Fat Fiction review: A message of hope

The new documentary, Fat Fiction, has many moments that had me cheering: Dr. Brian Lenzkes hugging his patients; registered dietitian Alyssa Gallagher puzzling over her patients’ past lack of success; Dr. Sarah Hallberg, an obesity expert, emphatically refusing to accept the idea that diabetes is inevitably a progressive, irreversible disease.
These moments support the movie’s strong underlying message, which is that low-carb diets are powerful interventions for improving health. But this message is often lost in the film.
As a registered dietitian with a background in nutrition, public health, and communication, here’s my breakdown of Fat Fiction’s successes and mistakes.
Key takeaway from Fat Fiction: transforming lives with diet
The film shines when it follows healthcare practitioners who are using low-carb nutrition to improve their patients’ persistent health problems. In those moments, we get an inside look at a persuasive and compelling reality: These patients and their healthcare practitioners have transformed their lives with a simple dietary intervention.
Patients beam as they report on their progress: reduced or eliminated medications, weight loss, and excess hunger and cravings gone. The doctors and dietitians smile broadly as they describe the deep satisfaction that comes from seeing their patients heal.
For these patients, the usefulness of low-carb diets in tackling obesity and type 2 diabetes is clearly established. For these clinicians, low-carb nutrition has them loving their jobs once again.
Carbohydrate restriction returns
These individual successes are reflected in the movie’s message of hope: Awareness of how dietary carbohydrate reduction can benefit those with obesity and diabetes is slowly being reinstated into the clinical aspects of mainstream nutrition.
As the movie notes, one huge step forward came in 2019: the American Diabetes Association acknowledged carbohydrate reduction is the key to blood sugar control — without any negative caveats about low-carb diets.
Changes within the low-carb community reinforce that progress. The filmmakers interview Doug Reynolds, founder and CEO of Low Carb USA, who recently led a project to create clinical guidelines for low-carb nutrition (full disclosure: I assisted with this project).
According to Reynolds, the clinical guidelines have given many doctors the confidence to take up low-carb diets as an option to offer their patients. Diet Doctor’s new continuing medical education course on low carb and metabolic conditions serves a similar purpose.
“Eating less and enjoying it more”
As Dr. Mark Hyman, the film’s narrator, says: “Nutrition is actually pretty simple. Your body needs protein, and protein comes first. That’s essential. But then you can choose to run your body on carbohydrates … or fats. And it’s your choice.”
The movie shows how low-carb diets can be a godsend for those who find that their bodies work better running on fat. These diets dramatically limit the hormonal response from insulin that often comes with running your body on carbohydrates, an important quality for people with metabolic conditions that involve insulin, like obesity and diabetes.
Furthermore, as the film demonstrates, although any well-designed diet can lead to weight loss, a low-carb diet isn’t just about cutting calories. Carbohydrate reduction can also help lower insulin levels, improve blood sugar, and prevent the hunger pangs that go with reducing overall caloric intake.
One patient sums it up this way: “I’m eating less and enjoying it more.” This is no surprise: Low-carb diets focus on getting adequate protein and high-fiber veggies — both known to promote feelings of fullness — at nearly every meal.
As for fat, it adds flavor to food and, in a low-carb diet, contributes the calories needed to feel full. On a low-carb diet, fats — even the saturated kind — are not restricted.
But fat itself isn’t magic. The real magic comes from restricting carbohydrates. Despite what Dr. Hyman says, eating fat doesn’t “speed up your metabolism.”
Moments like that, when the movie stretches facts to fit the “if low carb is good, then low fat must be bad” narrative, trouble me.
A critical take on Fat Fiction’s claims
As someone who dreams of low-carb nutrition being restored to its rightful place as a dietary intervention for chronic disease, I wanted this movie to be the last, best word on the subject. I have to confess, there was a lot of discussion at Diet Doctor about whether I should offer any strong criticism about a film that the low-carb community has embraced.
But too many moments in the film made me squirm as yet another inaccuracy about dietary guidelines and “the low-fat diet” was repeated as “fact.”
