Dr. Peter Attia: Hack, Liar and All Round Disgusting Individual


Apparently Peter and his buddy Gary Taubes just love themselves some crappy pseudoscience. Both of them are funded by the Arnold Foundation, with substantial ties to animal agriculture industry lobbying.  Marion Nestle notes the Arnold’s working relationship with a National Restaurant Association and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association consultant.

So let’s go over the bogus arguments in this hour long lecture of idiocy.

He starts off by citing a Siri-Tarino et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 study, saying no significant evidence could be found showing saturated fat intake is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) or cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The Siri-Tarino meta-analysis only looked at prospective epidemiological studies.  We’ve known since the 1970s that epidemiological studies don’t have the statistical power to show an association between saturated fat intake and heart disease. The only studies that have the power to show the relationship come from dietary change experiments.

Cross-sectional epidemiological studies are expected to show a zero-correlation due to the wide variability of baseline cholesterol levels in a given population. This means they do not disprove the cause-and-effect relationship between saturated fat/cholesterol intake and heart disease risk, even if no cause-and-effect relationship is visible in the population data.

He goes on to cite Chowdhury et al. in support of his nonsense.  This study looked at a mix of observational and randomized control trials.  Same issues again with the observational data, but the RCTs in this case only looked at supplementation of omega 6 and 3 polyunsaturated fats.  So this tells us absolutely nothing about the role saturated fats play in CVD, it only tells us that supplementing more polyunsaturated fats isn’t going to protect us.

Dr. Walter Willett, chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, discussed the Chowdhury et al. study here, saying, “this meta-analysis contains multiple serious errors and omissions, the study conclusions are misleading and should be disregarded.”  Dr. Michael Greger discusses both the Siri-Tarino and Chowdhury studies and their flaws here. (I highly recommend taking the time to watch that short video by Dr. Greger as it pretty much destroys all of Attia’s arguments from here on out.)

Then Attia goes on a long rambling history lesson about Ancel Keys that makes no real point at all, other than to bad mouth Keys’ ground breaking epidemiological work.  Keys’ work at the time was the best science that could be done on the subject.  Keys’ findings are what led to the hundreds of dietary change experiments being done, which showed us conclusively that saturated fat is the main culprit behind cardiovascular disease.

Then Attia gives a lecture on the subject of “correlation does not equal causation”, while bad mouthing epidemiological data.  I find this hilarious, given that the only studies he’s cited so far in favor of his position are epidemiological studies.  30 minutes in, he’s still rambling about Ancel Keys.

Then he starts attacking the Framingham Heart Study. He notes that the FHS found no association between men with a total cholesterol over 300 and those with a total cholesterol under 170 with the amount or type of fat consumed.  Again, this study lacks the statistical power to making a significant finding.  This is probably why the data he cites remained unpublished.

When we look at metabolic ward studies, where they lock people in a lab and completely control their diet, we can see that the addition of saturated fat raises cholesterol so consistently that you can actually create a mathematical formula that will predict exactly how much saturated fat is required to raise your cholesterol by a given number of points.

Then he starts going on about more epidemiological data that counters what Keys found.  Again, arguing about epidemiological data as it pertains to CVD and CHD at this point is nothing more than a red herring argument.  It’s pointless to argue about since we have randomized control trial dietary change experiments that show conclusively that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol are the primary risk factors for disease.

Then he cites the 1981 paper by Shekelle, saying that even though the paper concluded that eating a high fat diet was a contributing factor for heart disease, we should ignore the paper because they found saturated fat in the diet wasn’t significantly correlated to CHD.  Again, another epidemiological study that suffers from statistical power problems, but the authors were smart enough to understand this, which is why they came to a conclusion that was opposite to what their own data suggested.

Now he’s back to talking about 1970s and 60s data from unreferenced sources, claiming that in 1963 Hungarian researchers found a benefit for eating a maximum of 1.5 oz of fat per day, while in 1965, British researchers found no benefit to eating 1.5 oz max per day.  It’s impossible to refute since the source isn’t cited.  I suspect something funny was going on with the diet in the British study.

Then he cites the 1973 Minnesota Coronary Study.  Here’s what that study actually looked at:

The Minnesota Coronary Survey was a 4.5-year, open enrollment, single end-time double-blind, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in six Minnesota state mental hospitals and one nursing home. It involved 4393 institutionalized men and 4664 institutionalized women. The trial compared the effects of a 39% fat control diet (18% saturated fat, 5% polyunsaturated fat, 16% monounsaturated fat, 446 mg dietary cholesterol per day) with a 38% fat treatment diet (9% saturated fat, 15% polyunsaturated fat, 14% monounsaturated fat, 166 mg dietary cholesterol per day) on serum cholesterol levels and the incidence of myocardial infarctions, sudden deaths, and all-cause mortality.

