The Drama of Nutrition

Intro

When I started this podcast/blog a few years ago, I was basically doing it as a way to kill time. I really liked listening to podcasts, I enjoyed talking to people smarter than me, and I enjoyed editing and producing the audio. I started it in grad school and found it to be terribly satisfying. The blog portion of this endeavor was mainly as a “show notes” page or summary page. Eventually the podcast portion of this site went dormant some years ago, although I keep telling myself I will revive it soon. It’s very common for me to run across someone in person or in a book or something and think. “This is fascinating. I should see if they would not mind being interviewed.” But I rarely actually reach out to people for interviewing anymore because I know I won’t have the time. Others can interpret that as I choose not to make time for doing it which is probably fair, too.

Then I got out of school and started climbing the career ladder and the blogging itself became less and less frequent. Nonetheless I always imagined this would be a place to discuss academic nutrition science, nutrition science in the news, the food industry, food safety, food chemistry, and all that nonsense. However, this post will be a little different. This is going to effectively be about stupid he-said-she-said bullsh*t, high school drama with only a passing relation to actual nutrition science, so if that kind of thing is not your bag then just skip this post.

Background

I became compelled to write this post after seeing a tweet by Nina Teicholz the other day.

This tweet links to a post that paints Teicholz as something of a nutrition policy martyr: someone who just wanted to bring capital-T Truth to the ignorant masses and is crucified for it like some sort of modern day Galileo. I don’t know much background on what exactly happened, but the Consumer Federation of America organized a conference on nutrition policy that included several panels on the topic of nutrition policy. Apparently someone over there had the boneheaded idea of inviting Teicholz to be one of the panelists.1

Who knows what happened after that. Maybe someone decided to do some actual research on her or maybe all the other panelists were insulted to even be on the same panel as Teicholz.2 Now they have two choices, both of which are sub-optimal: keep Teicholz on the panel and undermine your other panelists and possibly your organization’s reputation or uninvite her and give her perhaps the greatest marketing gimmick she has had all year. It would seem CFA chose the latter. She can now claim that the self-proclaimed nutrition elite are attempting to silence discussion and debate, and she has trumpeted this quite loudly at least on Twitter. It plays right into her narrative.

Vigorous Debate

Here we get to the meat and potatoes of this post. I don’t think Teicholz has any real desire for a substantive debate on the science, she just wants to appear that she does because it sounds good to the people who buy her books and the (misinformed) billionaires that fund her fledgling Nutrition Coalition advocacy group.

I know she cares not for any kind of scientific debate because she had agreed to come on my podcast to discuss her book in a more skeptical light then blew it up. She agreed, but then mere hours before we were to meet she told me that she would not do the interview, but that if I scrubbed my posts on her she would “feel more enthusiastic” about meeting.

teichols emails

For some context I had invited her on the podcast multiple times and was ignored each time.3 That is until Marion Nestle linked to my blog and Techolz admonished her for doing so in the comments, along with some contradicting opinions regarding my blog: it was the only serious critique of her work she had seen and even thanked me for my “good work” yet it was apparently sloppy and riddled with errors.4 I again invited her to discuss these alleged errors on my podcast to which she surprisingly agreed!5

So we emailed back and forth to nail down a time that worked for both of us. Then at literally 2:25am, a few hours before we were supposed to get together, she emails me claiming that she was too busy to meet. (She also asked me if I was going to some sort of BBQ dinner which is what that is about.) Then I said what I did above.

I think the message is pretty clear. She will not engage with any skeptics, despite the following statement in her book6:

A scientist must always try to disprove his or her own hypothesis. Or, as one of the great science philosophers of the twentieth century. Karl Popper, described, “The method of science is the method of bold conjectures and ingenious and severe attempts to refute them.”

Also around this time I heard more than just a rumor from an acquaintance at NYU that Teicholz was attempting to hire a NYU grad student to research the citations in my critique of her book. The fact that she attempted this speaks volumes. Shouldn’t she posses the studies she herself cited, and shouldn’t she be able to understand and interpret them?

Interestingly this attempt to hire someone to presumably research my critique was immediately after she agreed to come on my podcast: Feb 24, 2015. I am assuming since no rebuttal to my critique has appeared from Teicholz, no grad student took her up on her temporary employment offer. Either that or perhaps someone did but found no errors in my work.

Bottom Line

It’s pretty evident that Teicholz is not interested in debating the merits of “her” ideas. She wants no part in a vigorous scientific discussion. She does not want to engage with anyone skeptical of the ideas she writes about.

