Archive | Food

Cooking with Vegetable Oils Releases Toxic Cancer-Causing Chemicals

NOT a good idea

NOT a good idea

Are you cooking with vegetable oils? According to lead scientists, this can be really unhealthy. When heated, these oils release toxic chemicals linked to cancer and other diseases. So do not use corn oil or sunflower oil for cooking.

The Telegraph: Cooking with vegetable oils releases toxic cancer-causing chemicals, say experts

oilsOlive oil (containing mainly monounsaturated fat) is a better option for cooking, but not great.

The best option for cooking is saturated fats, like coconut oil, butter or lard. These fats can stand a lot of heat without transforming into poison.

More on the dangers of heated vegetables

Note that these oils are another example of vegetables/plants turning into cancer-causing substances when overheated. The most cancer-causing substance on earth is also a plant:

Vegetables Proven to Cause Cancer

This is not an attack on vegetables, or a way of saying that meat is better. It’s just a fact that both processed meat (like bacon) and processed plants (like oils, or tobacco leaves) contain cancer-causing substances when they have been overheated.

Don’t use excessive heat when cooking. Make sure the food you cook can handle the heat.

Continue Reading →


180 Dinosaurs Can’t Be Wrong, Can They? – Call for BMJ to Retract Criticism of Dietary Guidelines

You can’t challenge the status quo without resistance. The BMJ recently published a harsh criticism of the obsolete and unscientific government advice to avoid saturated fat.

Now a big group of experts is calling for the retraction of this criticism, because of numerous “errors”. In fact there are no less than 180 people, many of them prominent scientists with long careers behind them, signing the letter. And 180 dinosaurs can’t be wrong, can they?

The low-fat diet is dying. There’s no good health reason to avoid natural saturated fat, like butter. Most informed people know that now, most people that is… except for the aging experts in charge.

Two ways to shut your critics up

There are two favored tactics of people in charge who happen to be wrong, when they want to silence their critics. Number one is appeal to authority. They are running the show, so they must be right. Right? Why get 180 signatures to a letter? The number is clearly over the top (while still only a tiny percentage of all the nutrition researchers out there).

The second favored tactic is attacking the critic instead of the message (ad hominem attacks). This includes mentioning that your critic has written a book on the subject, as well as finding any little error or perceived error. The implication being that if there are any small errors there’s no reason to believe the main message either.

Was a report published in February of 1980 or was it in fact published in May of that year? Did the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend to not eat eggs or did they, in fact, only advise people to switch to egg whites or egg substitutes? That’s the level of nitpicking going on.

History goes on

Nothing in this niggling about details or bloated list of signatures can change the arc of history. The low-fat diet has been proven to be useless for preventing heart disease and the least effective diet for losing weight. The asteroid has already hit and the 80s style fat phobia, like recommending skim milk, is a dying. No appeal to authority can change that.

Continue Reading →


Another Study Finds People Consuming Full-Fat Dairy Products Are Healthier

Whole Milk

Yet another study has found that people consuming full-fat dairy products are healthier. People consuming low-fat products have more obesity-related problems.

This resulted in another round of criticism of the obsolete low-fat dietary recommendations:

The Washington Post: Scientists have found another reason we should be drinking more whole milk

Continue Reading →


Obsolete Fat-Phobic Dietary Advice Under Fire

Even more criticism of the obsolete fat-phobic dietary advice:

The New Yorker: What the Government’s Dietary Guidelines May Get Wrong

National Review: So Fat and Salt Aren’t So Bad for Us: Why We No Longer Trust the Government’s Food Guidelines


Demonization and Deception in Cholesterol Research – Great New Presentation by Professor David Diamond

Have you heard that saturated fat has been wrongly accused, starting with the shenanigans of Ancel Keys? Or that a total cholesterol number is not very helpful for determining risk of heart disease? Or that the benefits of statins have been vastly exaggerated?

Probably all these facts are familiar to you already. But I’d still recommend to watch this new presentation by Professor David Diamond. I’ve heard this story many times but still found the presentation well-worth watching. Not only does Professor Diamond bring up new details to the story, he also does it in great style and with lots of (sometimes dark) humor.

Statin humor

A quick example, which of these drug ads would make you most likely to have a pill a day for the rest of your life?


Obviously the left ad is the original one, for the biggest blockbuster drug of all time. Amazingly the right ad may be a more honest and transparent way to present the exact same study finding.

The 1 percent number is the real chance that the drug will benefit you, over many years of taking it (without even mentioning the risk of side effects).

Could you even imagine a drug company printing the more honest right ad? It would look like a joke.


The US Dietary Guidelines Expert Committee Said to be “Completely Dissociated” From the Top Level Scientific Community

Professor Arne Astrup

Professor Arne Astrup

The harsh critique of the low-fat US dietary guidelines continues. Are they the result of an expert committee “completely dissociated from the top level scientific community”? That’s what one of the world’s top nutrition professors and researchers now says.