And we’re supposed to be surprised that the treatment group had more deaths?  That’s the best he’s got to support his nonsense?  The treatment group was still eating a 38% fat diet and 166 mg a day of cholesterol!  We know from studies done by Ornish that when total fat is lowered to 10% and saturated fat and cholesterol are lowered to zero, cardiovascular disease is reversed. And we also know that when carbs are consumed along side animal protein the insulinogenic effects of the meal are nearly doubled. Here’s a short video that provides more information on the insulinogenic properties of meat when paired with carbs. Given this information, it makes sense that the treatment group ended up with more incidents.

In the AHS-2 study, composed of 96,000 people followed for 6 years, 8% of which were vegan, and 28% of which were vegetarian, they compared the vegans to the meat eaters and found vegans/vegetarians had far lower incidences of cancer, heart disease, diabetes… basically every bad thing you can think of was lower in the vegan/vegetarian groups compared to the meat eaters.  Further, the meat eaters in this study ate much smaller portions of meat and were in better health compared to the general population.

Why is he still rambling on about studies done in the 1970s?  Why is he ignoring the hundreds of other dietary change experiments that have been done in the meantime?

Now he’s back to the Framingham study.  Still rambling on about the history of cholesterol computation. He’s claiming that based on the study’s findings, LDL is a marginal predictor of heart disease, so we should ignore it and instead focus on HDL, since the study concluded that raising HDL lowered disease risk.  So by his logic (not the paper’s), since eating saturated fat raises HDL, we should eat saturated fat.  I mean wow. Way to twist the findings.

It’s worth noting that subsequent studies have found that saturated fat raises LDL at a rate that is higher than it raises HDL when consumed with dietary cholesterol.  To quote one study, “The ability of saturated fats to raise LDL cholesterol is enhanced by increased intake of dietary cholesterol as well as baseline LDL cholesterol concentrations.” (and that study was written by Ron Krauss, who is funded by the National Dairy Council, National Cattleman’s Beef Association, and the Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Foundation!)

This dietary change study found that adding cholesterol to a diet with saturated fat increased LDL cholesterol levels about 5 times more than just the saturated fat alone.  So coconut and palm oils are bad, but it’s those hamburgers and eggs that are really going to kill you.  Here’s a short video that covers this subject in much greater detail.

He goes on and on about HDL and triglycerides.  It’s worth noting that Ornish found that when he put people on a whole food plant based diet, their HDL dropped and their triglycerides increased, yet they still showed a reversal of their heart disease through angiography.  So that basically blows his whole theory about HDL and triglycerides out of the water.

Then he covers the MRFIT and LRC trails, which were drug control trials. I don’t find it surprising that there were virtually no differences between them. Again, he ignores conclusions of the studies authors claiming that the data doesn’t support their assertions, while ignoring the reasoning behind the authors claims.

Bad mouths the NIH consensus conference. No evidence presented.

Then he talks about the Cochrane Collaboration’s 2001 study, claiming that they found modified fat intake had no significant effect on longevity or cardiovascular events out of 27 RCTs.   Here’s what the study actually found:

Twenty seven studies were included (40 intervention arms, 30,901 person-years). There was no significant effect on total mortality (rate ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12), a trend towards protection form cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07), and significant protection from cardiovascular events (rate ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99). The latter became non-significant on sensitivity analysis. Trials where participants were involved for more than 2 years showed significant reductions in the rate of cardiovascular events and a suggestion of protection from total mortality. The degree of protection from cardiovascular events appeared similar in high and low risk groups, but was statistically significant only in the former.

Of course, he never mentions the bolded part of the findings.  Further, who knows what constituted a “low fat” diet.  Most trials consider 30% to be a low fat diet, which is still a ridiculously high amount of fat compared to what a plant based diet would provide.  And of course, cholesterol intake was not controlled for either.

Then the 2006-11 study that found that risk factor intervention had no effect on mortality.  Well this study only looked at using counseling and education aimed at behavior change. Is anyone surprised that Billy Bob didn’t quit smoking and stop eating his ribs when the doctor told him to? This study doesn’t tell us anything about risk factors, it only tells us that counselling has a limited ability to change people’s habits.  This isn’t some shocking revelation.

