The Low-Fat Diet is Fueling Our Rate of Obesity, Says Researcher Phoenix Gilman

[ReginaW]

The Low-Fat Diet is Fueling Our Rate of Obesity, Says Researcher Phoenix Gilman (http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/lowfat-diet-fueling-rate-obesity-says-researcher-phoenix-gilman_496653_1.html)

For those who wonder why Americans are heavier than ever, carb addicted, depressed, and suffering with heart disease, you need not look any further than the low-fat myth that has been perpetuated for the last 30 years.

Researcher Phoenix Gilman says, "I like to call this the low-fat myth, because there wasn't one, long-term study that verified the efficacy of such a diet. First of all, eating healthy fats such as fresh cheese, real butter, eggs, heavy cream and olive oil do not trigger insulin, the hormone that, among many things, is the fat-building/fat-storing hormone. Basic biology: insulin must be present to store body fat. Eating good, healthy fat does not trigger the insulin response."

Gilman goes on to say, "If you're eating a low-fat diet, you're definitely eating too many carbs/sugar. Typical low-fat breakfast: Cheerios, skim milk, blueberries, glass of orange juice and coffee with Splenda. Low-fat snack: yogurt or smoothie with banana, pineapple and low-fat milk. Yet these foods are nothing but sugar, i.e., 'simple carbs,' in the same family as a candy bar. Each one will trigger insulin, causing the body to store fat. The liquid carbs -- juice, milk and smoothie -- will affect blood sugar levels even more dramatically. Equally alarming, these foods, along with the caffeine and artificial sweetener, deplete serotonin, a major neurotransmitter that governs carbohydrate cravings and satiety, along with mood, sleep, etc."

Though the low-fat diet has clearly not worked, the fear of eating healthy fat still runs rampant: hence, our ever-growing rate of obesity, type 2 diabetes, thyroid issues, high blood pressure, stroke and heart disease. However, those who follow Gilman's research are proving where the truth really lies. Her clients are losing weight -- and keeping it off; reversing their type 2 diabetes; improving thyroid function; alleviating depression, insomnia, and ADD/ADHD; lowering high blood pressure; and achieving healthier cholesterol panels, thus reducing risk for stroke and heart disease.

Bio: Entrepreneur Phoenix Gilman is an internationally respected author and weight loss expert with over 30 years of experience, from certified personal trainer and sports nutritionist, to researcher, product developer, consumer activist and speaker. Fed up with the misinformation and marketing scams running rampant within the diet, food and pharmaceutical industries, she vowed to make a difference. Her book, DIET FAILURE...THE NAKED TRUTH: The Brain Chemistry Key to Losing Weight and Achieving Extraordinary Health is the result.

Her research, supported by clinical studies, has been recognized by many, including the Centers for Disease Control, Forbes.com, Focus Atlanta (CW television network), Citizens Commission on Human Rights, and best-selling authors Michael Murray, ND, co-author of the Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine, and Diana Schwarzbein, MD, author of The Schwarzbein Principle, etc.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/lowfat-diet-fueling-rate-obesity-says-researcher-phoenix-gilman_496653_1.html

[TimesTwo]

What a fantastic article! These are things every low-carber knows, but it's so refreshing when the medical and scientific communities open their eyes to this information.

[kyrasdad]

What a fantastic article! These are things every low-carber knows, but it's so refreshing when the medical and scientific communities open their eyes to this information.
It's difficult to understand why they aren't embracing the reality that low fat has been a catastrophic failure. Obesity rates climbed -- rocketed up -- during the low-fat era. They were more than happy to accept correlation to condemn fats, but they ignore it when it comes to explaining obesity.

I understand the root of why it's ignored: money. There are powerful interests who want to keep grain the basis of our diets. There is more money to be made in processed foods than whole foods, and processing tends to mean carbs in almost all cases.

They have the "whole grain" dodge already in place, so even if the tide manages to grow against the wall of misinformation, they have an excellent fallback position.

[MizKitty]

These are things every low carber knows, but unfortunately, that article was written by Phoenix Gilman herself, in promotion of her book, so I doubt it will change the minds of any skeptics.

[ValerieL]

It's difficult to understand why they aren't embracing the reality that low fat has been a catastrophic failure. Obesity rates climbed -- rocketed up -- during the low-fat era. They were more than happy to accept correlation to condemn fats, but they ignore it when it comes to explaining obesity.

