Doctors Who Fill Your Head With Lies And Deception

Dr. Mark Hyman has this to say about low fat diets,

“In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (i) Dr. Ludwig correctly points out that careful review of all the studies on dietary fat and body fat — such as those done by Dr. Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health — have shown that dietary fat is not a major determinant of body fat.

Let me repeat that. Dietary fat is not a major determinant of body fat.

The Women’s Health Initiative, which is the largest clinical trial of diet and body weight, found that 50,000 women on low-fat diets had no significant weight loss. Yet another study looked at people who followed four different diets for 12 months — and found no dramatic differences between those who followed low-fat, low-carb, and very- low-carb diets.

The question then is, why aren’t we seeing any significant effects or differences from these various diets? The main reason, Dr. Ludwig suggests, is that we are looking for answers in the wrong place.”

What this guy doesn’t tell you is that the Women’s Health Initiative had the goal of getting those women to reduce their fat intake to 20% of their daily caloric intake.  20% is still an enormous amount of fat. To put that in perspective, the average US male consumes 30% of his calories from fat.  The women in the study were only successful at reducing their fat intake to 29%, down from 38%.

Here’s an example of what a real low fat diet can do.  In this study, researchers took a group of people who were nearly dead from heart disease and reversed their condition.  The study notes that, “In the experimental group, fat intake decreased from approximately 30% to 8.5%”  So the people in this study initially got their heart disease by eating a diet that the women in the first study reduced their fat intake to obtain!

So what happened to these participants’ weight?  They dropped 11 kilograms on average after a year.  That’s about 24 pounds.  All of their heart disease and angina was halted or reversed. Their arteries opened back up and their angina dissipated.  Studies like this prove that heart disease is a reversible condition with a low fat diet.

Fat has twice the calories per gram of carbs or protein, which means you can eat twice the carbs for the same amount of calories compared to fat.  Foods high in water and fiber content, such as whole plant foods, have an even more dramatic caloric density difference.  100 grams of broccoli has 34 calories, 100 grams of whole wheat pasta contains 124 calories, compared to 100 grams of olive oil which contains 884 calories.

Of course, Dr. Hyman isn’t the only jerk out there bending the truth to fit some kind of fucked up satanic agenda.  I’m not sure why there are so many highly intelligent doctors out there who feel the need to mislead people to their deaths, but it seems to be a pretty common theme.

Here’s another quack – Dr. Joseph Mercola. In this article, entitled “Pasta, Not Bacon, Makes You Fat,” Dr. Mercola says,

“If you are seeking to lose weight and optimize your health, foods like bread, rice and pasta should comprise very low percentages of your diet. Virtually anyone who bought into these high-carb, low-fat dietary recommendations has likely struggled with their weight and health, wondering what they’re doing wrong.

The problem is that overeating carbohydrates can prevent a higher percentage of fats from being used for energy, and lead to an increase in fat production and storage. It also raises your insulin levels, which in short order can cause insulin resistance, followed by diabetes. Insulin resistance is also at the heart of virtually every chronic disease known to modern man.”

Where should I even start with this load of BS?  As noted in the previous study, a real low fat high carb diet is capable of reversing heart disease, lowering blood sugar levels and causing substantial weight loss.   While it is true that carbs raise your insulin levels after eating, what Dr. Mercola fails to tell you is that fats do so as well!  To quote the researchers at the Joslin Diabetes Research Center,”Research has shown that dietary fat and free fatty acids (FFAs) impair insulin sensitivity and increase glucose production.”    The article goes on to say, “These findings highlight the limitations of basing mealtime insulin dosing for type 1 diabetes solely on carbohydrate intake… We need to consider fat as well as carbohydrates in insulin dosing calculations as well as in nutritional recommendations.”

If pasta makes you fat, it’s worth questioning why only 1 in 10 Italians are obese compared to 30% in America.  They eat a far higher percentage of their diet as carbs than we do.  In fact, those places in the world where people consume a completely carbohydrate based diet, obesity and metabolic disease are virtually nonexistent.

Diabetes is tightly correlated to body fat.  Diabetes is caused by fats in the muscle tissue that lead to insulin resistance.  The body uses insulin to shove fat into cells.  Insulin resistance is one mechanism the body uses to prevent excess fat from accumulating.  When people become overweight, their bodies can develop a resistance to insulin which limits their ability to store additional fat.    You can listen to Dr. Michael Greger explain this in more detail here.  It’s not the carbs that are the problem, it’s the meat.