Then he talks about the Women’s Health Initiative study. This study found no reduced risk of CHD or stroke between treatment and control groups. The treatment group lowered their fat consumption by 8.2% and saturated fat by 2.9%. Again, the women in the treatment group were still eating a high fat diet.  They were still eating 29% of their diet from fat, and they were still eating loads of cholesterol, so it’s not surprising that there were no differences in disease risk between the two groups.  For comparison, the control group averaged a 35% fat diet.  The authors wanted the treatment group to hit 20%, so there was very poor compliance.

Then he talks about the A to Z trial in 2007 that compares various diets to each other.  He notes that the Atkins diet outperformed the Ornish (plant based) diet on several metrics.  It’s worth noting that he’s using erroneous claims about the results of that study.  JAMA actually published a retraction on the weight claims for that study saying, “Weight loss was not statistically different among the Zone, LEARN, and Ornish groups. At 12 months, secondary outcomes for the Atkins group were comparable with or more favorable than the other diet groups.”  – So at best the Atkins diet is a wash compared to Ornish, but it may actually be worse because the study didn’t run long enough to track mortality or cardiovascular events.  Ornish mentions this retraction in his response to The Scientific American, where he refutes many of the arguments Attia is making here.

Ornish has proven his diet reverses heart disease, and every time a low carb diet has been tested for the treatment of heart disease, it has failed.  Further, we know that a certain subset of the population is at a far greater genetic risk for the development of CVD if they consume a high saturated fat and cholesterol diet.  So it is downright dangerous to suggest people eat that way.  Some people will do fine, others will drop dead. Biomarkers don’t tell us about disease progression, and the trial didn’t run long enough to look for mortality or cardiac event risk. And it’s not just Ornish who’s reversing heart disease with a plant based diet, there’s a large body of doctors successfully treating various diseases with a plant based diet.

Then he talks about the Diet Trial in 2008, which compared low fat, Mediterranean and low carb diets.  The low carb had modestly better outcomes, but again, he’s not giving us all the information.  Here’s what the researchers considered “low fat”:

The low-fat, restricted-calorie diet was based on American Heart Association guidelines. We aimed at an energy intake of 1500 kcal per day for women and 1800 kcal per day for men, with 30% of calories from fat, 10% of calories from saturated fat, and an intake of 300 mg of cholesterol per day.

So a severely restricted calorie diet, 30% fat and 300 mg of cholesterol.  For comparison, the average American eats a diet of 35% fat.  None of the participants lowered their LDL levels after 2 years of eating any of those diets.  All of them were still at high risk for cardiovascular disease, with LDL levels well over 100.  All this study did was prove that all three diets are a surefire way to die of heart disease, including the worthless AHA diet.  I personally think the AHA should be charged with criminal negligence for recommending people eat that way.  The people at the AHA know better.

Then he talks about the 2014 diet trail, which again faces the same problems as the first diet trail.  People were still eating 30% total fat and 9% saturated fat in the “low fat” group, no limits on cholesterol intake.

And that’s the extent of “proof” in his total bullshit lecture.  It takes a seriously sick individual to twist the results of the studies he cites and ignore the MOUNTAINS of studies that run contrary to his position.  And finally, if you want to see what happened to my cholesterol levels on a vegan diet, look here.  My LDL levels dropped like a rock, and they are still declining.

It’s worth noting that low carb diets have been proven to be just as effective for weight loss as vegan diets.  Weight loss by any means, including a bad methamphetamine habit or from chemotherapy, will improve blood lipid profiles and other metabolic disease metrics.  However, that does not mean a low carb diet is a good diet for long term health.

When scientists actually measure the blood flow in people eating a diet high in saturated fats, they show signs of worsening atherosclerosis.  The same is not true of people eating a low fat high carb diet.  To quote one study that compared the two diets:

In this chronic study, we found that SFA [saturated fat] impaired endothelial function and that subjects had a marked increase in TG [triglycerides] and a fall in HDL-C on the low-fat CARB diet without an effect on FMD [arterial function]. PUFA [polyunsaturated fat] and MUFA [monounsaturated fat] diets compared with SFA reduced P-selectin concentrations. These results lend further support that a high-SFA diet is atherogenic through its adverse effect on endothelial function and P-selectin levels.

Ornish found the same in his study results.  People on the low fat plant based diet had “worse” HDL and triglyceride levels, but when he actually measured the plaque in their arteries, he could see their atherosclerosis was reversing.  Here’s another study that found the same thing with high protein diets.