Still I am open to the possibility that people can change. If she at any point is interested in having that conversation we should have had over a year ago in Austin I welcome it. Despite the fact that she gave me the shaft that day, Nina can consider this an open invitation to have that great debate.

Epilogue

I read a piece in the New Yorker today by Atul Gawande.7 It was about science deniers. A paragraph caught my eye and made me think of the low-carb movement:

Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists. They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views. They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record. They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field. They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another.

If anyone follows the diet wars I think you can see where I am going here. I’m not about to write a treatise on this, but a few bullet points are okay, right?

They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views.

  • This is literally what The Big Fat Surprise and Good Calories, Bad Calories are about. Most all other low-carb nonsense being derived from Good Calories, Bad Calories, anyway.

They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record.

  • Just look at the parade of clowns that Tom Naughton in Fat Head claims are experts. What other standard-bearers do we have for the current low-carb movement? Jimmy Moore?  Zoe Harcombe? Are you kidding me with these people? Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz have been so thoroughly discredited it’s amazing they can still pretend to be experts. Oh yeah, money. Volek and Phinney are probably the best they have. Or Kevin Hall. No wait he is a traitor because he might be publishing results not favorable to NuSI.

They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field.

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/06/nina-teiholz-shaister-part-i-diets-of.html

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/06/nina-teiholz-shaister-part-ii.html

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/06/nina-teiholz-shaister-part-iii-well.html

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/06/nina-teiholz-shaister-part-iv-random.html

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/06/plagerizing-plagiarism-and-plagiarists.html

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/05/no-big-surprise.html

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2015/02/nina-teicholz-distorts-facts-again.html

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2015/02/nina-teicholz-corrects-big-fat-surprise.html

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2015/03/nina-teicholz-distorts-fatty-acid.html

Slipp Digby discusses Teicholz’s biases

http://slippdigby.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/nina-teicholz-health-ministers-and-the-swedish-government-low-carb-diet-guidelines/

http://slippdigby.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/eat-like-an-ancient-egyptian/

And others:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2015/03/nina-teicholzs-big-fat-surprise.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/diet-and-nutrition_b_5266165.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/were-fat-and-sick-and-the-broccoli-did-it_b_6744724.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/distorting-nutrition-facts-to-generate-buzz_b_6776024.html

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2015/02/dietary-guidelines-shouldnt-be-this-controversial/

(I might be leaving a few out…)

They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies.

  • Like it’s going out of style. The ad hominem, the straw man, tu quoque, petitio principii, special pleading, and the good ol’ anecdotal evidence are also popular.

And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another.

  • Indeed. Epidemiological studies are used to make the case for low carb diets, yet when they are used in favor of a more plant-based diet then all of a sudden epidemiology is not a real science, and clinical trials are the only acceptable evidence. When clinical trials are marshaled in favor of diets that are not low-carb then there is always a reason to dismiss them: The population is too small, the duration was too short, they didn’t measure the right things, the diets weren’t controlled well enough, some people dropped out, the author of the study spoke at a vegetarian conference, or one study doesn’t prove anything. I am not making any of these up, by the way. They are real excuses.

cloud

1. Not that panels like this have any real effect on policy making. It’s not like the Consumer Federation of America is an arm of the government or anything. It appears to be a private non-profit advocacy group. And speaking as someone who has attended a number of conferences like these it’s just a lot of navel-gazing, and I think an excuse for some people to get away from their jobs for a week and stay in a Hilton on their employer’s dime. Networking for the purposes of advancing one’s career is probably the the only real outcome of conferences like these. But that’s just my opinion, I could be a cynical old coot.

2. I know I would be upset if I had spent my entire career involved with nutrition policy and I get invited to speak on a panel with someone who clearly has no knowledge or education in nutrition or policy (other than cranking out a poorly researched book). I mean, imagine a different panel discussing something like foreign policy and you have a four-star general, a professor of political science, a former ambassador… and Alex Jones. Just being on the panel lends credibility to crackpot ideas.

3. If you click that reddit link to Teicholz’s AMA you’ll find links by /u/melissaf1015 that I actually think is really Teicholz herself trying her hand at astroturfing.

4. Interestingly, every time Teicholz mentions me in a comment section of a site or elsewhere she makes a number of errors about yours truly that are completely made-up, while the actual facts about me are easily found on my About page.