CardioBrief: Second Opinion on BMJ Dietary Guideline Takedown

Here are the quotes from Professor Arne Astrup:

…the committee seems to be completely dissociated from the top level scientific community, and unaware of the most updated evidence. There are now several new meta-analyses of both observational studies and also of randomized controlled trials clearly showing that there is no benefit of reducing saturated fat in the diet. All analyses and research can be criticized, but these meta-analyses have been published in leading scientific journals typically after critical reviews by three to five independent scientists (including a statistician), and by expert editors, so they cannot and should not be dismissed so easily.”

Equally important, wrote Astrup, is “that the scientific studies that were the basis for the ‘cut down on saturated fat’ recommendations have been re-evaluated, and it is quite clear that today we would have concluded that there is no robust evidence to substantiate the advice.”

“The same,” he continued, “applies to the importance of carbohydrate amount and source. Reducing total carbs or selecting the low glycemic index carbohydrates are well documented tools to produce weight loss and treat type 2 diabetes, and there is quite good evidence for efficacy and safety.”


It’s quite clear there are big changes coming to the field of nutrition, and the old & moldy fear of fat is dying. Only question now is how long it’s going to take. Will the stalwart defenders of this failed idea make it to their retirement, or not, before it’s “game over” for them?


The British Medical Journal Slams Unscientific and Biased Low-Fat Dietary Guidelines!


Diet Guru Dr. Katz Goes Ballistic (Again)

To say that the influential diet guru Dr. David Katz disprove of the recent BMJ article about saturated fat is an understatement:

Dr. Katz on LinkedIn: An Open Letter to the BMJ Regarding US Dietary Guidance

It’s not the first time Dr. Katz is over-the-top disappointed in great scientific journals or NYT publishing something involving Gary Taubes or Nina Teicholz, in fact it tends to happen every single time. Dr. Katz might qualify as the (h?)angriest diet guru in America.

Dr Katz’s rebuttal usually involves denigrating his opponent for having books to sell. Here’s a few examples from his latest critique:

With all due respect to Ms. Teicholz, she is not a nutrition expert, and not a scientist. She is a journalist herself, and one with a book to sell. […] The notion that the opinion of one journalist with a book to sell…

And finally…

I don’t have a diet to sell.

So that’s no less than three times in one brief article that Katz attempts to discredit Teicholz by bringing up her excellent book The Big Fat Surprise (one of the best books of last year according to publications like The Economist and The Wall Street Journal). This even though Teicholz never mentions the book in her article.

However Dr. Katz still insists we should not listen to Teicholz as she has written a book on the history of the science behind our dietary recommendations. He, on the other hand says “I don’t have a diet to sell”, and technically that is correct. Dr. Katz does not have one diet to sell, he has many diets to sell.

A few of Dr. Katz’s diet books



Yep, there they are, complete with their “lose X pounds in Y weeks” taglines, while showing chocolate cake on the cover, wildly unsubstantiated health promises and cover blurbs by Dr. Oz.

Even Dr. Katz may have to agree that Dr. Oz is an entertainer, not a scientist, regularly promoting any dubious idea or product when it can bolster his ratings. No self-respecting scientist would put a Dr. Oz blurb on the cover of his diet book, let alone twice, unless he’s desperate to sell more books.

So – this attack may be the biggest dose of hypocrisy I’ve had all week. Sorry, Dr. Katz, but when it comes to integrity and focusing on the real scientific questions it’s game, set and match to Teicholz.

Update October 1, 2015

This story just gets better. Dr. Katz has also been writing glowing reviews about a book he himself wrote under a pseudonym.


“Cut the Crap”, Not Saturated Fat, Advises Canadian Heart & Stroke Foundation


More and more people are backing away from the misguided and miserably failed war on saturated fat:

CBCNews: ‘Cut the crap,’ get back to nutritional basics, Heart and Stroke Foundation advises

Continue Reading →


The British Medical Journal Slams Unscientific and Biased Low-Fat Dietary Guidelines!


The upcoming low-fat US dietary guidelines are based on an unscientific report, from a biased expert committee. The report fails to consider any evidence that contradicts the last 35 years of nutritional advice. This is the just published message in the British Medical Journal, in an article written by the journalist Nina Teicholz:


BMJ: The scientific report guiding the US dietary guidelines: is it scientific?

Dr. Fiona Godlee, The BMJ’s Editor in Chief adds:

“These guidelines are hugely influential, affecting diets and health around the world. The least we would expect is that they be based on the best available science. Instead the committee has abandoned standard methodology, leaving us with the same dietary advice as before – low fat, high carbs.

Growing evidence suggests that this advice is driving rather than solving the current epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes. The committee’s conflicts of interest are also a concern. We urgently need an independent review of the evidence and new thinking about diet and its role in public health.”

Harsh criticism indeed, from one of the premier scientific journals, but well-deserved. For the US government to keep promoting low-fat diets in 2015 is beyond unscientific, it’s approaching a sick joke.

At least more and more smart people are taking notice.

TIME: Here’s What’s Wrong With the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, Report Says

Continue Reading →