The evidence against eating animal products is simply overwhelming.  Here’s a study showing the impact of an ad libitum (eat as much as you want) whole food vegan diet on disease markers after just 7 days.  The study notes that, “The median weight loss was 1.4 kg. The median decrease in total cholesterol was 22 mg/dL. Even though most antihypertensive and antihyperglycemic medications were reduced or discontinued at baseline, systolic blood pressure decreased by a median of 8 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure by a median of 4 mm Hg, and blood glucose by a median of 3 mg/dL. For patients whose risk of a cardiovascular event within 10 years was >7.5% at baseline, the risk dropped to 5.5% at day 7.”  – so that’s a massive improvement in all disease markers after just a week on an unrestricted low fat whole food vegan diet.

Here’s another study showing a vegan diet, where portion sizes, energy intake and carbohydrate intake were unrestricted, did better than a calorie restricted American Diabetes Association diet at getting blood glucose and lipids under control.

Now if you want some real science, watch this:


  • If you define “works” as causing weight loss, I agree. Of course, a meth habit or chemo will also cause substantial weight loss.

    Over the long term, a low carb diet will dramatically increase your risk of heart disease, erectile dysfunction, colon cancer, prostate cancer, angina, coronary artery disease, etc.. etc.. etc.. That’s why I wrote the article, to point all that shit out.

    • Rounderling


    • Ed

      Hello, fellow unicorn!

      Unicorn (n.) a plant-based, whole-foods, libertarian.

  • thank you

  • Cobalamin Carnosine

    Just a hint to the author: attraction to your cause > promotion of your cause > condemnation of your opponents. You are highly articulate, but you shot your article in the foot because the title makes it come off as petty. Why would I respect you as an academic after such an ad hominem attack towards this guy? I was really interested in reading information that went against the high fat low carb diet, and you lost me.

    Are you writing for an audience who already shares your beliefs? Your title may serve you well as click-bait, but I submit that most thoughtful people rule click-bait articles out in terms of their information sources, while people who already hate this guy probably stick around to read it gleefully. If traffic is all you care about, then that’s probably fine. Although, this makes me curious as to why you would write a pseudo-scholarly article supporting your beliefs unless it was merely to flex your collection of studies to those that already share your opinion. Thoughts?

    I suspect that the article was well done and your contentions were well supported. Maybe you aren’t trying to persuade people and I have you all wrong. If persuasion IS your goal… rise above that kind of crap, man. Be better than that.



    • Cobalamin Carnosine

      Ok, that’s fair that you think that. May I ask, are you a vegan or vegetarian? A lot of animal rights folks seem to think that he is being paid for by the food industry. I happened to swing by his website because of this article and I read this:


      I feel like, if this was true, he’d be eating a lot more corn and beef. Also, from what I’ve read, Peter loves to be in ketosis. Without getting too far into it, if you’re in ketosis, you can’t eat more than about 16% of your calories from protein. Nuts would really be your go-to to maintain an 80-16-4 fat-protein-carb ratio.

      Tell me if you can understand where I’m coming from when I say this: I personally find it kind of distasteful when paleo and vegan people go at it when they can both be tested as highly sensitive to insulin despite their very different diets – many of their relatives and friends still suffer unlike either of them even as they try to convert each other. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could first get people out of this massive metabolic syndrome epidemic, and then worry about ethical issues such as vegan/vegetarianism?

      I’m just saying, let’s help our struggling friends and family get rid of refined carbohydrates first.

      As a side note, my personal beef with the food industry (no pun intended) isn’t with “what” anyone should eat, but “when”. I am hoping that I can go to medical school to study the effects of intermittent fasting in humans and maybe find ways for us to help everybody, regardless of what types of food they eat to achieve the same results with some form of a fasting regimen.

      Since I asked you about your diet, I think it’s only fair to say what I eat so I can put something on the line. I consider myself a performance athlete, only because I focus on a compound lifting exercise regimen for the cognitive and hormonal benefits. In order to make optimal strength gains, I do consume animal products. I cycle my carbs, among which include many, many vegetables (and sometime sweets to spike my insulin levels after a particularly hard workout) and I even cycle my fats; protein is usually quite high.

      I test my blood lipid profile and fasting insulin levels semiannually and I test my own glucose and ketones throughout my fast. Do you believe that biomarkers such as high HDL, low triglycerides, and low fasting blood glucose are good indicators of health?