Yes, but that's not low-fat's fault that obesity rates are climbing. We obese people are just getting lazier and more weak-willed, oh, and playing too many video games and using our cars too much. ;)

[M Levac]

It's difficult to understand why they aren't embracing the reality that low fat has been a catastrophic failure. Obesity rates climbed -- rocketed up -- during the low-fat era. They were more than happy to accept correlation to condemn fats, but they ignore it when it comes to explaining obesity.

I understand the root of why it's ignored: money. There are powerful interests who want to keep grain the basis of our diets. There is more money to be made in processed foods than whole foods, and processing tends to mean carbs in almost all cases.

They have the "whole grain" dodge already in place, so even if the tide manages to grow against the wall of misinformation, they have an excellent fallback position.

Money.

The Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis is taken advantage of by;

The medical establishment
The pharmaceutical industry
The food industry
The transport industry
The authorities, governments and others
The benevolent organizations
The fitness industry
The supplements industry
The entire supporting infrastructure to all those industries mentioned above, i.e. Offices
The clothing and fashion industry
The marketing industry
The television industry
The military suppliers
The travel industry


I'm looking at this from an economic perspective and I see the whole planet going into recession once the facts come out to a fairly large audience. So yes, I think the answer is money.

[64dodger]

Do ya think!!!!!!!

The snack food industry has been leading the charge and we are all paying the price for it.

I think I will go have a steak.

[rightnow]

I'm looking at this from an economic perspective and I see the whole planet going into recession once the facts come out to a fairly large audience. So yes, I think the answer is money.
Fabulous. So since we're going into a recession ANYWAY, maybe there's some way to bring more of the truth out then.

PJ

[TimesTwo]

Do ya think!!!!!!!

The snack food industry has been leading the charge and we are all paying the price for it.

I think I will go have a steak. :lol: I know. Oreos are healthful when they're formed into tiny spheres and packaged into 100 calorie portions. Same with Cheetos, minus the spheres.

[catfishghj]

Everyone knows that studies show that low carb works in the short term, but it has not been proven to be safe in the long term. Since short term studies show that low fat is shown to be less effective in the short term, and as the author points out, that no long term studies show that the low fat approach is safe in the long term either, lets just assume that low fat is safer than low carb in the long term and thats what we will recommend to the public.
I get real tired of the assumption that low carb is not safe in the long term.

[kyrasdad]

Everyone knows that studies show that low carb works in the short term, but it has not been proven to be safe in the long term. Since short term studies show that low fat is shown to be less effective in the short term, and as the author points out, that no long term studies show that the low fat approach is safe in the long term either, lets just assume that low fat is safer than low carb in the long term and thats what we will recommend to the public. I get real tired of the assumption that low carb is not safe in the long term.
That's a maddening caveat they put on any positive low-carb news. Some random dietitian will inevitably point out that while more successful, low carb has not been proven safe or effective in the long term.

Well, as far as safety goes, neither has low fat. However, I'd stake my life on eating the most whole foods, the most natural foods possible over 100-calorie packs of low fat, whole-grain goo shaped into Wheat Thins and Oreos.

For longterm effectiveness, low fat has been easily proven worthless. They have studied it seven ways to Sunday, and despite trying very hard, cannot find a benefit.

They subject low carb to a standard they never subjected low fat to; to recommend it we need 45 years of double blind studies on millions of people. Or something.

[M Levac]

Everyone knows that studies show that low carb works in the short term, but it has not been proven to be safe in the long term. Since short term studies show that low fat is shown to be less effective in the short term, and as the author points out, that no long term studies show that the low fat approach is safe in the long term either, lets just assume that low fat is safer than low carb in the long term and thats what we will recommend to the public.
I get real tired of the assumption that low carb is not safe in the long term.

So do I and I've only been reading about it for a month.

[M Levac]

I play golf. I've encountered a multitude of gurus who will swear they can teach us how to play golf in less than (insert favorite amount of time here). Alas, most of those amateurs use the analysis approach which is at best the weakest form of teaching.

Teaching is different from analysis. Teaching is a form of synthesis of all the information we gathered from analysis. But it's much more than that. Teaching, at least when done correctly, takes into account all the effects of the instructions given. It's not a blind science where we just give orders expecting them to be followed to a tee. We must consider everything our instructions do. The better we understand the consequences of our instructions, the better we can formulate instructions to produce the expected result. This is teaching at its best.


