All The Stupid Stuff in My Face from the Grant Whores

I'll bet some of you already know where I'm going. There's so much nonsense out there virtually every day that it would be tough for you not to know.

So, alright, I've seen a barrage of emails and other communique over the last couple of days. What should I begin with, how saturated fat stimulates hunger and makes us eat more, how 85% of type 2 diabetics are eating too much saturated fat, or that saturated fats clog your arteries just like your plumbing?

Well, it doesn't matter where I begin, because they're all pretty stupid.

Here's some examples.

Ice Cream May Be Controlling Your Brain

Burger, ice cream fat 'sends signals to brain'

Junk Food That Tells Our Brain To Carry On Eating

Those are just a few. They all read pretty much the same. The essentials:

When we eat, hormones such as leptin and insulin send out signals telling the body it has had enough.

But palmitic acid –a fatty acid present in saturated fats – goes straight to the brain and tells it to ignore these signals.

The research, published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, was carried out by Dr Deborah Clegg of UT Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas.

That would be right here, and Deborah Clegg isn't the only grant whore. We also have: Stephen C. Benoit, Christopher J. Kemp, Carol F. Elias, William Abplanalp, James P. Herman, Stephanie Migrenne, Anne-Laure Lefevre, Céline Cruciani-Guglielmacci, Christophe Magnan, Fang Yu4, Kevin Niswender, Boman G. Irani, and William L. Holland. Grant Whores.

I mean, what else could such useless research mean? I'll leave the scientific debunking to the real experts out there. This is just a typical hit & run, for me. But let's cover the basics. Yes, there's some evidence I've seen to suggest that saturated fat might induce temporary mild insulin resistance. And leptin resistance too? I dunno, never heard that one, but perhaps it's plausible. Can you think of an evolutionary reason for that?

What's being ignored is saturated fats have been with us forever, and grains only a brief time. Processed foods packed with sugar, grain derivatives, and processed vegetable oils, only a short time. So, naturally, it's the bit of saturated fat (typically less than 50% of total fat, even in junk food) in the tiny little frankenmeat stuck between two massive buns, alongside the fries done up in industrial oil, and the soda packed with sugar.

In other words, hunter-gatherers and other non-industrial populations who existed on lots of meat & fat must have been really obese, because, as we can see now that the American diet is about 60-70% carbcrap, people are now lean and trim everywhere.

So, one might presume that the best nutrient there is, meat with it's saturated fat (our own body fat is highly saturated, and our bodies can and do manufacture saturated fats), might be so important that we evolved a "gorging mechanism" for when we had it around. That's speculation, of course. But one thing we didn't have built into our genes is how to handle a sugar load such as the average person consumes today.

The mind boggles. Grant Whores. Here:

"With respect to applying to humans, I can only make an educated guess, but I believe that when humans eat diets high in saturated fat, and palmitic acid in particular, hormones such as leptin, which normally regulate food intake and body weight will be less effective," says researcher Debbie Clegg. This helps explain why you wake up ravenous the morning after Thanksgiving -- all that butter and cheese is literally toying with your brain.

Now Clegg, you stupid cow, I think you probably know damn good & well that the reason people are ravenous the next morning (just like after an enormous pasta dinner), is that they have dumped hundreds of grams of carbohydrate (sugar & grain) over the space of a few hours into a body whose total amount of blood glucose is about 4 grams at any one time. That's less than a teaspoon in an entire body, and you idiots mean to tell us that the 5 grams of palmitic acid in that burger is what's causing the problem, and not the 200 grams of carbohydrate in the bun, fries, and soda and perhaps dessert -- 50 times more sugar than a normal person has in circulation?

You want to know what really causes insulin and leptin resistance? Over carbing (grains & sugar) drives insulin secretion, drives leptin resistance and fat storage, drives insulin resistance and more fat storage. This is the causal chain, everyone knows it; but, they're Grant Whores.

Or, Frauds; take your pick. Want to have a real education about leptin and resistance? See here, and note the links to Stephan's posts on leptin toward the bottom. Also, see how fat improves memory. Can you think of an evolutionary reason? Don Matesz speculates.

Far and away the most common benefit experienced by the paleo dieter -- most of whom are in the 50-60% range of energy from fat, and depending on how much coconut fat they use, probably 25-50% total energy from saturated fats -- is getting back to normal hunger regulation. It is nearly universal: "I'm never really hungry." That has certainly been my experience in losing 60 pounds while eating very high fat and saturated fat including palmitic acid. It has also been the experience of every single friend and family member.