      I think that society will look back on our treatment of animals in disgust in the future. Veganism is highly ethical and I respect it. I personally can’t reconcile it with my health and fitness goals. I am very familiar with all of the essential and nonessential amino acids and there is certainly a time and a place to have some of them and a time and a place not to have some of them.

      I appreciate your response Michael, you’re very gracious and prompt. I look forward to your response.



      • Do you really think human breath is supposed to smell like acetone? You are aware that acetone is expelled through the lungs as a byproduct of ketosis, right? Do you think humans have evolved to maintain a state of indefinite ketosis?

        Give me a break.

        Ketosis is the body’s response to starvation. It’s a metabolic response that humans have evolved so that we are able to deal with famines if we had a bad year of raising crops.

        If we lost the crops, we would be starving and we wouldn’t have carbs to consume. Out of desperation, we would turn to cannibalism (eating meat) of our animals or hunting wild animals. – That is why the human body produces ketones. Ketosis is a sickness response, like running a fever. It reduces our hunger so that we can scrape by until finding a new source of carbohydrates.

        I noticed you said vegans had high chronic inflammation because they ate high loads of omega 6 fats – which is something I’ve never advocated. I advocate a WHOLE FOOD plant based diet. You can be a vegan and live on nothing but Oreos and Ben and Jerry’s non-dairy ice cream. In order to have high loads of omega 6 fats, one would have to be consuming processed oils. Obviously that’s not what I’m talking about, so to bring up that argument is simply a red herring.

        A whole food plant based diet has been shown to reverse heart disease, cure diabetes, cure prostate cancer, reduce the risk of numerous cancers, reduce the risk of numerous brain disorders, reduce or cure arthritis, reduce or cure back pain, etc.. etc… etc… – one diet does it all.

        • Sh Fe

          you seem to jump to conclusions in what you read from my statements. I am not saying that whole plant foods are bad. I am saying that I favour research in all areas. Also, you seem to believe that a state of ketosis evolved to deal with starvation. Actually, not true, its a matter of the TCA cycle being backed up leading to Acetyl Coa overload in the mitochondrial matrix, which then leads into the pathway for ketone body production as a means to use those ketone bodies. Acetone is simple one of those ketone bodies. the other 2 have some very interesting biochemical affects. starvation is just one reason for ketone buildup, but the very notion that the krebs cycle being backed up forcing acetyl coA to start floating around….er, that’s a stretch. WE don’t know the reason why that is. It does happen in starvation, fasting, and also in some genetic diseases. Also, human evolution has led to many pathways. Its a highly complex system that is dynamic in many aspects. It does not simply rely on vegetarianism or simply meat based diets. It is very capable of handling both. It seems all compensatory methods in humanity has evolved for the sake of survival – be it from starvation or some other reason. Try to understand that what I am saying – is to look at the positive and negative aspects of meat AND plant based diets rather that the exclusivity concept. Exclusivity – to any diet, is problematic in various aspects. AND no, I don’t support animal cruelty. That’s a whole different story. I also don’t lend to the hypothesis that humans were only supposed to eat plants.

          • ” It does not simply rely on vegetarianism or simply meat based diets. It is very capable of handling both”

            No it’s not. Did you not read my post? You got 25% of people dropping dead from heart disease. They didn’t get that from eating broccoli and beans buddy.

          • Cobalamin Carnosine


            I would appeal to my earlier question that went unanswered, and express it in further detail: Given that you clearly value both empirical evidence as well as fasting glucose and blood lipid profiles as good indicators of health, what do you think of my 99 HDL, 84 LDL, 36 triglycerides, and 77 fasting glucose? These are, as you might say, in spite of a very high meat diet which consists of usually over a pound of meat per day. I am honestly curious as to your thoughts on this. I have been eating this way for two and a half years during which my HDL has gone up and my LDL and tryglycerides have gone down.

            I put my father on a similar diet and he dropped from 255 to 205 and all the markers of metabolic syndrome that he formerly exhibited have vanished.

            You make a strong statement: “There are no positives from eating meat – none – when put in comparison to eating whole plant foods.” Can you be more specific in quantifying that? Where plants are lacking in certain areas such as macronutrient density (especially in terms of protein content) Omega-3’s, B vitamins, iron, and other areas, meats are lacking in many essential vitamins and minerals that plants contain too. Do they not both serve their own respective purposes nutritionally, especially when compared with processed foods?

            Perhaps whole foods in general could be looked at as parts of a complete and healthy diet rather than assuming that over 7 billion people with different bodies can all process exclusively vegetables or meat and in doing so achieve their own optimal nutritional status, which is further made more specific based on what goals and lifestyle they pursue.

