! You can also buy a ton of nutritional supplements from them, too. Who would have thought? You can also get something called Metabosol for $209.95. If you are too pressed for cash not to worry, they have a “value pack” of Metabosol for $149.00. I’m sure they would tell you it’s a steal at that price.4
Al Sears
Dr. Sears is also a MD who got his degree at the University of South Florida, according to his website. Remember when I said that the University of Arkansas is about as far from Johns Hopkins as you can get? I lied. It’s actually the University of South Florida. Dr. Sears also sells a myriad of books including one that claims the sun will actually prevent cancer! He will also sell you a metric shit-ton of supplements. Seriously a BOATLOAD. Everything from anti-aging to detox to plastic bio-shields. What are bio-shields? They protect you from your own cell phone, of course. I’ll let the good doctor explain:
This new breakthrough, which is nearly invisible, neutralizes the waves that come out of your cell phone.
It doesn’t try to block them, weaken them, or deflect them.
It simply turns them into natural waves… waves that don’t cook your head.
By sending out small pulses of energy, it changes the wave pattern your cell phone sends out, neutralizing the heating effect.
But of course, it doesn’t interfere with your cell phone reception. You don’t even notice this is happening.
What’s the secret?
Natural electro-magnetic fields of energy.
Now that’s just good science. I don’t think this shield even takes batteries to send out the small pulses of energy – that’s how advanced it is. It’s yours for the low, low price of $59.95 plus shipping. I really need to get into this racket of selling “wellness” products. Seriously. I bet he makes a killing.
As an aside I was unable to unearth any peer-reviewed publications by this nutrition expert. If you have any feel free to send them my way.
Eric Oliver
Here’s a guy who got his PhD from UC Berkeley and is now a professor at the University of Chicago. Those are some serious credentials. Only thing is he got his doctorate in political science and now teaches political science. He has absolutely no education or training in the nutritional sciences, or any field of biology for that matter, at least according to his CV. I would not mind grabbing a beer with this guy and talking politics, but if I made a doc about nutrition I would not put him in as an expert. But hey, that’s just me.
Mary Enig
Finally we have an expert who has actually been involved in scientific experiments and has published articles in actual scientific journals! No joke. I can’t believe it.
Sally A. Fallon
I really don’t know what she is doing in this movie either. She has degrees in English and is the president of this organization called the Weston A. Price Foundation. We are never told what it is in the movie or why we might want to hold this foundation in any kind of esteem. Some simple Googling can remedy any ignorance, though. Evidently it is a bit of a fringe group that promotes high animal fat, high animal protein, low-vegetable diets. In addition to meat they also promote raw milk and… something… oh yeah homeopathy!! They claim to be against fluoridation as well. Oh, but CSPI are the real radicals, right? Because they push for nutrition labeling. Whatever. Quackwatch has some info about the foundation’s namesake, and as far as I know Quackwatch is unimpeachable.
Jacob Sullum
Who is this asshat and why do I care what he says? Oh, he’s a professional libertarian and writes for a magazine that no one has heard of. A perfect addition to the panel of experts.
Tom Naughton
The filmmaker himself. According to the bio on his website he was going to be a doctor but was not a fan of science so he did something else. He puts it like this:
After two years of pre-med, Tom switched to a self-directed major called “Random Courses That Do Not Involve Studying Organic Chemistry.” By creating his own major, Tom enjoyed the rare distinction of graduating at the top and bottom of his class simultaneously. His valedictorian speech was very short, as he was the only one in attendance.
Oh Tom you’re such a card! Did he drop out of school? Major in something else? We do not know. But apparently he went on to try his hand at freelance writing, and then he tried to make it big in Hollywood as an actor on sitcoms. During the filming of Fat Head he seems to be employed as a computer programmer of some sort. C++? Python? HTML? It is unclear. What is clear (if his bio is even partially true) is the he likes the limelight more than he likes science, and he is going to lecture you about the etiology of heart disease5 because a) he read a pop science book once, and b) he wants to be on the silver screen.
He also seems to spend quite a lot of time blogging. The last time I visited his personal blog he had published the 14th iteration of an email debate he was having with one of his “leftist friends.” After giving that post a cursory glance I discovered two things: 1) Naughton thinks these email debates are so riveting that the world must see them, and 2) Naughton thinks he knows more about economics than a Nobel laureate and professor of economics at Princeton.
I almost forgot! Naughton sells homemade T-shirts, too.
You can pick one of these beauties up on his website if you have a PayPal account. Looks like they were freshly plucked off the racks at a Paris fashion boutique, amiright?
It appears that the bulk of Fat Head ideology comes from a book called Good Calories, Bad Calories by a guy named Gary Taubes. Mr. Taubes holds degrees in applied physics from Ivy League universities. That’s pretty impressive! However, Taubes has about as much authority expatiating on nutrition as I would have expatiating on string theory, which is to say none. Alrightythen, picture this if you will: I have taken absolutely zero classes on any kind of physics. I have no education on such matters beyond reading Richard Feynman’s autobiography. Yet I decide to write a book about how everything we have been taught about Einstein’s mass-energy equivalency was wrong. I’ll go tour the country lecturing for no less than $5,000 per appearance and say “Hey guys, Einstein was wrong! Really. There is no link between the mass of an object and its energy content. It’s all a big hoax perpetuated by stupid scientists and the media. I did some Googling one night and unraveled the hell out of it. E=MC2 is the greatest lie of our generation. My book is on sale in the back. I accept cash, Visa, and MasterCard.”
The Actual Science
Although it is exceedingly easy with this panel of experts, I don’t want to engage exclusively in ad hominem attacks.
Modern humans (defined as Homo Sapiens) have not been around for millions of years like the filmmaker claims. Conservative estimates have placed the origins of humanity at about 100,000 years ago. More liberal estimates say we arose 250,000 years ago. I’ve even seen reports of up to 400,000 years, but I know of no legitimate anthropologist that would claim that humans have been around for millions of years. Why would I nitpick about something so seemingly insignificant? If someone is going to tell you what you should and shouldn’t eat based on what he/she assumes the first humans ate, yet are off on the origins of humanity by orders of magnitude then I would ask “Why should I trust their interpretations of the actual diet and its supposed benefits?”
Which brings me to another thing: Where did they get their information on the diets of early humans? I certainly did not see or hear any evidence that supported their version of a Paleolithic diet. Just assertion from the “experts” that for millions of years humans ate almost exclusively saturated animal fat.
