.jpg)
Last Week I had the pleasure of interviewing Tom Naughton. Naughton is a health writer, filmmaker, and comedian who earlier this year released a documentary called Fat head, an entertaining and informative piece of cinema guaranteed to irritate the Morgan Spurlocks of the world. Part 1 of our interview appeared here on Thursday. Today Tom answers a few more questions about his documentary, discussing the health and science issues raised in Fat Head as well as the relationship between science and government.
How were you able to eat a diet consisting only of fast food yet lose weight and improve your health?
I lost weight because I ignored the standard nutrition advice, which is to eat a low-fat diet. Low-fat diets are nearly always high-carbohydrate diets, and it’s carbohydrates that make you fat. Carbohydrates turn to sugar in your blood, and your body releases insulin to keep your blood sugar from spiraling out of control. The scientific evidence is very clear that insulin encourages your body to store fat, which just makes you hungrier because your fuel is getting put into storage. It’s no accident that the rise in obesity began around the same time the so-called experts began telling everyone to cut back on fat and eat more carbohydrates.
Why are the majority of experts wrong when they tell you to eat a low-fat diet?
The whole rationale behind low-fat diets is that eating fat causes heart disease and cancer. That simply isn’t true. What we now call the Lipid Hypothesis was proposed and promoted by an arrogant researcher named Ancel Keys, who cherry-picked and manipulated his data. Unfortunately, he ended up on the board of the American Heart Association, which adopted his theory. Then the FDA and USDA also started pushing low-fat diets, even though there was no good scientific evidence to support them.
Researchers are still battling it out, but all you have to do is look at our history. A hundred years ago, we ate a lot more saturated fat than we do now. People cooked with tallow or lard, they ate more red meat, and they consumed a lot more cream and butter. Heart disease was almost unheard of back then. Doctors didn’t even learn about heart disease in medical school because it was so rare. When heart-disease rates began to skyrocket after World War II, people were consuming less animal fat, not more. But they were also consuming a lot more vegetable oils and eating way more sugar. When you think about it, it’s stupid to blame modern diseases on ancient foods.
In general, do you think it’s problematic that the government funds health and science research?
That’s a tricky one. We are all suspicious – and should be – when industry funds research. We know they have an agenda. The trouble is, so does the government. The USDA’s mission isn’t to make us healthy; it’s to sell grains. The relationships between government researchers and industry are also very incestuous. You’ve got researchers for the NIH or FDA making more money on the side through consulting contracts with food and drug manufacturers than they’re paid for their official duties. When the National Cholesterol Education Campaign announced that everyone should have a cholesterol level below 200, most of the scientists on the committee that wrote those guidelines had contracts with the makers of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Isn’t it convenient that the guidelines they wrote created millions of new customers for those drugs? But when people see a headline that a government study says this or that, they think they’re seeing objective, unbiased research.
Did Morgan Spurlock ever respond to your film?
No, but I’m not sure he’s seen it, either. A friend of a friend of mine met him at some nutrition conference and told him about it, so I guess he at least knows the film exists. A guy who owns some McDonald’s franchises in California tried to set up a debate when Spurlock was coming to town for some event, but nothing came of it. Too bad. I think it would be great fun to debate him.
Did you know there aren’t any mcnuggets on a chicken? (Sorry, but I had to ask)
I tried feeling the underside of a chicken once to find the mcnuggets. That wasn’t a good idea.
Comments
Be careful about the claims you make. Doctors didn't know about heart disease in the 1800s because people always died before then, and many people died of the simple diagnosis "old age". With the massive increases in eldery, you have a much higher incidence in diseases of old age versus smallpox or cholera. There is insufficient evidence to link lifespan to diet.
Don't make unsupported health claims, otherwise you are no better than the health nuts.
Actually, Ben, all diseases of old age have increased dramatically because the average age of death is 78 years. Thus, all dramatic claims of disease causes pale in comparison to "old age". Old age is the singe most important variable in any statistical analysis of cancer, heart disease and the other major causes of death. Yes, even suicide.
Eat what you want, you'll die from something anyway, and chances are better than 50/50 that it will be in your 80s.
Judging by the archaeology, my ancestors lived off venison, mussels and hazelnuts. Yummy.
Always glad to see Tom Naughton get some press. "Fat Head" got me started on a journey completely changed my mind on good and bad foods. The low-fat, high-carb lifestyle is the lie that has been repeated so many times most of us believe it. Comments like Devo's "Eat what you want, you'll die from something anyway" add little value to the conversation. Doctors can keep unhealthy people alive a lot longer. So if you want to live a long, unhealthy life eat anything you want. If you want to live a healthy life-whether you die young or old--then watch Naughton's film and read Gary Taubes' book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories." Then, again, you're going to die anyway so why bother reading or trying to get better?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!