Whole Health Source

It amazes me that this article still pushes the agenda that "fat makes us fat." If there's one thing that hasn't proven out at all, it's that fat makes us fat!

Overeating makes us fat. Caloric surplus makes us fat. It's pretty trivial to consume a caloric surplus eating lots of fatty foods. In that sense: fat makes us fat and it's silly to try denying it. It doesn't mean a low-fat diet will make you lose weight, it just means that high-fat diets are going to make you fat.

Excellent refutation of Taubes hypothesis:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

Insulin does not regulate fat storage, leptin does. Obesity is a complex state and there are no simple answers. A diet that may be best for weight loss in one individual may not be the same diet that is best for another. This seems particularly likely if one of the two individuals is not obese.

The problem with "low-fat" processed food in particular is that the fat is often replaced with sugar to add taste, but sugars and other high-carb grains are more problematic than fat consumption.

They aren't more problematic. Aside from the relationship to cholesterol levels, they are the same problem.

The problems are:

1. High caloric density.
2. *Vanishing* caloric density-- foods that prevent satiation.
3. Addictive flavors and sensations that cause cravings.

Calorie surplus makes you gain weight, and unless you're building muscle it's going to be fat. …

I would agree with banning any ads for children under 18 years old, b/c they get bombarded with ads for junk food on all media channels. Plus I would agree with media campaigns teaching people that sugary drinks are a leading cause of obesity.

But I disagree with banning ads on sugary drinks specifically because I am increasingly concerned about recommending, taxing or banning foods based on weak scientific evidence and politicians are too quick to pull the trigger in favor of industries that donate money for their political campaigns.

First of all the evidence that sugar directly causes T2 diabetes is weak [1], even if there is an association between sugary drinks and metabolic syndrome, see for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17646581

You can associate sugar or fat or meat consumption with an increased risk for T2 diabetes, but fact of the matter is that it all comes down to calories, T2 diabetes having an _energy excess_ as the cause and the available evidence for that is pretty solid [3]. When energy excess happens, all markers will start indicating problems, your blood glucose, triglycerides, LDL, etc, all of them going up.

People like to focus on one macro-nutrient, or another and it is true that they aren't the same ... for example fructose might give you non-alcoholic fatty liver disease before glucose or saturated fat are able to. But only when consumed in excess, only when it's not burned for energy and the liver's glycogen stores are full, only…

If various articles I've seen on the topic are to be believed, eggs from pastured hens don't just look and taste different—they're far more nutritious than the rest[1]. I forget which nutrient (and I'm not certain it's even one of the ones listed at that link) but IIRC there's one that's very difficult to come by in the recommended quantities unless you 1) eat lots of insects, or 2) eat eggs and/or meat from birds that eat lots of insects. As one might expect, it's almost completely absent from non-pastured eggs.

See also declining nutrient levels in produce generally[2]. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that our ultra-low food prices, especially the US, amount to a scam.

We've got year-round variety (shipped from hundreds to thousands of miles away), we've got quantity, our produce is colorful (though bland), and our food rarely makes us sick (very nice, to be sure), but if you seek out quality there go convenience (distant 1 day/week farmers' markets versus a dozen nearby supermarkets that operate 24/7) and low prices, plus you've got to remember all the labeling and advertising tricks of the sort mentioned in the article so you don't get screwed.

[1] http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/pastured-eggs.html
[2] (PDF WARNING) http://www.drapsley.com/Documents/Mineral%20losses%20in%20foods.pdf

I'm a bit surprised that this article doesn't deal with the increasing amount of science behind neurological food reward mechanisms. The tl;dr is that our junk food (and much mass-produced food in grocery stores) has been tailored for a kind of hyper-palatability that mutes the effectiveness of our normal satiety mechanisms. So in the article's context the "nudge" is up against an evolving attack by industrial food against very low-level neurological mechanisms.

I don't have a good "lay" source for this field, but I'd recommend digging into Stephen Guyenet's blog[1], that is if you're up for wading through an academic's professional musings. He's a neurobiologist and obesity researcher, and as such the blog provides his perspectives on ongoing work (his and others') in this field. Warning: DO NOT go here expecting any specific answers, and be able to deal with a fair bit of hypothesizing (i.e. untested, maybe totally wrong) both on Guyenet's part and via the work he reviews. You'll only really get a sense of how this field is going as you pick up enough context of ongoing work. IMO, the most interesting self-contained posts that go by are the significant negative results, where robust work comes to light that just crushes an existing hypothesis.

[1] http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/

It is all a very vague science to try to look back in time. Centuries is not that long ago, and one can try to assume that remote indigenous populations are still similar. Lets assume we are talking thousands if not tens of thousands of years ago. There are a lot of things that scientists can try to interpret from skeletal and other bone remains, only some of them that would be a direct link to cancer. This is a good overview of some of the science that goes on for that in a context that is relevant to the discussion at hand: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/paleopathology-at-origins-of.html

Personally I am convinced that cancer is just one of many degenerative health issues. If you follow that line of reasoning, than the frequency of degenerative issues in skeletal remains are likely related to the frequency of cancer and any other degenerative health issue. As one example, if you simply see caries (cavities) in the remains of the teeth, that would also mean cancer was more likely to occur. (very healthy indigenous cultures have almost no cavities). Obviously this is very loose logic, and certain groups are more likely to have certain issues that are more or less likely to show up in skeletal remains, but I believe the general principle is sound.

You are wrong. Too much energy dense food makes you fat.
Fat will make you fat if you overeat (because the fatty acid molecules from your food will be stored in your fat cells). It's not as easy as "more carbs" = obesity epidemic. There are many more factors, most important being inactivity and overconsumption of food.
The carbohydrate hypothesis is very clearly Bullshit:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.de/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

When people go on a low carb diet they:
a. restrict their food intake by restricing their choices (less processed foods if you exclude a massiv part of "
b. increase protein intake (protein has a higher thermic effect than any other macronutrient and drastically cuts down total kcal consumption in ad lib feeding trials by reducing appetite)

You can do something similar with a low fat diet (on which another part of the population will feel better - skewed towards more active and leaner people).

Low carb (whatever that means - not clearly defined) isn't a better choice for your health than a mixed diet with a high(er) protein intake. If it works for you: great.
But that doesn't mean calories don't count and carbohydrates/insulin cause obesity. Nor that it works for everyone.