The facts: Every nutrition professor I ever had – in addition to any literature I have read on the topic6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 – has stated that early humans subsisted on a diet of mainly foliage and seeds with periodic access to meat and a good amount of this meat was in the form of fish. There are of course debates on exactly how much saturated fat and unsaturated fat and fiber and total calories and cholesterol and what-have-you were in the diet of early humans or human ancestors. It’s difficult to come to a definitive number in terms of grams of any particular macro or micronutrient. To be honest it is probably quite variable, depending on which particular ecological niche of East Africa you want to study. However, the preponderance of evidence points toward a diet that was highly diverse, more total calories than we consume today (probably due to the fact that they were way more physically active than we are today), very high in fiber, included both terrestrial meat and seafood, included a lot of foliage, and included seeds, pulses, legumes, and tubers. In any case I can tell you what the “Paleolithic” diet DID NOT include, and that’s fried chicken, hamburgers, butter, French fries, and basically everything you see Naughton eating in the movie.
Something To Think About
Let’s pretend for a moment that all these nutrition “experts” are right. That early humans and/or human ancestors had a diet consisting of ridiculous amounts of fat. Just nothing but animal protein and animal fat with nary a vegetable or a grain passing their lips. Just imagine that humans were the ultimate carnivorous predator on the African savannah, so much so that lions would shit themselves and gallop away at the sight of us. Can you imagine it? Okay good. Now dig this vibe: that would have absolutely no bearing on whether such a diet would be healthy. That’s right. As my philosophy friends might say “you cannot derive an ought from an is” (although in this case it would be a was).
More facts: It is claimed in the film that early humans were taller. This is untrue. Here’s a recent graph of European height over the past few decades.12
As you can see it’s a steady growth. But what about really early humans? Maybe we (or our ancestors) used to be really tall, then we got short, and now we’re getting tall again. Okay let’s look at the skeletal remains of Australopithecus, shall we? Lucy was 3 ft 7 in tall for Christ’s sake! Incredibly short. You’ve seen that Evolution of Man image, right? Did any of those proto-humans look taller than the human? Nein.
In the podcast I mentioned some studies that refuted the claim by Fallon that “corn oil was a disaster” and that beef tallow prevented cancer (in rodents anyway).13, 14, 15 I made a sincere attempt to find any studies that backed up her claim. The best I could find was a study claiming there was not much difference in rodents fed high amounts of beef fat and rodents fed high amounts of corn oil regarding tumor incidence. Although that same study stated that rodent populations that were fed low-fat diets had markedly less carcinogenesis than their high-fat counterparts, which would undermine the claims of “more fat is better for you.” If anyone can find links or PDFs of those studies she’s talking about please send them to me. I don’t have any kind of religious devotion to any particular diet, and I will go where the evidence leads me. EDIT: I think I may have found the study she was talking about. It seems like a strange study, but I’ll try to summarize it as best I can. So apparently the researchers were investigating the effects of conjugate linoleic acid (CLA, a polyunsaturated fatty acid) that has been shown in other studies to have anticarcinogenic properties with rodents. They fed all mice high fat diets, but the diets differed in fat composition. The experimental diets were a vegetable fat blend, a vegetable fat blend + CLA, a vegetable fat blend + CLA + beef tallow, a vegetable fat blend + corn oil, and a vegetable fat blend + corn oil + CLA. After four weeks they took the rodents and injected them with tumor cells in the mammary area and the tail. Then they sacrificed the mice and measured tumors. Evidently they got some data on the tumors showing no significant differences between the diets but declined to include that data in the study (the authors mentioned this). However, they were able to find that if 0.05% CLA was added to the diets the vegetable fat blend + beef tallow diet showed a significant decrease in “lung tumor burden” over the other diets. Furthermore, if you were to add 0.1% CLA to the diets then the vegetable fat blend only and the vegetable fat blend + beef tallow diet showed a significant decrease in “lung tumor burden.” Do you see what I mean about being strange? I was tempted to wonder why one would conduct such an odd study…. Then I saw it. Did you see it, too? At the bottom of the first page:
Funded by beef and veal producers and importers through their $1-per-head checkoff and was produced for the Cattlemen’s beef board and state beef councils by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
It doesn’t mean that the study is exactly bogus, but it suggests that there were probably quite a few of these studies done with the NCBA actively looking for any hint that beef might be sort of almost healthy so they could take the findings and trumpet them to the skies. So…. There you go. Proof that under the exact right circumstances a little bit of beef tallow can be slightly chemopreventive in rodents.
Even More Facts
Remember in the film when Naughton mentioned Dr. Kilmer McCully as token proof of the global conspiracy about heart disease because Dr. McCully had a theory about what might cause heart disease and it wasn’t cholesterol and he allegedly got fired for it but Naughton never mentions what the theory was? Do you also recall in the podcast episode when I say that it is deliciously ironic what Dr. McCully’s theory actually was because it turned out to be hyperhomocysteinemia which is caused by too much animal protein and not enough B vitamins, something even the good doctor himself called “[animal] protein intoxication”? Great! Here’s the New York Times article that I plucked the information from if you wanted to read it for yourself.
The rest of my critique of this awful, awful movie is in the podcast. I would still like to know about any federal mandate stating that kids cannot walk to school and must take the bus instead. Please inform me so I can write a strongly worded letter to the Obama administration about how I vehemently disagree with such a federal mandate. Then I’ll write a second letter to Mr. Naughton thanking him for bringing this travesty to the attention of the public. Or maybe that little tidbit was just some Grade A bullshit that was utilized to rile up the audience in favor of his libertarian cause against the nanny state.
Fun Facts
The Paleo Diet was recently ranked dead last in the US News & World Report Best Diets. Here are the experts that reviewed all the diets. What do they know anyway, with their fancy Ivy League degrees and RD accreditations from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly known as the American Dietetic Association)? It’s all a big hoax anyway.
I also found a section in a nutrition textbook focusing on low-carb diets. Instead of linking to several photocopied pages I am just posting a table summarizing the current science regarding this trend.16
Bonus Picture
Here is a graph showing global web traffic of “paleo diet.”
As you can see it is growing almost exponentially. However, I imagine that around 2015 or maybe sooner the novelty will wear off just like the Atkins diet and it will be just another blip in the history of fad diets.
- You should take an hour or two to peruse the Wikipedia page on common misconceptions if you haven’t already. It will blow your mind. I guarantee you believe at least one thing in that list that is patently false.
- although the ultimate goal there is likely financial anyway
- except for the handful of scientists that agree with us – they are brave, brave souls
- Looks like a glorified multivitamin to me, though.