5. Not that it really matters, but I was actually both very excited and very nervous about the prospect. I wanted it to be a really well-done episode, so I spent a great deal of time researching and even bought some fancy new recording equipment. This had all the makings of a great podcast episode.

6. Gary Taubes unsurprisingly makes the exact same statement in Good Calories, Bad Calories.

7. As it happens, Atul Gawande unfortunately kind of, sort of (but not really) endorses Teicholz in a tweet. Shame he wasn’t a bit more discerning before tweeting her out.

Fat in the Diet and Mortality from Heart Disease: A Plagiaristic Note

Not too long ago I was a graduate student at the University of Washington where I was taking an advanced class on nutrition and metabolism and the entire class was caught plagiarizing! Let me explain…

We all had a professor for several quarters that was really intelligent and everyone liked him, but the trouble was that during the classes he would verbally expel so much dense information on a topic that it was nearly impossible to digest in one sitting (pardon the pun). Our professor knew this and so at the beginning of our very first class he suggested that we actually record his lectures so we could go back and listen to them one or more times to better absorb the material.

Most people in the class – including me – did end up recording his lectures. It got to where there were so many recording devices that it looked like a press conference. I had the largest recording device, too. I’m a bit of an audiophile so a dinky Tascam DR-08 would not work for me. I had a Zoom H4n that stuck out like crazy, and sometimes I would even attach a Shure SM-58 to it before class started just for kicks. But that’s not terribly relevant; what is relevant is that not only did the class record his lectures, but most of the class got wise and started actually transcribing the damn things to make searching for specific details during a lecture much easier. Now if you have ever tried to transcribe something you will know that for each hour of speech it takes at least two hours of listening and typing if not more, depending on how fast you type. Of course to be more efficient one person would volunteer to type it and then email the document to the rest of the class. Now I was absolutely not interested in transcribing a near two-hour lecture during my evenings, so I never volunteered to do it. I knew this meant not getting my hands on the transcripts, but that was perfectly fine with me.*

About halfway through the year our prof begins one class very soberly by saying that he is very disappointed in us. We have been essentially plagiarizing our assignments by simply copy-pasting text from the transcripts into our assignments. How did he know this? It wasn’t simply that we all gave strikingly similar answers to the questions. Perhaps some of that is to be expected if we are all given the same questions, have the same professor, and have the same textbooks. No, the real smoking gun in this case was that whomever transcribed one particular lecture had misspelled something and the rest of the class had misspelled the exact same word in the exact same way.

We were banned from transcribing and/or sharing transcripts after that point. I actually have a friend going through the same graduate program right now, and he says his class was told in no uncertain terms at the beginning of the quarter that the prof will not tolerate any transcribing of his lectures. All because of our class that was too lazy to just do our own research and put it into our own words. I am glad that the professor called us on it. He takes plagiarism seriously as he should. It’s clearly a serious offense in academia, but even if we’re not in the ivory tower plagiarism is basically fraud. Anyone that has been caught plagiarizing has not only lost me as an audience of their work, but they have also lost my respect.**

Which brings me to Gary Taubes. Wait! It’s not what you think. I have ragged on Taubes in the past, but I am actually advocating for Taubes here. Honest! I’m going to discuss a topic that I touched on in the past, but just so everyone reading this is on the same page let me go through some background before I get to Taubes.

The Facts

You may or may not have heard of a guy named Ancel Keys. He was a Harvard-trained physiologist and epidemiologist. He did some research on human starvation in the mid-20th century before moving on to study heart disease for which he is probably most famous. In 1953 he gave a scientific presentation at the Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York city. The meat-and-potatoes of this presentation was subsequently published in the Journal of Mount Sinai Hospital (now known as the Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine) with the title “Atherosclerosis: A Problem in Newer Public Health.”1 I don’t know what to make of the journal. It’s not really what I would consider a bona-fide journal, but it’s peer-reviewed and a couple tiers above a monthly newsletter. Anyway, it basically summarizes a lot of what’s known about cholesterol and heart disease of various countries at the time. It is not terribly newsworthy; the only thing in the article that is of any note is a Cartesian graph of the relationship between rate of death from heart disease and total fat intake (as a percentage of calories) in a few countries.

Keys1

Keys mentions that only a few countries are available for any kind of real comparison at the time of publishing. Some countries he leaves out of the graph because of major population shifts or poorly-maintained vital health statistics. He does mention that there are good quality health statistics available for many other European countries, but since WW2 had such an effect on diets (partially because Germany invaded, occupied, and rationed food) the food data of Nazi-occupied territories were left out. What is left appears to be a remarkable relationship between fat intake and death.