            I thank you and welcome this discourse! You’re all very bright people. Cheers,


          • What’s your total cholesterol? With an HDL of 99, I’m willing to bet it is higher than 150. If it is above 150, it doesn’t matter what your HDL or LDL readings are, because you’re at an elevated risk of heart disease.

            It is a complete myth that you can’t get enough protein, omega-3’s, B vitamins and iron eating plants. There has never been a documented case of a dietary induced protein deficiency, if a person is consuming adequate calories, in all of recorded medical history.

            Plants contain the perfect balance of omega-3 to 6’s in adequate amounts to maintain perfect health. Grains are loaded with B vitamins and legumes contain plenty of iron. In fact, meat contains heme iron which has been linked to an increased risk of cancer because it is a powerful oxidant.


            If you lose body fat by any means, you will improve blood sugar levels. This is because intramuscular fat is responsible for block the insulin action on cellular walls, which drives up blood sugar.

            A diet that makes you sick (such as a ketogenic diet), will cause you to lose weight, and therefore it will also cause you to improve your blood sugar levels. This does not mean the diet is one that promotes optimal health.

          • Cobalamin Carnosine

            Pardon my Typos… end of the semester exhaustion!

          • You never answered my question about what your total cholesterol is, and the first thing you attempt to do in your reply is attack my credibility rather than addressing the facts I’ve presented.

            I have a BMI of 24, and I’m around 15% body fat. I weigh 190 and I’m 6’2″.

          • Cobalamin Carnosine

            Can you quote me attacking your credibility? I think I just asked you what kind of qualifications you had. I’m not interested in an conversation in which my views are misrepresented.

            If you’re trying to end the conversation, I understand. Intimidation seems like a pretty weak approach though. I won’t lose any sleep if you ban me, but for someone who is an author on a libertarian website, I’m surprised that you’d go so far as to silence my speech.

          • Cobalamin Carnosine

            Also, just so you know, and since I already gave you my numbers…The equation for total cholesterol is: LDL + HDL + (triglycerides/5). So yes, it’s over 150.

            If you scroll up, you could extrapolate from my posts that my intention was to share ideas and maybe learn some things from each other even though we might not agree. I don’t think that we have this goal in common.

            Have a great day,


          • You’re right, I don’t think we have this goal in common. I don’t think you are here to actually learn anything, you’re here because you want to justify to yourself that the diet you’re eating is a healthy one.

            It’s not.

            Given your cholesterol level, you are at an elevated risk of heart disease. I recommend keeping a close eye on your erections. If they start to get weaker, your arteries are probably getting clogged.

            I already did extrapolate that your cholesterol was above 150, but you still haven’t told me what it is exactly.

          • Pat Hancock

            “Plants contain the perfect balance of omega-3 to 6’s”
            Yes true but you are not able to convert it efficiently enough to really get enough, and when you get older it gets even worse, even Dr Greger and Dr Furhman recognize this to be true and advise supplementing with marine algae oil which is vegan and often grown in labs so no toxins are present

        • Pat Hancock

          actually checkout Valter Longo on fasting and reduced calories with longevity and body repair, its seems that the presence and abundance of food inn the modern era was not the norm having no food or just a little food was the norm, and since are bodies have not had enough time to evolve our actual default state biologically where we seem to thrive is little to no carbs, fasting and low calorie meals, I am vegetarian doing keto only consuming pastured eggs occasionally and salmon even more seldom, a keto diet is doable without consuming tons of animals products

          • That’s just absurd. You got a billion skinny asians living long lives on high carb diets and they aren’t starving. People having been eating whole grains as far back as the historical record allows us to see.

          • Pat Hancock

            I didn’t say anything about eating grains and as I said I don’t eat meat I eat plenty of plant foods, the fact is abundant food was not the norm having little to no food was, Dr Longo offers a fast mimicking diet (low calorie) 5 day fast that has been shown to stop cancer and heal the body, fasting is our friend and a low calorie moderate fat moderate protein moderate carbs is ideal, cancer was not around back in the day and now research is starting to show that because of the abundance of food these days is the reason, again our default biological makeup is to live in scarcity of calories, Dr Furhman’s plan I believe is the best, its plant based but shuns grains and carbs such as rice and potatoes (why?) because if you are looking at nutrional density those foods are at the bottom of the list, greens are at the top

          • ” the fact is abundant food was not the norm having little to no food was” = utterly absurd.