- among other diseases he never studied
- Kay RF. Dental Evidence for the Diet of Australopithecus. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 14, 315-41 (1985)
- Broadhurst CL, et al. Brain-specific lipids from marine, lacustrine, or terrestrial food resources: potential impact on early African Homo sapiens. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B 131, 653–673 (2002)
- Hockett B and Haws J. Nutritional Ecology and Diachronic Trends in Paleolithic Diet and Health. Evolutionary Anthropology 12, 211–216 (2003)
- Marean CW, et al. Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature 449, 905-909 (2007)
- Konner M and Eaton SB. Paleolithic Nutrition. Nutr Clin Pract 25, 594-602 (2010)
- Don’t pay any attention to these studies, of course, or any other studies for that matter because we all know the researchers are in cahoots with Big Soy. Unless they show something that might be interpreted as pro-meat or pro-saturated fat, in which case those researchers should be heralded as torchbearers of truth and light.
- Taken from this study: McEvoy BP and Visscher PM. Genetics of human height. Economics and Human Biology 7, 294–306 (2009)
- Morei T, et al. Beef Tallow, but Not Perilla or Corn Oil, Promotion of Rat Prostate and Intestinal Carcinogenesis by 3,22-Dimethyl-4-aminobiphenyl. Jpn. J. Cancer Res 92, 1026–1033 (2001)
- You can read the rest of them yourself here and here because they are not available online, or at least not at my institution of higher learning. I personally scanned them. You’re welcome.
- This one is not about cancer, but it’s still pertinent to this discussion: Shimomura Y, et al. Less Body Fat Accumulation in Rats Fed a Safflower Oil Diet Than in Rats Fed a Beef Tallow Diet. J Nutr. 11, 1291-1296 (1990)
- Sizer F and Whitney E. (2007) Nutrition: Concepts and Controversies, 11th Edition. Brooks Cole, pp 342. Here is the context if you reeeeeally wanna see it.
February 20, 2012 at 2:18 am
Right on! I’m ashamed to say there was a time when I was on the edge of falling for some of this faux science…then I started looking around for my own answers. I still can’t find anything about Keyes being discredited, but that “factoid” is all over the place. David Katz wrote something interesting several months ago about how he thinks the paleo diet could actually be quite a healthy diet…if people were actually eating like paleo people probably did: half vegetables and some fruit (by weight, not calories), and the meat component coming from wild game or grass-fed beef (i.e., relatively lean). But the reality is that there’s a whole lot of bacon and sausage noshing going on. I haven’t seen Fat Head…I’ll put it on my list for next time I feel like throwing things at my TV.
February 20, 2012 at 6:03 pm
My first comment! Thanks for the feedback Carrie. When I asked about the Seven Countries Study in class I was genuinely curious, because like you I had heard about the criticisms but never saw anything persuasive against it.
I had an undergraduate professor devote a couple of lectures to the diets of early man, plus I’ve seen enough Les Stroud shows to know that game is not as plentiful nor as easy to catch as we might like it to be.
February 22, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Hallo there, nice to read some sense!
I’m going to be doing an accredited Nutrition degree and this entire debate obviously popped into the ‘must read’ category. Lovely to see an objective standpoint. Two things I’d like to add to your wonderful article.
1) Why are we looking at what people ate back then anyway? Their life expectancies were in the 30′s for Pete’s sake! Today’s longest living people (90′s and 100′s!) tend to have a few dietary commonalities that we should pick up on;
Moderate Fish
High Legume
High Veg
Shouldn’t we be looking at the examples seen in their diets instead?
2) All saturated fats should not be looked at as equals. A few differences in chain length or structure totally changes a chemical, look at morphine and heroin!
Studies have found that saturated acids with chain length from 12-16 & 20 increase blood cholesterol, others have negligible effect. Animal related fats tend to fall into those categories.
Thought I should just pop that in!
February 23, 2012 at 4:28 am
I agree whole-heartedly.
March 21, 2012 at 1:20 am
Thanks so much for this… I have FB friends who are relentless with this paleo BS. It’s almost like they’ve become missionaries to save the rest of us from the evils of whole grains.
Is this a brand new blog? I will be reading…
March 21, 2012 at 1:39 am
Yes, it is quite new. I’m still messing with it to get it how I want it, but thanks for stopping by! The Paleo Diet is quite trendy right now. If I was smarter I would start churning out some Paleo diet books and ride this gravy train for the next two or three years.
March 24, 2012 at 4:09 pm
[...] also kindly refer you to an earlier post where I found the exact same thing about CLAs. I’ll reproduce it here. Funded by beef and veal [...]
April 9, 2012 at 7:48 am
what about jimmy moore low carb podcasts with all the mediial doctors on them he has 550 of them most of them are doctors
April 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm
I’ve never heard of Mr. Moore. I will have to google him.
June 22, 2012 at 10:41 pm
I am deeply disturbed by your approach to this subject. You’re bashing Doctors for daring to discuss their opinions based on how far removed they are from Harvard or other Ivy League schools? Their medical degrees are some how delegitimized because they are from Arkansas or Florida? You went to Colorado and Washington Universities-aren’t they even further away from Harvard? And to gloss over Gary Taubes education because you don’t like what he said is VERY disingenuous. The man DID go to Harvard, as well as Cornell AND Stanford. Being a scientific researcher and considering his extremely impressive educational background, most would at least consider his research. Do try to read his book, you may not agree with what he says, but he backs it up with considerable and ponderous research.
I agree with many of the things you have said, but am turned off by your sarcastic snarky approach, and you are dishonest in some of your representations of the information in the documentary. For example, you start out by strongly implying it’s a scam. There is no “scam” and it’s unfair to imply so. You may believe the author is wrong, but there is no indication that he is trying to fool people or take their money. The examples you listed about people selling things on their personal sites is spurious. This is America, we are allowed to have free enterprise, selling things does not make one a “scammer.”
You claim his point of view is, and I quote, “Yeah, see we actually live in a fascist state where you can’t get any funding for research unless you promise to publish more fake studies that promote eating more fruits and vegetables.” This is an outright dishonesty on your part. He never once said anything like this in the documentary. He was talking about government promoted low fat diets and GRAIN producers, not vegetables. He, along with the experts he included in his documentary, are not anti-vegetables. All of them agree that eating vegetables are necessary to good health. Why the flagrant dishonesty? You have many good points, but as an average American consumer who is interested in reading health information, I’m really put off by the above. I have no agenda, and don’t support any “side”, but want the best research and information.
June 23, 2012 at 3:19 am
I can appreciate your points. Let me try to address some of them.
“You’re bashing Doctors for daring to discuss their opinions based on how far removed they are from Harvard or other Ivy League schools? Their medical degrees are some how delegitimized because they are from Arkansas or Florida?”
Perhaps these were below the belt. I was trying to mix sardonic jabs with genuine criticism. I do admit in the post, however, that I was engaging in ad hominem attacks.
“And to gloss over Gary Taubes education because you don’t like what he said is VERY disingenuous.”