Four years later in 1957 a couple of researchers named Jacob Yerushalmy and Herman Hilleboe published a paper titled “Fat in the Diet and Mortality from Heart Disease; A Methodologic Note” that was critical of the above graph.2 Apparently they found the graph overly simplistic and perhaps a bit misleading. So they instead decide to conduct their own statistical analysis of similar data. They don’t use the same exact data as Keys used for whatever reason; Keys used FAO & WHO data from 1948-1949 and Yerushalmy and Hilleboe use FAO & WHO data from 1951-1953. They don’t exclude any countries from the analysis either, for any reason, choosing instead to include all the countries for which the FAO & WHO had data, which happened to be 22 countries.

YH data

As you can see when 22 countries are included in the analysis the relationship between fat calories and heart disease mortality is not so striking. However, despite not being as pronounced as Keys’s graph, this one still clearly shows a relationship between fat and heart disease. You can still see an upward trend happening as the percent of fat calories increases.

Y&H also make the convincing case that comparing total fat to heart disease mortality is kinda lame. They argue that the types of fat (or in this case the sources of fat) are far more interesting. In the paper they actually do some comparisons with heart disease and animal fat vs. plant fat and animal protein vs. plant protein and find that fat from animals and protein from animals each has a much stronger association with heart disease than simply total fat. They go on to say that their analysis shows that plant fat and plant protein is actually negatively associated with heart disease mortality. In other words, fat and protein from plants might have some sort of protective effect against heart disease.

Both Keys and Y&H assemble what is called a cross-sectional analysis, which in terms of observational studies is one of the weakest – at least when it comes to trying to show any kind of cause-effect relationship. Both Keys and Y&H mention this and state that their results are merely an association and that more robust studies on the matter need to be conducted.

Indeed, Keys actually goes on to conduct such a robust study several years later, colloquially known as the Seven Countries Study. This was a very large longitudinal cohort study that lasted for several years. Quite a bit of knowledge was gained from this study, including important information on diet, exercise, smoking, obesity, serum cholesterol, and many diseases (dementia, diabetes, hypertension). In fact, data from the cohorts is still being published today. In terms of epidemiological studies, a large prospective cohort study like the Seven Countries Study is about as strong as it gets. Of course the results are not as definitive as a randomized controlled trial of the same scale and duration, but enrolling so many people into a randomized controlled trial of that size and time is effectively an impossibility. Plus with a RCT you can only examine one variable, but with super large cohorts like this many variables can be studied.

At any rate, the first of many Seven Countries Study reports is published in 1970, thirteen years after the Y&H paper and a full 17 years after Keys’s presentation at Mt. Sinai Hospital. It is this study that becomes wildly influential and puts Keys on the map as an elite epidemiologist.

The Mistake

In his whopper of a diet book Good Calories, Bad Calories Gary Taubes blatantly lies about makes a mistake when reporting the results of the Y&H paper. He claims that the link between fat and heart disease vanishes if no countries are excluded from the analysis.

Taubes on page 18:

Many researchers wouldn’t buy it. Jacob Yerushalmy, who ran the biostatistics department at the University of California, Berkeley, and Herman Hilleboe, the New York State commissioner of health, co-authored a critique of Keys’s hypothesis, noting that Keys had chosen only six countries for his comparison though data were available for twenty-two countries. When all twenty-two were included in the analysis, the apparent link between fat and heart disease vanished.

As we have seen the link between fat and heart disease does not vanish.

Moreover, Taubes then says “Keys had noted associations between heart-disease death rates and fat intake, Yerushalmy and Hilleboe pointed out, but they were just that. Associations do not imply cause and effect […]” What follows is purely a semantic argument, but I would argue that correlations can and often do imply cause and effect. In fact most researchers test hypotheses based off of observational studies that suggest some sort of relationship between two things. Of course correlations certainly do not prove causation, and no epidemiologist worth his/her salt would claim otherwise.

The Fraud

Here’s the crux of this whole post: many people have been ripping off Taubes’s work. They have been ripping him off without attribution and making money doing it. You know how I know they are ripping him off? It’s not just that their verbiage and syntax are eerily similar. Much like my old professor the clincher is that these journalists and bloggers and charlatans all make the exact same mistake Taubes made with respect to the Y&H paper. In fact, many of these authors make it painfully obvious that they haven’t read ANY of the papers that they are making claims about.

