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

Product Information

This reference received a score of 3, indicating that it provides only moderate support for the claim, primarily for the diabetes claim but only weakly for the obesity claim. The cited paper is a report of a series of experiments in both mice and humans. As studies in mice are preclinical and typically used to generate hypotheses for human studies we will focus on the human studies reported, however the mouse studies are fairly supportive of the diabetes claim made by Eat Fat, Get Thin. The authors report two analyses in humans. The first study describes an analysis of self-reported artificial sweetener intake in 381 individuals. The researchers found that individuals who self-reported higher intakes of artificial sweeteners also tended to have higher waist to hip ratios, fasting blood glucose levels, worse HbA1c levels, and performed worse on a glucose tolerance test compared to those with lower intakes. However, all 381 individuals in the analyses were non-diabetic and it is unclear if the observed differences between individuals were clinically meaningful. The analyses were all controlled for BMI in an attempt to isolate the effect of the sweetener intake from the impact of weight on health. However, as sweetener intake was significantly related to participants’ waist to hip ratio it is curious that the researchers did not perform sensitivity analyses with waist to hip ratio as a control variable rather than BMI. Waist to hip ratio is a stronger health indicator and of body fatness compared to BMI so controlling for waist to hip ratio would have allowed the research team to rule out the effects of body fatness rather than just height and weight. As the research team didn’t do this, we can’t rule out that the relationship between sweetener intake and the other health indicators was not just related to the individuals’ body fatness. The second experiment in the paper describes a feeding study conducted in 7 individuals. The researchers had the 7 individuals in the study consume the maximum amount of artificial sweeteners allowed by the FDA over 7 days, but did not forcibly change any other aspect of their diet or lifestyle. Of the 7 individuals, about half of them (4 individuals) had poorer glycemic response at the end of the 7 days while 3 showed no change. The four individuals who appeared to be negatively influenced by the sweeteners actually started the study with a very different gut bacteria profile than those who were unaffected. However, gut bacteria can be influenced by a variety of dietary and lifestyle factors. We cannot rule out that the observed changes in the four individuals were not induced by some other factors. No dietary or physical activity records were collected or reported by the researchers. Therefore, there is no way to rule out the potential influence of these lifestyle factors during the study. Overall, the study was conducted with an extremely small sample size, the effect of sweeteners was only apparent in half of the individuals tested, and there was no control over other factors that may have influenced response. At best, this data shows us that some individuals with a specific set of gut bacteria may be influenced to some extent by artificial sweeteners. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that artificial sweeteners “alter gut flora or bacteria to promote obesity and type 2 diabetes” as suggested by Eat Fat, Get Thin. Reference 7 Reference Nothing sweet (not just sugar, not just high fructose corn syrup, but all artificial sweeteners (including stevia) and all natural sweeteners (agave, honey, maple syrup). This claim received a score of 2, indicating that it is weakly supported by current evidence. Most of the research presented by Eat Fat, Get Thin is in relation to breast cancer and prostate cancer. So let’s first take a look at some of the arguments and evidence provided by the book as it relates to breast cancer. Eat Fat, Get Thin states, “Many large population studies found, for example, that increased fat intake was linked to breast cancer, but then when large randomized controlled experiments were done to assess true cause and effect, no link between dietary fat and breast cancer could be found.” To support this statement they cite a meta-analysis conducted by Brennan et al. which evaluated 15 prospective cohort studies. This study actually concluded that there was a link between saturated fat intake and breast cancer. Eat Fat, Get Thin suggests that there are randomized controlled trials disputing this conclusion, however, they provide no evidence of this. We do note that in the Brennan et al. paper the authors discuss two randomized controlled trials that evaluated the link between fat intake and breast cancer. It is possible that this is what Eat Fat, Get Thin is referring to. However, one of these RCTs actually did demonstrate a link between saturated fat and breast cancer while the other did not. Limitations of both RCTs are discussed by the authors, primarily that in these two studies many dietary and lifestyle factors were adjusted as part of the study interventions and therefore it is hard to isolate the specific role that fat may or may not have played. The paper actually concludes that reducing both total and saturated fat is likely to be beneficial for cancer outcomes. A more recent review of dietary patterns found that diets low in saturated fat are associated with lower breast cancer risk. Additionally, a population level study found a correlation between per capita fat intake in 88 countries and breast cancer incidence. They found a strong positive correlation suggesting that the higher a country’s fat intake the higher the rate of breast cancer incidence, although we do not consider this to be particularly compelling evidence as there are many behaviors, environmental, and lifestyle factors that can differ between countries and it is impossible to account for all of these variations. These data taken together suggest a possible relationship between breast cancer and saturated fat intake. Another curious thing we wanted to highlight was that there are many statements and claims made by Eat Fat, Get Thin (including entire studies and sections of the book) that are never supported by references. We felt it fair to list a handful of these statements here:

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

sugar and refined carbs – not fat – are responsible for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart desease, as well as causing increased risk of dementia and premature deaths Fatty acids play a starring role in many important functions in the body, including regulating inflammation, hormones, mood, nerve function, and more. Most of us think of them as a form of energy storage...Burning fat for energy is actually better and more sustainable for health; in fact, it’s what your muscles and hearts prefer.” Ch4 Although some of the dietary advice in Eat Fat, Get Thin is likely to improve health, the amount of saturated fat it recommends is likely to have negative consequences.I read this right after Always Hungry by Dr. David Ludwig. They both cover similar ground (the food industry is more concerned with profit than creating nutritious foods; the food industry gives lots of money to our politicians-- which is why they aren't doing a better job of creating better food regulations; confusion about the complex science of nutrition have led to bad recommendations over the years-- which is why consumers are confused, to whit: fat isn't as bad for you as you think it is). They both include lots of cited research and cover the science of nutrition. They both recommend increased dietary intake of certain "good" fats, more non-starchy vegetables, reduced carbs, and very little sugar). Dr. Hyman's plan is a little more hard-core and, I think, somewhat unrealistic for: poor people, working people, and/or beginners. I think Dr. Ludwig's approach might be a little more manageable. UPDATE: This book made my re-read list because I remembered being fascinated at the author's approach to gaining health. He defines the differences in fat and details the good and the bad. I think I liked this more the second time, but it is still 3 stars for me. This claim received a score of 1, indicating that the evidence is neutral or nonexistent for the claim. While low-carb diets may be a beneficial tool for some individuals attempting to lose weight, the current evidence, including that cited by Eat Fat, Get Thin, appears to show that in the long run, low-carb diets are no more or less effective than other dietary options on average. Overall (average) score for claim 1

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

if you believe all calories are created equal, then might think that staying away from fat is a good idea, but it just doesn’t work out this way I am one of those “my tummy always hurts!” girls, and this book my just well have changed my entire perspective on food. I feel great for the first time in forever, and I have Dr. Mark to thank.We feel that it is important to note that Eat Fat, Get Thin was apparently aware of the strong experimental data connecting saturated fat intake to reductions to cholesterol and heart disease. In a later section of the book, the book references a 2014 review that also concluded that there was convincing evidence from both randomized control trials and prospective cohort studies that partial replacement of saturated fat with mono- and polyunsaturated fats is likely to lead to decreases in total and LDL cholesterol. The paper also concluded that there was convincing evidence that replacement of saturated fatty acids with polyunsaturated fat will decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly in men.