I don’t see how this is disingenuous since I did not gloss over his education. I mentioned his education and said I was impressed by it. Moreover, he didn’t actually ‘say’ anything in the movie. I would guess that Naughton just read his book and was inspired to make his documentary because of it since Taubes is cited so much, but I don’t really know. I did recently check out Good Calories, Bad Calories from my local library. It is currently sitting on my kitchen table, and I will try to read it as open-mindedly as I can.
“You claim his point of view is, and I quote, ‘Yeah, see we actually live in a fascist state where you can’t get any funding for research unless you promise to publish more fake studies that promote eating more fruits and vegetables.’ This is an outright dishonesty on your part. He never once said anything like this in the documentary.”
You’re right about that not being a real quote. I hope no one thinks that Naughton said this verbatim. It’s closer to satire, but that being said I do not think I misrepresented his ideas. The film clearly indicates that researchers and scientists (at least in the field of nutrition science) are on the take, and that the government only funds research that supports its public health propaganda. It’s a very conspiratorial film when you examine it. Furthermore, it just doesn’t square with reality.
July 10, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Thanks for the article Seth. My trainer posted a link to a segment of Fathead on You tube. Though I respect my trainer, I must say the segment had the distinct fishy odor of a late night infomercial. I had to Google quite a bit to find something that looked at it with an actual respect for the scientific method. Much appreciated.
September 18, 2012 at 6:57 pm
You remind me of the Christian fundamentalist who explained to me when I asked him to “Explain how there could have been a virgin birth.” He said that “it can’t be explained with science…it requires a leap of faith.” And so that is what this debate is for you. You made the leap of faith and now your religion that is being questioned.
It’s hard to know where to begin to respond to your silly rebuttal of “Tom Naughton is a Fat Head.” You range from snarky comments about the figures in the film not having degrees from prestigious universities to wishful thinking about what the diet of primitive man comprised.
Do we need to make a list of the ass clowns who all have degrees from prestigious universities? Really? OK, just start listing the all of the brilliant experts who serve and have been serving at the highest position in our government for the past 20 years and then consider what an expert job they’ve done stewarding the ship called the U.S. Government.
<>
That’s precisely what several hundred million of us have been doing for 30 years…and it has produced national obesity.
More snarkery: <>
Alright! Finally someone who is cool.
<>
You make it clear that you haven’t read any of the Taubes books because what he expatiates about is the work done by others, not himself. He claims to be a “science writer” (actually you should like him cause he’s frequently published in the NYTimes) and not a scientist. He researched the studies that have been conducted on diet during the last 150 years and he drew some conclusions; in short, none of them support the kind of diet that the authorities and people like you advocate.
Taubes is now involved with The Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) which is currently conducting a research effort “composed of the best scientists in the field — all independent and suitably skeptical to put to rest, one way or the other, all the major and many of the minor controversies in nutrition research.” You should apply, you might find it interesting.
But seriously, why all the ad hominem attacks? Why so defensive? Too much invested in your position? Not even curious? Why don’t you just read the books of these people and rebut the words of the books instead of poking fun of degrees from Arkansas? BTW, where is your degree from? Then do some research to determine whether the claims of the people who hold degrees from Ivy League universities (“which is pretty impressive”) are valid?
<>
From where would early human Africans have obtained fish? How about early human Germans? Are Australian Aborigines seagoing people? Aren’t you curious?
<>
Indeed, what DO they know? Follow the money.
On your blog you poke fun of <> But about yourself y state that <> Why not Johns Hopkins…or even an Ivy? I don’t get it. Why the snark about Harcombe when your degrees are so similar…and from second rate schools? Sounds to me like you’ve met your match in her.
September 18, 2012 at 7:00 pm
You remind me of the Christian fundamentalist who explained to me when I asked him to “Explain how there could have been a virgin birth.” He said that “it can’t be explained with science…it requires a leap of faith.” And so that is what this debate is for you. You made the leap of faith and now your religion that is being questioned.
It’s hard to know where to begin to respond to your silly rebuttal of “Tom Naughton is a Fat Head.” You range from snarky comments about the figures in the film not having degrees from prestigious universities to wishful thinking about what the diet of primitive man comprised.
Do we need to make a list of the ass clowns who all have degrees from prestigious universities? Really? OK, just start listing the all of the brilliant experts who serve and have been serving at the highest position in our government for the past 20 years and then consider what an expert job they’ve done stewarding the ship called the U.S. Government.
“I respect anyone that has the brains and patience to get a medical degree…I will say, though, that the University of Arkansas is not exactly Harvard Medical School or Johns Hopkins University. All things being equal I’d rather take medical and/or dietary advice from someone that went to a more elite university rather than one located in the Ozarks.”
That’s precisely what several hundred million of us have been doing for 30 years…and it has produced national obesity.
More snarkery: “Dr. Sears is also a MD who got his degree at the University of South Florida… Remember when I said that the University of Arkansas is about as far from Johns Hopkins as you can get? I lied. It’s actually the University of South Florida…Eric Oliver – Here’s a guy who got his PhD from UC Berkeley and is now a professor at the University of Chicago. Those are some serious credentials.”
Alright! Finally someone who is cool.
“It appears that the bulk of Fat Head ideology comes from a book called Good Calories, Bad Calories by a guy names [sic] Gary Taubes. Mr. Taubes holds degrees in applied physics from Ivy League universities. That’s pretty impressive! However, Taubes has about as much authority expatiating on nutrition as I would have expatiating on string theory, which is to say none.”
You make it clear that you haven’t read any of the Taubes books because what he expatiates about is the work done by others, not himself. He claims to be a “science writer” (actually you should like him cause he’s frequently published in the NYTimes) and not a scientist. He researched the studies that have been conducted on diet during the last 150 years and he drew some conclusions; in short, none of them support the kind of diet that the authorities and people like you advocate.
Taubes is now involved with The Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) which is currently conducting a research effort “composed of the best scientists in the field — all independent and suitably skeptical to put to rest, one way or the other, all the major and many of the minor controversies in nutrition research.” You should apply, you might find it interesting.
But seriously, why all the ad hominem attacks? Why so defensive? Too much invested in your position? Not even curious? Why don’t you just read the books of these people and rebut the words of the books instead of poking fun of degrees from Arkansas? BTW, where is your degree from? Then do some research to determine whether the claims of the people who hold degrees from Ivy League universities (“which is pretty impressive”) are valid?
“Every nutrition professor I ever had…has stated that early humans subsisted on a diet of mainly foliage and seeds with periodic access to meat and a good amount of this meat was in the form of fish.”
From where would early human Africans have obtained fish? How about early human Germans? Are Australian Aborigines seagoing people? Aren’t you curious?