In some ways, the filmmakers are not entirely to blame for this. Many of these inaccuracies get passed around low-carb forums without question. For most of us, there’s a strong human tendency to ignore nuances that don’t fit a desired narrative.
The most pervasive example of this tendency is the movie’s take on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the public health nutrition policy that defines what the US government considers to be a “healthy diet.”
The last 40 years of dietary policy in the US have undoubtedly made it difficult for healthcare providers to use low-carb diets to help patients. But when the movie shifts away from real-life patient-provider interactions to the abstract notion of a national nutrition policy, it goes astray.
A policy is not a diet; populations are not patients
At no point does the movie try to explain how public health nutrition policy and clinical nutrition care are alike, different, or related to each other. Maybe you’ve never considered it yourself. But this missed opportunity is central to the problem the film is trying to untangle and to the current distressing state of nutrition guidance in general.
Case in point: The documentary indicates that, in 1961, the American Heart Association (AHA) began “telling people to cut back on saturated fat and cholesterol in order to prevent a heart attack.”
But, it fails to note that this recommendation was strictly for a clinical population, specifically those who needed to lose weight, had a family history of heart disease, or had suffered a heart attack or stroke.
This 1961 AHA recommendation states, “significant changes in diet should not be undertaken without medical advice” and that reduction or control of dietary fat should be done “under medical supervision.”
Problems arose when the AHA’s dietary guidance, initially intended for a clinical population, became part of public health nutrition policy. A diet that calls for reduced fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol may have been appropriate for some identifiable individuals, but this clinical intervention should never have been repackaged as national dietary guidelines.
Dietary guidelines are guidance for food manufacturers
Many of the film’s participants seem to understand how public health nutrition policy differs from a diet. Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist, gets it right when he points out that dietary guidelines serve as guidance for the food industry. Food manufacturers can make cheap, tasty, nutrient-poor food products and, with the backing of the guidelines, market them as “healthy.”
But the movie claims, “Not only did the low-fat diet not work, it did us harm and resulted in greater obesity and disease.”
By placing the blame on “the low-fat diet” (as if there is only one), the movie perpetuates the mistaken notion that the escalating rates of chronic disease in America exist because America, as a nation, carefully followed the advice of national nutrition policy. But it’s not that simple.
Low-fat, but also low-sugar
Fat Fiction blames the low-fat focus of the guidelines on Ancel Keys, a physiologist and epidemiologist — mistakenly identified by the film as a pathologist. But Keys’s theory was just one of those represented in the guidelines. Also featured is John Yudkin’s work, which makes the case that sugar consumption is at the root of many chronic diseases.
McGovern’s 1977 Dietary Goals did urge Americans to reduce total fat from 42% of calories to 30%. The Goals also recommended that “refined and processed sugars” be cut, from 18% to 10% of calories, the same low level as the recommendation for saturated fat.
But America never actually ate “the low-fat diet” that Fat Fiction thinks is to blame for current high rates of chronic disease. Nor did America lower its intake of sugars as recommended.
Getting the guidelines wrong
Instead, beginning around 1980, Americans ate more calories, much of which came from increased consumption of starchy carbohydrate foods. But not because “the first Dietary Guidelines recommended seven to 11 servings of bread every day,” as the movie claims. (Read them for yourself and see. The “Food Pyramid’s” recommendation of seven to 11 daily servings of starch emerged over a decade later, in 1992.)
Why conflate the Food Pyramid with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans?
Perhaps that accuracy was sacrificed for the sake of preserving the narrative that reducing our intake of fat is what caused, beginning in 1980, a rapid increase in many chronic diseases. But this misconception doesn’t hold up to close examination.
Yes, Americans ate more starchy carbohydrate foods as directed. This means that when fat intake is viewed as a percentage of total calories, the increase in overall calories makes it look like Americans lowered their intake of fat. But in terms of absolute amounts, on average, Americans did not eat less fat.
Further research could have clarified that matter and perhaps also alerted the filmmakers to the fact the guidelines stopped using the term “low-fat” 20 years ago and switched to the term “moderate-fat.”