Now it’s one thing to blog about, say, toasters and misinform your readers, but when you are dispensing health advice and you have no idea what you talking about… well, that can impact people’s lives in a very real way. And a very negative way.

Let’s begin the plagiarism parade, shall we?

Nina Teicholz

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22116724/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/what-if-bad-fat-isnt-so-bad/

At the time, plenty of scientists were skeptical of Keys’s assertions. One such critic was Jacob Yerushalmy, Ph.D., founder of the biostatistics graduate program at the University of California at Berkeley. In a 1957 paper, Yerushalmy pointed out that while data from the six countries Keys examined seemed to support the diet-heart hypothesis, statistics were actually available for 22 countries. And when all 22 were analyzed, the apparent link between fat consumption and heart disease disappeared.

Ms. Teicholz also says prior to the above paragraph “The first scientific indictment of saturated fat came in 1953. That’s the year a physiologist named Ancel Keys, Ph.D., published a highly influential paper titled ‘Atherosclerosis, a Problem in Newer Public Health.’”

According to Google Scholar this “highly influential” paper that doesn’t even mention saturated fat has only been cited 247 times since its publication, which spans 61 years as of this writing. An average of four citations per year. It was cited merely 99 times from the time it was published to 1973, a full twenty years after its publication. Each report from the Seven Countries Study, however, has been cited several thousand times each. Perhaps that’s what Ms. Teicholz is referring to, although if that were true then she could not have trotted out the Yerushalmy paper. Or maybe she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and just plagiarized Taubes and changed some words.

Dustan Howell

http://www.inshapeathome.net/blog/2013/01/10/Clean-food-versus-Dirty-Foods.aspx

At the time, many scientists were skeptical of Key’s claims. Jacob Yerushalmy, Ph.D. (founder of the biostatistics graduate program at the University of California at Berkeley) pointed out that while the data from the six countries supported the diet-heart hypothesis, statistics were available from twenty-two countries. When those countries were analyzed the apparent link between fat intake and heart disease vanished.

Jonathan Bailor

https://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/a-brief-history-of-lipophobia-the-fear-of-fat/

http://thecaloriemythbook.com/fatfacts/

Keys examined diet and heart disease trends in twenty-two countries. He was apparently more interested in headlines than science because he then published a study that included data from only the six countries that showed a scary link between diet and heart disease. Keys garnered a massive amount of press and then went on tour preaching that eating fat is deadly.

Here are the facts: When the data from all twenty-two countries in Keys’ study is examined, they show no relationship between fat intake and heart disease deaths. Keys selectively picked data and designed a headline-worthy conclusion.

Talk about hyperbole! He “garnered a massive amount of press and then went on tour preaching that eating fat is deadly,” eh? I don’t think so. Maybe 20 years after it was published and for a separate reason. Furthermore, Keys’s presentation to the Mt. Sinai Hospital wasn’t a study. Even the published text could not be considered a study. You could maybe call it a review article or an editorial, but it definitely was not any kind of experiment with a hypothesis. I suppose you could technically call it a cross-sectional study, but it’s a real stretch considering the Keys paper is 22 pages long and the “study” only takes up three paragraphs and one figure in those twenty-two pages from data that is publicly available. It’s not much more than a footnote in the text. I have literally written more words bitching about Nina Teicholz and Jonathan Bailor than Keys wrote for his “highly influential study.”

PhotoCalorie

http://blog.photocalorie.com/data-driven-dining/saturated-fats/

This correlation provided a great basis for creating a hypothesis, however the relationship may have been misleading. A caveat to this apparent relationship, pointed out by biostatistician Dr. Jacob Yerushalmy, was the questionable choice of these specific countries, when data was available for 22. Dr. Yerushalmy showed that if all 22 countries are included, the correlation becomes much weaker. Other researchers later showed that this correlation is just as strong when compared with any characteristic of a developed nation, such as television and radio sales.

At least whoever wrote this piece doesn’t claim that the link vanished.

Georgia Ede

http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/food/fats/

The misguided belief that saturated fats cause heart disease is rooted in a famous study published in 1970 called “The Seven Countries Study”, in which renowned scientist Ancel Keys claimed that people in countries where more animal fat was eaten had more heart disease then people in countries where less animal fat was eaten. Not only was this study an epidemiological study, and therefore incapable of proving a causal link between any dietary factor and any disease, but the original study actually involved 22 countries, not 7; the data from the other 15 countries having been omitted for undisclosed reasons. When the data from all 22 countries were analyzed, no correlation between fat and heart disease was found (Yerushalmy and Hilleboe 1957).