“The Paleo Diet was recently ranked dead last in the US News & World Report Best Diets. Here are the experts that reviewed all the diets. What do they know anyway, with their fancy Ivy League degrees…”
Indeed, what DO they know? Follow the money.
On your blog you poke fun of “Who is this Zoe Harcombe and why should I trust her judgment?…she is a [Q]ualified nutritionist with a Diploma in Diet & Nutrition and a Diploma in Clinical Weight Management, but she is first and foremost an obesity researcher.” But about yourself y state that “I hold a B.S. in Food Science and Human Nutrition from Colorado State University.” Why not Johns Hopkins…or even an Ivy? I don’t get it. Why the snark about Harcombe when your degrees are so similar…and from second rate schools? Sounds to me like you’ve met your match in her.
September 28, 2012 at 12:55 am
I realize that attacking the people rather than the ideas is a logical fallacy. I try not to engage in it too much and I point it out when I do. Perhaps knocking the universities in Arkansas and south Florida was below the belt. After all, these are accredited colleges and not diploma mills.
That said, I do think education and experience are very important when talking about matters of health, which is why I found it odd that the audience was expected to take dietary advice from people with unrelated degrees or no degrees at all.
You’re right about my never having read Taubes, at least when this was written. I have delved into some of his work since then and I find it unpersuasive. I just posted a review of Good Calories, Bad Calories, but you probably shouldn’t read it. I doubt it will align with your cognitive inertia.
Also, thanks for pointing out my spelling error! I hate when I do that.
Lastly, regarding my criticism (it’s obvious that you don’t appreciate ad hominem remarks yet you engage in plenty yourself) I will say that one difference between myself and someone like Naughton or Taubes or Horcombe is that I am not selling books or DVDs that tell you what to eat. I don’t even have a diet that I am pushing on this blog/podcast like you claim. At least I don’t remember posting or recording anything like that.
March 4, 2013 at 1:31 am
Your summation of the movie was dead on!!! Great job.
March 10, 2013 at 10:12 pm
I recommend you email, Naught, I hear he is willing to reply to questions. so you could find some of the studies he may have refered in the film. well written.
March 27, 2013 at 7:21 pm
I just finished listening to your podcast reply to this movie, and you really did nothing besides make fun of the aesthetics of the movie (like the music and the videos of obese people). Then you and your girlfriend tried attacking the experts by saying things like they look like child molesters and have creepy voices. What I didn’t hear was any shred of scientific proof behind your criticisms? All I heard was a regurgitation of the mainstream dogma, mixed in with how you Googled some of the experts.
I think you largely missed the point on a lot of the points of the movie. One of the points you missed was that Naughton wasn’t trying to say there was no obesity epidemic, not at all. He was pointing out the flawed logic of the BMI scale. He was also pointing out that weight and health are not necessarily synonymous with each other, which is completely true.
Tom Naughton seems to be very open to do interviews and answer questions. You may give yourself a little bit more credibility if you actually interviewed him for your slam piece, as opposed to just ad hominem attacks and rehashing of the typical advice frequently spewed to us.
By the way, following a low carb, high fat diet, I’ve lost quite a bit of weight, gotten off all of my cholesterol and hypertension medication, and I have never had a better blood lipid profile. Just some food for thought, and I’m not the only one.
March 27, 2013 at 7:30 pm
By the way, Eric Oliver wasn’t giving nutrition advice, nor was he used in the movie as a nutrition expert. He was pointing out the flawed process of identifying obese people by the federal government and CDC, and how it affected funding. As a man who has a PHD in government studies, I think this makes him completely relevant. But nice try.
Oh and by the way, its funny how towards the end of your review here, you put up a chart about high protein diets. This makes it quite obvious that you have never read anything regarding Paleo, Atkins, or anything that could be considered a low carb lifestyle. Most of these programs center around eating healthy fats, and limiting carbohydrates. You know, those things that affect insulin release, which directs the body to store fat? Very few diets condone high protein. Most consider protein as incidental to eating fat, since they’re usually found with each other in nature.
March 28, 2013 at 2:11 am
Brian, if I may make a few points….
Congratulations on the weight loss. I lost quite a bit of weight as well several years ago by cutting out sugar and running several times a week. Low-carb diets certainly can be an effective way to lose weight for some people.
Thanks for taking the time to listen, read, and respond to my work. However, it is evident that you only listened to the first few minutes of the podcast and what you did listen to you did not follow very well. It’s been a while since I recorded it, but I did mention that my SISTER was my guest, not my girlfriend. I don’t have a girlfriend – I have a wife that I also mentioned.
Second, despite your assertion of “What I didn’t hear was any shred of scientific proof behind your criticisms?” (not sure why you ended that sentence with a question mark) I mentioned several studies by name in addition to mentioning the research of Dr. Drewnowski. I also have references on this post that I imagine you had to scroll through to post a comment. Feel free to go back and look at those.
It’s been a while since I saw the movie, but I do remember him saying something like (I’m paraphrasing) “It took me several hours to shoot this footage of fat people. If obesity is such an epidemic I should have been able to shoot this in much less time.” He also mentioned that aging boomers are skewing the stats. I think it’s fair to say he was “trying to say there was no obesity epidemic.” Also, I don’t recall him “pointing out that weight and health are not necessarily synonymous with each other,” but correct me if I am wrong. However, like you I would agree with that.
I did seriously consider trying to interview Mr. Naughton so he could give his side of the story. But if I were to do that I would also feel compelled to point out prior to the interview that I was not a fan of his movie and I thought he and his “experts” misrepresented many things. I would also mention that I would challenge him on many of his points. I would also need to convince him that in spite of this I would not deceptively edit our interview or make him look like a fool. Because of this I simply assumed he would not be interested. Perhaps that was a mistake. On a side note, you will notice that Mr. Naughton did not interview anyone that had a contrary opinion to his.
Finally, I have to take issue with your claim that high protein is not condoned on these diets. Most of these types of low-carb diets do encourage high-protein intake for many reasons; notably, the protein intake helps to mitigate the protein losses that occur during ketosis and protein intake increases satiety. In fact, the base of the Atkins Food Pyramid is “protein sources.” http://www.atkins.com/Science/Atkins-Food-Pyramid.aspx
March 28, 2013 at 7:08 pm
It all depends on how you define “high protein.” For example, the average RDI according to nutrition.gov for a 35 year old man weighing about 200 pounds would be in the neighborhood of 60g protein per day. Atkins, on the other hand, gives no specific recommendation for a protein amount, at least according to the link you provided. Yes, those foods will have protein, but they are not ONLY protein. Could chicken, fish, and veggies be considered exclusively high protein? Yes, lean cuts, with obviously minimal protein in veggies. The Atkins plan advocates eating full fat items, which is why things like butter, eggs, avocadoes, and non-lean cuts of meat are recommended. The higher fat content of these foods affects greater leptin release, and in turn the satiation of these foods results in no overeating. Now, per the federal guidelines, yes, a typical Atkins or low carber may eat over 100g of protein per day, which would be considered high. The protein number, if properly researched, is a number that low carb dietary experts have all said needs to be personally adjusted to results. Most recommend less than 50g of protein per day, which is less than federal guidelines.