            People had more than enough to eat for the vast majority of human evolution. Dr Longo is a fucking moron.

          • Pat Hancock

            ya the leading researcher on longevity is a fucking moron, he follows pretty close to a blue zones diet coupled with fasting, blue zones people have the longest longevity but he I guess there fucking morons too

            during the depression when nobody had any food longevity actually increased

            the first thing a animal does when hurt is stop eating to increase healing they don’t even plan to do it they just do it but they are morons too

            again fasting and periods of not eating enable our bodies to heal, obesity and metabolic diseases of the modern age our in most part because of our non stop feeding frenzy, drive thru, snacking, buffets, family events, holidays, we just didn’t have that shit back in the day and are bodies are still the same biological being of those earlier times our bodies can’t heal or take care of themselves with a massive influx of food that constantly comes into our body

            Joel Furhman diet low calorie high nutrition density is probably the best out there today, we have forgotten that your are what you eat but most importantly you are what you don’t eat

            “Fasting is the greatest remedy– the physician within.”
            Philippus Paracelsus, one of the three fathers of Western medicine

            “Instead of using medicine, better fast today.”
            Plutarch, a Greek biographer and moralist

            “The best of all medicines is resting and fasting.”
            Benjamin Franklin

            “Everyone has a doctor in him; we just have to help him in his work. The natural healing force within each one of us is the greatest force in getting well. …to eat when you are sick, is to feed your sickness.”
            Hippocrates, one of the three fathers of Western medicine

            “A little starvation can really do more for the average sick man than can the best medicines and the best doctors.”
            Mark Twain, in My Debut As a Literary Person

            “Humans live on one-quarter of what they eat; on the other three-quarters lives their doctor.”
            Egyptian pyramid inscription, 3800 B.C

          • “leading researcher” hahahahahah

            Blue zone diets are vegan.

            The longest lived population on the planet are the Seventh Day Adventists who follow a vegan diet, followed by people eating the Okinawan Japanese diet, which are both nearly vegan.

            The Seventh Day Adventists do not promoting fasting, nor do the Okinawans.

          • Duke O’Dool

            Wow. You are a total prick man. The way you talk to people is disgusting. You’re a total asshole. Eat some meat, it will put you in a better mood. Don’t be such a snarky dick.

          • Lilstarfish

            All the low carb advocates can’t point to even ONE long-lived healthy population eating that diet. None. All the longest lived, healthiest populations throughout the world – the Blue Zones – eat a HIGH CARB diet. You’d think that would give them a clue that they’re wrong, but their denial is so strong. People love to hear good news about their bad habits. Thanks for writing this article.

          • Cleaving Clavicles

            Inuits maybe, or the Massai? Or don’t they count?
            I can point to a current population which is getting sicker and sicker though. The longest lived people, the Japanese eat an almost equal mix of Omega 3 and 6, yet people assume all the rice they shove down is what gives them their longevity. You are a stupid stupid person.
            The US is the king of carbs yet are sick as shit.

          • Lilstarfish

            The Inuit or Masai were not long lived or healthy. They’ve autopsied Inuit females found in a snowbank. They both had atherosclerosis, even though the oldest was barely 40. And the Japanese were some of the healthiest populations in the world until western influence. They’ve based their diets on rice for centuries, and their rates for chronic disease was extremely low. Then, we brought our Golden Arches and meat/dairy heavy diet to their shores. Americans eat a diet heavy in REFINED carbs, sweets, cancer causing meat and 39% fat. Of course we’re sick! It’s not whole, low fat plant carbs causing the problem. It’s the meat, dairy, sweets, and fat. All your name calling doesn’t change the truth and just emphasizes the weakness of your argument.

          • Cleaving Clavicles

            I just wanted to respond directly to you and point out what a muppet you are. You responsed to a simple request for your qualifications with a threat to ban someone and clearly have an ulterior motive being a vegan.

  • jquinn
  • I’ve lost weight using a low carb, high fat diet. it is the diet that’s most likely to be recommended to you if you go to a doctor who is a member of the Obesity Medicine Association. It’s not the only diet that works: There are plenty of vegans who do very well. The low carb, high fat diet is the only diet that has worked for me.

  • Ben Osborne

    It’s tough to see fellow libertarians being quite so rude an offensive instead of just sticking to the facts.

    Also the article is about attacking the anti government position.

