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

Product Information

Although some of the dietary advice in Eat Fat, Get Thin is likely to improve health, the amount of saturated fat it recommends is likely to have negative consequences. Nothing sweet (not just sugar, not just high fructose corn syrup, but all artificial sweeteners (including stevia) and all natural sweeteners (agave, honey, maple syrup). This claim received a score of 1, indicating that the evidence is neutral or nonexistent for the claim. While low-carb diets may be a beneficial tool for some individuals attempting to lose weight, the current evidence, including that cited by Eat Fat, Get Thin, appears to show that in the long run, low-carb diets are no more or less effective than other dietary options on average. Overall (average) score for claim 1

The Eat Fat Get Thin Cookbook: Over 175 Delicious Recipes for

He has commercialized himself and, as with all such television-doctor marketing superstars, I would recommend they all read "The Citadel" by Cronin, about a doctor who became a dedicated physician to help the destitute in England, who veered off course and hawked useless remedies to rich people for personal profit, at the possible loss of his soul and loss of original humanitarian aspiration. I've seen some pretty irresponsible, even dangerous, recommendations on these television shows including PBS, and they all cover their butts by either saying it's either for entertainment value, or that they should always consult their own doctor first. No longer about the theory but starts the really practical stuff. What to eat? What not to eat? Etc. it’s not eating more and exercising less that makes you fat – rather, BEING fat makes you eat more and exercise less When considering review papers, Eat Fat, Get Thin also misrepresents the data. For example, Eat Fat, Get Thin cites a review paper of clinical trials comparing low-carb and low-fat diets. This review reported that 4 out of 8 randomized control trials showed better weight outcomes for low-carb diets when compared to low-fat diets at 6 months. However, the rapid initial weight loss for low-carbohydrate diets is well known and may involve changes in body water compared to low-fat diets. Importantly, this initial benefit in overall weight loss does not typically last over time. When we look at differences in weight loss at one year rather than just the first 6 months, we see that the difference is small and not statistically significant. This data is available in the same paper cited by Eat Fat, Get Thin. The book cites one other review paper worth discussing which is presented as the “final nail in the coffin for proving that high-fat diets did much better than low-fat diets for weight loss”. The main conclusion of the review, however, is that low-fat diets and high-fat diets show similar amounts of weight loss. There was a small but statistically significant difference observed between very rigorously delivered versions of very-low-carb diets when compared to low-fat diets. But even the difference in weight between these two groups was only about 2 pounds, which is clinically insignificant. Additionally, there was no difference in weight loss between low-carb and low-fat diets when comparing the less restrictive low-carb diets, which is the diet pattern prescribed by Eat Fat, Get Thin. Again, this data ultimately undermines the claim made by the book. seemingly good advice from government, health care industry, and food industry is only “seemingly” – they were wrong about a lot of stuff

Also you're only allowed small allotments of fruit (half a cup per day). But *only* lemons, limes, kiwi, and watermelon. I may have forgotten the whole list. But it did not include peaches, pears, apples, grapes, strawberries, bananas, oranges, cherries, plums, pineapples, you know, the things you think of when you think FRUIT. This is not exclusively a "diet/weight loss" book. Read it for the sound up to date 'nutrition 2.0' information it contains: He says, “A hundred years ago less than one in one hundred Americans were obese and coronary heart disease was unknown.” It was hardly unknown, although it was admittedly less prevalent and may not have been diagnosed with that name. He is correct that obesity has become a serious problem and is a risk factor for diabetes, heart disease, and a number of other illnesses; but he goes too far when he claims

Dr. Hyman’s Green Breakfast Smoothie - Dr. Mark Hyman Dr. Hyman’s Green Breakfast Smoothie - Dr. Mark Hyman

is it meat vs veggies, or rather the sugar and refined carbs that are part of the typical meat eater’s diet that we should be concerned with?

More recently, Ge et al. meta-analyzed 121 dietary randomized control trials which allowed for high-quality comparisons between 17 specific dietary patterns. This included low-carb and low-fat diets. The authors found that overall, low-fat and low-carb diets had similar weight outcomes at both 6 and 12 months. It would appear, based on the bulk of the scientific literature, that there is no meaningful long-term difference in weight loss between low-fat and low-carb diets. In conclusion, there is little to no evidence to support the claim that low-carb, high-fat diets are superior to low-fat diets for weight loss either in the broader literature or in the studies presented by Eat Fat, Get Thin. In fact, much of the research cited by the book undermines their claim and shows that there is little, if any, long-term difference between the effectiveness of these diets for weight loss. Additionally, Eat Fat, Get Thin often misinterprets and overstates the conclusions of studies discussed and withholds critical nuances of the studies presented to the reader. Criterion 1.2. Are the references cited in the book to support the claim convincing?