These Grant Whores are despicable in every possible way. They should be immediately pelted about the head & shoulders with rotten vegetables.

~~~

Now to the next set of Grant Whores: Mara Z. Vitolins, DrPH, RD, Andrea M. Anderson, MS, Linda Delahanty, MS, RD, Hollie Raynor, PhD, Gary D. Miller, PhD, RD, Connie Mobley, PhD, RD, Rebecca Reeves, PhD, RD, Monica Yamamoto, PhD, RD, Catherine Champagne, PhD, RD, Rena R. Wing, PhD, Elizabeth Mayer-Davis, PhD, RD.

Most diabetics falling short on healthy eating. Well it's kind of obvious, isn't it? It's tautological: "Diet induced health problems are the result of unhealthy eating."

...researchers found that of nearly 2,800 middle- aged and older U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, nearly all were exceeding the daily recommended fat intake. When it came to artery-clogging saturated fat, 85 percent were consuming too much.

[...]

The "most important thing" in managing type 2 diabetes, Vitolins noted, is balancing calories in and calories out to help shed pounds or at least avoid weight gain. The choice of foods is also vital in getting enough beneficial nutrients...

Here's the abstract. No mention anywhere of whether they considered the role of SUGAR in...DIABETES.

Grant Whores.

~~~

Finally, I'll leave the sarcasm to Tom Naughton, who has scientifically, rigorously proven that EVERYTHING clogs your arteries.

Update 5/11/2010: I was contacted by one of the researchers, Dr. Stephen Benoit, from the fist of those studies cited and in the end have decided that I targeted the wrong folks and that the science is good and valid, just reported wrong by the media. "Is Eating Crow Paleo?" Check it out.

Comments

  1. How else are you to survive in academia when most anything relevant has been studied or the zeitgeist is too strong?

    An aside, but Puritan's pride is have a gnarly sale and they're the only company I've seen selling a 5000iu vit d cap. FYI.

    Best,
    Skyler

  2. Haha. Nice rant buddy!

    About the only saturated fats I don't like are those from store bought meats. Then it's not even the fat, but the Omega-6, toxins and hormones (intentionally installed) that settle there.

    My fat intake is 55-75%, but a lot less would come from animal sources if all I had access to was grain fed garbage.

  3. Haha. Nice rant buddy!

    About the only saturated fats I don't like are those from store bought meats. Then it's not even the fat, but the Omega-6, toxins and hormones (intentionally installed) that settle there.

    My fat intake is 55-75%, but a lot less would come from animal sources if all I had access to was grain fed garbage.

  4. “With respect to applying to humans, I can only make an educated guess, but I believe that when humans eat diets high in saturated fat, and palmitic acid in particular, hormones such as leptin, which normally regulate food intake and body weight will be less effective,” says researcher Debbie Clegg. This helps explain why you wake up ravenous the morning after Thanksgiving — all that butter and cheese is literally toying with your brain.

    rnikoley: Now Clegg, you stupid cow, I think you probably know damn good & well that the reason people are ravenous the next morning (just like after an enormous pasta dinner), is that they have dumped hundreds of grams of carbohydrate (sugar & grain) over the space of a few hours into a body whose total amount of blood glucose is about 4 grams at any one time.

    Not that I disagree with your assessment of Clegg, but she is not the one making the claim that this “…explain(s) why you wake up ravenous the morning after Thanksgiving…”. That claim is made by the author of the article.

    And for another anecdotal data point, you can add me to the list of people who are “never really hungry” — probably as a _result_ of nearly eliminating grains and sugar from my diet and seriously upping the fat content (no vegetable oils — unless coconut is a vegetable).

  5. Robert in San Jose says:

    Richard. Shame on you. Acerbic. Caustic. Bombastic.

    And dead on.

    My dad was a research engineer (nuclear) who advanced nuclear reactor core cooling systems greatly during his career. If he was practicing fuzzy methodologies and trying to make his research results match some preordained agenda, there would have been nuclear meltdowns to debunk his work.

    These people who are being paid to produce research which support the interests of big business and their cohorts in our government, have no such system of checks and balances.

    The failure in the integrity of their work is one thing. That it is also insidious makes it even more reprehensible.

  6. The articles you linked seem to have been authored by nine-year-olds who were quoting studies conducted by eleven-year-olds. With the free-press environment on the internet, it seems like everyone is reaching. Terrible.