The food pyramid is also teaching at its best. Unfortunately, the result is not what was intended but it was still extremely successful in producing this result nonetheless. People are smart. They'll try to do what we tell them especially when those who tell them do so in good faith. And when it looks like they know what they're doing. So people will try to execute the instructions to the best of their ability. The instructions was "Eat low fat." So they did. As a result of obeying the instructions, they remained hungry. But the instructions did not provide for hunger so they ate more low fat in an attempt to continue to obey the instructions but as they did so, they had to eat more carb to compensate for the lack of calories from the lower fat intake.

They obeyed. It's the instructions that were flawed.


I play golf. The best instruction I was ever given was "Send this ball to that target using this club." Everything else just led me farther and farther away from my goal which incidentally was to send that ball to that target using that club.

[vavcon]

Hey Martin,

I really like your golf analogy above. I am also a golfer, although not a good one, and I find instruction helpful in that my poor form can contribute to my golf game without me knowing it. Could that be "hidden carbs?" Just kidding, but you know what I mean.
Chris

[M Levac]

Hey Martin,

I really like your golf analogy above. I am also a golfer, although not a good one, and I find instruction helpful in that my poor form can contribute to my golf game without me knowing it. Could that be "hidden carbs?" Just kidding, but you know what I mean.
Chris

If I just go by my analogy. The poor form is a direct consequence of poor coaching. The alternative is just as true. Good form is a direct consequence of good coaching. Had the authorities applied correct coaching, people would obey it just like they obeyed the poor coaching but the result would have been much better and we wouldn't be in this mess anyhow.

But as I've learned, we learn through our mistakes. Had we not gone so deep in this mess, we would still consider fat unhealthy. The problem would have surfaced later on perhaps to cause even more problems.

But now we're in a situation where even good coaching is not even followed. There's this effect of high carb low fat diet on the brain that basically makes us stupid. It becomes that much more difficult to eat fat or to convince people that saturated fat is good when they can't use their brains properly to figure it out for themselves. They continue to obey the old instructions because that's about the only thing they can understand. For people to change, the correct coaching must come from the original source: The government and its food pyramid.

[rightnow]

I play golf. I've encountered a multitude of gurus who will swear they can teach us how to play golf in less than (insert favorite amount of time here). Alas, most of those amateurs use the analysis approach which is at best the weakest form of teaching.

Teaching is different from analysis. Teaching is a form of synthesis of all the information we gathered from analysis. But it's much more than that. Teaching, at least when done correctly, takes into account all the effects of the instructions given. It's not a blind science where we just give orders expecting them to be followed to a tee. We must consider everything our instructions do. The better we understand the consequences of our instructions, the better we can formulate instructions to produce the expected result. This is teaching at its best.


The food pyramid is also teaching at its best. Unfortunately, the result is not what was intended but it was still extremely successful in producing this result nonetheless. People are smart. They'll try to do what we tell them especially when those who tell them do so in good faith. And when it looks like they know what they're doing. So people will try to execute the instructions to the best of their ability. The instructions was "Eat low fat." So they did. As a result of obeying the instructions, they remained hungry. But the instructions did not provide for hunger so they ate more low fat in an attempt to continue to obey the instructions but as they did so, they had to eat more carb to compensate for the lack of calories from the lower fat intake.

They obeyed. It's the instructions that were flawed.


I play golf. The best instruction I was ever given was "Send this ball to that target using this club." Everything else just led me farther and farther away from my goal which incidentally was to send that ball to that target using that club.

Verrrrry interesting, good post. And great point!

You know, about a dozen years ago I started a hobby where the whole assumption going in was that there was this special hokey-pokey you had to do in order for things to work. It was complex. It was trademarked. It was expensive. Only select gurus had the answers. It was like revisiting my studies previously in cult psychology. Couple years later, I noticed that still, none of the people who'd paid fortunes to the gurus could do even 1/100th of what was advertised. When you asked why not, the answer was, "they did it imperfectly." It was always the fault of the person. The most miniscule flaw in how you wrote something down was the reason the whole process sucked. Yeah sure. It reminds me of my stepmother, diabetic, who insists the reason the ADA recommendations lead to people dying off piece by horrible piece, is simply because people "don't do it right." So I looked at what was advertised. 99.9% of it was BS. About .01% was not. So I went to the .01%. It came from a guy who I contacted and eventually become close friends with, who said basically, "Just do it." He thought all the how-to stuff was crap, technojargon invented by wannabe's who not only couldn't do it much themselves but who wanted to make sure that it seemed "hard" enough to everybody else to ensure someone would think they needed to pay them. In nearly every thing I've studied in my life, it has actually come down to that. The people who do things really well are simple and to the point about it. The more decoration that surrounds any given process, usually the more it's about the decoration, not the process.