Here’s a chart showing the insulin index of foods, taken from this study.  This is the insulin response the body provides in relation to the amount of glucose being consumed.  As you can see, beef has very little glucose, but produces an absolutely enormous insulin response in proportion to that glucose.


Insulin Index of Foods
Since high carb low fat foods don’t have any fat, it doesn’t matter if they spike insulin because the lack of fat means the body will not develop a resistance to the insulin.  In fact, insulin is supposed to spike when high carb foods are consumed because insulin is also used by the body to move glucose into cells.  Glucose is what your cells use as fuel!  A massive insulin spike from carbs is what allows vegan athletes to set so many world records.

The super deadly combo is when people mix high carb foods with animal based foods.  When this mix is ingested, the body produces a large insulin spike from the high carb foods, which is then potentiated to absolutely massive levels by the meat.  Then the body takes all that insulin and uses it to ram every last drop of fat from the high fat foods into fat cells, leading to either morbid obesity or insulin resistance (type 2 diabetes.)  This chart, taken from this study, shows glucose and insulin responses when starches and meats are consumed alone or in combination with each other:


As we can see, the addition of meat blasts the insulin response to DOUBLE the levels of just the carbs by themselves.

Research proves time after time after time that when a real low fat diet is consumed (ie. less than 10% of caloric intake as fat), people get lean, reverse their diabetes and often times reverse other supposedly “incurable” chronic diseases.

The fat you eat is the fat you wear.  Don’t believe the lies.

  • Matthew Alexander

    I love reading a lot of your stuff, Michael, but this vegan kick you’re suddenly on is disturbing. It would be highly unexpected to find that a species which evolved eating meat – evolved in the way it has precisely because it ate meat – was being done harm because it ate that meat. Meanwhile, pasta, something in the diet of this species for only a few thousand, as opposed to a few million, years is healthy?
    The science I have seen on this is overwhelming. At Mark’s Daily Apple you can find links to more studies than you could shake a stick at. Primal outperforms vegan and vegetarian and anything else. Humans are a meat-eating species – in addition to certain plants – and eating good, healthy meat is important. I saw the results myself when I went Primal and it’s just about the best thing I ever did for myself.

    • We didn’t evolve to eat meat any more than a gorilla has evolved to eat meat – our present rates of obesity and metabolic disease have proven that beyond any shadow of a doubt.

      Link me a study showing that a meat based diet outperforms a vegan diet, and I’ll show you a study that was funded by the meat industry or was done to extremely poor scientific standards.

      Can you link me a study showing that a primal diet can reverse heart disease and atherosclerosis like I link in my article?

      Can you link me a study showing that a primal diet can reverse type 2 diabetes like I link in my article?

      Vegans have the lowest BMI scores, the lowest cholesterol scores, the lowest rates of heart disease, the lowest rates of diabetes, the lowest rates of cancer, basically the lowest rates of everything bad you can think of.

      • Matthew Alexander

        I can direct you to Mark’s Daily Apple, where you can find seventeen plethoras of studies showing all the health benefits of a diet consonant with our biology.

        “We didn’t evolve to eat meat any more than a gorilla has evolved to eat meat.”
        Homo ate meat for millions of years. It’s when our brains started to grow bigger. Are you seriously disputing this?
        I love your libertarianism, I love your Electric Universe advocacy, I am very much intrigued by the cancer/fungus connection, but this vegan stuff is a misfire, and quite plainly. I’m going to have to put it down as a swing and miss, along with the energy revolution. My sober opinion is that, like me, you get excited by heterodox ideas. But occasionally I think you go for them too quickly.

        • Yep, I’m disputing this.

          Here’s a small sample of studies showing what humans actually ate and the results of paleo diets vs. vegan diets.

          What part of this article do you feel is inaccurate? Why not point out the facts that are wrong. Tell me specifically what facts I list in this article are wrong.

          • Matthew Alexander

            What’s going on here? Those links support what I’m saying. Humans evolved to eat meat. Even nutrition facts doesn’t dispute this.

            “What part of this article do you feel is inaccurate? Why not point out the facts that are wrong. Tell me specifically what facts I list in this article that are wrong.”

            Our conclusions differ, but our facts do not. After looking it over I don’t see anything that I absolutely dispute. It’s misleading to say that our ancestors have only been eating meat for 2 million years, because it’s more complicated than that, but I don’t take any real issue with it. It’s fine as a quick statement that sacrifices accuracy to save time.

            “Oh by the way, since you’re such an evolved person who has transitioned into being a carnivore, do you like eating dog?”