On the other hand, it’s hard to blame the movie’s creators for reporting that the most recent edition of the guidelines “removed the cap on dietary fat consumption.” Even nutrition experts such as Walter Willett get this wrong.
In fact, the guidelines still limit fat to 35% of total calories. In this case, it would have been in the movie’s best interest to get this point right because the mistake undermines the film’s argument that America’s nutrition policy continues to promote “the low-fat diet.”
Fat and fiction
The movie does make a persuasive case that there is virtually no evidence for these limits on total dietary fat — and the even stricter limits on saturated fats. But at the same time, the film makes scientifically unsupported claims about “refined vegetable oils,” which the movie warns are “known to cause heart disease and cancer.”
Diet Doctor has done a full review of the evidence on vegetable oils and health. We recognize that it is a contentious topic in the low-carb community and suggest you come to your own conclusions about it.
The film goes on to feature Dave Asprey, the founder of Bulletproof Nutrition Inc., who wants you to add his Bulletproof-branded “purified coconut oil” to your morning coffee. Ironically, this oil is also “highly refined” (check the label), yet presented as safe.
“High-quality poop”
In a cringe-worthy moment that should have ended up on the film’s cutting room floor, Asprey explains that grass-fed animals produce “high quality poop,” which makes “high-quality vegetables,” leading Asprey to assert that “vegetables … that don’t come from farms that work like this are vegetables devoid of nutrients.”
Better research — or editing — would have spared us these claims. The recurring shots of “headless” fat people each time “the obesity crisis” is mentioned are another unfortunate editorial choice, which is only partly softened by the fact that individuals with similar body shapes are allowed their full humanity at other points in the movie.
I’ll end the critique with one final style note. Most healthcare providers typically avoid terms like “type 2 diabetics,” in favor of phrases like “people with type 2 diabetes.” This is an oversight we have done in our own content at Diet Doctor, and we vow to be more mindful of it moving forward. Individuals are not their health conditions.
“It’s your health”
To be clear, these missteps take nothing away from the stories of the individuals for whom low carb has been a life-changing experience. There’s no need to beat up “the low-fat diet” to show that low-carb diets can be incredibly beneficial for many.
Low-carb diets were valuable for treating obesity and diabetes long before the dietary guidelines decided that all Americans should limit fat and lifestyle gurus told us to dump it in our morning coffee.
Ultimately, it’s well worth stepping around the movie’s “high quality poop” to hear directly from the clinicians and patients whose lives have changed dramatically through low-carb nutrition.
Despite the fact that America, as a population, did not lower its fat intake, that doesn’t mean a national nutrition policy that recommends a low-fat diet for everyone is a good idea. Many individuals did valiantly try to follow a low-fat, low-calorie diet — only to find that it left them hungry and tired, with health problems that got worse instead of better.
Virtually every clinician who works in low-carb nutrition has had a patient like this. Some clinicians, like Dr. Lenzkes, have been down that road themselves.
But for the population as a whole, maybe the problem isn’t “the low-fat diet,” as the movie suggests. Maybe the problem is that, in 1980, nutrition policy took dietary guidance about metabolic health out of the hands of clinicians and created a one-size-fits-all approach that profoundly affects both our food environment and our ideas about what is “healthy.”
The individuals we meet in the movie demonstrate how misguided this approach is. With dietary advice that is right for them, they are — slowly, steadily — getting their lives back.
At Diet Doctor, we aim to provide a trustworthy alternative to the one-size-fits-all message of the dietary guidelines. Our job is to help people learn about the power of low-carb nutrition and make it simple to incorporate into their lives.
As Dr. Lenzkes counselled his patient in Fat Fiction, “It’s your health. We can do it as individuals.”
Please let us know what else we can do to help you succeed.
Thank you for reading,
Adele Hite PhD MPH RD
Watch Fat Fiction
Start your FREE 30-day trial!
Get delicious recipes, amazing meal plans, video courses, health guides, and weight loss advice from doctors, dietitians, and other experts.
Join now
"The recurring shots of “headless” fat people each time “the obesity crisis” is mentioned are another unfortunate editorial choice . . . " This is a pet peeve of mine. I am so %$#@ tired of that in EVERY documentary about metabolic health.
