The Big Lie
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.*
Joseph Goebbels (pictured left)
Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
The history of our race, and each individual’s experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.
Mark Twain, Advice to Youth
I’ve always loved the above two quotes because their sentiments are so on the money. It is sad but true that the bigger the lie, the more people are willing to unquestioningly accept it. And the greater the mass of people who accept the lie, the easier it is to persuade others to join the growing crowd. In such a way does a great lie snowball into a great ‘truth.’
Nutritionally I can’t think of a bigger lie than the one claiming that fats in general and saturated fats in particular are bad for us. This lie is so deeply embedded in the minds of most that you couldn’t blow it out with a stick of dynamite. Especially in the minds of academics, and more especially in the minds of most dietitians. Not all, but most. Nutritionally, it is truly the Big Lie.
Despite the fact that they all tenaciously cling to the Big Lie, the evidence disputes it. But, “a lie told well is immortal.” Over at Whole Health Source Stephen Guyenet wrote a post recently looking at the observational data about saturated fat and cholesterol levels and heart disease. Most of the Big Lie devotees worry obsessively about saturated fat intake while the great mass of observational data shows little, if any, correlation. A couple of years ago, I wrote a long post about the invalidity of observational studies as proof of much anything, but in that post I neglected to mention that although observational studies can’t show that correlation equals causation, they probably are valid in demonstrating the opposite: if there is no correlation, there probably isn’t much of a case for causation. So, if there isn’t a lot of correlation between saturated fat intake and elevated cholesterol and/or heart disease, is doubtful that saturated fat intake is causal.
I just came across a paper – a research editorial, to be correct – in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) that, did I not already have a close and abiding relationship with Jameson, would drive me to drink. In fact it probably did drive me to drink just a little more. Now the JADA is the journal edited by and written for Registered Dietitians, and, as a consequence, it has an RD feel to it in terms of content. It usually hews to the low-fat, high-carb party line, but every now and then it publishes a paper on some facet of low-carbohydrate dieting. The particular article that caused my heartburn is titled Low-Glycemic Load Diets: How Does the Evidence for Prevention of Disease Measure Up?
This article annoys me on many levels, the first of which is that it even talks about glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL). I’ve written previously about why I don’t believe the glycemic index to be a particularly valid way of characterizing carbohydrates. And I don’t think the glycemic load concept is much better. What’s wrong with simply counting carbohydrates? It provides more benefits and doesn’t encourage the consumption of fructose, a harmful sugar with a low glycemic index. The reason the glycemic index and glycemic load have been so embraced by the academic community is because they simply can’t bring themselves to admit that the low-carb diet is a superior diet for weight loss, lipid control, blood pressure lowering, blood sugar stabilization, GERD ridding, etc. than is their beloved low-fat diet. So instead of manning up and admitting that they had been wrong for the past 40 years, they tart the venerable low-carb diet up in academic sounding garb and call it the glycemic load diet and hope no one notices the subterfuge.
It’s perfectly acceptable to talk about low glycemic load diets bringing about health benefits without anyone saying, Whoa, you’ll croak your kidneys. Or, Whoa, you may lose weight, but you’ll clog your arteries. No, the low glycemic load diet is perfectly innocuous in any company. No pompous academic will give you grief if you simply use the word ‘glycemic.‘ Try using the term ‘low-carb’ in the halls of Academe, however, and you may be in for some withering stares.
The author of the ‘research editorial‘ drones on about a handful of studies that have looked at the efficacy of low-glycemic-load diets in preventing the development of type II diabetes and other metabolic conditions in healthy subjects. All of the studies discussed have various problems: not large enough, not long enough, less than optimal dietary questionnaires, etc. Given the watery results of the studies describe, the article then ends on a bizarre note.
Despite the limitations of the available studies, there is increasing evidence that low-glycemic-load diets could prevent diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some cancers, including endometrial cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Say what?