  7. Maybe “subsidy whores” may be more apt. I was trying to think who this “Grant” person was, before the penny dropped.
    Tell it as it is Richard, and don't hold back. Your comments make my day. Especially your flamers.

  8. timrangitsch says:

    YES, Richard! As if injecting palmitic acid into a rodent's veins (on top of a high grain/carb/veggie oil chow) has anything to do with HUMAN metabolism. I doubt the palmitic acid was even the culprit, but rather the grain/carb/veggie oil rodent chow! Argh. Argggh, indeed.

  9. LOL, “Grant whore” – what a great term! I have to remember that. :-) I love Peter at Hyperlipid's take on this story too at http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/09/

  10. Hmm, I don't know if my comment went through before or not? I love the term “grant whore”. LOL, have to remember that. I also love Peter at Hyperlipids' take on the palmitic acid study: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/09/

  11. Dear Debbie and friends,
    I am so confused. I hope you can help me on this one.

    About 65- to 80% of my caloric intake per day is saturated fat. I am sure you will agree that this constitutes an “energy-dense diet”. Unfortunately I am unable to gain any weight. I just don’t understand why as a 43 year old female, I would have 15% body fat.

    I never used to be like this. This pesky leanness came on when I started eating all that saturated fat, (even more that you fed the rats in your study I might add).

    I was hoping that all this palmitic acid would activate local inflammatory signals resulting in me being unable to appropriately regulate my food intake but this didn’t happen. What is going on here Debbie?

    Please send any suggestion you and your colleagues may have. I would really like to get to the bottom of this.

    L Price

  12. johncampbell says:

    I have made this similar comment elsewhere, but it occurred to me recently that what you are illustrating is our evolutionary past as much as the paleo diet.

    We are social animals and there is a tremendous pressure to conform in our thinking. We can think as rational individuals, but this is overlaid by complex wiring that encourages us to look to our neighbors for guidance. When the tribe jumps up and starts running, you are much more likely to live to produce more offspring if you follow that lead without seeing or hearing the tiger yourself. The default position for most people's thinking is not to question the group-think – how else can you explain the status quo living on in so many disciplines despite compelling contradictory evidence? Inertia in the realm of ideas is huge.

    Most people do not stop to analyze how much they are affected by this useful feature of our survival mechanism. The scientists you describe are intelligent humans at one level, but at another they are frightened little monkeys screaming along with the rest of their group. They are using their minds mechanically, ignoring and discounting information that contradicts the group-think.

    What is maddening is that they many people consider the scientists to be morally and intellectually superior deliverers of TRUTH. And they are handed our money to give us bullshit, which helps to convince our governments to make more bad laws telling us what we can and can't do. Don't get me started on the monkeys in government!

    Evolution is a slow process and we have to play the hand that nature has dealt us, which all in all is pretty damn good. Knowledge, courage and perseverance are the keys to change and you are contributing to those Richard.

  13. Self-ownership in scholarship is a better mode of operation anyways; it allows for hyperlipidity to shine through, instead of being drowned out by a sea of sugar.

  14. eatmorefat says:

    Another way to get your point across is to post pictures of fat dietitians. Deborah Clegg doesn't look overweight, but her skin is showing signs of aging.

  15. animalpharm says:

    !!!! 'GRANT WHORES'

    omg, your irreverence KILLS me. And blinds me.

    ANd makes me die laughing….!!!!!! u must stop… my sides hurt.

    Academia is not unlike ALL OTHER UNREGULATED INDUSTRIES:
    –Dentistry (DDS whores who mine our mouths with toxic mind-reducing metal)
    –Cardiology (interventional roto-rooters)
    –Electrophysiologist Cardiologists (zap them again…and again.. and again)
    –Endocrinology (what is a hormone? what is a gland?? wtf they're the last to know)
    –Food… who have bought $$$ out the ADA AHA USDA etc
    –Pharmaceutical (legal pimps)

    -G

  16. Richard,
    I'm just starting out in paleo type eating and have cut out all grains, sugars etc. I have insulin resistance and am almost pre-diabetic. I'm trying to figure out if, when eating paleo style, I may choose my carbs from ANY fruit or vegetables. Or if I still shouldn't eat fruit or starchy vegetables such as potatoes and pumpkin until I've got my insulin levels under control. I've come from a place of Atkins (scared to eat more than 20g carbs for fear of not staying in ketosis) and avoiding all fruit, based on the many blogs by Doctors who say that fruit is to be avoided due to the fructose driving insulin. Would you have any thoughts for me? I would also love to hear how your Mother is going with her diabetes since adopting the paleo way of eating. Thank you!