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

He has commercialized himself and, as with all such television-doctor marketing superstars, I would recommend they all read "The Citadel" by Cronin, about a doctor who became a dedicated physician to help the destitute in England, who veered off course and hawked useless remedies to rich people for personal profit, at the possible loss of his soul and loss of original humanitarian aspiration. I've seen some pretty irresponsible, even dangerous, recommendations on these television shows including PBS, and they all cover their butts by either saying it's either for entertainment value, or that they should always consult their own doctor first. restricting calories makes your body perceive a starvation situation which makes you tired and hungry and slows down your metabolism – things we don’t want Update 10 monthe later, I continue to eat this way and continue to feel better. I have lost 6 more lbs. Slower than the first 30 but I think I am finding my new normal. One thing I am very happy about is that after being a life long allergy sufferer I only have small reactions now and only to pollen in Spring and fall or to perfumes. I am now able to eat dairy with little or no reactions. I do try to do only grass fed dairy but not being real strict and happy to have some dairy now! One other key study presented by Eat Fat, Get Thin, is a review paper by Dias et al. The book uses this study to make the argument that saturated fat intake is not problematic for health if there is an adequate intake of omega-3 fatty acids. However, most of the data reviewed by Dias et al. actually shows that higher levels of saturated fat intake contribute to poor cholesterol levels and heart disease risk. The paper does highlight that many previous studies have not accounted for the intake of omega-3 fatty acids in their analyses. As omega-3 fatty acids may have a protective effect against heart disease, the authors suggest that future studies need to consider this as a variable. However, at no point does the cited paper present evidence that directly supports the hypothesis that intake of omega-3 fatty acids will actually provide protection in the presence of high saturated fat intake.Small portions of "starchy" veggies (1/2 cup to 1 cup at a time, but, only 4 times a week) This includes beets, celeriac, parsnips, pumpkin, rutabaga, sweet potatoes, turnips, winter squash. Dr. Hyman's writing is accessible and enthusiastic, not pedantic. He makes connections between common ailments and common foods and makes a convincing case why switching to high fat/veg, moderate protein, low carb is the way to go. He understands that his word alone isn't enough so he recruited 1000+ people to 'beta-test" the diet prior to the publication of the book. The book contains testimonials of participants about sometimes radical health changes and weight loss. Eat Fat, Get Thin appears to be written for a general audience, particularly those who are concerned about their weight. Criterion 3.1. Is the intervention likely to improve the target condition? More recently, Ge et al. meta-analyzed 121 dietary randomized control trials which allowed for high-quality comparisons between 17 specific dietary patterns. This included low-carb and low-fat diets. The authors found that overall, low-fat and low-carb diets had similar weight outcomes at both 6 and 12 months. It would appear, based on the bulk of the scientific literature, that there is no meaningful long-term difference in weight loss between low-fat and low-carb diets. In conclusion, there is little to no evidence to support the claim that low-carb, high-fat diets are superior to low-fat diets for weight loss either in the broader literature or in the studies presented by Eat Fat, Get Thin. In fact, much of the research cited by the book undermines their claim and shows that there is little, if any, long-term difference between the effectiveness of these diets for weight loss. Additionally, Eat Fat, Get Thin often misinterprets and overstates the conclusions of studies discussed and withholds critical nuances of the studies presented to the reader. Criterion 1.2. Are the references cited in the book to support the claim convincing? lots of research, and it basically says there’s no link between total dietary fat (the fat you eat) or saturated fat and heart disease

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

We randomly selected and reviewed 10 references in Eat Fat, Get Thin. The book received an overall reference accuracy score of 2.2 out of 4. References generally did not support the claims they were associated with or the results were misconstrued or overstated. Specific comments for each reference can be found below. Eat Fat, Get Thin makes a wide range of claims. Therefore, we chose to focus on the main claim of the book, that eating fat will help you become thin, and the two most deadly chronic diseases brought up by the book, heart disease and cancer. References cited by the book often did not support its claims, results were often overstated, and key information about studies was often withheld. His premise is that we as a culture are obsessed with calorie counting and becoming thin… all the while struggling with various diseases and not seeming to make much progress. Here are a few things I took away from this book: A revolutionary new diet program based on the latest science showing the importance of fat in weight loss and overall health, from # 1 bestselling author Dr. Mark Hyman.No grains, no exceptions. (I could totally see why giving up gluten would be advisable. But this includes healthy grains like quinoa, teff, steel-cut oats, brown rice.) When we looked for more recent studies and meta-analyses related to prostate cancer we found conflicting evidence. For example, a 2015 meta-analysis found no link between total fat and prostate cancer. However, in a more recent population level study published in 2019, known as the SABOR study, a relationship was observed between both total fat intake and saturated fat and the risk of developing prostate cancer. Although we do note that this study was published after Eat Fat, Get Thin was released. Another recent paper reviewed the current state of the literature and also highlighted that there is some disagreement in the literature. They found that most preclinical trials show a relationship between fat and prostate cancer while only some human trials demonstrate this relationship. They do however note that dietary patterns that are low in saturated fat (specifically, the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet) appear to have more reliable evidence for their efficacy in protecting against developing prostate cancer. Overall we found that for prostate cancer the connection with fat does appear to be conflicting as Eat Fat, Get Thin suggests. In summary, the evidence overall does not support the position that saturated fat does not play a role in the development of heart disease. At best, it appears that sufficient intakes of “healthier fats”, such as omega-3 fatty acids, may negate some of the negative effects that higher intakes of saturated fats may have on cholesterol and heart disease risk, although, no strong evidence of this is presented by Eat Fat, Get Thin. In humans it appears that substituting unsaturated fats for saturated fat in the diet is likely to improve an individual’s cholesterol profile and reduce their risk for heart disease. Criterion 1.2. Are the references cited in the book to support the claim convincing? This is not exclusively a "diet/weight loss" book. Read it for the sound up to date 'nutrition 2.0' information it contains: The diet recommended by Eat Fat, Get Thin is likely to cause some degree of weight loss, but we found little evidence that it will improve other major health conditions targeted by the book.