I dare someone to make a documentary without the obligatory "headless fat people" scene and also without mentioning Ancel Keys even once.
What's between the guidelines and people is advertisement by companies and authorities.
Maybe these information/ad campaigns explain the difference.
Unfortunately, distorted information in the news still occurs frequently in the news regardless of the topic.
You may find this article helpful! While some people can definitely succeed and see amazing progress with a more moderate low carb approach, some people do need to be more restrictive with their carbohydrate intake in order to see success. As you mentioned there is a lot of misinformation conflicting advice within the low carb community so within our Diet Doctor Facebook community group, our priority is to help clear up the confusion. If someone needs support in eating ketogenic/strict low carb then that's the support we offer. If someone has more leeway and can eat more moderate carb levels, then we are happy to meet them and support that as well!
https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/how-low-carb-is-low-carb
However, Dr. David Ludwig's presentation during Low Carb Denver 2019 (video and transcript available on this site) details a study showing that calorie burn IS greater on a low carb diet than on either a moderate- or high-carbohydrate diet. Here is an excerpt from the transcript of this presentation:
"So, we need longer studies and that’s in fact the purpose of this recently published research we did called FS2, published in the BMJ in November. And the aim was to evaluate the effects of these diets varying in carbohydrates to fat ratio on energy expenditure, calorie burn over five months, in a well-powered study."
This is followed by a discussion of the study design, process and concerns, and this conclusion:
"And we found a highly statistically significant difference among diets that at the same body weight those on the low carb diet were burning about 200 to 280 calories a day more than those on the high-carb diet. "
Dr. Ludwig's presentation is quite detailed and very interesting; I highly recommend that Dr. Hite watch it.
I’ve often wondered what a movie about the low carb diet and lifestyle would like if created by the team at Diet Doctor. Has anyone there ever considered this?
Diet Doctor staff and contributors have consulted on and appeared in a number of low carb lifestyle films, but I have not heard any discussion on doing our own.
For example, while the dietary guidelines may not have recommended high sugar, they certainly helped create an environment in which high sugar was the norm, so it's not really that important of a distinction (the end result is the same).
On the other hand, I would agree with your criticism of including a company like bulletproof in the film, as the promotional elements makes their contribution suspect.
Overall, while any production will be a target for criticism, I think your review above is about 20-30% more negative than a more objective observer would have written (I don't know you, but it does seem like you have a subtle axe to grind here based on what you wrote.
Comments made in this review about the timeline, fats, agriculture, bulletproof coffee,” carbohydrate magic”, Ancel Keyes, and vegetable oils, are all littered with bias.
The reviewer uses her agenda to narrow the focus of the effects of the government health messages to “these patients” or “these clinicians” or “for those find their bodies work better”. 88% of the US population has symptoms of metabolic syndrome
All of these qualifiers unnecessarily undermine the central message of the film that what we have been told about FAT and its effect on our health is FICTION.
The Food Wheel, which included 6-11 servings of carbs was published in 1980 as the film correctly records not 1992.
https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/01/13/food-wheel_custom-c383176...
You can find visual representations of US dietary guidelines history here. https://www.onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/history-of-the-food-pyr...
By 1979 meat had not only been downgraded to last of the “healthy” categories but had been downgraded even further by the inclusion of beans and pulses into this“protein” category. A NEW fifth category was introduced - Fats, sweets and alcohol. With the word “caution” added.
The Low-fat dietary guidelines were truly in place by that point
The reviewer makes no mention at all of the lengthy segment concerning healthy people and their reaction to carbohydrates. This is a pity because it is one of the most important messages of the film which makes the film essential viewing even for those not suffering obesity or metabolic syndrome.
To characterise the film’s stance on vegetable oils as a “ mistake” on a website where every single recipe avoids using vegetable oils is both laughable and disturbing.
I am saddened that DD would publish this.
If you can point to a specific factual error in the review, I would be glad to correct it.
As for this statement, "The reviewer uses her agenda to narrow the focus of the effects of the government health messages to “these patients” or “these clinicians,” on the contrary, the review states, "Food manufacturers can make cheap, tasty, nutrient-poor food products and, with the backing of the guidelines, market them as 'healthy.'" This points to a *global* effect of the DGA that goes far beyond "patients" or "clinicians."