    • Well, first, my mom has been off the insulin injections for some time, now, but I think still takes the ills but has been reducing dosage.

      As far as the diet, I would do very low-carb paleo until your bood glucose stabilizes, demonstrating enhanced insulin sensitivity. So, very low carb, just like Atkins, but with paleo foods only, i.e., no grains or legumes, even if processed formulations low in carbs, and no vegetable / soy oils — natural fats only, especially coconut. I'd stay away from the starchy vegetables and limit fruit to modest quantities of berries.

  17. keiththomas says:

    Great post, Richard – and some similarly welcome high-spirited responses from others out there. A little known fact to cause fretting among the saturated fatophobes: olive oil is about 15% saturated fat. Just think of the millions of people who take olive oil to avoid saturated fat – they are actually consuming a food that is 15% saturated fat! On the topic of obesity, I was inspired by the 40th anniversary of Woodstock to view a few videos on YouTube shot at the time. In some the camera sweeps of thousands of people in the audience and NOT ONE is obese. It is stunning. People are walking, not waddling. Couldn't happen today.

  18. Good rant!

  19. David-Dorian Ross says:

    Just found this site and read your post. You really have no idea what you are talking about on just about every point. Having lectured on exercise science for the past 15 years, as well as having been on the executive committee of the National Association of Health and Fitness, I am used to pointing out bad science. For example, the “paleo diet” – when generically applied — is bad science. And calling someone whom you do not know personally a “grant whore” may not be bad science – it's just bad manners.

    • Having lectured on exercise science for the past 15 years, as well as having been on the executive committee of the National Association of Health and Fitness…

      Make a fucking argument, or get lost.

      I haven't time to deal with pathetic appeals to authority.

      • David-Dorian Ross says:

        Boy – you really are scared, aren't you? Be careful – anger will make your heart give out faster than a high fat steak.

        I make no appeals to authority, Richard. Your opinions about “scientists” don't change the facts about the way human chemistry works. You obviously do not know. I don't know everything – no one does – but I certainly know more than you. Why? Not because I have a high opinion of myself, but because I spend every day working in this field, because I have a degree in exercise science, and because I actually talk with people like Dr. Clegg who are doing the work to advance the understanding of what keeps us alive and healthy.

        Clinical research has conclusively demonstrated that the long-term results of Atkins and the paleo-diet is INCREASED weight gain, and often damage to the liver and gall bladder. It is more likely that the decrease in appetite you and your friends experience is from the drop in “non-foods.” Packaged foods, high in additives, preservatives and high-fructose corn syrup are designed to make you hungry for more. So when you stop eating them you will start to feel a more normal appetite cycle.

        In fact, the implications of Dr. Clegg's paper on saturated fat are consistent with your paleo diet. During those times, animal protein was a more desirable food source than carbs from plants and fats from nuts. Meat eaters are at the top of the food chain, and therefore a meat diet already has a lot of nutrients in it. So if there was meat to be had, the body would signal itself to keep eating it as long as it was around – and it would do that by suppressing the normal satiety signals.

        The problem is – humans are not carnivores. We are omnivores, which means that a diet high in protein and fat (50-60% do you say?) WILL NOT WORK WITH HUMAN BODY CHEMISTRY over the long term.

        No two human beings are completely alike, and there are many people who have unique body chemistry that defies the norm. If you find success with an off-the-wall diet then I am the last person to argue with your personal results. But be honest. Be honest about what you know and what you have personally learned. You have no idea that your results can be repeated for anyone else because you don't know enough about the way the human body works. And when you start making claims that scientists that you don't know personally are frauds and whores you're just shooting your mouth off.

        Be a man. A real man doesn't have to call strangers names and strut around. Your honesty will get you all the respect you need.

      • DDR,

        You sound like a lot of the people and doctors I followed because I thought they were the authorities on the subject of health. Unfortunately, I just got worse with higher blood pressure, then high cholesterol. When I was warned by my doc that I was pre-diabetic I said enough. I knew what was in my future with medication and quality of life. I looked on the web for alternative health advice and when I found Richard's site among others I followed the paleo lifestyle… I had nothing to lose.