I think cutting out the fat and limiting protein only leaves one macronutrient- carbohydrates. I will meet you in the middle and agree that refined carbs and sugar are no way to get the 300g recommended by the government, but things like whole grains are not the way to get them either. In the GI tract, it is still broken down into glucose. The release is more gradual, and the insulin and BGL roller coaster not quite as bad as eating a candy bar, but those carbs are still absorbed over time, and can still lead to insulin resistance.
Regarding your sister, I apologize for the mistake. And to clear it up, I listened to the entire podcast.
In terms of addressing the movie’s viewpoint about the obesity epidemic, I think speculating about what point Mr. Naughton was trying to prove is purely conjecture. We are both entitled to our opinions, but I stand by my view that he was merely pointing out the flawed logic of the BMI. As an educated person, you have to admit that he has a point- the BMI is very flawed, and I think Eric Oliver made that point very clear in the movie.
If you ever do try to interview Mr. Naughton, I think you would be successful. The dietary community, on all sides of the issues, are one of the few communities that seem to be willing to defend their positions and do so in a respectful and informative quorum. I point to Dean Ornish being interviewed by Jimmy Moore a few years ago, where he told Jimmy to challenge him. And with all my research in dietary studies, this was probably one of the most interesting interview I’ve heard to date.
To close, thanks for the congratulations. I do believe that nobody should be a food evangelist- everybody is different out there. Certain things work for each individual separately. I know people who eat low fat, some who are vegans, and some who eat nothing but eggs and bacon, and all will tell you their way is the best. I think finding our own ways are the most effective way to address the health problems of this country, and a one-size-fits-all solution can not be endorsed by bodies as large and influential as the USDA.
March 30, 2013 at 12:48 am
Brian,
I’m not an advocate of high-carbohydrate diets or low-fat diets, either. There is plenty of scientific evidence out there that shows one can lose weight and greatly reduce their risks of various diseases on diets of moderate fats, protein, and CHO. There is also similar evidence for Ornish and Pritikin diets, but they are so low-fat I would never want to be on them. I imagine they are barely palatable. At any rate, I would be far more concerned with my intake of protective bioactive compounds than, say, % calories from fat or CHO, but then again I could be biased since that is my field of study.
Back to the film… Yes, Mr. Naughton did point out legitimate limitations of BMI, but then he used that as evidence of why the CDC obesity statistics are bogus. But perhaps I missed his main point and need to revisit the film.
I’ve never listened to Jimmy Moore’s podcast, but I will have to look for that Ornish interview. It does sound interesting.
I will leave the option open to interview Naughton. I certainly would welcome the opportunity, but have always simply assumed he would not be interested.
I’m glad we could find some common ground on this polarizing issue. The last word is yours if you want it.
April 6, 2013 at 12:07 pm
I think we’ve covered a lot. Thanks for the good discussion, and good luck with your work.
March 31, 2013 at 3:44 pm
Thanks so much for this. It’s so difficult to get evidence based information around nutrition, and it’s often difficult for laypeople (like myself) to recognize nonsense masquerading as science.
I did start watching this documentary – and I was actually pretty sympathetic to high-protein high-fat eating. What put me off was his ranting about how we’re all being lied to by scientists, doctors and government agencies. Does he really believe that these people and agencies are all purposely feeding us misinformation to make us fat and unhealthy? And does he not understand how the process of peer review works if he thinks that scientists can just write a load of nonsense and publish it without it ever being subject to scrutiny?
I’m sure it would be a real coup for any scientist to publish evidence that could help reverse the obesity epidemic.So, if this information is so obvious and self-evident, why the hell wouldn’t someone out there prove it and publish?
May 1, 2013 at 3:51 am
I’m new to these nutrition debates, but what really interests me in the carb debate is the heart disease angle. I’d never heard about artery inflammation and sugars role in it and how it affects plaque buildup before reading Dr. Dwight Lundell a year ago. The lypo hypothesis fingers cholesterol and for forty years the medical community has focused on fat reduction as heart healthy. I’d never had any reason to doubt it. However, The stats after all these years are pathetic, but the vested interests in the theory are legion. Fathead touched on this but you haven’t mentioned it. Was the movie wrong or misleading about this?
May 2, 2013 at 12:26 am
I’m not familiar with Dr. Lundell, but I Googled him and this was the first result: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html so I am already skeptical of his message.
The thing about heart disease is that it’s essentially an umbrella term for several heart-related diseases. What’s more is that there is not one single cause for one or all of these diseases. The pathogeneses are multi-faceted.
That said, dietary factors certainly play a large role in the development of heart diseases. I don’t know how scientifically literate you are, but I have many papers about the causes of atherosclerosis that I can provide you. (Atherosclerosis is probably what you’re talking about.)
http://ge.tt/7jeJpYf
http://ge.tt/6LDfpYf
http://ge.tt/6HFcpYf
http://ge.tt/8IiRpYf
http://ge.tt/6EbGpYf
http://ge.tt/9VafyxZ
The first link is probably what you’re looking for, but they are all relevant if you’re interested in this issue.
The long and the short of it is that atherosclerosis is largely due to serum cholesterol levels, specifically LDL, but even more specifically small & dense LDL particles that become oxidized. What’s interesting is that dietary cholesterol doesn’t have nearly the effect on serum cholesterol cholesterol as you might think.
One of my problems with Fat Head is that the filmmaker sets up a false dichotomy that you can either eat an unhealthy vegetarian-style diet filled with sugar, white flour, and “processed vegetable oils” or you can eat an all natural diet of meat and animal fat like mother nature intended.
You’d be hard-pressed to find a dietitian or nutritionist or a vegetarian that advocates for a diet higher in sugar or flour, yet he still asserts that the government, scientists, doctors, the media, nutritionists, etc, etc… all want you to eat such a diet. So he ends up only telling one side of the story (namely that sugar is bad for us) while also ignoring the mountain of evidence that doesn’t support his theory.
I’m typing this in a rush, so does this make sense?
May 2, 2013 at 2:50 pm
Here is the Lundell article I mentioned: http://www.sott.net/article/242516-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease (sorry, don’t know how to insert links in ipad)
I’ve no problem with the minor regulatory infractions, and heart surgeons aren’t necessarily great investors. After 25 years of bi-passes his passion turned to promoting his contrarianism, no problem with that either. So not impressed with google hit job on surgeon who saved who knows how many lives. He seems sincere to me.