            Never had it. Is this really just “by the way”, or are you beginning to construct a poor argument here? I have a sinking feeling.

            “How about cats?”

            Never had one. Same observation applies.

            “Do you ever get a hankering for hamster?”

            No. And I continue to point out the irrelevancy.

            “When you wake up in the morning, do you think about a nice big hunk of raw unseasoned zebra leg?”
            And again, no.
            Since your argument is implied, rather than explicitly stated, I am going to have to guess as to its nature. You might be claiming that since I don’t eat all meat, this means, I guess, that homo did not eat meat? Is that it? If you feel I’ve created a strawman, feel free to explicitly state your point. As far as I can tell, you seem to be claiming that since I pick and choose my meats and how I eat them, this somehow weakens my paleo argument. This is nonsense, so maybe you meant something else, but it’s not very clear.
            I think exercise is good for you. Nevertheless, I don’t like cricket or Jai Lai. Not much into basketball, either. Would you conclude from this that exercise is bad for the human body?
            To determine whether or not human beings are better off on a primal or vegan or fruitarian diet or whatever, we can look at many different lines of evidence. We can look at diets from tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. We can compare, eliminating confounding factors, the outcomes of people on the different diets. We can study the human body and see what it can and cannot tolerate, what it can and cannot do, what it can and cannot digest, and to what degrees.
            What we ought not to do is ask whether in a particular culture a preference for certain kinds of meat and methods of preparation has developed over others. I may not crave raw zebra leg, but a diet of such would be better for my body than pasta, of that I have very little doubt.

          • What the hell are you talking about? Your claiming nutritionfacts says humans evolved to eat meat?




            I’m confused. If you don’t crave raw meat, how can you say you evolved to eat meat?

          • Matthew Alexander

            “Your claiming nutritionfacts says humans evolved to eat meat?”

            I’m claiming NF acknowledges that humans were eating meat 2 million years ago. It’s actually longer than that, but they acknowledge at least that much. If we’ve been eating meat for 2 million years, that will be part of our evolution. They may not put it in such affirming terms as I (we evolved to eat meat/eating meat changed the course of our evolution) but the facts on the ground they concede. So…

            “If you don’t crave raw meat, how can you say you evolved to eat meat?”
            1) You are either the strictest conservative who ever lived, in the Thomas Sowell conception of things, or are merely pretending that social conditioning does not occur. Have you ever known a member of the species homo sapiens to crave Cheetos? Are you going to argue that processed, partially hydrogenated crap must have been available 200,000 years ago, or can you recognize that our tastes are influenced by many factors, biology being only one of them.
            I had a cat once that refused to eat meat. I guess rather than attribute this to the fact that she was brought up on other food, I should re examine what we think we know about evolution and look for evidence of Purina Cat Chow consumption by felines around 50,000 years ago.
            2) Homo has been cooking its food for about a million and a half years. This means that even if human food preference is strictly a matter of biological determination, the fact that I don’t want raw meat could be explained by evolution towards cooking.
            3) I don’t crave raw vegetables either. There is not a single vegetable I enjoy if I don’t cook it first. So…
            I feel like these are obvious points of logic the likes of which you would exploit mercilessly if you were arguing against a Keynesian, or an orthodox astronomer. Why are you making bad arguments? In my experience, bad arguments from an otherwise capable debater are signs of emotional investment.

          • I explain why you don’t like raw meat in this article:


            It has nothing to do with social conditioning and everything to do with human biology.

            Humans have been cooking meat for a long long time, but they were never eating it on a regular basis. They ate it for the rare feast or when an animal died from old age. Animals were far to valuable to be mass slaughtered for food. Only kings ate meat on a regular basis, they all got fat and sick because of it. Even the Bible makes reference to this fact in the book of Daniel.


            While I’m not a religious person, it just goes to show that people weren’t as stupid back then as they are now when it comes to what they eat.

          • Matthew Alexander

            “I explain why you don’t like raw meat in this article:”

            That’s your interpretation. There are other interpretations. And the fact of other interpretations means that simply pointing out that I don’t like raw meat doesn’t necessitate the conclusion that we did not evolve to eat meat. Therefore, it is a poor argument, as I demonstrated.

            I experience the same thing with vegetables. I don’t like them raw. Shall we summon the same explanation for the same phenomenon then?

            “Humans have been cooking meat for a long long time, but they were never eating it on a regular basis.”
            Incorrect. Our ancestors ate more and more meat over time, until meat made up about 50% of what humans ate (this varied a lot, however). With the advent of farming, meat eating became less common. And humans were shorter and died earlier, too. The book of Daniel was written after agriculture was widespread, so there is no surprise that meat eating was uncommon then. So was a long healthy life.