        I’ve been on this journey now for a year and only after 3 months on paleo I lost 25 pounds, dropped down to 8% body fat from 18% and off my medication (bp and cholesterol). I know that if I hadn’t I would be like many people I know, taking medication to treat diabetes, metabolic diseases and not to mention a lower quality of life. I have reversed this terrible and unhealthy direction and so have others that eat the way humans were meant to based on evolution. Every aspect of my life has improved and I will never pay credence to the lies that you and others espouse. There are many others, family and friends that I have referred to Richard’s site and the paleo lifestyle and they all have received many benefits. I too am in the business and was brave enough to question and use common sense. You’ve been in the health field for 15 years and I think it will take even longer for you to understand the benefits of the paleo lifestyle. You are attached to what you have learned in school and are afraid to question your knowledge and those with whom you associate. I’m not going to wait around for the experts to tell me what to eat or drink, they had their chance.

        Ron

      • Mr. Dorian-Ross,

        You deny that your original comment was an appeal to authority, and to support this contention you simply made a more elaborate appeal to authority. It's obvious that you aren't capable of grasping was is an is not an appeal to authority because if you were, you would have left it at that (or even better just repeated your original comment, confident in the knowledge that it wasn't an appeal to authority).

        However, what you did was to go on even from that to actually formulate an argument – implicitly conceding to Mr. Nikoley that you had done what he said you did. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here when I say that you aren't aware of this contradiction, but I'm suspicious that what you were doing was simply blowing out a lot of hot air in order to overwhelm your opponent before you transitioned into discussing the meat of the issue without him realizing that you had. If this is the case then that means that you are a dishonest not just when it comes to how to engage other people in debate, but in your habitual method of thinking.

        So, it's possible that what I am about to discuss will have absolutely no effect upon you since you have a vested interest in keeping yourself habituated away from intense, rigorous, indepedent thinking. In other words, you have a hitherto unidentified standing order within your subconscious to immediately evade (usually through premature dismissal) anything which produces the emotion of fear. Namely, fear of the threat any idea which threatens the value which you regard as more fundamental than truth: professional acceptance.

        With that said, even if it is true that my suspicions about you are correct, because I know for a fact that other well-intentioned, intellectually-honest, yet dietarily-agnostic people read this website, I will use the argument you ironically “lowered yourself” to put as an opportunity to clarify the essential argument of the paleo diet. Your opposing argument just so happens to allow me to do that in a striking way.

        Basically, your whole position rests on the contention that humans are omnivores, and that because we are omnivores, we must consume both animals and plants in order to best meet our biological requirements. This is an extremely superficial statement. At a glance it appears to be true, and in a very loose manner of speaking, it is. In the short-term, the human body requires energy, plants provide energy just as well as animals do, so to meet our biological requirements we should consume plants over nothing if plants are all that's available.

        However, you don't claim to be talking about the short-term. Your claim is that humans have evolved over millions of years to eat both plants and animals. That is simply not true. For millions of years of human evolution, if meat wasn't available, people died of starvation. The only thing that made plants readily available was the advent of agriculture (a result of a bigger brain, which was itself a result of being carnivorous).

        If you want to claim that humans have always eaten both then you're going to have to provide archeological evidence one or both of the following: the existence of vast quantities of plant foods digestible by the modern human stomach or the existence of a hominid who has both a brain large enough to farm and, paradoxically, a stomach tough enough to consume wild plants – making his bigger brain unnecessary.

      • damaged justice says:

        When theory and reality don't agree, I know which one I'll choose to rely on every time.

        “Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash, and I am pleased to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.”

      • elliotdiafono says:

        Boy – you really are scared, aren't you? Be careful – anger will make your heart give out faster than a high fat steak.

        And then:

        Be a man. A real man doesn't have to call strangers names and strut around.

        Readers note the childish goading, followed by petulant calls not to be childish, wrapped around a non-answer (i.e., no argument except yet more appeals to authority).

        Your honesty will get you all the respect you need.

        I've been reading Nikoley for many years and I respect him for his honesty, as well as for his diligence in citing relevant research to help debunk several nutritional myths so-called “experts” like you have been pushing the whole time westerners have grown fatter and unhealthier. Maybe he isn't right on everything, but I've found him to be willing to reevaluate his ideas a number of times.

        I'm just amazed how so many so-called “experts” ignore overwhelming evidence and keep preaching diet advice which does not work for most people.

