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

He approves delicious meats! Loads of veggies, fruits, nuts, potatoes, and all the brain-feeding fats such as ghee, butter, avo, and various other *good* oils. Canola, you’re not welcome here. 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.

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

He plays the conspiracy card. He says that scientists who question state-sanctioned paradigms like low fat diets, mutations as a cause of cancer, and HIV as a cause of AIDS are denied grants and silenced. In fact, some of them are very loud for people who have been “silenced,” and they may have been denied grants simply because their research was not as worthy as competing grant proposals. Eat Fat, Get Thin is based on the premise that you can, as the title suggests, get thin by eating more fat. Written by Mark Hyman, MD, Eat Fat, Get Thin contends that many of our health problems, including excessive weight, are primarily caused by following low-fat diet advice. The book suggests that a diet high in fat, particularly saturated fat, will reduce the risk of a long list of conditions including heart disease and cancer. It also recommends substantially reducing the intake of whole grains and eliminating the intake of refined grains and processed foods. seemingly good advice from government, health care industry, and food industry is only “seemingly” – they were wrong about a lot of stuff 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.) four types of fat: saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat PUFA (omega-3 and omega-6), and trans fats

Calories 420 • Fat 30 g • Saturated fat 5 g • Cholesterol 0 mg • Fiber 23 g • Protein 12 g • Carbohydrate 36 g • Sodium 180 mg The book’s references received a score of 2, indicating that they provide moderate support for the book’s claim. Although the cited studies did examine the association between fat and cancer they are often mischaracterized or crucial pieces of information are withheld from the reader. Criterion 1.3. How well does the strength of the claim line up with the strength of the evidence? it’s not eating more and exercising less that makes you fat – rather, BEING fat makes you eat more and exercise less 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. 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.

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

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. The book received an overall scientific accuracy score of 1.2, indicating that its scientific claims are poorly supported. There was virtually no evidence supporting the claim that eating a high-fat diet is superior for weight loss than lower fat diets. In many cases the data provided by Eat Fat, Get Thin actually undermined this claim showing the two diets to be equivalent for weight loss. We found little compelling evidence to support the claim that saturated fat does not cause heart disease and most well controlled studies report that increased saturated fat intake can lead to increased risk for heart disease or at a minimum issues with circulating cholesterol. We did find some support for the claim that fat intake is not related to the risk for developing certain cancers. However, this seemed to vary based on the specific type of cancer being investigated, with some cancers showing potential relationships and others not. He says, “A hundred years ago less than one in one hundred Americans were obese and coronary heart disease was unknown.” It was hardly unknown, although it was admittedly less prevalent and may not have been diagnosed with that name. He is correct that obesity has become a serious problem and is a risk factor for diabetes, heart disease, and a number of other illnesses; but he goes too far when he claims He refers to questionable sources of information like the Weston Price Foundation and the notorious AIDS denialist Peter Duesberg.The book’s references received a score of 0, indicating that they generally undermine the book’s claim. As noted above many of the references provided by Eat Fat, Get Thin show no differences between low-fat and low-carb diets on weight loss. Criterion 1.3. How well does the strength of the claim line up with the strength of the evidence? Also you're only allowed small allotments of fruit (half a cup per day). But *only* lemons, limes, kiwi, and watermelon. I may have forgotten the whole list. But it did not include peaches, pears, apples, grapes, strawberries, bananas, oranges, cherries, plums, pineapples, you know, the things you think of when you think FRUIT. I care as much as Dr. Hyman does, so I felt compelled to speak out. Was a certified Natural Therapeutics Specialist and Licensed Massage Therapist for more than twenty years, have a firm foundation. Also worked for physicians for about fourteen years and know how and what they think. I believe Hyman cares, but... I do have concerns. Guys like Chopra and Oz, with their new-age piecemeal unqualified advice outside their profession, worry me.

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

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. 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. 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 also tends to withhold study nuances from the reader. An example of this is a study by Kennedy et al. In this study mice were placed onto 1 of 4 diets: a ketogenic diet (78.9% fat, 9.5% protein, and 0.76% carbohydrate), a typical chow diet (6.5% fat, 23.5% protein, and 56% carbohydrate), a high-fat, high-sugar “obesogenic diet” (24% fat, 24% protein, and 41% carbohydrate), and a calorie restricted diet (66% calorie restricted). The obesogenic diet group gained weight, the low-fat diet group appeared to maintain their weight, and the ketogenic and calorie restricted diet groups both lost about equivalent amounts of weight. Eat Fat, Get Thin decided to compare the keto group to the control group (which has a higher carb content than the keto group) as they specifically state that “weight loss was greater than in rats fed a high-carb diet, even though they ate exactly the same number of calories”. While the results of the study do support the weight loss claim we do note that the mice on the low-carb diet lost their weight from the nonfat component of their weight. So, although there was a difference in weight between the control diet and the keto diet mice there was no difference in body fatness. The significant change in weight is mentioned but the non significant change in fat is withheld from the reader. lots of research, and it basically says there’s no link between total dietary fat (the fat you eat) or saturated fat and heart diseaseThere are several other studies cited by Eat Fat, Get Thin that we found to be misrepresented or overstated. For example, Eat Fat, Get Thin references the DIRECT trial and claims that this trial shows that a low-carb, high-fat diet showed greater weight loss than a low-fat diet. However, the group that was given the “low-fat” label by the researchers were not actually following a low-fat diet, as has been previously noted by others. Additionally, the carbohydrate levels were not very different between the two groups with the low-fat group consuming ~50% of their calories from carbohydrate whereas the low-carb group consumed ~40% of calories from carbohydrate. Instead the participants in the “low-fat” diet group were instructed to consume their typical diets and did not make any significant changes to their daily diets. There was, however, another group in the study that was not mentioned by Eat Fat, Get Thin. That group was following a version of the Mediterranean diet which instructed participants to keep their fat intake to under 35% of their daily calories. This level of fat intake was similar to the “low-fat” group, with only a 3% difference in calories from fat between groups. Of note, 35% fat intake is within the suggested fat intake range found in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. When comparing this lower-fat Mediterranean diet to the prescribed low-carb diet there was no difference in weight outcomes. This study’s findings ultimately undermine the weight loss claims made by Eat Fat, Get Thin. Overall, Eat Fat, Get Thin provided references for the majority of their claims, however, the details and conclusions of the papers cited were often misrepresented or greatly overstated. In some key instances the data cited actually undermined the claims being made by Eat Fat, Get Thin. There were also some important studies discussed by Eat Fat, Get Thin for which references were not provided. It is unclear why these citations were left out. We’ve been told lots of falsehoods about fat over the past 50 years that have shaped what we eat, what we buy, how we diet—all of which has had huge and disastrous consequences for our health. It all began with two big ideas about fat that have turned out to be wrong…The first was that all calories operate the same way in your body. Since fat has more than twice as many calories as carbs or protein per gram, the natural conclusion was that if you ate less fast, you would lose weight. That, in effect, the fat you ate turned to fat in your body. The second idea was that since fatty cholesterol deposits caused heart disease, and dietary fat, especially saturated fat, raised cholesterol, then the fat we ate caused heart disease. Seems to make sense, except the body is more complex than this simplistic conclusion would suggest…I’ll explain how the government and the food industry jumped on the bandwagon to create a maelstrom of bad advice. It was the perfect storm of overzealous scientists leaping to premature conclusions, anxious government agencies eager to do something to stem the tide of obesity and heart disease, and a profit-hungry food industry that raced in to capitalize on the low-fat mania, leading, in fact, to a rise in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.” Ch2