The thesis: yes, cholesterol in the artery forms blood blocking plaque. But if not for inflammation, it wouldn’t! What causes inflammation: sugar and carbs. More thesis: when people eat less fat, they eat more carbs. They just do.
Now I’ve only heard this recently and big ships like the AMA and US gov turn slowly. is it really quackery?
May 4, 2013 at 2:16 pm
What about me? I believe that there was only a conspiracy in the etymologic sense — breathing together — but I’ve certainly made the point that the lipophobes have refused to accept their failure to show any relation between SF and CVD. The recent meta-analysis was telling because it included studies over twenty years that showed nothing. I included the figure in my blogpost on the Danish fat tax, now departed: http://wp.me/p16vK0-8t The only recent ad hominem I’ve been able to get is when I showed how flawed Lustig’s study was. http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=63857
What’s his name with the stocking cap and six-pack abs used to say I was widely quoted which is a big deal for a professor in a medical school. Of course, he was the main person who cited my work and then he stopped, in order to go after Mike Eades. And now this. Hard to get your work cited.
May 4, 2013 at 9:36 pm
Well, I’m not at all familiar with your work so I won’t be able to comment on it intelligently unless/until I have the time to investigate it.
May 4, 2013 at 5:20 pm
Seth, you’re an idiot plain and simple !
May 4, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Bert,
At least you back up your reasoned assertion with plenty of facts. I certainly cannot argue with your logic.
May 4, 2013 at 7:40 pm
No need for me to give you any facts cause I’ve seen how you deal with them by ridiculing the authors with nonsense arguments about where they got their degree’s. For real ? !! Come on Seth your argument is as weaker than a vegan child.
Get your head out the sand and face the facts; the current lipid hypothesis isn’t even supported by the stan drug makers anymore. They now claim it’s inflammation not serum cholesterol levels. That’s so 80′s !
You’re just in lock-step with the FDA which has killed more people with there drugs and is bought and sold by big business.
That my friend is why you are an IDIOT !!!!
May 4, 2013 at 8:24 pm
I have addressed this same criticism months ago in a previous comment. I can’t blame you for avoiding internet comments – most of the time they are just pure bilge. However, I try to maintain reasoned discourse on my blog. Here is the link if you wanted to read it. http://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/tom-naughton-is-a-fat-head/#comment-211
On the off-chance you are actually interested in reasonable conversation… What does the lipid hypothesis mean to you? And what is your evidence that I am in lock-step with the FDA?
May 4, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Since these are moderated let me suggest that if you are a graduate student, you might want to be more civil. Just a suggestion.
May 4, 2013 at 8:31 pm
Are you referring to me or Bert? I thought I was being civil.
May 4, 2013 at 9:12 pm
Whoever wrote the original post.
May 4, 2013 at 8:59 pm
Nope, not a grad student. I’m a former vegetarian who was lied to by diet gurus of the ’60′s into believing that meat was bad and that I should eat a low fat diet to save my life. Back in 1980 I became a vegetarian, then turned vegan then macrobiotic then macro with fish. Overall it was a 27 year journey that although started out well turned into a diet related health nightmare. It wasn’t until I gave up soy and embraced the principles of Dr. Weston A. Price that I started to feel better and recover from my ailments caused by the lack of saturated fat/cholesterol and fat soluble vitamins and minerals in my diet. And so it really piss’s me off to see this kind of garbage being passed onto to people who are trying to better their health. I believe in results from People in the real world who are seeing real health benefits from a low carb or paleo diet. Not some grad student’s regurgitated Government health principles that he learned in some government sanctioned main stream medicine college.
May 4, 2013 at 8:27 pm
I would take this seriously, but wordpress is about as far away from a real website as you can get.
May 4, 2013 at 8:31 pm
It’s interesting that you focus on the domain name rather than the actual content.
…but you’re right. It’s a blog. Be skeptical. Check the sources.
May 4, 2013 at 8:58 pm
Like your focusing on the university name as opposed to the content?
May 4, 2013 at 9:07 pm
Actually, I focused on both. I have also addressed your unoriginal criticism before, right here in this comments section:
http://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/tom-naughton-is-a-fat-head/#comment-57
http://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/tom-naughton-is-a-fat-head/#comment-211
May 4, 2013 at 8:59 pm
So basically you’re saying that, if someone has something to sell, their information has to be bogus. Um please tell that to The American Heart Association, the pharmaceutical industry, people who have put out books on veganism and vegetarianism, Morgan Spurlock, Dr. Colin T. Campbell of “The China Study” fame and and so on. There wouldn’t be much information available if the only stuff we trusted were from someone who has no stake in anything. Yes, Tom sells stuff on his website. Considering he financed his movie himself, he has so make back the outlay somewhere, somehow. But no one is pushing anyone to buy any of that stuff. There is a lot of information on his website that is totally free of charge and for the taking, as is the information on Dr. Eades website, and others. I look forward to your response to Dr. Richard Feinman’s comment. He has nothing to sell and his credentials are impeccable.. Mary Enig was warning about the dangers of trans fats 25 years before it became cool to do so. Try rebutting the points made in the movie with some actual data and facts, not a critique of everyone’s credentials and motives. More and more evidence is showing up in peer reviewed journals to support the information in the movie and contradicting the prevailing “wisdom.” And try not attacking straw men. The movie did not promote the Paleo diet or say everyone should eat a low carb diet. He presented information and evidence to support it. What anyone does with that information is up to them. I was aware of the same information long before I saw Fat Head.
May 4, 2013 at 9:20 pm
“So basically you’re saying that, if someone has something to sell, their information has to be bogus.”
Actually, no. I did not say that. THAT is a straw man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Please read up on it so you can avoid using it in the future.
“Try rebutting the points made in the movie with some actual data and facts, not a critique of everyone’s credentials and motives.”
Evidently, the followers of whoever posted this link today do not bother to read much of the post before commenting. I suggest you read a little beyond the experts section. If you do you’ll find what you claim I am lacking.
May 5, 2013 at 5:19 am
I did read to the end. None of the experts in the movie claim that our Paleolithic ancestors ate nothing but meat and fat with “nary a vegetable passing their lips.” So that’s a strawman argumetn. Actually, here’s a fact for you: stable isotope analyses of bones show that early man did eat a lot of meat. Comparisons to modern day carnivores shows that Neanderthals and early modern man were even more carnivorous. Doesn’t mean they didn’t eat fruits and vegetables–it’s harder to assess how much of that they ate. Absolutely no one is claiming that a Paleolithic diet included fried chicken, etc. etc. As I said, Naughton wasn’t trying to eat a Paleo diet in the movie. He was trying to refute Morgan Spurlock’s claim that eating fast food makes you fat and sick.