I think this is an example of what happens when you don’t plagiarize from the source and instead plagiarize the plagiarizers. The errors start to compound in on each other. Evidently Yerushalmy and Hilleboe are seers and wrote a critique in 1957 of a study in that would not be published for another thirteen years. There are actually so many errors in that one paragraph I don’t even want to bother writing more.

Nathane Jackson

http://www.nathanejackson.com/blog/heart-healthy-tips/

Up until recently, much of today’s science was based on researcher, Ancel Keys, 22 country heart disease and dietary fat study, or at least this is where it all started. Key’s has been accused of cherry picking the six countries that would support his hypothesis of saturated fat causing heart disease. However, as it turns out, one could have picked six entirely different countries and shown the complete opposite, in that eating dietary fat had very little connection with the risk of dying from heart disease.

Clearly English is not Mr. Jackson’s native tongue.

Three Sixty Personal Training

http://threesixtypersonaltraining.co.uk/free-stuff/articles-videos/the-whole-fat-story/

The trouble is that Keys selectively picked his data to match his hypothesis. In 1957, a biostatistician named Jacob Yerushalmy, along with Herman Hilleboe, published a paper noting that while data from the six countries analysed supported Keys’ hypothesis, Keys had actually collected data from 22 countries, and that when the data from all 22 countries was analysed, the apparent link between fat intake and heart disease was not found.

Chris Masterjohn

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/The-Cholesterol-Myths.html

Ancel Keys first argued this theory by charting heart disease mortality against fat availability for six countries, showing the more dietary fat available, the higher the rate of mortality. There was just one pesky problem: data was available for 22 countries at the time. Include the other 16, and the association falls apart.

Also Chris Masterjohn

http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/04/let-us-honor-ancel-keys-our-patron-as.html

Keys had presented data from six countries, purporting to show a clear linear relationship between the amount of fat consumed in a country and its incidence of heart disease. This graph is shown on the left below. The one problem was that data was available for 22 countries at the time, and including that data demolished the relationship.

Keys

This graph actually appears in many of these posts. The right one is overlayed incorrectly because #13 is Japan, #12 is Italy, #22 is USA, etc.

Brendan Coburn

http://thehealthycow.blogspot.com/2011/03/historical-context-part-3-ancel-keys.html

The six countries he reported on (United States, Canada, Australia, UK, Italy, and Japan), showed a very strong association between fat intake and heart disease. Now, of course, this is only an observational study and no cause and effect can be determined. But the biggest problem with his study is that he left out the data from the 16 other countries for which data was available. When all 22 countries are considered, his perfect correlation turns into a much weaker one.

Paleo Leap

http://paleoleap.com/fear-of-saturated-fat-and-cholesterol/

Cherry picking data is the dishonest situation where a scientist wants to prove an hypothesis so bad that he chooses only the data that fits with it and ignores the conflicting data. In the case of Ancel Keys’s 7 country study, data for 22 countries was available to him, but he only picked 7. […] In this new graph you can see that no correlation whatsoever can apparently be made between heart disease and saturated fat consumption.

Do I really need to point out the hypocrisy of accusing Keys of being dishonest while at the very same time plagiarizing AND misrepresenting journal articles that you never read?

Craving Fresh

http://www.cravingfresh.com/2012/01/fresh-reviews-great-cholesterol-con-by.html

Keys hand-picked data from six countries that showed a clear link between heart disease and the dietary intake of fat. He actually had data from 22 countries available to him, but left out the rest as they told a completely different story. He was a man on a mission to prove that dietary intake of saturated fat causes heart disease, and he wasn’t going to let mere facts get in his way.

Keys’s “hand-picked data” was not about saturated fat – it was about total fat. But I guess Craving Fresh isn’t letting mere facts get in their way.

Innate Fitness

http://innatebodybootcamp.com/myths-about-saturated-fat/

Keys’ most famous study (the one still cited today) was called the 7 Countries Study. Keys plotted the rate of heart disease against the percentage of calories consumed as fat for Japan, Italy, England, Wales, Australia, Canada, and the United States. Looking at this graph you would definitely think that dietary fat intake was linked to increased heart disease risk. What most people don’t know (and what doctors their doctors don’t tell them) is that the study actually gathered data from 22 countries. When all the countries were added to the graph it looked like “buckshot hitting a page instead of a straight line,” in the words of one of Keys’s fellow researchers. While there is a significant relationship between fat intake and heart disease (at least as presented), the graph GREATLY over-exaggerates it’s importance.