The movie has many strong scenes that support the claims that low-carb diets are important interventions for restoring health. However, the claims made in your comment reflect the same lack of attention to language and to a misrepresentation of easily verifiable details that are the documentary's weak point.
For example, if what we have been told about "fat" is indeed "fiction," there should be no objection to vegetable oils. They are, after all, fat. I believe you mean to indicate that discourse about a specific *kind* of fat is problematic, but that is not what you stated.
This is also demonstrated in remarks about "The Food Wheel," which was published by the American Red Cross for use in a nutrition course it offered. It was not created by the USDA and/or HHS and was never used as an official government food guide. Equating it with the Food Pyramid, which *was* an official government food guide, is erroneous.
As for meat being "downgraded" by 1979, that "downgrade" happened - and was retracted - a few years earlier. In the first edition of the 1977 Dietary Goals created by the McGovern committee, the American public was specifically told to "decrease consumption of meat." However, this statement was removed from the second edition that was published later that year because there was no proof that meat (in and of itself) promoted an increase risk of chronic disease. I don't recall the two different versions of this report being mentioned in this documentary.
Despite your argument that the 1979 "Hassle-Free Daily Food Guide" (which was created by USDA nutritionists) "downgrades" meat, it takes a rather neutral stance on links between diet and chronic disease: "Many scientists say the American diet is contributing to some of the chronic diseases that hit people later in life ... Other scientists believe just as strongly that the evidence doesn't support such conclusions. So the choice is yours."
A more powerful influence on how Americans were informed about "healthy diets was likely to have been the 1979 Surgeon General's Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention that reinforced the recommendations in both editions of the 1977 Dietary Goals. As with the 1964 Surgeon General's report on smoking, this report had a significant influence on what the media reported and what clinicians would recommend to patients about constitutes a "healthy diet." But I don't recall the 1979 guide or the 1979 Surgeon General's report being mentioned in the documentary.
As for vegetable oils, our stance on the issue is clearly indicated in both the review ("Diet Doctor has done a full review of the evidence on vegetable oils and health") and can be found here: https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/vegetable-oils. We understand that many in the low-carb community prefer to avoid vegetable oils, and our recipes reflect that. But in the information that we provide to the public, we strive to follow the science.
Finally, as for issues of bias, my bias is towards helping to facilitate the acceptance of low-carb diets into mainstream medical nutrition therapy so that everyone for whom it is appropriate is offered such therapy as an option. I am also biased *against* overclaims about low-carb diets and inaccuracies regarding the history of national nutrition policy - so far as the facts in these matters can be ascertained - as I believe that erroneous (and easily refuted) narratives perpetuated by low-carb advocates are barriers to mainstream acceptance of low-carb therapies. So, I have clearly stated my biases. Would you like to state yours?
Thank you so much for your comments,
Adele
Your arguments are semantic and you make similarly weak statements in both your own review and this rebuttal. I will address your points , though it will take a number of posts.
As you are well aware the vilification of FAT – refers to saturated FAT. The documentary itself makes that clear at many points. It is disingenuous to conflate that with vegetable oils. Food manufacturers WERE and ARE encouraged to replace natural animal FATS with vegetable oils and by 1979 this was well in place. It is erroneous to combine the two in stating that people did not reduce the fat content of their diet. They did, they replaced it with vegetable oils because that was what was being advised by governments.
You are also being disingenuous when stating that the Food Wheel of 1980 was somehow unconnected to the governmental pressure in place by 1979.
In 1956, there were just four groups, 1) dairy, 2) meat, 3) vegetables, 4) bread and cereals i.e. fats and proteins first, carbohydrates last.
After that point more and more publicity was given to the sat. fat is bad for you and must be avoided at all costs. By 1972 Dr Atkins was trying to tell everyone the developing advice was wrong, and being vilified as a result, In that same year John Yudkin was trying to point the blame towards sugar instead of fat and getting nowhere in his book Pure White and Deadly.