PJ

[M Levac]

Verrrrry interesting, good post. And great point!

You know, about a dozen years ago I started a hobby where the whole assumption going in was that there was this special hokey-pokey you had to do in order for things to work. It was complex. It was trademarked. It was expensive. Only select gurus had the answers. It was like revisiting my studies previously in cult psychology. Couple years later, I noticed that still, none of the people who'd paid fortunes to the gurus could do even 1/100th of what was advertised. When you asked why not, the answer was, "they did it imperfectly." It was always the fault of the person. The most miniscule flaw in how you wrote something down was the reason the whole process sucked. Yeah sure. It reminds me of my stepmother, diabetic, who insists the reason the ADA recommendations lead to people dying off piece by horrible piece, is simply because people "don't do it right." So I looked at what was advertised. 99.9% of it was BS. About .01% was not. So I went to the .01%. It came from a guy who I contacted and eventually become close friends with, who said basically, "Just do it." He thought all the how-to stuff was crap, technojargon invented by wannabe's who not only couldn't do it much themselves but who wanted to make sure that it seemed "hard" enough to everybody else to ensure someone would think they needed to pay them. In nearly every thing I've studied in my life, it has actually come down to that. The people who do things really well are simple and to the point about it. The more decoration that surrounds any given process, usually the more it's about the decoration, not the process.


PJ

You are describing the addiction mechanism. The trick is to make it easy for the first couple of attempts. Just to prove it can be done and to stimulate a release of pleasure hormones such as adrenaline and endomorphine. That's what success does to us, we get stoned to some degree. Then on subsequent attempts, it's impossible to succeed because the game is rigged to become more and more difficult as we progress. But we still want to get that buzz so we keep at it. From a mental process perspective, it's a loop that gets shorter and shorter until the only thing we think of is to get that buzz. We play constantly until there's no more money.

Incidentally, that's how we get hooked on most drugs including the lottery. Smoking tobacco, we inhale nicotine. But the more we smoke, due to the method we use to intake nicotine i.e. through our lungs, the more it becomes difficult to intake nicotine that way. It doesn't take long either. We get accustomed to it in a few days. So we get hooked.

Reminds me of eating carbs and insulin resistance that progressively increase the more we eat carbs. Also reminds me of low fat diets who, although work to some degree, become more and more difficult the more we progress and eventually stop working altogether. But since we're buzzed on the lack of fat and the high of survival hormones like epinephrine and adrenaline, we can't use our brains properly and continue to believe that low fat is the way to go so we go to extremes until we become ill.

If only low carb high fat diets were addictive too.

[M Levac]

A final note. The way to treat any addiction is to produce unvarying success with every single attempt. An example is to win the lottery with every single ticket we buy with the caveat that we win precisely the same amount of money we played.

[KiaKaha]

I think that it will take a much longer time yet for Lo-Carb to become acceptable/ more mainstream.

Obesity will be blamed on our obesegenic environment/lifestyle (the difference in the way we live now and that of our parents generation) and lets face it - that is significantly different and at least in part responsible for the obesity epidemic.

I keep thinking of the Al Gore film where he talks about the very active disinformation and lobbying undertaken by cigarette companies in the late 60's and 70's and the ad where the Doctor is smoking to show how safe it is.

Those with billions to lose will pull out all the stops to protect their revenue source. Science will provide a vehicle for them to continue to confuse everyone - these days it is so easy to undertake credible research which will show only what you want it to eg: looking at only 2 factors when 10 factors are involved.

The reason there are no long term studies are that most doctors are too scared to run the studies longer term because they know they are flying in the face of the medical establishment. What if a few of the subjects had heart attacks?? The establishment would be down on them like a ton of bricks and their careers would be over. (We had a local diabetes doctor who trialled Atkins with 4 patients with great results but he only ran the trial for six months because "I wasnt sure that it was healthy for them to under take this way of eating longer term").

It was considered controversial that he even trialed the diet.