At least the author of this post doesn’t claim the link vanished. Yet like many other bloggers here doesn’t understand the difference between the 1953 paper and the Seven Countries Study. Plus I think that quote is bogus. I think it goes without saying that it is unattributed, but I found a book that published the same quote and claims it is from David Kritchevsky. I still don’t buy it because there’s no source of the quote.

Kristopher Cleary

http://realconstipationremedies.com/eating-fat-can-help-my-constipation-are-you-kidding/

There were countries he turned a blind (or denial) eye to which devoured a diet high in fat and also showed a surprisingly very low rate of cardiovascular disease. Whilst on the other side of the table there were countries that demonstrated a high level of cardiovascular disease eating a little fat at all. In reflection, the study was not phenomenal. It was flawed. The Seven Countries study should have really comprised of ‘twenty-two’ countries. If this had of transpired then there would have been a very clear message out of it: ‘there is no relationship between fat intake and heart attacks’.

Colin E. Champ

http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2011/12/20/why-your-doctor-recommends-a-low-fat-diet-and-what-it-has-to-do-with-a-rabbit-and-a-little-lie/

Keys then performed a big “study” where he looked at the fat intake and death from heart disease in 7 countries (Japan, Italy, England, Wales, Australia, Canada, and the USA), appropriately calling it the 7 Countries Study. He found that the more fat citizens in these countries ate, the more they got heart disease and died. In 1956 the American Heart Association used this data to inform the public that consuming animal fat causes heart disease. […]

However, there is one little issue with Keys’ experiment – he actually looked at 22 countries and then picked 7 that showed an association between heart disease and fat intake. He ignored the rest and pretended he never saw them. Ok, fair enough, it’s a big issue. This was pointed out by Yerushalmey [sic] and Hilleboe who showed the graphs he used before he cherry-picked his countries.

For someone who claims to be a doctor he sure gets a bunch of things wrong. In fact pretty much everything. Every single sentence he writes is wrong. Dr. Champ can’t even spell the authors correctly.

Donald W. Miller, Jr

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller38.1.html

Evidence against fat wilts upon close scrutiny. In his Six Country Study, Ancel Keys ignored data available from 16 other countries that did not fall in line with his desired graph. If he had chosen these six other countries, or even more strikingly, these six countries he could have shown that increasing the percent of calories from fat in the diet reduces the number of deaths from coronary heart disease.

If Keys had included all 22 countries in his study, the result would have been a clutter of dots like this.[graph] In fact, it turns out that people who have highest percentage of saturated fat in their diets have the lowest risk of heart disease.

Rebecca A. Malamed

http://www.drrebecca.com/2012/02/myth-of-cholesterol-and-heart-disease.html

Dr. Keys released a convincing diagram in 1953 which showed a very neat correlation between the levels of dietary fat in six countries and the rates of coronary heart disease in those countries. It was part of a very famous document called “The Seven Countries Study”, which has since been roundly refuted and shown to be poorly done science. This diagram appeared to show what can only be described as a perfect match between the level of calories from dietary fat and rates of coronary heart disease, making his theory appear to be perfectly correct. To this day, the concept of a low-fat diet is preached by many as essential to preventing heart disease.

Ignoring, for a moment, a well established mantra of science (“correlation does not imply causation”), there are a number of fundamental flaws with the data that Ancel Keys presented.

While the data points he used were technically correct, he only used data from 7 countries when, at the time, data was available for 22 countries. If those other 16 countries are added into the diagram, the neat line matching fat intake to coronary heart disease loses virtually all meaning.

Literally every sentence there is wrong, except for one: low-fat diets are preached by many, for better or worse.

Bryan Mayo

http://mayosmind.blogspot.com/2013/04/saturated-fat-and-heart-disease-folly.html

Unfortunately for Keys and his Diet-Heart Hypothesis, his study actually collected data on 22 countries. Because the data from these remaining 15 countries didn’t support his theory very well, he simply threw them out. If you put the data from all 22 countries back together, then the earlier clear line between fat intake and heart disease becomes non-existent.