I meanwhile was acting as a “ taste tester for Heinz “ and filling in boxes where the main question was “ sweet? Too sweet? Not sweet enough” .
In 1978 the Heinz Company acquired Weight Watchers International, Inc., Why? Because “low fat” had already become the watch word of the day and Heinz was looking to capitalise on that. Fat had too many calories, people must reduce fat at all costs. Weight Watchers International was a natural fit to take advantage of this demand for low fat foods.
In 1979 a new official representation came into being (as shown in the guidelines you have already referred to.) There was a complete switch in order from those of 1956. 1) vegetable and fruit, 2) bread and cereals 3) milk and cheeses 4) meat and proteins.
By 1979 meat had not only been downgraded to last of the “healthy” categories but had been downgraded ever further by the inclusion of beans and pulses into this “protein” category. The new fifth category was introduced - Fats, sweets and alcohol. With the word “caution” added.
The American Red Cross merely reflected those guidelines in pictorial form i.e Fat was a problem in the diet. That message came “ from the top . The American Red Cross did not make up the 6-11 servings from thin air.
Thank you for acknowledging your role in the creation of FAT FICTION.
And congratulations on reversing your own type 2 diabetes without the aid of any clinicians! Here at Diet Doctor, we work every day to ensure that many people can access free, science-based information that will allow them to do just that. Helping individuals take health matters into their own hands is a central part of Diet Doctor's work.
At the same time, there are many individuals who - for a variety of reasons - are unlikely to make major changes to their health through diet without the assistance of a clinician. Many people do not have the resources (and I'm not referring to just financial resources) to make the kind of health transformation that you made without assistance. Some people with type 2 diabetes must have help from a clinician to adjust medications in order to safely do a low-carb diet. If that clinician has not accepted the value of a low-carb diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, those individuals are unlikely to get that help - and they may not have other options under their particular circumstances.
This is one of the reasons that Diet Doctor has created a fully certified continuing medical education course for physicians, physician assistants, nurses and nurse practitioners, and dietitians - also free - on how to use a low-carb diet to treat metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and obesity. Although only clinicians can get CME credits, anyone may take the course and educate themselves about low carb. You can find the course here: https://www.dietdoctor.com/cme.
Although health coaches cannot replace the role of a clinician, Diet Doctor is also currently working on a low-carb nutrition coaching program. The purpose is to help ensure that those individuals who - unlike you - need additional support to be successful at low carb will be able to get the assistance they need. Stay tuned!
Thanks so much for sharing your amazing success story, which I'm sure will be inspiring to many.
Adele
I note that whilst this discource " awaits moderation" , what does appear is a comment from you stating that you "thank me for acknowledging my role in FAT FICTION , where my actual comments no longer appears on the wesbsite and is thus completely witout context.
For clarity . Yes I have spent money to support FAT FICTION. I have also spent money to support Sacred Cow, Food Lies, The Biggest Little Farm, The Madness of Carbs. Fat A Documentary and will not doubt continue to provide support to people working hard to help the public understand the power of good nutrition and agriculture for health . I have also spent money to suport the Nutrition Coalition and I am a paying member of Diet Doctor.
I have separately posted the above facts again, so that when you "Moderate" this one you do not need to remove those actual fact.
best Amanda
For clarity . Yes I have spent money to support FAT FICTION. I have also spent money to support Sacred Cow, Food Lies, The Biggest Little Farm, The Madness of Carbs. Fat A Documentary and will not doubt continue to provide support to people working hard to help the public understand the power of good nutrition and agriculture for health . I have also spent money to suport the Nutrition Coalition and I am a paying member of Diet Doctor.
best Amanda
This statement is not only unfounded, it is wrong. There are published scientific studies showing greater calories burned on high-fat low-carb diets.[1][2] A recent pre-print study by Kevin Hall, an outspoken critic of low-carb, also shows higher energy expenditure when eating HFLC.[3] Furthermore there are studies showing insulin reduces mitochondrial uncoupling[4] and ketones increase mitochondrial respiration[5], providing a possible mechanistic explanation for why metabolism speeds up on a HFLC diet.