Yep, each of these statements is backed up by a citation or two. It would seem to me that the ‘research editorial’ would have been much more interesting and meaningful had it focused on the results of these cited studies instead of the ones it did.
Nonetheless, the author soldiers on (and this is the part that really torques me):
In light of these findings, adherence to a low-glycemic-load diet, provided it meets current dietary recommendations including those related to dietary fat content and portion control, seems prudent. [Italics mine]
Ah, the Big Lie rears its fearsome head. Doesn’t matter how well the diet works or what diseases it might prevent, we don’t want to follow it unless we meet those current recommendations on fat. No sir.
Do you think the author of this drivel has ever really thought about what food is made of? It seems unlikely.
Food is made of fat, protein and carbohydrate. That’s it. Food also contains water, vitamins, minerals and other nutrients, but only fat, carbohydrate and protein provide calories. And when a diet is constructed of these things – especially one that toes the line as far as portion control is concerned – trade offs have to be made.
If you keep the calories the same, and you decrease one of the three components, you’re going to have to increase one of the others. Let’s look at how the brain of a lipophobe would cypher this. Okay, we need to cut the fat, so that’s the first thing we’ll do. We’ll cut fat, and we’ll really cut saturated fat. But now we’ve got to get our calories back up, so we’ll add low-glycemic carbohydrates to do that. But, uh oh, when we add that many carbs, even though they are low-glycemic-index carbs, we increase the glycemic load. We can’t really do that if we want to prevent all these diseases. We’ll increase the protein. But, wait, we can’t increase it too much or we’ll damage the kidneys. (A myth, of course, but they all believe it.) And it’s hard to increase the protein without increasing the fat because most good sources of protein contain fat, even, God forbid, saturated fat. So if we up the protein, we up the fat. But fat is the devil in disguise, oh yes it is; it’s the devil in disguise. Can’t go there.
See what I mean. If you are a lipophobe, there is no solution. It could be called the Lipophobe’s Conundrum. And that’s why I’m glad I‘m not a lipophobe, so I don’t have to worry about it. I haven’t bought into the Big Lie. All I need to do is cut the carbs and let everything else take care of itself.
*Below is the Goebbel’s quote in full. Interesting to note that Dr. Joe’s ideas are still alive and well and in full use by many of our own politicians.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
““If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.””
He forgot the dietary consequences….
[...] Dr. Mary Vernon, Dr. Gil Wilshire, Dr. N.J. Robillard, Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Richard Feinman, Dr. Michael Eades, Dr. John Briffa, Dr. Davis, Dr. Barry Groves Oh and here’s a name of a dietitian too Valerie [...]
Dear Dr. Eades,
I read on a website of a guy who dispenses info. to those into fitness and strength training, that he believes that very low carb diets are damaging to the metabolism. One reason he sites for this is a claim that excessively low carb diets compromise thyroid function and are stressful to the adrenals. He said that a considerable number of people don’t have very effective gluconeogenesis and that when they run low on glucose their adrenals have to kick in with adrenaline and are stressed every time this happens. He believes in a semi low carb diet, but not lower than 70 grams. It is his opinion that the adrenaline rushes are why people feel good and have energy initially, but often later feel more tired when their adrenals are flagging from putting out adrenaline so much. I am interested in you’re opinion on this, and if it might be true, at least for some people that ultra low carb diets could cause some issues. For how long should one be on ultra low carb, and how can a person determine what is best for their system? Are there any indicators a person can watch for to help them make adjustments?
I have thyroid and adrenal issues and it has seemed to me that I feel better having a little protein and a little carb in more frequent mini meals than if I eat
Thank you for your help.