As to the chart from your nutrition text book, restricting carbohydrates does, in fact, shift metabolism toward weight loss. It’s true that restricting carbohydrates without restricting calories will not result in weight loss, but the beauty of a low carbohydrate diet is that calories can be and are restricted naturally, without hunger. And according to a recent study comparing a low fat, low carb, and Mediterranean diet, the people in the low carb arm burned more calories per day than the people in either of the other two. So yes, there is a shift in metabolism with carb restriction. Text books aren’t infallible. I’m a retired teacher. I know. Science textbooks, in particular are pretty much out of date by the time they get off the presses.
Claim 2: BMI isn’t a measure of leanness. So saying that people who eat more protein have a higher BMI is true but doesn’t say anything about how lean they are or aren’t. A person with a higher BMI than another might be very lean and muscular compared to someone with a lower BMI.
Claim 3. No one in the low carb sphere is claiming that insulin release causes obesity and disease, so that’s another straw man. And while it’s true that insulin can’t cause weight gain in a person who is in energy balance, there is evidence that, in a person who is insulin resistant, the presence of insulin can, indeed, contribute to weight gain by creating energy imbalance. Tom covered that in the movie.
Claim 4. No problem.
May 5, 2013 at 5:15 pm
First off, I would like to say ‘thank you’ for what I consider to be a thoughtful and substantive comment.
I’m no anthropologist, but I do enjoy learning about human evolution and human history. I find it quite fascinating. In my readings I have found that the diets of early humans and human ancestors to be more moderate in meat intake than the makers of Fat Head would have you believe. (Cited above and here are some studies regarding Neanderthals) You mentioned some studies that might suggest otherwise. I will happily take a look at them if you want to cite those studies.
However, like I mentioned when I wrote the post I’m not too concerned about what Neanderthals or early humans may or may not have eaten. I am more concerned about what we are eating now and whether or not it is healthy. If it turns out that 50,000 years ago was the pinnacle of human health and nutrition, then I will happily espouse those foods. After all, I don’t want to eat harmful foods any more than you do. However, the evidence presented in Fat Head is far from compelling.
You are correct about the Paleo diet not being explicitly stated in the movie. Mr. Naughton does strenuously advocate a diet high in animal fat while decrying plant fats and all carbohydrates. It wasn’t until I visited his website that I saw the term “paleo diet” used to describe what he advocated. Therefore, I decided to go with that term since he used it himself, and it was a better shorthand than typing out “a diet high in animal fat, but low in vegetable fat and carbohydrates.” Some friends and colleagues have pointed out to me (after writing this post) that Naughton’s paleo diet is not a ‘true’ paleolithic diet, but a rebranded Atkins diet. They also informed me that a ‘true’ paleo diet would include more vegetables and whole grains than Mr. Naughton would have you believe. Now I suppose we could nitpick about what the paleo diet is in its purest form, but I’m going to move on.
Regarding Spurlock and Supersize Me, if you recall toward the end of that film Spurlock spends some time highlighting a man that eats Big Macs literally everyday. He’s a skinny guy and by all accounts fairly healthy to boot. I’m sure Spurlock’s intention was to puzzle the audience for a bit, and have them think “But… I don’t understand. Spurlock is eating McDonald’s everyday and gaining serious weight, but here’s a guy that eats daily McDonald’s and seems happy and healthy. What gives?” Then if you recall Spurlock takes this opportunity to highlight the fact that the sugary soda and salty french fries caused the lion’s share of his weight gain and ill health.
What baffles me is why Mr. Naughton doesn’t build on this. It fits perfectly with his anti-carbohydrate narrative. Instead he implies Spurlock is lying about his diet and claims Spurlock implies that poor people are stupid (I never got that message from Supersize Me, though). Naughton then attempts to prove Spurlock was full of baloney by eating a fast-food diet very different from Spurlock’s (no sugary sodas, no buns, and maybe no french fries…I’m not sure about the fries). He also exercises much more than Spurlock. Moreover, he also makes a point to keep his calorie intake at or below a specified amount, despite claiming at the beginning of the movie that the calories-in/calories-burned theory of weight loss was baloney. It’s completely incoherent. I’m surprised so many people consider it a thorough refutation of Supersize Me.
May 4, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Good one Sug !
May 4, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Uh oh, it’s damage control time now Seth.
Boy, you’d have a great future as a politician the way you divert legitimate criticism with total disregard. You say one thing on your post then deny it. Which is it ???
I call it Romnyism. Were you for it before you were against it ? !
What a joke your Blog is !
May 4, 2013 at 11:01 pm
Responding to comments is considered damage control now?
By the way, if I bother to divert legitimate criticism then I am not disregarding it. At least try to make your insults consistent.
And what am I denying?
I should probably not even respond to you. It’s now obvious to me that you’re far too intelligent for me to debate. You cut through my poor arguments like a samurai. I can see now that my blog truly is a joke. I will now go re-evaluate my life. You have beaten me, and I hope to be a better man for it.
Good day.
May 6, 2013 at 1:37 am
You are denying that you are in lock step with the current low fat propaganda being spewed by our government agencies such as the FDA.
Do you advocate the limiting the amount of red meat consumption on your blog ? Answer; YES.
Does the FDA and CDC advocate a low fat diet limiting the amount of red meat ? Answer; YES
So that’s what you are denying.
I hope you’re not following a low fat diet Seth cause it’s causing your brain to malfunction. Lack of saturated fat and cholesterol will do that.
Good luck with your low fat diet…you’re gonna need it !
May 6, 2013 at 3:39 am
Bert,
I think you are confusing the FDA with the USDA
…and low-fat with low-meat
…and “denying” with “not explicitly stating a position”
…and common nouns with proper nouns when you capitalize words like “Blog” or “Great Politician” for no discernible reason.
Of course like you said I am the real idiot here, so there must be good reasons why you are doing these things that baffle me so. Clearly you are much more intelligent than I am because you know what my diet is even though I have never said what it is on this blog. Come to think of it, I had no idea I was even on a low-fat diet until you told me.
I am glad you dropped by to share some of your true wisdom on such an inferior blog.
May 5, 2013 at 6:22 am
“There’s an amazing amount of misinformation in the world today. Some of it is unintentional and repeated so often, people just assume it’s true.” That certainly applies to the myth that fat will make you fat and that fat, especially sat fat, and cholesterol in the diet cause heart disease. Your lead in had me going. Then you switched to a diatribe against a movie I happen to like. You’re the one spreading misinformation.
May 5, 2013 at 5:13 pm
Like I said, you’d make a Great Politician.