          • It’s not a fucking interpretation, it’s a fucking long list of facts. Facts that you can’t seem to comprehend.

            How’s your pooping going these days? You a little backed up?

          • Matthew Alexander

            “It’s not a fucking interpretation, it’s a fucking long list of facts. Facts that you can’t seem to comprehend.”

            I comprehend them just fine. The site you cited admits that humans have been eating meat for 2 million years. You asked me what facts I disagreed with, and I didn’t, in my cursory examination, find any facts I disagreed with. I have different, better, interpretations of those facts.

            The intellectual contribution of your expletives is nil, but it does reveal a lot about your emotional state, as does your implied insult to my intellect. I get this sort of thing all the time with SJWs. It always happens when I present them with inconvenient facts and take apart their poor arguments.

            “How’s your pooping going these days? You a little backed up?”
            Given both the subject matter and your behavior, it is difficult to tell whether this is an honest question meant to determine whether or not my primal diet has me constipated, or if it’s a sophomoric insult. I don’t see the point in answering, frankly, but I would like to point out how evasive you have been.
            For instance, when you pointed out that I don’t crave raw meat, I countered that I don’t crave raw vegetables either. This seems like a pretty devastating rebuttal to me, seeing how much you had depending on that argument. If you don’t have an answer, I think the most honest thing to do is admit you were wrong and concede the point, if not the entire argument.

          • I’m sorry if I get emotional when I watch people slowly kill themselves. It’s a bad habit I’m trying to break.

          • Matthew Alexander

            “I’m watching several people I know die a slow needless death from eating meat.”

            It’s not from eating meat. It might be from eating shitty meat, grain-fed meat, processed meat, but it’s not from eating good, healthy meat. Like humans evolved to eat.

            “So you’re just going to ignore the points about bacterial inflammation”

            Uh, no. You never made a point about bacterial inflammation. Maybe it was buried in one of your links.

            “colon length”

            Another point you haven’t made. However, if you are referring to the carnivore/herbivore dichotomy, the relevant measurement is the ratio of the length of the digestive tract to the length of the body. Cats, for instance, have a 3.5/1 ratio, being carnivores. Cows have a 20/1 ratio, being herbivores. Humans have an 8/1 ratio. Right where you would expect an omnivore to be.


            Another point not made, other than to ask me whether I was backed up.

            “gut flora being negatively impacted”


            “increased risk of cancer”/”increased risk of heart diseases”/”increased risk of type 2 diabetes”

            Poppycock, all of it. Meat eaters, in our culture, tend to smoke more, drink more, do more drugs, eat more processed, industrial food. Vegetarians benefit from the Healthy User Effect. The only studies that have a problem with meat fail to take into account confounding variables like these. The increased risk of cancer comes from overcooking meat, not from the meat itself.

            “you’re going to argue that because you don’t crave broccoli, you’ve evolved to eat cooked meat.”

            Buddy, I’m going to be honest with you: you’re having enough trouble with your own arguments. Why don’t you concentrate on them and leave me to make my own. I have not made this argument nor anything remotely similar.

            “Do you hate fruits and grains too? Most carnivores can’t deal with starches because they don’t have enough amylase in their system to digest them.”

            If I were arguing that humans were carnivores, this would be a crippling blow to that argument. Since I haven’t made that argument…

            “I noticed you didn’t answer the pooping question, so I assume you must be dealing with constipation from your wacky suicidal diet.”

            You assume wrong. I didn’t answer for the very reason I gave. If it’s an honest question, the answer is I can’t remember the last time I was constipated. I crap at least once a day, usually twice.

            “I also shot up 20 lbs on my bench since I changed over to a vegan diet.”

            Doctor, this patient is suffering from acute post hoc ergo propter hoc. I strongly suspect he also has a severe case of confirmation bias.

            “I’m gaining lean mass like crazy now.”

            Nevermind, Doctor. His case is inoperable.

  • MCP157

    Take the vegetarian goggles off. You are just accepting the research studies that please your opinion. Diet is individual but more and more research is pointing to grains, legumes and dairy being huge culprits in disease of modern man. Grass fed beef, true range free chickens/eggs, and wild caught fish combined with fruits and vegetables are the way to go.

  • Pingback: Refuting The Idea That Humans Must Be Herbivores Because Only Herbivores Get Atherosclerosis | Libertarian News()

  • Vege-tater

    Total fact for once! So sick of the BS fat proponents!