    Especially in the light of recent revelations such as this https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html

    • The man is giving advice that will get people killed. I owe him no respect. As for your article on sugar, it says nothing to discredit any of the mountains of research I’ve presented here. While sugar is certainly not a health food, it’s also not nearly as bad for you as saturated fat and cholesterol. Further, the sugar that is bound in fruits and vegetables is of great nutritional benefit because it comes packaged with all the vitamins and antioxidants that promote health.

      • Ben Osborne

        look you might be right about the sugar, that’s not my main problem with this article. It’s the ad hominem insults and attacks.

        We libertarians have more class. You should too

      • Ray Rhash

        The sugar in fruits is not the issue but refined sugar and easily digestible carbs both lead to the accumulation of fat, higher triglycerides and inflammation. The removal of saturated fat from foods and its replacement with sugar has caused the epidemic of obesity currently prevalent in society. Saturated fat becomes an issue in heart disease in the presence of inflammation. What Attia, Taubes, and Lustig are trying to say is by reducing inflammation via elimination of refined sugar and carbs there is a reduced risk of CHD. Sadly, you are missing this point.

        • That’s actually wrong. As is evidenced by the papers I cite in my response, which you obviously didn’t read.

          Next time read before commenting.


          • Ray Rhash

            I did read it. I’ve also read Taubes, Lusting, and Attia. Be more specific as to what you think about my statement is wrong. Intelligent conversation should result in greater knowledge, not bashing. Your opinion is one sided, weak, and reflective of your lack of knowledge in the subject.

          • Your lack of knowledge is weak, and your opinion is one sided. Specifically, everything you said is wrong.

            “. The removal of saturated fat from foods and its replacement with sugar has caused the epidemic of obesity currently prevalent in society. ”

            Historically in the US, total caloric intake has increased, overall fat intake has increased, thereby any statement blaming carbs for the obesity epidemic is wrong.

            Common sense says fat is behind the obesity epidemic. One gram of fat contains 9 calories compared to 4.5 for carbs or protein. A person would have to eat twice as many carbs by weight as fat to get same number of calories.

            Whole food carbs, such as potatoes, beans, rice, etc.. are also bound with fiber and water, which further dilutes their caloric density.

            Randomized control trials tell us conclusively that reductions in fat intake lead to lower body weights.


            ” Saturated fat becomes an issue in heart disease in the presence of inflammation. What Attia, Taubes, and Lustig are trying to say is by reducing inflammation via elimination of refined sugar and carbs there is a reduced risk of CHD. Sadly, you are missing this point.”

            The paper I cite shows saturated fat is the CAUSAL AGENT of inflammation. Eating saturated fat grossly impairs endothelial function, while eating carbs does not.



          • Michael Carrato

            Are you saying that a ketogenic diet CANNOT reverse diabetes and improve markers for CHD? Because it seems that the position of the anti-fat crowd is that keto is positively incompatible with good health, that low fat is the only pathway to curing metabolic illness. Peter Attia and Gary Taubes have challenged that dogma and produced plenty of evidence that the case against fat has NOT BEEN PROVEN sufficiently. In fact, for many people, low carb has been literally a life saver. Count me among them, BTW, so you can fully assess my bias.

            If, perhaps, Attia were saying something to the effect that “low carb is the ONLY diet for anyone”, then certainly I would be lining up against him too — though perhaps without the immature ad hominems. But he’s NOT saying that, and the low fat people ARE saying it. He is expressing reasonable opposition to what has been such a dogmatic view that it is encoded in national policy and taught to our children!

            Admittedly, I am not a libertarian, but I am quite familiar with libertarianism, and your post seems to be 180 degrees diametrically opposed to what your chosen ideology professes. Shouldn’t the evidence be presented from all sides so that people are free to use their own judgement to come to an informed decision on what is best for them?

  • jordan

    What are the RCTs that equivically show saturated fat causes heart disease?

    • A meta-analysis of 395 dietary change experiments proves lowering saturated fat and cholesterol intake lowers serum cholesterol levels.


      When we look at large populations of people, those with elevated serum cholesterol levels have the highest risk of cardiovascular disease.


      When we look at populations of vegans compared to meat eaters, vegans have a much lower cardiovascular disease risk.


      You can’t conduct a randomized control trial on diets because people know if they are eating meat or not, so asking for RCTs on diet trials is just ignorant.

      • jordan

        Thanks. In your article you said, “which showed us conclusively that saturated fat is the main culprit behind cardiovascular disease.” Dietary studies are, as you know, are extremely difficult, so when you said conclusively I thought you might be referring to a new study.

        • The facts are conclusive. That’s why every major health organization on the planet recommends limiting dietary saturated fat and cholesterol.