      • Dave

        Your website lacks any content, it seems like a cheap sales pitch site. You lack credibility. Your Tai Chi videos on YouTube are just plain fruity. And in all your fruity videos you're wearing loose baggy clothes, you appear to be a skinny-fat dude with man boobs. Why don't you take your shirt off and show the world what your non-paleo Tai Chi lifestyle has produced, Richard certainly has?

        Man-up (if you can)

      • Dr. Ross

        I'll leave aside the ad hominems and I do not endorse name-calling in either direction. However, my thoughts are as follows:

        “I make no appeals to authority, Richard.”

        Well, that is how you started out, with nothing else but.

        “Your opinions about “scientists” don't change the facts about the way human chemistry works. You obviously do not know. I don't know everything – no one does – but I certainly know more than you.”

        You have in fact so far demonstrated that you know substantially less than Richard does about the meaning of the results being discussed. My own experience supports his assertions far more than yours. Perhaps you have just not elaborated your arguments enough yet.

        “Not because I have a high opinion of myself”

        you doth protesteth too much

        “but because I spend every day working in this field, because I have a degree in exercise science, and because I actually talk with people like Dr. Clegg who are doing the work to advance the understanding of what keeps us alive and healthy.”

        I would suggest that, in keeping with a Kuhnian model of the existing paradigm of diet and health, that it is precisely the fact that you “spend every day working in the field and talking with people like Dr. Clegg” that keeps you from being able to see the total failure of the paradigm you work within.

        It is entirely consistent that the failure of the old paradigm be obvious not only to other scientists and medical professionals (like me, Michael Eades, MD, Stephan Guyenet, PhD and Petro Dobrynyski, DVM) but also to intelligent laymen like Richard. The Kuhnian model in fact predicts that the new paradigm will be most inconceivable to those with the most training and professional investment in it.

        “Clinical research has conclusively demonstrated that the long-term results of Atkins and the paleo-diet is INCREASED weight gain, and often damage to the liver and gall bladder.”

        These studies, to my knowledge, and as you have characterized them do not exist unless they are unpublished. If you have them, you can email them to me through my website listed below. NAFL in particular is basically incurable by anything other than a low fructose high fat diet. Gallstones are caused chiefly by cholestasis due to inadequate cholecystokin stimulation – which caused by inadequate fat intake (read: high carbohydrate diet)

        “It is more likely that the decrease in appetite you and your friends experience is from the drop in “non-foods.”

        That is precisely the point. Neolithic amounts of fructose, linoleic acid and any amount of gluten grains are not “food” we evolved to eat.

        “Packaged foods, high in additives, preservatives and high-fructose corn syrup are designed to make you hungry for more. So when you stop eating them you will start to feel a more normal appetite cycle.”

        Nothing in your statement is in any way at odds with any of the many versions of paleo nutrition I have encountered, including my own. How is that any argument against paleonutrition?

        “In fact, the implications of Dr. Clegg's paper on saturated fat are consistent with your paleo diet. During those times, animal protein was a more desirable food source than carbs from plants and fats from nuts.”

        Animal protein is and always has been more obtainable than the higher energy density saturated fat found more in larger animals. Why would protein be more desirable than fat? Tell us how you would eat animal protein while avoiding the fat. If you eat the entire animal, you are at more than 50% calories as fat, at a minimum. Skinless chicken breasts and grocery store muscle cuts stripped of fat are strictly neolithic food.

        Fats from nuts? Name modern HGs or indeed any humans in any time or place that get any significant amount of fats from nuts. If you agree with that, then perhaps you agree the fat must be coming from animals and a lot of it will be saturated.

        “Meat eaters are at the top of the food chain, and therefore a meat diet already has a lot of nutrients in it. So if there was meat to be had, the body would signal itself to keep eating it as long as it was around – and it would do that by suppressing the normal satiety signals.”

        I am sorry, but that is totally illogical. Why would the highest value, most energy dense food have the lowest satiety signal. What happens when only food that is skimpier in nutrients is encountered? There would be more satiety (as you have just defined it), so the subject eats less and then dies of starvation!

        In fact, it is fat that gives the highest satiety signal, when the entire hormonal milieu is considered. I have never encountered anyone on a high fat, low carb diet who was less satiated than before they began the diet. Only someone steeped in a theory they don't think through could ignore the copious empirical evidence otherwise.

        “The problem is – humans are not carnivores. We are omnivores, which means that a diet high in protein and fat (50-60% do you say?) WILL NOT WORK WITH HUMAN BODY CHEMISTRY over the long term.”

        This is of course a non-sequiter. Omnivory per se says nothing about what macronutrient ratio might be optimal or even tolerated. Actually 70-80% fat is even better, although not required. Humans are omnivores that are on the carnivorous end of the scale. Weston Price found 4 modern HG tribes that were effectively 100% carnivorous, and there is no evidence of a single one, ever, that was vegetarian.

        “No two human beings are completely alike, and there are many people who have unique body chemistry that defies the norm.”

        In the ways that count, they absolutely are. Show me a human that has no DNA or that does not store their own fat as palmitic acid or that does not use exactly the same TCA cycle or the exact same neurotransmitters in their brain. There are variations in genotype and phenotype, but what is life-promoting to eat for one is not generally poison for another. I might expect blood-type diet promoters and vegetarians to make such statements, not professional nutrition researchers.

        “If you find success with an off-the-wall diet then I am the last person to argue with your personal results.”

        To characterize a meal of grass fed steak and asparagus with pastured butter as “off the wall” because there is no bread or industrial vegetable oil served is simply ignorant. Try to learn more about what you are criticizing.

        “But be honest. Be honest about what you know and what you have personally learned. You have no idea that your results can be repeated for anyone else because you don't know enough about the way the human body works.”

        Richard is not being polite, but I am certain he is being honest. My results back him up 100% and I am pretty confident I know a little about how the human body works.

        “And when you start making claims that scientists that you don't know personally are frauds and whores you're just shooting your mouth off.”

        I don't agree with the name-calling, but perhaps some thought about what makes people angry about the paradigm you promote (the low fat/ high grain one, I am assuming) that is only 30 years old, is in order.

        Looking at the absolutely criminal epidemic of metabolic syndrome and obesity, that only gets worse with each official nutrition recommendation, Dr. Phil might well ask:

        AND HOW IS THAT WORKING FOR YOU?

      • David-Dorian Ross says:

        Dr. Harris,
        Thank you for your courteous and thoughtful comments. I had no idea what an uproar I would get to create by disagreeing with Richard. How exciting!

        In point of fact, I do not promote a low fat/high grain diet. My own opinion is no more mainstream than anyone who embraces the paleo-diet. In fact I advocate a macronutrient combination that takes into account the muscle-fiber type distribution, bone structure, metabolic rate (approximated) and age of the INDIVIDUAL (sorry for the caps – no italics on this response box). My clients also experience life-changing (and perhaps life-saving) results.

        I had only two points of disagreement with Richard: One, I disagreed with the notion of UNIVERSALLY recommending the paleolithic diet. To me that is as uninformed as to universally recommend the low fat/high carb diet. (By the way, I share the opinion that this diet is largely responsible for the epidemic of metabolic syndrome and obesity – and I have been a critic of that diet for 15 years or more. For a long time this made me very unpopular in my industry – health and fitness. Only now are people starting to change their minds.)

        My second disagreement was with leveling personal attacks on people you don't know. Are there frauds and “grant whores” in the academic field. Of course there are! Do they waste money and often stand in the way of scientific advancement? They do – and that makes me as angry as it appears to make a lot of people on this site. However, if you really want to make that kind of waste stop, then have your facts straight, be specific about the people that you accuse – and you can still be polite.

        As a final comment – I disagree with Richard's tone. But I am 100% on his side in a search for a better answer to his own health. It's been my experience that most MD's have less real understanding of nutrition, exercise or stress management than my Grandma did (present company excepted). These critical lifestyle components are absent from their medical curriculum. Richard did a courageous and righteous act by breaking from what his doctors told him to follow what he knew was right.

        And by the way, I happen to know for a fact that Dr. Clegg would feel the same way.

      • Hey David (and Dr. Harris, too):

        First to Dr Harris: Thanks for seeing beyond my volatility. I make no bones about the fact that I'm a Hit & Run kinda guy, with the BIG condition that I hate being wrong (and if I don't, I a'int worth wasting time on). Simply stated: I like taking risks this way. It's like an experiment with something at stake, but the only risk in capital is what I've already built. And that's important to me, so it is risky.

        Like I say to everyone: take it or leave it; but, I am certainly sensitive to feedback. And yes, I prefer being perceived as honest as to being perceived as polite and gentlemanly. While those are certainly not disvalues (or mutually exclusive, for that matter), they are values so far down the line as to motivate me to “just cut to the chase;” remove all doubt. Honesty is crucial, long term. Or, I'm just lazy in this way.