If it is the official position of DietDoctor that the evidence is insufficient, a more fact-based statement would say there may not be enough proof. To flatly claim the contrary while providing no evidence to support such a strong statement demonstrates the biased agenda that went into writing this dishonest review.
I don't understand why, but as another commenter stated it feels like the author has an axe to grind.
1. Ebbeling CB, Feldman HA, Klein GL, Wong JMW, Bielak L, Steltz SK, et al. Effects of a low carbohydrate diet on energy expenditure during weight loss maintenance: randomized trial. BMJ. 2018;363:k4583.
2. Friedman MI, Appel S. Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men: a secondary analysis of energy expenditure and physical activity. bioRxiv, Version 5. 2019.
3. Hall, Kevin D., et al. “A Plant-based, Low-fat Diet Decreases Ad Libitum Energy Intake Compared to an Animal-based, Ketogenic Diet: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial.” NutriXiv, 6 May 2020. Web.
4. Dallon, Blake W et al. “Insulin selectively reduces mitochondrial uncoupling in brown adipose tissue in mice.” The Biochemical journal vol. 475,3 561-569. 9 Feb. 2018, doi:10.1042/BCJ20170736
5. Parker, Brian A et al. “β-Hydroxybutyrate Elicits Favorable Mitochondrial Changes in Skeletal Muscle.” International journal of molecular sciences vol. 19,8 2247. 1 Aug. 2018, doi:10.3390/ijms19082247
I duly did- a few of them. Adele has removed them. Not to worry I will post them on twitter instead. Alexander - you may like to take a copy of your comment before that gets "Moderated" into oblivion.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to pick up on many of them myself but the one thing that did make me cringe was when someone (was it Sarah Hallberg?) showed a plate of food claiming it was about 75% carbs, imputing that was a bad thing. And yet the plate appeared to be about 50% broccoli! And even in the LC world broccoli has not been vilified.
DietDoctor has written about the paper here:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/do-low-carb-eaters-burn-more-calories
Very disappointing to see this dishonest and seemingly malicious review is still being hosted on DietDoctor. I expected better from this website.
>The real magic comes from restricting carbohydrates.
This does *not* remedy the false statement made subsequently.
Mark Hyman in the movie is speaking in the context of eating fat vs eating carbs. His statement that eating fat (in lieu of carbohydrate) raises metabolism is 100% verifiably and scientifically proven to be correct.
However if you maliciously decide to take his statement out of context it is still correct! Overfeeding studies have shown that increasing calories causes increased metabolism. So adding fat to your diet without changing anything else would also result in increased metabolism. Even the least charitable interpretation of his words cannot justify this false statement in the article:
>Despite what Dr. Hyman says, eating fat doesn’t “speed up your metabolism.”
This article needs to be reviewed by someone other than the author. Doubling down on this lie by adding weasely statements which imply Mark Hyman wasn't talking about carbohydrate restriction is shameful. The author is clearly not capable of being unbiased or fair.
The false statement should be retracted and a correction should be published. Also you should be transparent about article edits instead of doing a stealthy edit like that and not responding to or addressing my comments explicitly.
A look into regenerative agriculture should shed some light on this " high-quality poop" statement as to why it was included is a hint to go looking for more information on the subject, it is an old method on non tillage of fame land rotational grazing and yes poop and trample into the ground to build the mico-biomes in the soil that in turn grow nutrient rich vegetables. What was eluded to was the current methods of farming has produced nutrient deficient crops that may have been subjected to any number of pesticides that ruin both the crop and the soil thus ruining the micro-biomes in the soil. As well as helping to revers the effects of climate change. And as a heath advocate It would be prudent to know about the micr-biomes in the gut that regulate a lot of what goes on in side of us. a couple of sources: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/newsroom/fe...
and a documentary Kiss the Ground. https://kisstheground.com
I really enjoyed watching it.
I think it's doing a good job showing that carbs, not fat, are the problem in the obesity/diabetes crisis.
Personnaly, I find that Adele Hite's critic of the movie is not very fair: too harsh and too unbalanced, being overfocused on details in the movie and leaving aside the main goal "fat is good for you!"