P.S. I have most of your books
Sorry! I accidentally hit the post button before I was done! I was saying I feel better with more frequent mini meals of a little carb and a little protein
than larger more infrequent meals. The carb level I am feeling best on is between about 50 and 60 grams. I am working on losing weight, and seem to be doing so by keeping carbs and fat at fairly low levels and getting adequate protein. I am concerned about whether I will ultimately be able to lose the weight I want if I have difficulty managing to go lower with the carbs if needed. Is there any advice you can give? I am on thyroid medication and have been working on optimizing nutrients that my bloodwork indicated were low and that my doctor said can lower metabolism and energy, such as iron, vitamin d, and iodine. If I have trouble losing weight on 50 to 60 grams of carb but don’t feel well if I go lower, what can I do?
Thanks
[...] “Nutritionally I can’t think of a bigger lie than the one claiming that fats in general and saturated fats in particular are bad for us.” ~ Dr Michael R Eades [...]
[...] a critical look at nutrition science and anything else that strikes my fancy– his recent post, The Big Lie, has to be one of the most thought-provoking articles I’ve ever read. He discusses how [...]
[...] and Responses: Low Hip Start Article Morning Cup of Vomiting in My Mouth: Laser Fat Removal The Big Lie Optimal Sleep N.E.’s Fittest Face Off at CrossFit Games Tony Budding talks to the 2011 Games [...]
[...] The Big Lie (Dr. Michael Eades) – “Nutritionally I can’t think of a bigger lie than the one claiming that fats in general and saturated fats in particular are bad for us.”  Amen.  Read this. [...]
dr eades
the fact that you’ve admitted not believing in ‘climate change’ makes me wonder if you are truly in the scientific realm…have you upgraded your thinking now that the glaciers are melting and threatening the shoreline round the world?
I paraphrase goebbels .”tell a lie long enough and dramatically enough..and people will swallow it”
I am skeptical of dramatic, ‘this is it!’ ideas anyway…
I lived and worked in new guinea where the people ate only sweet potatoes and grass….an occasional pig perhaps once a year for celebratory reasons.,…their access to meat was difficult because most of the animals had already been killed..somehow they survivied and.the incidence of chronic disease was almost zero….
do you not believe in evolution either?
maybe they should get rid of the gi thing and call it nutrient density reading. because you notice the more nutrient dense a carb the lower gi and the more you can eat of it before reaching a carb limit whatever that is? strawberries I can eat a cup of fresh cut strawberries and only get like 50 or 60 caloires, after subtracting fiber it is like 55 caloires or less. and it is satisfying.
so that means only 55 caloires of carbs. now try that with a slice of bread. one slice is like 100 cal of carbs and eat it and still be hungry. not nutrient dense at all.
the strawberries takes longer to hit the bloodstream then the bread. hence you dont get as hungry so quick after ward and have lots of nutrients to handle the glucose you did take in. bread is like all glucose with nothing to help the body slow it down or cope with it.
same with alot of fruits and veggies. you can eat a ton and get lots of nutrients compared to the less nutrient stuff which you have to portion control as getting over a carb limit happens without much effort.
also calculation just the carbs would make it alot easier to do. it is best to consume nutrient dense carbs with saturated fats as these help faciliate absorption of the nutrients in the fruits and veggies. grains, these are questionable, it is to easy to get alot of carbs in a little amount even if you add the fiber and protein content and use whole milk to buffer it. but sometimes you need it your body will tell you. our bodies are quite capable of handling glucose provided it is packeage as God intented fruits and veggies and even whole grains, tho one can consider being in a imperfect state as we are must consider if grains are a problem for them or not. then eat accordingly..
some people do not handle grains well.
I personally have did all the diets out there over my 35 years or so dieting history and lower gi/low carb seems to help me the most. tho I do try to do it without pain, in the summer I didn’t crave as many carbs as during this winter.
but the craving is not crazy or anything, it is just the need to eat alittle more than I did over the summer.
rosa
[...] cholesterol hypothesis. Check out these websites for more info: Dr. William Davis, Dr. Jack Kruse, Dr. Michael Eades, Dr. Kurt [...]