Alexandra something-or-other from High on Fat

http://www.highonfat.com/3/post/2014/03/the-low-fat-fallacy.html

While the lipid hypothesis, or cholesterol theory can be dated back over 100 years ago, it was Ansel Keys’ [sic] famous “Seven Countries Study” in 1958 that can be credited for the fat phobia that plagues us today.

Based on his published findings, Keys claimed that there was a direct link between heart disease related death and the amount of fat in the diet. Therefore, if saturated fat raises cholesterol, and cholesterol causes heart disease, we should stop consuming saturated fat in order to reduce the risk of heart disease in our world.

Seems logical at first. However, there were two problems:1. Correlation does not equal causation 2. The “Seven Countries Study” actually consisted of 22 countries. Keys simply left out the data of all the countries that did not align with his theory. Tisk tisk…

Tisk tisk, indeed.

Diana Rodgers

http://www.radiancenutrition.com/2012/12/06/are-you-fat-phobic/

One of the biggest detriments to our thinking about fats came in the mid 1950’s, when a guy named Ancel Keys published a paper which served as an early kick off for the cholesterol campaign. Although he had data from 22 different countries, he cherry picked seven to show in his paper. What he showed was a correlation (note, this is different from cause, just an association) between increased fat intake and death.

She also highly recommends you check out a “smart, in-depth blog post” by Denise Minger that actually argues the opposite of what Diana Rodgers is arguing.

Dylan Klein

http://nutridylan.com/2013/07/15/the-great-cholesterol-consensus/

Researchers skeptical of Keys’ “study” pointed out that relevant data was available for 22 countries at the time and that Keys did nothing more than cherry-pick his data set to include the countries which supported his preconceived hypothesis of diet and heart disease. Indeed, when data from all 22 countries are incorporated into the analysis, the perfect relationship between fat and heart disease disappears.

Dana Carpender

http://holdthetoast.com/content/ancel_keys

Keys faked his data. Oh, it’s absolutely true that he had a lovely graph showing seven countries with their rates of saturated fat consumption paralleling their rates of heart disease. However, Keys had data from 22 countries. And when you look at the data for all 22 countries, the tidy rising line vanishes.

Joseph Mercola

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/22/debunking-the-science-behind-lowering-cholesterol-levels.aspx

In 1953, Dr. Ancel Keys published a seminal paper that serves as the basis for nearly all of the initial scientific support for the Cholesterol Theory. The study is known as the Seven Countries Study, that linked the consumption of dietary fat to coronary heart disease. What you may not know is that when Keys published his analysis that claimed to prove the link between dietary fats and coronary heart disease (CHD), he selectively analyzed information from only seven countries to prove his correlation, rather than comparing all the data available at the time — from 22 countries.

As you might suspect, the studies he excluded were those that did not fit with his hypothesis, namely those that showed a low percentage fat in their diet and a high incidence of death from CHD as well as those with a high-fat diet and low incidence of CHD. If all 22 countries had been analyzed, there would have been no correlation found whatsoever; it should have been called the 22 Countries Study!

Even Tom Naughton from the awful documentary Fat Head gets in on the plagiarism.

In Conclusion

The hypocsrisy here cannot be overstated. These authors are all accusing Keys of academic dishonesty while plagiarizing Taubes (or someone else who stole his work) and claiming to have knowledge of academic journal articles that they have almost certainly never read. Additionally, many of the blogs or articles mentioned here advocate pro-meat and pro-saturated fat diets yet the central study they invoke as evidence against Keys also happens to make the case against eating animal fat or animal protein.

In case anyone wants to actually read the texts in question I have linked to them in the endnotes. Enjoy.

cloud

*As it turned out I was almost always emailed the transcripts anyway. (Thanks y’all for supporting this bum that never took one for the team.) It didn’t really matter, though, because I rarely used them anyway. I much preferred listening back to the lectures over reading them. I can’t recall if this incident was one of those rare times or not. It could be the case that I was a party in this debacle.

** In case I am coming off as too much of a righteous plagiarism crusader… I am guilty of it. The one time I knowingly plagiarized something was in high school. I was given an assignment to write a review of some book that I never read. I don’t recall what book it was, but it was some 19th century British romantic novel that did not interest me at all. Rather than doing the assignment I grabbed some review someone else had already written online and turned that in. I was ultimately caught, and had to re-do the assignment. (Who knew that teachers could use the internet, too?) I regret the act and wish I would not have been such a lazy asshole and just done the damn homework.