The other reason that there is no long term evidence is because so many of us are sneaking around lo-carbing behind our Doctors backs because we all wait until 3 or 6 months in and good lab results and weight loss before we announce - "Actually I've been Lo Carbing'.

[bsheets]

You know, about a dozen years ago I started a hobby where the whole assumption going in was that there was this special hokey-pokey you had to do in order for things to work. It was complex. It was trademarked. It was expensive. Only select gurus had the answers.
Sounds a bit like Scientology lol :o

M Levac, that was a FANTASTIC post about addiction. Thank you! I had been comparing it in my mind to an experiment done on mice and addiction but could never put it into words properly. Thanks!

[mike_d]

Equally alarming, these foods, along with the caffeine and artificial sweetener, deplete serotonin, a major neurotransmitter that governs carbohydrate cravings and satiety, along with mood, sleep, etc."A good start, I don't know where the above speculation came from?

My brother watches FOX, maybe he will see it? The basic theme is sound, I hope people notice.

I think the fact "Americans are heavier than ever" is mostly due to fast food, snack foods and soda pop combined with inactivity. Few follow the pyramid and those that do would need to exercise and use strict portion control to maintain their weight for life.

O.K, I am off to golf practice :)Beautifully, Phoenix explains it in simplistic form.

She also discussed a lot about the deception of the diet, weight loss, and food industry. The truth of it is, that nearly everything you hear that is sugar-free, helps you lose weight, or is suppose to make you feel good is a big fat lie. If you think the government or special organizations are protecting you, then you would be sadly mistaken.

The whole point of the book is to empower you to give you the knowledge you need to help control your life. It is not about profit, but it is about passion and inspiration. It is for this reason I highly recommend you read it. Though it probably never will be a best-seller, it is books like this one that more and more people in this country need to read. You can get a autographed copy of book by going directly to her website www.DietFailureTheNakedTruth.comHe's probably right, it won't be well received because its not what people want to hear.

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/goodform/entries/2007/02/05/the_naked_truth_to_diet_failur.html

[seektruth]

Dear One and All:

It was wonderful to see my press release on here, more so, that it generated such great feedback. Thank you! It's equally inspiring to see that there are so many people who are aware of the "low-fat myth," and its many health risks.

However, to MizzKitty, who felt I was simply promoting my book, not at all. In case you're not aware, while anyone can write a press release, they tend to be far better received by the media, and public, when they're backed with some level of expertise, credentials, etc. In all modesty, as a critically acclaimed researcher and yes, author, international author, it was imperative that all such titles, books, etc., were listed. My goal? To EDUCATE. To INSPIRE. To MOTIVATE. To MAKE A DIFFERENCE. And reading my book, to bring mass awareness to far more than just the risk of the low-fat myth, is merely the beginning of what my work offers.

So please, before you judge...

Best Wishes,


Phoenix Gilman
Author: diet failure...the Naked Truth
dietfailurethenakedtruth.com

[LessLiz]

Would you care to share with us the titles of your published, peer-reviewed research? I've tried to find them after reading Regina's initial post and have been unable to find any.

[Rose1942]

Yes, but that's not low-fat's fault that obesity rates are climbing. We obese people are just getting lazier and more weak-willed, oh, and playing too many video games and using our cars too much. ;)

Right! And we diabetic people got sick because we ate too many candy bars, it wasn't the low fat diet's fault cuz that's very healthy!

[Nancy LC]

So what exactly does one have to do to earn the title "researcher". Research? I do that every day. I think most of us do.

Hello Fellow Researchers!

Please don't be formal, just call me Researcher Nancy.

[MizKitty]

So please, before you judge...

I don't believe my comment expressing doubt that this article would make "medical and scientific communities open their eyes to this information" was meant to be a judgement of you. More so the stubborness of the medical and scientific communities. You have every right to promote your book. The more ways the word is out there, the better.

[NorthPeace]

Over the past few decades, American consumption of calories, fat and carbohydrates has been increasing while protein consumption has been fairly stable. Fat consumption is only declining as a percentage of total calories. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf Table 72

Over the past few decades, American consumption of calories, fat, carbohydrates and protein has been increasing and they are retaining the same percentage of calories. http://www.fao.org/statistics/yearbook/vol_1_1/xls/d01.xls

I agree that for most low fat is not the road to good health but it appears the total calorie consumption is more the issue.