        Now to David-Dorian. I could have wasted hours and hours in an argument and still not achieved what I believe has been achieved (with the help of a handful of great readers): You know more than when you began this. You're exited about the stir. You understand it's not bullshit. And, I think you're curious about it. Enough for me, sir. We're cool, if that's OK.

        A clarification or two. First, “paleo” is anything from equator to arctic circle, i.e., Kitavan to Inuit, and it has been a very long time since I may have implied anything different. Figure out what macro-nurtrient ratios work for you (I don't bother with them, 'cause it's just that my high-animal-fat intake is satisfying and so kinda dictates the rest…). I do recommend, however: begin with very low to zero carb, high fat, for at least a few weeks or so (Why not? Can YOU tell me, why not…a coupla' weeks or so???) and take it from there and eventually build your very own unique diet plan.

        I had a big section about the next thing (see the note below), but suffice to say that while the blog has selection bias built in (99% of voluntary testimonials are positive), as I know, I am still at 100% of more than 15 family and friends who have achieved various ranges of impressive, unexpected, thought-unattainable benefit from high-fat, low-carb paleo. You're welcome to think I'm lying or exaggerating, but while I've had only one or two less than stellar reports in comments or emails from readers, for my circle, its a solid 100%.

        So, what ought I do, David? Should I back off? Should I be more circumspect, doubtful, far less self assured? Tell me, please. I'm at 100%. Knowing in advance that it will eventually crack a bit, should I start hedging now?

        And, I'm not a huge Atkins fan, such as it seems to be becoming (vegetarians: same thing; they're a market, now).

        http://freetheanimal.com/2009/07/atkins-lost-so

        [this was much longer and more in depth, but I somehow dumped it. Didn't have the will to reconstruct completely, just essentials. Thanks, all, for making that so possible.]

      • christopherbyrne says:

        “No two human beings are completely alike, and there are many people who have unique body chemistry that defies the norm.”

        Is that right, is it? I must be one of those people you mention, because my body really struggles to digest bullshit when I am fed it. I imagine you must come across an awful lot of people like me when you turn up to a knife-fight with a blunt pencil… keep researching, grasshopper.

    • DD-R I have been a diabetic for over a decade, not until Atkins, Low Carb and now Paleo food choices have I been able to live a regular life off meds with healthier “Numbers” on every blood test. My doctors are ready to stop listening to “experts” like the American Diabetes Assoc and learn from my journey to health, which means even you can learn new and better and CORRECT ideas and not sound like an old man talking about the past 15 yrs. BTW- I never heard of you, so nice career so far.

      • My mom was diagnosed T2 5 or so years ago. She kept it under
        reasonable control low carb, but always getting worse, just slowly so.
        Finally, she had to go on insulin.

        None of her doctors ever did much but monitor. Only until I had her go
        full paleo did she see reversal and was able to get off insulin within
        a few months.

  20. Great rant, Richard. I'm with you. When the advice being given by the 'experts' is killing people, then they need to be shouted at.

  21. stephen c benoit says:

    wow. never in my wildest dreams did i consider that 4 years of such hard work would lead to horrible horrible comments like this. your reference to Deborah as a ‘cow’ is simply despicable and mean. we are not whores. we are doing the best work that we can. we can agee to disagree about the data or conclusions and pursue further in the arena of science. but you, sir, are a very mean hateful person.

  22. stephen c benoit says:

    I will also point out that Dr. Clegg has co-authored papers on the benefits of a keto-genic (low carb) diet… What the MEDIA failed to point out from our study was that saturated fats are bad in the presence of carbohydates. In the absence of carbohydates, it’s not a bad thing at all. That was not US talking. That was the MEDIA….

    • Stephen,
      You are the paid piper. If the media misread your work, then maybe you should reassess and improve your communication skills.
      “In the absence of carbohydates, it’s not a bad thing at all.”
      You say it’s not a bad thing, when you should be saying that it’s a really good thing, and very healthful.
      It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it……

  23. stephen c benoit says:

    bill, this evening i will post a response on Richard’s excellent post today. please reserve judgement until then. the comments above were made not long after i had discovered this post, that called us ‘gantwhores.’ i think we are all on the same page now.

    regards
    stephen

  24. stephen c benoit says:

    that should be ‘grantwhores.’

Trackbacks

  1. […] from a UK reader, Alex Thorne. He was pretty careful in that — unlike science frauds and grant whores — as an honest guy, he anticipated objections and so constructed and graphed the data in different […]