1. Bob Niland
    Was that data adjusted for the moving goalposts?

    (the definitions of overweight and obese have not been static - and the bias that would be introduced isn't necessarily obvious)

  2. charles grashow
    1) People are eating more in terms of total calories
    2) The 1980 guidelines called for total fat of 30% - 10% SFA, 10% MUFA, 10% PUFA. Exactly how is that low fat??
  3. Tor H
    Did they now?
    What recommendation was that again? First, second, third og fourth?
    Reply: #4
  4. Tor H
    February 1977, is that when this was printed?
    If so that was before the diabetes and obesity epidemic when people were eating more fats and fewer carbs.

    What does the guidelines from 1984 and up say about fat consumption?

    Reply: #6
  5. charles grashow
    • Dark green/deep yellow
    • Starchy/legumes
    • Other
    (1 cup raw, 1/2 cup cooked)

    • Citrus
    • Other
    (1/2 cup or average)

    Fats, oils, sweets—
    Total fat not to exceed 30% cal
    Sweets vary according to calorie needs

    Reply: #10
  6. Tor H
    Cool. Thank you, but that's still lots of carbs and not enough saturated fats :)

    Thing is, if those guidelines really were based on real science and not industry-founded-low-quality-science that shows what the industry pays to get, then people would be very healthy and there would not exist any diabetes or obesity an epidemic like it does today, and industry shills wouldn't hang around on sites like this promoting the same poor science and dietary advice that only gains the industry.

    Please read Nina's book "The Big Fat Surprise" for more info about the soya vs palm oil wars etc, or watch her lectures in the member's section on this site.

    Reply: #8
  7. Tor H
    Ha ha, you try your best to live up to your reputaiton I see.

    Nina's book steps on so many industry-toes that it's a miracle none of them has hired a hitman to take care of her.
    But maybe they realize that it's too late since her book is already in the bookstores, full of facts and revealations about their shady tactics and worst of all, people are reading it and following her advice.

    No wonder trolls and shills are trying so hard to discredit both the book and her, it must be pretty devastating for the big firms or industries paying them to do their bidding if the truth comes out and people stop buying their carb-loaded-garbage og so-called food. . . or meds :)

  8. Apicius

    How bizarre...You provided a link that contradicts your argument. Are you arguing with yourself? Here's a direct quote from YOUR link on dietary guidelines in the 80's:


    "The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health provided a comprehensive review of scientific evidence in support of Federal nutrition policy as stated in the 1985 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Recommendations in the report promoted a dietary pattern that emphasized consumption of vegetables, fruits, and whole-grain products, foods rich in complex carbohydrates and fiber, and of fish, poultry without skin, lean meats, and low-fat dairy products selected to reduce consumption of total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol."

  9. Christine
    Nina's book is pure garbage? Prove it. Your 'opinion' or those of others based on cherry picked soft pseudo science we have very good reasons to distrust is insufficient. She is an investigative journalist doing her job - finding facts, gaps, lies and posing questions we deserve answers to. And answers with some scientific humility for a change. If she is wrong - the burden of proof is at your feet. Why? Because we the people demand it.
    Reply: #13
  10. Tor H
    Go easy on him, he's just a kid looking for attention.
    He's been trolling numerous HCLF-sites trying to get noticed.

    I was just having a bit of fun with him, but best to just ignore him completely :)

    Reply: #19
  11. charles grashow
    "Your 'opinion' or those of others based on cherry picked soft pseudo science"

    Describes her book to a T

  12. Tor H
    Yup, and it's a god thing to cherry pick only the real science and leave out the corrupt , worthless science done by the bought scientists.
    That way we, the people wins and get healthy at the same time :)
  13. Zahc
    Charles, I don't know why you cite Seth's blog because it's inaccurate. I did not bother to go through everything, but I found many errors in the parts I looked at around a year ago. If you want details I can give.
  14. Tor H
    He cites that blog because it says what he believes, it's called cherry picking :)
  15. Alice Hodkinson
    This is really interesting, and demonstrates why I don't want to read about LCHF in books - I want evidence not opinion. Which is where these comments are falling short!
    Personally, LCHF works for me, but perhaps works only for people when it means they lose weight, or are insulin resistant.
    More research needed.
    Reply: #18
  16. Tor H
    Then the book Real Meal Revolution by Tim Noakes would be a good start. It explains why and cites relevant research.
  17. chris c
    Low fat diets cause aggressive posting to inappropriate blogs. Discuss.
    Reply: #20
  18. bill
    We call it "carb-addled."
  19. Tor H
    Nah, it's probably called "CARB-Syndrome" and Donald Trump suffers from it:

    :) :)

    Replies: #22, #26
  20. bill
    Tor H:

    That is a GREAT article. Everyone should
    read that article. Everyone.

    Thanks for posting that.

    CARB syndrome it is!

    Nah, it's probably called "CARB-Syndrome" and Donald Trump suffers from it:

  21. bill
    Diet Doctor should link to his website:


  22. Stipetic
    Charles, you might want to head over here and see what Nina had to say about Seth's critique of her book. Seems Seth fell quite short of his goal.


    Also, I think your post shows you did not read her book. She tackles the history and politics of nutrition much more than trying to show the science is wrong (but she does a good job showing this too).

  23. murray
    Yes, it's easy to take pot shots at Nina Teicholz's book from the top floor of the Texas School Book Depository, but one has to accept that when persons such as Dr. Steven Nissen, head of the Cleveland Clinic, joins with her to co-write criticism of the food pyramid scheme, she cannot be so easily dismissed.

    "The Food Pyramid Scheme: The feds’ dietary guide is based on dubious science—and now Congress wants an impartial review."

    The fact of the matter is that her journalism holds up and the science is credible.

  24. chris c

    I often though his face looked like a fat constipated ass. Now I know why!

    Fascinating concept, as someone whose symptoms were usually written off as psychiatric in origin if not completely made up, I could tick quite a few off his list. (Even my jaundice was allegedly "psychosomatic" and definitely not caused by gallstones, which were finally identified and removed over five years later . . .)

    . . . likewise most of my "mental" as well as physical symptoms went away some eleven years ago when I started low carbing and controlling my BG.

  25. Rebecca
    Nina's book has SIXTY-TWO pages of references, FIFTY-FIVE pages of bibliography, and TWENTY-SEVEN pages of supporting material to supplement her text.

    Her book is not just uninformed opinion (unlike some comments on here) but rather an exhaustive survey on the topics of nutrition, fats, carbohydrates, and diseases.

    Nothing she says is unsupported by the data available; rather, documentation for every assertion made is available between the covers of this book.

    Perhaps it should be read with an open mind and a closed wallet.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts