« Making Sense with Sam Harris

#74 — What Should We Eat?

2017-05-06 | 🔗

In this episode of the Making Sense podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Gary Taubes about his career as a science journalist, the difficulty of studying nutrition and public health scientifically, the growing epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the role of hormones in weight gain, the controversies surrounding his work, and other topics. 

SUBSCRIBE to listen to the rest of this episode and gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/subscribe.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Today I have Gary Tabs, carries the author of three fairly recent books on nutrition, good calories, ban calories why we get fat and, most recently the case again. Sugar is a former staff rider for discover a correspondent for the scientific journal. Science has In his appeared in the New York Times magazine the Atlantic Esquire here colluded in numerous best of anthology is including the best of american science. Writing two thousand ten received many awards and has become fairly controversial for the very strong position he has taken on diet and human health and the degree to which he has criticised the field of nutrition science. He has the Knox and and bruises to show.
For having courted such controversy, but we had a very interesting conversation and is one that may actually influence how you eat and what you feed your kids, and now I bring you Harry Tabs here with Gary Tab. Scary, thanks for coming on the past. Thank you, SAM pleasure, to be here. So let s start with your background. As a journalist, I think many people are familiar with you, but you you have a long background as a science journalist and Eve now focused of late on the science and pseudoscience of nutrition, and you ve spent three books on this. You rewrote good calories, bad calories, which was a very large and very will foot noted book, and then you
you wrote out why we get fat and now the case against sugar and all of these are are honing in on the same thesis essentially and making it more accessible to readers. These books were born of a of at least one very controversial article that was, I think, was in the New York Times magazine. How have you approach you're writing career thus far and what's caused you to focus on nutrition to this degree. When I started my journalism, career II started as mentioned as a science writer. My background was in physics. I was naturally going to focus on physics and my first two books. My first book, I lived at CERN the Big Physics LAB outside Geneva and it was embedded with a research collaboration of physicists who, over the course of the
and months I was living with them, basically discovered non existent elementary particles and then realize slowly their mistake and then, by the time I leaped to write the book were willing to publicly acknowledge but they had screwed up, and then this led me He too kind of obsession and fascination with this question of how to do science right with his excruciatingly difficult and how easy it is to get the wrong answer on. So I did a series of investigation. Spoke for Discover magazine and then my second book was on this scientific fiasco fusion, I always saucer. I actually wrote routed hoping it would be a case study that every young researcher would have to read before they engage in a research career cause. It was based
about how making an error of any magnitude could ruin your career and a functioning scientific environment. Just remind me: what was they called fusion? and all was it. Was it a conscious fraud on some level, or was it just a mistake? I concluded for the most part that it was just a mistake, but it was a mistake that it is the researchers involved at the University of Utah clearly made up data which in a year is technically misconduct, its technically fraud, but the reason they made up the data is because there incorrect discovery was being stolen from them by a physicist down the road at Brigham Young University, stealing fiction, that's nuts, fantastic funny. I still there is still an option out on my called fusion book.
I now very successful Hollywood director who sees it as a wonderful comedic story about science, but if you think you ve discovered something in it, premature data and then somebody who should know is stealing it from you. Then that sir seems to be compelled evidence had must be real, but now you don't have an updated to actually publisher on paper to them. What do you do and what they did was made on? So technically was fraud, but I d they they were such idiots on some level that is even harder to say whether they knew they were doing something wrong when they did, then crazy story January. That led me. I had a lot of friends in the physics community after during these two books, a lot of physicists, who saw me as a kind of investigative journalist had they could point at the subject that they that smelled suspicious to them and kind of pull the trigger, and I would go investigated and
So several of these physicists suggested in the early nineties that I get in to looking at the science and public health because they thought it was tat. Born. Indeed, it was everything I had learned from these brilliant experimental scientists in the eighties that was required, not everything but most things that they considered required to do. Science right and minimize the possibility that your falling yourself, who is considered is considered kind of luxuries in the field of public health issues too hard to it's too expensive to do with your systems, human beings living in the real world or some messy so rather than acknowledge that they can't establish reliable knowledge. What the community kind of dead on
mass unconscious decision. This lowered the standards that they would use to establish cause Halliday onto that makes statements about what is it is not the healthy diet, which is your ended up focusing on some by delayed nineties. I was writing these investigations for science. First, on this issue of whether sought com, high blood pressure, which seems to be common knowledge and the basis of dietary advice for nineteen eighties him do you look at the evidence is just not there. The noise God told you personally, that taught. Could I noise tunes? I say that I'm stepping into
dangerous ground, but less cod tell you perfect personally that sword caused high blood pressure had never conclude that from the evidence from the randomized controlled trials. This is really just one of the great scandals of science at this point that there is still so much confusion about what constitutes a healthy diet and celebrate I just imagine I want to see a cardiologist today and I told him that AIDS, you know every day for breath, Ass, a ball abode meal and drank a glass of orange juice, say some: number of cardiologist, a significant percentage would say. That's great bravo, some would. Probably. Say I'm living on the edge, and I think you would probably say I'm living on the edge and can Firstly, if I said I ate a plate of eggs and bacon every morning many cardiologist certainly most would say that I am attempting to slow suicide, whereas some would say that is optimal right. So it's just. How is it that way
the situation we were getting ready to colony Eyes Mars and We cannot agree about what would be healthy food to take for the trip. Just is a crazy situation phone it it's worse than that, because this situation exists in the midst of an unprecedented epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Righto, a third over a third of the population, is considered clinically obese, two thirds overweight, something like. Almost ten percent, almost one in ten Americans are diabetic, could disease that was vanishingly rare just a hundred and twenty years ago. So you would think right that beset by the epidemic there would be, we won't be able to cross the street. Nor neighbourhood took up tripping over some scientific committee trying to figure out what we
it wrong, but we don't understand about the nature of a healthy diet and instead, this sort of placid acceptance that, while people just poorly and we tell them how d ye than we are telling how to eat for fifty years and nobody lessons and everyone goes to Mc Donaldson, Taco Bell and that's the cause of the epidemic and that's what makes us fat and yet a crazy situation. I mean I've been stuck in the middle of that because I am one of these people who think you'd be healthier, create the bacon and eggs. I often describe myself as the kind of person who believes had bacon and butter, our health foods, and at least, if I'm killing myself on a die relatively happy, knock on I'm talking to you, I'm about God, and the fact that I'm superstitious and the first five minutes as a right of his knees are probably say: God bless you.
As I in the brain. Ok then, Oh yeah. I've tried to document, as I do from my first book: good calories, bad calories, one time so that the two investigations I did for you. Its first on sovereign blood pressure on them on this believed that low fat diet is a healthy diet. Those led me to then infamous New York Times magazine cover story. One of I'm in a big fat lie, and by that point I was pretty confident that the science of nutrition was terminated. It's that you put it to pseudoscience of nutrition. It's not a function. Science is the scientists that I knew what I would call it, and so the I spent the next years of my life investigating and trying to figure out what other mistakes have been made, where the mistakes might have been made
what you have to do to fix it. But then that puts me in the position of being a journalist saying all the authorities are wrong and while the doctors, you could go to the different cardiologists cardiologists in your neighborhood, my death in this Graham Watson, I healthy died in nutrition community that the influential nutritionists for the most part all agree and it reflected in the public health guidelines. Us talk about your basic thesis here. So what is your criticism of the current state of conventional wisdom? And what are you actually think is the Our truth of what we now have good reason to believe is healthy to eat. Okay, so there there are three more or less fundamental pillars: a bond nutrition science.
Regarding a healthy diet regarding what we should in a day to day level to be healthy, so the most fundamental is this idea that we get fact has read too many calories, the technical terminal, gee forward, because people need a technical terminology when they have a particularly stupid idea. Is the energy balance hypothesis assessor theory about be sitting in your fee articles. I just downloaded one today that was a working group report from the international agency for research on cancer and the ideas of bees. These and energy balance disorder. You taken more calories in you, expand you get fat. Are that sort of the basis of everything because it nutrition memory knows and once you get fat or as you get more obese you or increase your risk of diabetes and heart disease and cancer, foreign gown, all these other diseases. So if you want to prevent that from happening,
we want to minimize Europe's first thing to do is you're supposed to balance your calories into your calories out and it turns When you look at the literature, you go back that an idea. They came out of nutrition science from the eighty seven these to the nineteen twenty, so modern nutrition science actually dates to the late. Eighty sixtys, when german researchers created devices, Calorimeter is room size devices. I can measure the energy expenditure of humans or animals subjects living in these rooms so you can measure the energy content of food by burning them and burning the food was caught him, cholera. Men are now you can measure the energy expenditure of humans and dogs and the researchers start doing this. The same time that other researchers are working out, the laws of thermodynamics and concluding that the laws come on dynamics, hole for animals as well as inanimate objects, and
ivy early 1900s. Nineteen hundred. You have a theory of obesity that its cause by consuming more energy than you expand, because that's all the research community could measure. So the idea is that the way foods influence our weight is through there Laura content only and there's this idea that phrase you ve heard a cow is calories calorie because calorie approach in a calorie of carbohydrates and calorie fat all brings the same amount of energy into your body. But the problem is that belief system is technology dependent in oh, if all you can to measure is yet be content of food. Then you come up with a hypothesis at the energy content to food determines your way. I'm beginning around nineteen twenty, the science the chronology, Hormones and hormone related diseases begins to crow and mature its pioneer in Germany and Austria, and the joy
means and Austrians come to this conclusion that clearly obesity, it's gotta be a hormonal regulatory defect. Go they look at. Like men and women fat indifferent, my men found above the ways woman found below the waste, so sex hormones have to be involved right when poison girls go through puberty boys lose weight and lose fan gain morsel. Girls gain fan gain in very specific places. Here they gotta be hormonal control of fat accumulation at the american scientists who began to dawn to feel nor first, how they just in understand they weren't scientists are doctors who didn't understand and the chronology. They were wedded to this idea that fat people to see too much they
saw. A hormonal explanation for obesity is an excuse for fat, people remain sort of gluttons and slots, and they talked about it. You can see in the letter turn articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association and nineteen twenty five one, whoever wrote I can guarantee. You ever wrote that art I didn't have a clue. What endocrinology was is arguing that obesity is in a hormonal disorder and then again The Germans and Austrians are arguing. Clearly it's gotta be just that you cannot explain. Anything meaningful about obesity by this energy conception. Let me just ask a few questions heard. It took a bound, the the how'd. You know far reaching your claims are here because you you're not disputing thermodynamics. Now I assume so that got affixed grey or not. Rightly, are you you'd be a far more famous than you are if he were disputing credibly? So I met
and you would admit that on some level you gain weight because of a surplus of calories differences. If I were going to eat. You know fifteen thousand extra, calories a day. It wouldn't matter if those were extra, carb fat or protein calories. If I was at that, surplus day in day out. I'm gonna just keep gaining wait right yeah, although actually it might matter, I'm you might, but again it depends how you define access. Let's use a metaphor, an analogy to help understand. Let's say instead of thinking in terms of excess weight, we're talking about access, moderate your wealth instead about basically ok, so now, clearly, you can't get rich without making more money than you spend right, but you would never say that you got rich because you made more money than you spent there. There certainly degrees of of of that decision
parity and end where, where you put the line, is a judgment call, but it's not just out of where you put the cause Halliday because again to get rich, you have to make more money than you spend that, given in other words conservation of money- and you say unless you are counterfeit or dislike- there's council basin of energy so to get fat and means you're, taking and more energy than your expanding. But you might get fat because France and I can give you a drug that makes your fat tissue accumulate fat What you're saying clearly is that there is more to the story so that an claiming that it and as you went to cause as soon as you say, again, we'd never do there. Any other field think about climate issues, climate change than example. Clearly, if the atmosphere is heating up it's taking in more energy than it expands Ryan. Otherwise, it You are right, but the question is: why is it taking in more energy than expands? One possibility is, at the Sun s heat
up to now we're getting more energy from the atmosphere, but we're pretty confident that's not happen. I wrote another possibility, I'd, be that we actually ever, I hate trapping phenomenon going on in the atmosphere in theory which I believe for the most part on, and so the fact that, amateurs taking in more energy than an expense and lets It is irrelevant when we want to know, is why its energy being trapped in certain areas, the atmosphere? Why did certain frequencies of white get trapped and not others? Why do certain molecules, trap hate me atmosphere and not others know. What's a source of those molecules, you could think of it as a heap trapping problem right then you don't think about How much is going in around you don't care about that. Even though clearly more it's coming, and you know, you could think that if you're getting richer, your bank account is accumulating money.
Yes, but if I, if I suddenly, I again to take the wealth case, if I suddenly told you that I am now to spend ten times. More than iron- and I am committed to doing that- you can predict that If I live long enough under this regime, I'm going to go broke, and so are you you're not disputing that basic picture? There's nothing magical here about the hormones. Yet I think you're saying that the difference between r r macro nutrients and how they interact with the end occurrences, brings many other variables into play, including things like a person's level of appetite, a person's level of of of involuntary energy expenditure. Not, but there are things happening right here in Yemen, you're still thinking in terms of the fat mass being fundamentally,
Controlled by how much people we next or size by in take an expenditure and what I'm saying so think of Le Two's children's growth as an example. Ok, now we could start a child can do this as an experiment and stunted growth. Ok, clearly happens and famines all the time, but we would never say the child grows, because each a lot of food having a lot of food available certainly allows growth to happen, but the growth is pretty much food. Independent are not protein independence, so different macro trains have different effects, but if we were talking about growth, so again we could look at the boys and girls going through puberty. Isn't ample they're, both getting bigger right, they're, both getting heavy, or so we know they're taking in more calories and they expand, because that's what the laws of thermodynamics tell us, but the boys lose.
And the girl and gain muscle and the girls gain fat so now the fact that their taking and more how reason they expand is irrelevant to understanding wrote why the boys lost fan gained muscle why the girls gained fat and where the girls gain FAC has done happen everywhere right. So there are other examples, come to mind her friend, since you wouldn't say, of the growth of cancer tumors that that's best explained by a surplus of cow, as I said, is that other is that it is more to the story was not there not just sit. There is more to the story, but if you oh, if you think of it like you, could think of can as a color energy balance falling is clearly the tumors are growing and if you needed to push the analogy and I've got slides to this effect that I use until you can find examples of like benign tumors masses are wait. Fifty pounds hundred bounds, you know so still, you wouldn't think committed an energy balance
the sword or despite the fact that whoever had bad fifty pound or hundred pound benign mass had to take in enough energy to create the tumor and, if you thought about is an energy balance disorder. You would not understand the ideology of that Mass wrote. So what is the ideology? In your view? of the obesity apple, So what happens in the sixties? However, this is only one of the fundamental pillars, so we stopped to mourn criteria. Endocrinology is and to be understood in the nineteen twenties on some profound landmines ones discovered growth hormone was discovered, other hormones are discussed
third, german austrian occupation, the Germans Austrians arguing that the obesity is clearly a hormonal regulatory defect and that discussing in terms of energy balance is meaningless because it began its like discussing the puberty issue, which was one of the examples that used in the literature day more war, comes around the german austrian school evaporate and I did a lingua franca, medicine switches from German to English and postwar the science of obesity is in fact very created by young nutritionist. And doctors at Thou, Harvard School, a public health and elsewhere have no clinical experience with obesity and just embrace this energy balance. Ideas now clearly fat people just eat too much
Yet we know this because I know a fat person and eat a lot. That's about the depth of the thinking and by the nineteenth sixties, obesity is considered and eating disorder and its studied primarily by psychologists and psychiatrists, The nineteen sixty couple of researchers in New York creates and called the radio Munich, hey that allows you to measure hormones and the bloodstream. For the first time, accurate one of em, later Windsor Nobel Prize for the work and the nineteen sixty seein explode. In the field of endocrinology and by nineteen sixty five, its clear that fat accumulation and fat is is primarily regulated by the hormone insulin, Genesis, conventional wisdom. You could look in biochemistry books and Endocrinology textbooks today and they'll. Tell you this Same thing so remind people which is what is the role of insulin, so regulating fats, George to rethink
events one is the hormone that's effective in diabetes and type one diabetes, which is the acute form that you we had in childhood. Your pancreas doesn't thus create enough insolent or doesn't secrete, Annie and in type two diabetes, which is the very common form. Ninety five percent of all cases and associates with excess an age. Patients actually begin as what it's called insulin resistance, so their pancreas secrete, insolent in response to their diet and the insulin, regulate controls or blood sugar, but it doesn't do a good job of it, so they have to secrete more insolent. To keep their blood sugar control and they have elevated levels of insulin in their blood throughout the day. To my one thousand nine hundred and sixty five, it's clear,
that in turn not only tells you lean tissue, your muscle cells in your organs- to take up glucose carbohydrates that constitute your blood sugar to keep the blood sugar and control. They also tell your fat tissue to take up fat and hold onto fat so by nineteen sixty five- and one is being this I'd, including by the couple that created the radio amino acids and then can they. Rivalling gallo, the physicists and the pair later won the Nobel Prize. Her partner Solomon Burton pass the way, the alone births and are describing in one of the most lip organic hormone, meaning its fat forms that stimulates fad formation and the more insolent, more fat you're going to accumulate in the process one is that the field in general, so a few things happen first, while working,
Sessions read medical literature and they say to themselves look of insulin, stimulates fat formation and we secrete insulin response of the carbohydrate content, the die which we do. What happens if you just don't carbohydrates and in fact they find how can you have been to lose a lot of weight? And this is the basis of Genesis of the act and style and Atkins was a cardiologist in New York? Who read that literature and said you seem to me if I removed the carbs and replace it with fats or you too, high fat, dietary bacon, double cheeseburgers without the Bonn should lose weight because I'm going to lower and one by lower and solemn and mobilise fat from my bad tissue, and they write these very best selling diet, books and the medical community response.
The cardiology community response there beginning to believe the second pillar of the nutritional wisdom which set dietary fat causes heart disease. If dietary fat causes heart disease, Atkins is gonna, kill, more people than Hitler dead matter streaming. Sam well. But if this scares and I M so not only do they have to sort of beat down Atkins which they do with a kind of vicious critique Then the American hard to say no excuse me. No package was sir at which journal was John or the hard associate can journal, but the many shaded these diet, her quack, diet, their fair diet. They will kill people, Now when we talk about the nineties now I won't. Let us have. This is way back in the sixties, but Atkins became very prominent with his books. Much
later than that right now, nineteen his he started to become prominent in New York in the magazine world in the late nineteenth sixties, nineteen. Seventy three was when he publishes book, which is right around the time that this belief to dietary fat cost heart disease was jealous ass. Interesting to that, my awareness of Atkins came much later. They seem like those are surgeons of interest in his diet, and I was undeniably too that the MIT him too, thousand and two in the New York Times magazine, which was a kind of seen as an apology for Atkins. I basically said he might have gotten it right so that peace in the New York Times magazine kind of resurrection. Actions or or it was he d humming along this whole time. He was still around. He was still publishing books. People were still buying the books, but near my peace, more or less resurrected at than prompted Michael Paul
until then write his books in response to the lunacy. I'm anyone suggesting that all of America should be on something like an act and die in the yeah that was introduced. The original the problem happened the disconnect between what the science the evident said in the way the field embrace. That evidence happened in the nineteen sixties and ninety seven days. This is it. This is just to keep one clear here that you told us about the first and second pillar remind us what they are and, let's get to the third ale advantages. Trailer get his idea that that the obesity is an energy balance. Disorder is caused by taking and more calories and expands, rather and being hormonal regulatory disorder. Whether the this regulation is caused by the what foods you eat, rather than how much you so. Basically I can feed
foods and the ideas there easily digestible carbohydrates were fine, grained and shut hours and they will work to elevate your income levels by two different mechanisms, and once you're in some levels are elevated, you will store fat and if you're losing calories into your fats Alex now. Some of what you are you reading is being trapped as fad round. The news for energy, then turn will make you hungry, are in your way more humane and exercise less, but the primary effect of these foods is to make your fat tissue expand and there came a late. Calories is fat, some literally fattening independent of their color content and other foods are literally not fattening independent of color content because, as you return to the first pillar,
yeah, and that's and I can document- and I have documented again where this hormonal regulatory disorder hypothesis died, but literally nine forty one and how the energy balance hypothesis, what the Europeans called the energy can caption took over in the: U S and dominate in the field and then the nineteen Seventys is in which interesting about funk fields of science create paradigms in paradigm shift. When the fields were small and maybe a half dozen individuals can determine what's good science and what not. What has to be known. What's inconsistent, what experiments have to be done? Your friend since in the revolution and molecular biology? It happens in the nineteen fifty ease and it sooner Francis crack. James Watt and half a dozen other people
who made their revolution happen? And if you remove Francis crack, you get no understanding of dna and then the same thing theoretical physics. You could remove. One says Julian Swinger and we don't have a standard model as we have today in obesity, they had the same half dozen people, these guys just and know how to do. Science ages, war Smart, it's like just like. If you have bad plumbers, we have bad scientists out there and these guys dominated the field, the nineteenth seventies and they didn't like the idea that a low cost Oh high fat Daya was a preventive way to prevent or treat obesity because they thought high fat would cause heart disease and they sought that people get fat cause aid too much so high fat causes harm
diseases. The second pillar gave a second pillar, so what they did is they just removed? And again you can see this in the textbooks and conference proceedings. They said because we don't like them locations of the under chronology, we are going to decide that endocrinology has no influence on obesity we're just gonna kind of remove it from the literature to the point that in two months ago the new internal medicine publishes an article on the path of physiology of obesity, path of physiology and mechanisms of obesity, which is a disorder, vexes fat accumulation, and there is Europe discussion in the article on the hormones and enzymes that actually regulate fat accumulation. It's not considered relevant. So I want to get too were how you explain that budget item. One leave your the structure of your thesis hang in here. So what what's the third pillar and the third pillar and then
beside deal that we should all eat mostly plant diet. So the second is again dietary fact causes heart disease than specifically saturated fan. Saturated fat is associated with the get that significant part of the central defend. A diet comes from animal products. Therefore, animal products cause harm to seize and, out of this week, this idea that we should always mostly plant diets had populations? Are individuals had eat, mostly plants or all plant based? I it's her healthier than people are. The men turn is based on this field of observation of epidemiology the Mediterranean Diet and all the rest. So what is it to take the second pillar, for a second. How do we know that saturated fat in the diet? Isn't a problem? Isn't a problem generally in and in particular, isn't the primary source of cardio vascular,
disease will end on one level. You can't know for sure, so we have to leave that possibility out anyway. You can't all we could say is is likely to be a cause of heart disease or not so, and here's where the epidemiology comes into this is well back. The nineteen fix these researchers in the; U S primarily were entrusted and why their sole such high levels of heart disease, in the? U S and certain european countries, and not others, so what they basically did is had. Let's look at these populations and see what they eat And what they found that populations and had high levels of heart disease, a lot of saturated, tried, a famous study called the seven countries study done by answer keys at the University of Michigan, and so the population
That aid high levels of saturated fad like be who ass in the UK had high levels of heart disease and populations at eight high levels of unsaturated fats did not by Greece, hence the Mediterranean diet and their olive oil, and this is a kind of observational study that the question. Becomes. If you see that people in the? U s a lot of saturated fan, I'm part disease compared some other country. Does I mean they have heart disease because they it'll out of saturated fat? This is a question that you know it
can you you ve, got an association between saturated fat, consumption and heart disease, but that association holds logically. It holds no causal information. My mother used to say what does that have to do with the price of tea in China in allowances, sort just cause a price at tea. In China's growing up and heart disease gone up, we don't think, there's an association, their didn't. We don't think it's causal. Why would we think the saturated fat things causal? So the only way To know if the saturated FAT Association is cause all is to do randomize control trials, the basically to reign change, people's diets and see if you tell them to eat more saturated fat or
saturated fat will they have more or less heart disease compared to whatever they replace a diet, wealth and, as it turned out trial after trial, tried to pass the fat traded fat hypothesis and, for the most part, failed to confirm it. Just in defensive epidemiology, you can also find a population that is eating just as much saturated fat or perhaps even more but isn't eating. In this case sugar rice and see the correlation breaks down, as that has that in fact been found as well. Well and again, that's the kind of issues with you have with the level of scientific Imre was told to go into this field. Public health concern. My physics is friends, thought the science was terrible, so this famous seven countries study that that began to really shift our concern eating a mediterranean diet needing olive oil and Polly Unsaturated fat instead of saturated fat looked at seven countries
on the world. So the? U S in the? U K in Greece and ITALY and animal Blue scandinavian countries in Japan may have gotten that wrong. That suggested that the only interesting things are two countries right in the middle of Europe, own Teddy, very high, saturated fat, diet and him long, the highest life's man in the world, France and Switzerland. So you could just ass the question instead of picking for instance, Greece and ITALY, had they picked France in Switzerland, so I lived in Geneva year, the two national dishes are both cheese dishes do or something horrible contracts glad that you got it every cocktail party. You went him
clearly, these people were very high, saturated facto. Depending on what countries you pick, you can get very different answers as it turned out anti keys, investigate around that studied and pick France in Switzerland. They pick Greece and ITALY. This is the problem with those kind of observational studies, there's a host of problems, those kind of obsolete shall studies. I had another cover. Storing the New York Times magazine in two thousand and seven making that point where these studies are basically uninterpreted ball. So what you get instead are researchers with preconceptions, interpreting the answers to fit their preconceptions. In those two cases you picked out society, where I wouldn't expect the sugar consumption did. The especially low- is certainly not the refined, carbohydrate concise actually in France or things the handbag yet and chocolate as rapaciously as any people have ever been born.
Well, french sugar consumption is about a hundred years behind hours. So they were arguing about. Obviously not notoriously, but the sugar consumption. France was always about the thirty fifty percent of what hours was Switzerland. I can't say that I would assume it's the same or close, though how in fact the whole Mediterranean that people too, about the french paradox is actually a mediterranean paradox for all these countries. Spain, ITALY, Greece, all had relatively high fat diets, then, as you get into France and Switzerland to go further, nor that the fat becomes more saturated unless olive oil base, but they all had relatively low heart disease rates, and when you actually dig into this little turn
I was the first turn us to really do this. You, the one I remembered speaking one british epidemiologists to come richly from Australia. Any talk to him in the Austrian add the suit greek population than emigrated after world war. Two when Greece, whose maybe they moved her. The australian the bond lamb chops and fosters beer in their heart. Disease risk goes down until how do you explain and the question is, who knows you? Ve gotta do randomize control trials. You cannot establish cause and only times you can establish consolidation with epidemiology is when you have a phenomenon like cigarette smoking and lung cancer so you have exceedingly rare disease in non smokers and you could compare non smokers to smokers and you see twenty fold increase risk of lung cancer and smokers
first as non smokers and then the reason we believe its cause all is because you can think of how to explain it began to think I'm an alternative hypothesis, not that the cigarette industry didn't try, but you can't think of a viable alternative hypothesis other than cigarettes called lung cancer. And, of course, it makes eminent sense that clearly, if your drawing smoke into your lungs, you could imagine that that would cause lung cancer so makes biological sense. But these other effects, when that we based public health policy on a relatively tiny they're, not twenty fold increase risks were not three or four fold increase risk. They tend to be
you're, a twenty percent increase risk or fifty percent increase risk run, and that simply view you can imagine all too many things that could explain it. It seems to me you do make this argument, at least in the background, in your books, where you emphasised the correlation between the. I think what are called the diseases of western civilization, cardiovascular and peripheral, vascular and things like gout and there's a long list of things that seem to come with when a traditional culture suddenly gains access to In your case, the smoking gun is refine, carbohydrates and especially sugar, Shanghai. So you it seems that you aren't. You are talking about changes in populations, were you believe you show up among the into it you see that their eating nothing but whale blubber.
Our alot of whale blubber and no and they have no access to any refine carbohydrates and they don't exhibit these pathologies until you start giving them bags of doritos and soda. And they have all the pathologies that we notice in western societies. It isn't it isn't that part of your story that you're yet have other they show you stole. The science is about four hours define strongest for an hour and twenty years before I got around to reading Claude Bernards introduction to the study of experimental medicine when she wrote in eighteen sixty five and turn hard to science about explaining what we observe ultimately, science about explaining what we observe minutes, where I had never thought about that, but that you ve got observations, whether in the laboratory Their particle accelerators, her in nature and everything were trying to do is explain what the cause of those observations are
some new fundamental part, a cause been on some and again in the water supply. Is it who knows so the observation that led to this dietary fat hype is it we are lot heart disease in the? U S and then point. What I learned doing my research and when I should have brought back from obscurity, is that, while U S, research were focusing on that. There was a sort of school and british research the British had in his van admission are colonial hospitals scattered All over the world to research would be trained in the UK or in Europe, and then they would go work in Botswana, land or some south, but if a guy lender Australia treating aborigines
wherever they were, they would document report. This then affect epidemic of obesity, diabetes, western diseases, hypertension, heart disease, cancer. They would all increase in prevalence and, in some cases, explode in prevalent as these populations all around the world became western eyes and then the question is: what is it about Western diet that leads to this explosion of disease is in. This is conventional wisdom. In the end, Michael Pollan with him, I disagree on two of the three of his. You know that his mantra eat food, mostly plants, not too much. Go basically builds his argument from the same data that same observation, and that's when you have. If you try to explain that then you're asking the question: what is it that western diet, bring to these populations. So you agree with him that we should eat food, but I agree with you and I
sure about the plant part or the not too much part yeah, that's plant, I'm not too sure about men, not too much. I think is meaningless. It's based on the assumption that you get fat if you eat too much, but then you can't define what too much is except just to go back to thermodynamics for a second, you would agree that whatever macro nutrient or or food, you thought was blameless. Let's say you know a stake if I e fifteen thousand calories of stake as impossible, that may be in practice, I'm going to get fat unless I burn fifty thousand one galleries. Well, I had a question is again we're going to get back cuz. This is the area that so fascinating. Let's look at it a different way. Just again, I'm saying you could eat which isn't going to be difficult. You could eat a two thousand calories of steak a day plus a thousand calories of green vegetables or three thousand calories total
might be a little bit sound a little excessive or you could eat three thousand calories, which say: one thousand stake. Five hundred is mashed potato, five hundred is orange juice and a thousand green vegetables. So they both three thousand gallery diet. One will make you fat one wrong. That's a good ground truth to the actor that that show its again. It's not, then it is true. If you could force yourself actually is, and in turn back in the sixties, there was a study done, I'm full of this useless knowledge. Ethan Femmes, I think, was fires Forgetteth murmur to New Hampshire Data Study, where he tried to overfeed convicts to force them to gain. Twenty percent of the weight of first say tried with basically actions like dying. They couldn't get
the convicts to eat it. So your hypothetical, if I ate fifteen, thousand calories of stake in this situation, they couldn't get the convicts eat fifteenth or even eight thousand. Our seven thousand they talked about. I interviewed all the various investigators who were still a hive and they talked about seeing ladys convict sitting there with a plate of pork chops in front of him just refusing the ito that goes. One of the Erika confounding variables here, because what you eat. Or hormonal reasons, but probably also just for other reasons, that we can't totally explain, changes your consumption behaviour because some of the certain things you'd, no matter how much you like them, you're, never gonna, binge on those foodstuffs and stake is one of the whole. But then the question is: can you disassociate the effect on fad mass from the effect on appetite? So if you
fat won't, take up the calories and store. So again what happens when you start eating before you start eating? You start to creating insulin. It's called this. A phallic phase, insulin, response, phallic means above the head, so you think about eating, or you want your commercial use starts at creating it because in some kind of an engineering problem in order friends when to control your blood sugar, who doesn't get too high, it's gotta, be in your bloodstream before you eat,. I mean you can do this is in itself experiment. You can actually I'm just walk down to your kitchen. Think about you, don't pick a time when you don't think your hungry held in Cairo knows, walked down to your kitchen and think about some sweet food. You like and suddenly find this urge that you're getting hungrier, that's most likely the symbolic bays insulin release, and then that starts basically telling you you're lean tissue to take a blow
sugar in your fat tissue to store calories is fat and that you can think of is emptying your circulation of nutrients, which actually works to make you hungry? Are so that the French have a phrase at the appetite begins with the meal and again you can think of that all the times you sit down to eat or if you have children you can actually watch had happened. Your kids will say: they're, not hungry, and even its function of an appetizer in a meal is still literally give you fool, I'm going to make you hungry and again these are the things a lot of the best work on. This was actually done by a brilliant french physiologists named on chocolate, Magnin who happened to be blind I'm here Encephalitis Satellite, a youth and and gone blind till we started his research tat. He was fascinated by smell, based odor base phenomena and then move
then to studying hunger and appetite the yes. So the point is we have a tendency in the research community has a tendency to think that their some concept, cod, like ability are hyper palatability your food reward that could be dissociated from the actual physiological effects of the food in the body and you I've been stuck in this position position towards I'm trying to be economically correct, these fundamental pillars, beginning with this energy balance misconception. It means you can just tell them your tearing down the foundation of a house of cards. You can't the rest of the foundation comes down with the rest of the house. Comes down weapon
and then you kind of have to rebuild the science from their it's one of the reasons why I never succeed at this, because the world is full of scientists who very existence is based studying phenomenon that I would say a misconceived because of this belief that somebody deterrent and anyone who studying obesity, whose studying hunger has to be doing it in terms of physiological phenomenon that might stimulate hunger than that. These phenomena that occur below them And again their lot of fields of science in which this research was being dawn, that's how I love We are. One of the areas had led me to my conclusions is sort of field after field. After field, you would find the researchers coming to the same conclusions. Again that obesity, hormonal regulatory defect, like if your studying fat accumulation and animals you're not really king, about how much bead max your size, you weren't you thinking about.
How to the there hormonal status effect fat accumulation, even if their livestock scientists think in terms of you know hormones, and they may know that animals. If they can make animals fatter, they will eat more, but they think in terms of what to regulating their fat tick. Not in terms of whether the you they can make a mean again and you can clearly make animals fat or by keeping them summit sedentary in force, feeding them, but that's just driving pushing to the extreme natural phenomena were trying to understand to understand phenomena. Take me back to the New York Times magazine article one it will you first exposed your interest. I think it in this topic. How controversial has this been? How controversial as that and how controversial Is your work currently because ivy, when I announced your coming upon cast, I started to receive some your hate mail
and I am obviously quite familiar hate mail, and I I I strongly doubt Yet more than my last gas, Charles Murray So I hope not no stranger to controversy on the pot gas, but people hit me with a few of your critics. There was this, I think, he's a neural biologists desk. Fine dna, the who wrote a review of the Euro on his website, and then I saw your response to that which seem good to me and then was another skirmish, you were they in an age researcher Kevin All who did air metabolic Ward study, which I think you funded, Then, here might not for profit funded Right Tom at the level of costs. Diversey in that, and I want to. I wanna, hear your experience, but then I want you to prop up what you think are the best criticisms of the state of your knowledge. Thus far
and what, in what questions remain to be answered with a let's talk about the big issue which is And I want to do this coup sooth very relevant to what you do. A journalist comes along and basically makes us claims that we start with the New York Times magazine article, which was again whether it was seen as an app allergic to Atkins ARM, I had Atkins in the original version buried in the buried deep in the article and of the additives. At the time who were to animals, you go language correct again, it is recognised. A great controversy when I saw they said, did put actions and lead, and I wrote this lead about. If the american Medical Association community Hadda, find yourself standing make night Marian Times Square, would be finding out that you know. Dietary fat doesn't cause heart disease.
Maybe Robert Atkins was right or both simultaneously, I get the exact wording. I read it to my wife and I said they won't run this in a million years, and I sent it into them and, of course, in change, work and covers image was of that article was meant to be a shocking as possible recently saw the editor Hugh a lingering about three months ago in New York, and you go tell me that that it was a rib I steak with, big, add a butter on, and they should they made sure they picked up. They got a photo that made the rib. I look his greasy and his unappetizing as humanly possible. And the headline is what a fat doesn't make you fat on so did the world was full of both journalists and Papa health authorities who had been arguing that dietary fat causes heart disease, that we should always low fat diet on. If I was right about what I was saying that article they were wrong and nobody
want to accept that they were wrong and some of those people, including other health and nutrition report for the Washington Post or the entire centre for science and the public interest. So these people, and even some of my friends who had ridden box, arguing that you know the basin They taken the conventional wisdom in obesity and and weight loss, diet, and so these people had to establish that indeed they weren't wrong and that I was wrong and They did in various fear, a major articles, and there was an interesting experience to be. I I knew this peace who's gonna be controversial. I had no idea that of how it was gonna play out, ended, never see it still doesn't ceased the surprise, I must be one of the most read articles they ve ever had in the magazine rent. I would think
own, probably one of the most, I think in a clearly in its top five most controversial all men may be the most controversial, but didn't have documented the factual errors in it? So here's the other issue that I write a book. I spent five years writing a book subject the book at one point I had a four hundred thousand word unfinished draft that my end our bless his hard read because our horror he had a can, we make it to books, which he said we couldn't I cut it in half. I end up about a hundred eighty thousand words, the hundred sixty pages of and notes doubly bibliography. Now imagine and I've said this people, imagine a journalist came along indeed more research than you could ever imagine and wrote a five hundred page Tom explaining that God exists.
Ok, Andy: you have friends who say that this guy did a pretty thoughtful job. Do you think you could read it and judge it fairly. I love you ask me: I would have a professional responsibility to read at this point. I would really was thought to be breaking new ground, but many people die of fairly well known phenomenon that people tend to silo themselves and not want to read something they are happy to not agree whether they had got unless it interesting, not everyone. Tell me that want to read it not be able to read. So I try to imagine reading such a book and I can't actually imagine and again you have a professional obligation and I, my mother was militant atheist. I was raised to be an atheist study.
What I am and how I think- and I can't I can't imagine after twenty or twenty five every paragraph, I'm going to be thinking what about this? What about that? Why didn't you say this? Of course it's not how you interpret it. I mean you know all these knee jerk responses and I'm simply not going to be able to do what the cognitive dissonance going to be soap around their right or wrong. I'm not gonna be able to get through that book, And then there's this tendency to just assume its crap and one of the jobs that I always considered from the time. My first book came out on the first book I did on this physics. Collaboration, which was called Nobel dreams, had gone off to Geneva right. What I thought was gonna be a book about a great discovery, and I turned out to write an exposure about the politics and sociology of high energy physics in
each. I was in part taking down this maki a valet and about laureate and a couple years have the book came out. A colleague of his a physicist met one of the chief researchers from this physics experiment Geneva Conference, and he asked me if he read my book in the sky via she liked the lot said term its crap, I haven't read it and I always considered my job to get the medical research community pass the its crap. I haven't read it stage because I think completely natural response to all of those whose all of us who job isn't
Yeah, I'm job obligation doesn't require that we have to read these bombs and I have myself I once told a very good friend. I actually became friends with further John Hoard and you might know when he wrote his book the end of science and I saw him at a conference, and I told him the story about its crap. I haven't read at nice: that's how I feel about your book. I feel that is crap and I have read it a twenty. I right now and I ve told John this. I now have to read it because I'm involved in a project- and I think I have the same, because maybe I was wrong. I'll take you are, you know, come but anyway, so that the issue you write a book like this. They feel that the journal, response in the fields its crap. I reckon I knew that enough to know that it wasn't actually writing for nutritionists and obesity Ray. I didn't think I could say anything that would change their minds:
any more than we can imagine Lee what would have to be in a book to make either one of us believe in God pop. But there are some important differences there and I think the analogy does breakdown, because what would have to be in that book, is not at all likely to be in that book. Given the way the universe is given what we know about the origin of specific religious doctrines, whereas when you're talking about nutrition, yo, you! You are talking about science, that is being on or been done and ignored, or is yet to be done or experiments that can be proposed and run and will change the state of our knowledge. In very short order, so they still is confounding ride. And a genuine mystery that we are as confused as we are about
to eat and then they are and that your claims you know, however, controversial could be so difficult to weekly, debunk bank or not, and that the acknowledgement of, though you know that the FAO the viability believe we are on of any one claim couldn't come very quickly from those who whose job it is to evaluate claims by now, and then the problem is that there is no point in someone's job become a value about what point the someone job become evaluate the claims of the journalist. Let me first there's gotta, be for all the people who hated the Atkins phenomenon and thought that it was dangerous if, in fact it was dangerous, it should be pretty easy to prove the ramping up. Saturated fat intake, all things being equal is bad.
For you must. So. This is what the basis the reason Adkins dominated, that New York Times magazine story that its story was. The assignment was, let's figure out what started the obesity epidemic speculate, because your beastly epidemic was relatively new news was localised and time as I was doing, that study that the research I came upon, five studies that had been done, which is exactly what you are talking about and they had been done. But not the publishers had been discussing com controls were, researchers had compared had randomized subjects, obese, overweight subjects to either Atkins Diet which you can eat as much as you want. High fat restrict the carbohydrate. Or an American Hard Association, low fat diet. Your calorie restricted. So one diet, you're reading double cheeseburgers bacon and eggs and bacon for breakfast, and all these things are supposed to kill you and as many calories
you would like the other diet is the one we were all on much our lives. You know a piece of Gladys with ice cream, scoop of chicken, salad, arab skinless, chicken brass with Saute Broccoli, something like provided it sorted without fact, anyway. In all these studies in this was what drove me to a conclusion: the actions diet. Not only did it led to more weight loss, despite being calorie, unrestricted would suggest, said, calories, dont, really matter. It also suggests that people are region. Society. So much earlier on that day, I d, just nameless NGO, That's the conventional thinking war, the they embody. Other faculties diet is in each case the folks on the Atkins Diet that their heart disease risk factors improved more than the folks on the american hardest.
Diet. So that was again. These trials have been dawn and they all pretty much the same thing. Is it very consistent finding that people go on these diet on are healthier, but rather than for the amount they need medical community can respond by saying? Oh sorry, we were wrong. This is a healthy way to lose weight or they could respond by figuring out how they were right after all and taking mapped and So again, I've been arguing that they took the perfectly human second tact, and rather never acknowledging that they just made a mistake. But clearly these studies were this sort of anomalous observation. And in this field. If he believed that people got fat because they operate, they should lose more way when you restrict their calories and when they do when you don't and then that was hypothesis failed,
and if you believe that high fat diet cause heart disease, their heart disease risk factors for get worse when they eat high fat, diet and high saturated fat diet in the greasy cheeseburgers and all that stuff in that hypothesis also failed. This particular tests so again part of the reason you- and I was I mentioned in passing, Aiko found not for profit carbon science initiative and we brought him some serious problems recently. But before we ran into those problems, we had support from a very I'm beneficence foundations so that we could fund about twenty. The thirty million dollars and for trials. That begin for experiments have begin to really try to resolve
controversies turn in one way to think about. It is that attics mom when I said you can eat three thousand calories over in which may you fix the calories, but one group gets Drake brain vegetables. The other gets stake, potatoes, sugary beverages in green vegetables. They both get the same manner. Calories. Does the MAC Whirr nutrient difference have a significant effect on fat accumulation and by fixing the calories you removed hunger from the issue everything else in those experiments can indeed be done but difficult to do the more we learn about it, the more we learn how difficult they really are. And on. But now you attempted or you you did one- and this is the Kevin Hall Study that I referenced. What happen there may my understanding was that this was a a metabolic ward study where you ve actually just put people essentially in a hospital right in, and you have complete control over there
they're in rank and their output, while that this was a pilot study, and so the idea was again it's it's a bit of it. You're, hoping is embarrassing a minute there are various some but dumb. In life. I know it an unpack that, if at use, what we value, one of and in parliament is embarrassing, has caused a lot of my assumptions turned out to be incorrect. Madness early the scientific ones. So the idea we had type cofounded the nutrition signs initiative New Sea with this researcher, the physician Peter Idea- and we got funding
the Laura John Arnold Foundation and the idea was we can go to very influential obesity researchers and I had interviewed effectively everyone doing important work in the field. I mean hundreds and hundreds of people between my articles and books and I had a feel for who was thoughtful, despite being dogmatic in their belief that obesity and energy balance disorder. So we approach three of these researchers at Columbia University at Datum having biomedical research, the Arcy Centre in bed, I urge Louisiana, is a major obesity, research and then ah an age where this young fire physicists cabin hall. Kevin had made his name on cabin, and I had spoken lot. He had read my book with a lot of very interesting converse.
Nations. Are a couple of other researchers came along with the researchers we approached and the idea was and what we would say to them. We met. Look. You guys believed that a calories, a calorie and that the way that foods influence weight is effectively primarily through there, or content, and we believe that the way foods influence wages to their effect on hormonal homeostasis fancy word. You know that their fair for food influence events ones can influence fat accumulation This'Ll be independent of calories, so there two different ipod ceases to different ipod. Sees that the role of a good scientific experiment, as you have competing hypotheses that will make different predictions. You offered experimental scenario you create so you're going to create a scenario where our two hypotheses make very different predictions.
So me fact: the scenario was we're gonna, take these subjects obese or avoid subjects. Are we gonna do we're going to figure out how many calories it takes to maintain their weight on a standard american diet, which is that of fifty percent carbs? Thirty five percent fat, fifteen percent Tat may be eighteen percent of the total calories on come from sugar, and once we figure out how many calories to maintain their weight. And again. This is precisely the experiment. I talk to you thought experiment. There we're gonna switching to the equivalent of an actions, diet or key degenerate diet. We're gonna, keep the calories, fair But we're going to lower the carbohydrate content that we minimize insulin, secretion and if obesity, energy balance disorder.
Than the only that the only way the foods can influence waded through the cholera content were fixing the calories. So even if one food make some or not that's. I could make a damn, but a difference in this experiment is going to be what we give them and They should lose or gain any way whatsoever. When we switch switching indicate a gigantic diocles were keeping calories fixed. Now in this other hormonal regulatory paradigm are hypothesis It has a few lower into one they're going to mobilise fat from their fatty tissue and are gonna oxidize that fat as fuel and there's no love nature, that has they can't burn more calories and they expand than they take in. So if we lower, and swollen enough these people on a kid? in I will increase, well, mobilise their fat from their fat tissue? That travel be oxidize than that of manifest itself as an increase in energy expenditure, so they will expand.
The more energy than they take in and they will be banned, but they will do so because, They are now burning their own facts stores which they couldn't do on the standard. American Dine doesn't make sense that you could say like you, would take for some and lose weight. Have to be an what's caught. A negative energy balance have to expend more energy than they take in. What we're saying is hey. You could change the regulation of fat tissue such that there, in fact losing weight and they're gonna oxidize at fabulous this negative energy balance so that I was just a bit. We wanted to know randomize control trial because without random visitation you don't you can't infer crowds Halliday, so there
a lot of ways that experiments can be misinterpreted. One of them in particular in a scenario like ours, is maybe, if you spend four weeks on this running standard american diet and then shift to the ketogenic diet, maybe something happy after four weeks. That would happen with any die at. So what you see whether it confirms our hypothesis or knock at that the four weeks without random zation might be due to some time a fact in all after four weeks on a die in the matter like ward, your body does acts, we didn't know that, but now we're gonna say that acts was caused by the diet. So the way you deal with it as your randomize. But then there way you would run this Dixon and randomize em to different diet, including a control by which they stayed on the same diet. So you could see what happens after four weeks of people. Don't you
and their diet and our young that's just basic science on, and then you have to figure out how many subjects you need to make sure that you likely to see in effect, if pointing this route and in order to figure out how may we had no way to figure out how many subjects we needed, because nobody had ever done this experiment before so we decided that we would do a pilot, experiment. We would do a non Ryan demise trial that can't infer causa ALA day because it's not random eyes, camp and far anything meaningful, but we might get a feel for the size of the fact such that we can do more and we know how to power the full blown randomize control trial, so we would do a flawed study. A pilot study is, by definition, cannot infer a result that would cost about four million dollars, so that we can then spend twenty to twenty
five million dollars on a study that is likely to be meaningful. And from there a lot of things went wrong with the study It turned out that so the idea was they were supposed to their researchers were supposed to get the subjects and energy balance over those first months. So you know exactly how many calories you have to feed them to keep their body mass stable, but they couldn't keep their body mass stable. They lost wait throughout that first man and then so right there, that's what I would say this was a rat experiment. Once you realize said your rats or losing weight, he would euthanize the rats and start again because right there, the experiment is now failed again with glimpse another path to fame that you haven't taken, having re to what happened
live baby. We did the study any woman. The study was, I mean you continue doing a study. You hope that you will learn something meaningful and the study was done again. We had a lot of discussions. We have a very good scientific advisory board at the nutrition science and it should embarrass influential got scientists and they read the papers and looked at the data and gave their critique and we gave them to the researchers and the researchers could decide whether to use a partakes or not and for reasons that still kind of miss the five may they decided to turkey, this study, as capable of inferring as I already and saying that the effect they saw was not significant enough to believe that This hormonal regulatory hypothesis is right and.
We would argue that they, in fact be what they saw supports our hypothesis but it can't be inferred anyway, because the study was in randomized and then it gets into this discussion of scientists verses these sort of weird nutrition. Science initiative people and we had the funding so whereby us, then I don't got its to me. It's just one of many studies, that of which may that constitutes maybe ninety percent or ninety five percent of our science. It can't be interpreted, perfectly happy to say we found that a study that couldn't be interpreted and we wish it couldn't. We wished it hadn't failed, but it fair mom. They argue that mommy, saying that, because I didn't like the result and then I count, but I did like the result, but you can't interpret them because it wasn't randomized trial and they weren't in energy balance.
And you don't know why they weren't an empty per click set adjust. It goes back and forth a big big, the idea and the reason I'm embarrassed by all Is it our goal when we set up the nutrition science initiative was to generate studies that. We're on a big is unambiguous. Science can be. Well, you don't have to take someone's word for what the result. As you could look at the data yourself and say: wow, that's clear! Like cigarettes and long answer wow, I don't know how to explain that. I'm gonna believe cigarettes lung cancer on in this case we ended up with
there's a he said she said they say: were buyers cause we funded it. We say there by us because they did. Europe will in effect bad today over interpreted the data, which is as good a definition of bad science, as you can find. Most of them did the controversy over this break. Your foundation of major seems to me that this This is more work to be done to do. A study that everyone acknowledges is valid may get. This is doesn't seem like no, no, absolutely forefront of scientific difficulty, terror a study of this sort yet know any well it again. It's surprisingly difficult, I was one of our learning experiences was how easily the study like this can go off the rails and again I did the epilogue of good calories bad calories. My first book was a in
heart meditation on how they are they, science of nutrition and obesity research, but I was criticising and on a macro level, This is my learning experience and how easy it is for these experiments to fail on a micro level again, if this were, if we were working with rats- and this was a functional science, this would have been the first of twelve thirty studies. That would end up being done where you would be an idea. Do study would be heavily criticised. People would point out all the things were done wrong. You would we do the study, fixing those things and then criticisms would wash in and do it again and do it again and eventually you would asymptotic. We approach some resolved that nobody could think of how to criticise, but because this is human research and its expensive, the researchers
decided to just make some definitive statement that I dont believe is logically defensible and whether or not it would have been right if it was logically defensible. Yes, the feed this was part of what led to my not for profits issue, not all of it and by no means all of it. We had other issues that we were were were struggling and struggling struggling for good reason, the all of our fun. Bulk of our funding came from one organization, Arnold Foundation, so when they lost faith in our ability to manage these experiments, which happened largely because of the then mess that with this energy balance consortia
They lost faith in us managing other experiments. We argued look, we have other experiments, three of them that are out there that are Hebron, beautifully in which our relationship with the researchers is beautiful. But yet I can't blame them for losing faith in us so when they were a major source of funding. So you know when you are completely dependent on one foundation to bury dangerous place for not for profit to be and because we are in effect founded in collaboration with them. We are completely dependent you're, absolutely right that this can resolve minutes clearly can be resolved by good experiment. The problem is, somebody has to pay for those experiments, so the Arnold Foundation is that a request for proposals that were based in large part on my and thinking and their contemplating they had a lot of proposals. I came in to them from their research community in their contemplating funding them without our involvement met. Occasionally they asked for dinner in
on whether or not we think a study is well designed. Can answer. The questions which is the study deadline, determines what question is asked to end its? If you don't understand this issue with them, how to balance this. Is it a hormonal issue or an energy balance issue on your not going to ask the right questions so and then- and I h doesn't why haven't got? Anyone mean significant in the age pass, the its crap, I haven't, read it real all about my work was usually the energy balance, controversy, interesting and- and I would agree relevant understanding all of this, but whatever side of the energy bar
story. You come down on our reality comes down on. It still could be true that eating at low carb diet leads to weight, loss and less cardiovascular problems for a host of reasons there that we haven't yet characterized or whether it ramps up metabolism or just reduces hunger, and food cravings or does both or some other mechanism that that we don't understand. It should be easy to establish the health results of changing your died in this way and an end you right as though those data are fairly well in hand and how confident argue that reducing carbohydrate intake
in your diet proves to be a good thing for weight, loss and four for the markers of cardiovascular health. Ok of existing experiment will tell you that if you shift from me that that this low carbohydrate high fat diet is, is a healthy diet over the course of the length of the experiments a year or two. So in that I'm com I'm a big believer in experiments are, I think you need experiments to understand the observations on the experiments continue to support this way of eating. So now the problem as in this gets back to observational epidemiology, the part of the third pillar, the mostly plant pillar- and this is all
interwoven on. If you were to do what friends in the Harvard scholar, public health has been doing since the late nineteenth seventies, create huge cohorts of tens of thousands of men and women, so that famous examples of nurses study at Harvard and figure out ask them what they eat in 1980s, a with a food frequency survey, and even let's assume you could get it precise answer about what they eat and then follow them for twenty or thirty years and find out what the diet, what disease is associated with? What component of the diet? What you'll find is that people who eat mostly play
diet are healthier than people who eat mostly animal products, diet and then the question again, because this is what the Harvard School a public health does. They then assume that those associations or causal- and they will say that if we all eat most, we plant diets absent white bread and shook her. We be healthier than if we, mostly animal products, diet, slew, leaving the environment than ethical issues. Out of it- and I saw that date, the observation of Data says the most plant. I are healthier, ended kind of death.
At that I eat and the kind of diet that I believe many obese and diabetic individuals or most of them should eat if they want to be ideal. Healthy is eight, ultimately, a mostly animal products. Diet, it's hard to do at low carb high fat diet without a lot of animal products was animal products are in effect, car pre, not including dairy. So you ve got me just plan a flag on something you said he said taking out white bread and cheese bugger said it ever. There are a few points here where they're probably is no controversy razor anyone saying that written Senor. Your sugar intake raises sucrose, isn't necessarily a good thing, and everyone is is now that right, I'm gonna, get everyone outside the sugar industry
But again the idea is reason sugar as bad as cause. It's empty calories, it shit, it's access, calories represent a lot of them. Calories. We'd, so am I'm making. My arguments is like it at all of these sciences interwoven. The reason I'm so focused on this energy balance. Conception of obesity is because you can actually you can dig into, for instance, the USDA I'd, heard, guidelines and you'll find out. The dietary guidelines were determined by France in setting a caloric level for what would be a healthy amount of calories and then you fit in ok. We need so much protein. We need so much green vegetables need so much of this. So much of that, if everything is sort of calorie based run, and so as long as your thinking in terms of calories and this obesity, caused by caloric overload the
ever ACT is a lot of things you can do. Young people will get healthier and they are getting healthier, at least in the short term. By shifting to- he's lower carbohydrate are very low. Carbohydrate higher fat or high fat die ants, but we don't know I mean I mean this way for fifteen years, I'm still waiting to have a heart attack One issue I have here just personally that I've been trying to be a vegetarian in four now coming up on two years and eating what I consider medicinal fish from time to time, because I, after my first twelve months, is a vegetarian I was feeling like. I was missing something and- and I dont know, like fish all that much of what I actually would want to eat as a steak or hamburg. I stopped all that for ethical reasons, and I will table for the moment how we can distinguish the ethics of killing fish from killing,
but in any case I knew I would be much happier being a pure vegetarian. But if I accepted your reasoning here in May, even being a vague and although that's not something, I've actually attempted and would be more worried about my health. In that regard, and now I can get hate mail from rich role and his fans. If you don't know me, is a famous all traffic vague and whose birth and fantastic shape and health it would seem very nice guy I met him briefly. It becomes problematic to think about following a very low carbohydrate, a high fat high protein diet as a vegetarian, if you're committed to the ethics of doing that is just not doable r D. Or do you actually see a vegetarian path toward day your your version of optimal health The arguments are being made, taking one of the ways that my dogma
May typing one of the ways my dark moments when I have to get myself credit back in two thousand. And then to when I wrote the New York Times magazine article one of the top in a big that lie. I was making the argument that the fundamental problem with modern dieters would probably the refined, grain and sugar content, not the fat content and then add the extreme example and then the thing that ratchet up the controversy back then even saying that was controversial- that that we should be looking at the carbohydrate content, the diet and the fat content probably irrelevant. Now that well accepted? That's gonna, this level. Where everyone agrees and then do you know some people get me credit for that most people to say what happened anyway and if you can improve as a vegetarian, clearly- and I would argue Vietnam so used to be- if you just look Low fat diet in you're, putting low fat dine. American Heart Association was guilty of
so anyone remember American Hard Association, dessert cookbook around here with luscious, you know deserves that they consider healthy because their low and fat even other still loaded with sugar so, the idea is, you can even budgetary and if you get rid of the sugar in your diet and beat what TIM Ferris would call slow, carbohydrates, Unum on more fine carbs kin, Juan Stead of White Flour, that kind of thing you know what technically called low guy seem index, carbohydrates, you'll be allowed healthier than a few. You can eat a vegetarian diet with sugar and white bread and it's gonna be guilty. I think you'll be in law trouble. So the first thing you do it is geared to the sugar and now we're fine flower highly. Fine flower and you eat healthier carbs and again, basically,
as far as I could tell no one doubts the wisdom of that advice. If you tell your doctor or you're nutritionist, Or your personal trainer or anyone who's paying attention to anything in this space that you have decided to reduce sugar and refine flower intake and change nothing. About your diet, this unanimity on that being a good idea, the absolute like, but keep him I just don't want to let the health community off the hook from the nineteen seventeen through the only two thousand, there was no the worst, the public that the only public health recommendations we got it those lines with aside the other like they used dyed? Her guidelines would say avoid too much sugar, there is a kind of general idea, I'm in the entire,
and higher socio economic status. People knew that they should leave in wonder. Bread was questionable, but the public health advice was low fat, low fat, low fat to the point that the Centre for Disease Control is telling the food industry advocating please give us low fat products, and you get products like low fat heist sugared yogurt are that there are health. I think of these health food bars at are you know you have no issue giving your kids even other basic, what they are low fat candy bars wrote on, so that our public health efforts were aimed at lowering the fat content, the dye and lowering the saturated fat content and paid no attention to what we now accepted,
you know conventional wisdom, Ameer Ali children, white, flour, excellent everyone agrees, even the government agrees, but nobody did. I just want to establish, because on that kind of person that and huge mistake was made yoke and we say that public health and we have to keep that in mind. We don't make further mistakes down the road. We have to understand that mistake because it was tragic on many levels now the next that I mean there, people are you it's exceedingly difficult to have a new treaty and to get to necessary vitamins and minerals. You need in a budgetary and diet, it's a lot easier with animal products. Yesterday I had coffee here in Berkeley with the Agriculture. Economists who say the other did, if you wanna the well known in the health sector that, if you want to improve the diet and poor populations and on You're are impoverished populations. You want to get them.
To have more access to more livestock and bill gates has a as a column on his blog about the importance, if you to do anything in the world if he was suddenly not a bit an error anymore. He would raise chickens so he could get the ended, impoverished people the worldview eggs and it's all those alleged as a vegetarian. That's ok! eggs to add eggs and dairy. If your kids told you after all, Europe, research and your three books, you're decade of pattering them about their diet. No doubt They were going to be vegetarians who ate eggs and dairy, and they believe that I die it with. Unrefined loaded with unrefined, carbs and fats to and whenever protein to get from eggs and Jerry was the healthy us and they were just going to cut out
refine, grains and sugar? How concerned would you be for their future health, while hardwired saving, as we live factually in Oakland, right on the Board of Barkley, it's just a matter of time before they say that ok, and I've been waiting for it, the for their help not that much I mean well. They there play healthy diet, I of much of the world's revived on diet like that and did not have obesity and diabetes until they started eating the foods that my kids are not gonna beating had, should they eat away now. First father, better cook for themselves, because I'm not I got it back on the food, but other than that I will have an issue and I think that a healthy diet. Now the problem is, if they start getting obese and diabetic, which could happen. I doubt I'd see diabetes in them. If they keep children flowered, then I think that.
Would help prevent that unless it ran in our family, which a dozen there's no apparent on family history, but they might start getting fat or on those die at ten. If they were had predisposition to get fat I would worry about, then I would probably tell them that's going to make it harder. If you want to remain lean- and I thought Remaining lean on is a sign that their healthy are, if their leaner, not necessarily the case. So what's the remaining offender in that diet. If you're cutting out white flour and sugar, but you're leaving in some rainbow brought in hand taller
but I would argue so I'm arguing again that obesity is far more regular toward disorder and its triggered by the carbohydrate content, the diet so specifically by the sugar on specific. I think sugar is both necessary and sufficient than sugar and white flour. Highly refine carbs bud. One of the arguments. I'm making my book, as this is also a problem that will be passed down from generation to generation. So the ashore genetics has had the ability is to the carbohydrate counter to die, but then it goes to be exacerbated when mothers are pregnant, mothers are dead, heavy. If there are obese her diabetic, are they gain lot awaiting pregnant. Here there, but contestation way diabetic they are going to give birth, the kids who are more predisposed to get fat and so less carbohydrate, tolerant.
And by today with a world again. I think the world is full of people are beasts. Diabetic could do not eat sugar and white flour because they think it's unhealthy, but they were too so, and they may be had you, I made pretty much exactly as you do mania domain of beer and remain obese and diabetic and could reverse much of the obesity and much of the diabetes by shifting getting rid of all the cards and the dire. Then again, but now you were now, you ve got the animal product problem. So, but if again, if you think
tell them, how calories we don't have. Any of these discussions wrote that none of this ever gets tested, not a big. It's worked out. It's only a few can get over this energy balance, idea that you start having discussions that can help people and lead to science. That might clarify us. If I'm right word is alcohol consumption fit into this picture of carbon insulin, regulation, well, For he, I got an email from someone. After my the case against sugar, came out saying what about the mall toes and beer, and I said why I could write a book called the case hence beer, but I don't think anybody would read it and certainly beer drinkers, wouldn't care in somebody write a book about the case against football that wasn't the title, but somebody who's a journalist who watched enough near football and read the head injury data and thought football should be illegal. Yeah, I'm already I gotta. Do a tax halloween grin
mask moist tempted to take it the lectures and put it on. When I get my lecture alcohol, I'm in clearly again the sciences confounded clearly beer. Is fanning, nobody has ever it had. The concept of a beer bell is, tells you it is. It's probably could be the effect of the Malta, which is a can think of, is we're fine cart It could be the alcohol which metabolize than the liver there. So one of the we not only do we have epidemics of obesity and diabetes we have epidemics of some nickel non alcoholic fatty, liver disease. A minute is an epidemic proportions in America now and by that in thirty forty years ago. Maybe even twenty years ago, if you are diagnosed with fatty, liver disease and told your doctor that you'd and drink alcohol your, after what assume that you are lying,
in fatty, liver disease, heart of being diagnosed in children who clearly don't drink alcohol and now it's called non alcoholic fatty, liver disease, and I forget the numbers, but there are enormous tens of millions of Americans supposedly have this end millions and millions of children- and it's not benign, and the question is what's causing- an end to me. The obvious, copper too. This is where sugar comes in, because sugar is a compound of shifted relative. It's a simple carbohydrate! That's made up of two simpler carbs glucose
fructose. So when we consume starch, the carbohydrates and starches and grains breakdown to glucose in our God and they transported into our bloodstream and blood sugar is technically blood. Glucose, so is the glucose level in your blood goes up. That's your blood sugar going up, and virtually every cell in your body will metabolize glucose and fructose is the sweetest of the carbohydrates. It's the one that that's what makes sugar sweet? That's what makes fruit sweet. Fructose, toasters, metabolize than the liver and with known this for decades, if not a century, and when your liver has two metabolize fructose in large quantities, it turns into fat, try, glass and now: we have an epidemic of non alcoholic, fatty member disease, fat accumulation and liver cells in a world that consumes an awful lot of sugary beverages
and the idea is basically that sugar is doing the same thing that alcohol during the alcohol is also metabolize than the lever run. So if we're getting back to the question, I think anyone who concerns were put this call accessible. MT about God knows that they're taking a risk with their health. Nobody who drinks the eight shots of whiskey then in the evening is thinking. This is good. For me I don't know. Maybe a few people are, but for the most part we accept that your risking that there are health risks associated with this, what exactly they are except those wrists, insofar as the in touch with the data has been some years, and I read the papers on this, but last
I look at. You can basically consume an entire bottle of wine and have that be better, then teetotally in terms of its fulfilment and mortality. Yeah, there's always their association between moderate alcohol consumption and by that people, usually mean moderate wine consumption, long Jabba Day and that's led to this idea also its supposedly an explanation for the french paradox, which the population that its high fat diets and doesn't get alot of heart disease. Tell me, of course, a paradox: if saturated Chad who's the cause of hard to it's, not a paradox? If it isn't so there's a lot of that association data? In fact, one of the findings that came up repeatedly when I first started my research back in the late night and I was looking at a lot of these cohorts studies there
All that and there weren't any infinite number is there probably are today a common association. All of them was moderate alcohol drinking with longevity, blower morbidity, lower disease rates, and then the question is: is that causal? So if you're a teetotaler and you you know, I take a population, and I tell ten thousand people in five thousand my say you can't have an alcoholic drink for ten years and you five thousand. I want you to drink for glasses of red wine every night, who's gonna be healthier and I'm actually about for the teetotalers. For that scenario died.
The wine drinkers are gonna, be unhealthy because of the wine or accept the calories in the wine or because of the town and the wine who the hell knows, I'm just going to vote for the tea topers cassettes. When my intuition tells me the problem is when you do. Those association studies, I think, is a fundamental difference in our population between teetotally, yours and people who drink three or four glasses of wine a night and binge drinkers, and I think when you're picking out the people who drinks but I'd Two or three glasses, I start getting nervous by four you're picking out people who have a certain attitude towards life which comes with many other variables, which comes with many other variables and may indicate a certain inherent health from there's something called the healthful user effect that I discussed in mind
your times magazine, Ard Cover story on epidemiology, which the fascinating study was actually back in the seventies, and people were testing cholesterol, knowing drug that they thought my reduced rates of heart disease and they found out that it didn't and after they were done, they said, but wait. A minute. You know when we look at people We randomized to take the struggle out of em, didn't take it. So, let's just look at the people who took the drug and see if they at a reduced the fact alone. Behold they had like forty percent less heart disease. Fifty per cent less so now, you're tempted to say the drug reduces rates of heart disease.
Yes, but they were smart enough to say. Wait him in a lot of people then take the placebo either. So, let's look at the rate of heart disease and the people who took the placebo versus the people who didn't, and it turned out that the people took the policy but also had fifty percent less our disease, which led them to conclude that there was something about people who followed their diet. Those orders yeah then made them healthier and you don't know what it is. They could be inherently. It could be. The people who are unhealthy feel bad about themselves. They physically, they just keep perform as well, and so they don't tend to follow doctor's orders and take their pills, my dear. Why, and that's also following doctor's orders, can correlate with many healthful help public, valuing effort, lad exercise more eating our sleeping, better Vietnam,
and you have no idea what it is that could be an inherent quality of the individual and there there could be a revolt. Cause. Allergy were healthier, people tend followed doctors, advice and it could be that following doctors advice associates with all this other healthy behavior, you know, listen. Gay were coming up on two hours here and I want to bring this to a couple of actionable points for people. I also want to encourage you to keep
doing and or inspiring this research desire of, I feel like whatever controversies have occurred recently aside or even because of them. You are well positioned to assemble a team of rivals the who can propose studies that they would find convincing, even even if their disposed to disagree with you are conception of thee, the metabolic pathways here and just in the spirit of preparing science, you can falsify various hypotheses in a decisive way and make it you could crowd fund. This say you could put together a compelling story which would allow him, and even some of the people you ve, you attempted to collaborate with First Kevin Hall who ran this this pilot study. It seems like it's you could propose in advance what it will mean to cross
the end zone and acknowledged just exactly where the way The one you are line is Damn just keep advancing the ball. Well, that's what Don T, I think very clearly So I think, has to be done. I would love to figure out how to step away from this and be happy with my life, but I don't think I'm going to figure that one out considering the constraints of my character. You know my argument: if I could get Francis Collins's, the Dew rector of the National Institute to help fight could call em up get him on the phone. I used to be able to do this brief. I don't think I he'd take my card this point but dont. Unfortunately, I can't put in a good word for you with Collins, because New York Times are bad saying that it was an intellectual scandal that he had been appointed to the head dna age. So yet I would but he's not too fond of a year. This is the argument I keep make over and over again, not enough, you noticed story.
I had a Jerome grope men of the New Yorker recently reviewed my book in the new Yorker and condescendingly dismissed it, and I very condescendingly- does step and he's an empty and he's a professor medicine at Harvard and has clearly not been a fan of my work since two thousand seven, when I wrote this other New York Times magazine cover article that was used some of his heart, the work of some this Harvard colleagues as a case study and bad science, and the point I made the review the book without ever discussing the fact that there is a diabetes epidemic at an obesity epidemic. Can it this isn't just about you and I deciding what die we should heed to be I'll fear, but that, in order to prevent too to reverse an epidemic you have to unambiguously understand its cause.
That, if we had any other scenario by will wear with diabetes prevalence in this country is increased, seven hundred and seven hundred percent, since one thousand nine hundred and sixty, if you believe the CDC Data and that's a tragedy, can you have this epidemic worldwide back Toby Margaret Chan, director general of the World Health Organization, gave a keynote address to the national cadmium medicine where she is, she described. The obesity and diabetes have them, exists, slow motion disasters and actually predicted with virtual certainty that they would get worse. Talking about type two diabetes writers- there has been an increase in type one as well type one is increased, but then the huge for and didn't we want to understand why? But type two has increased. That's the ninety ninety five percent of diabetics and the epidemics or type too.
So. The argument I making is you ve got these these tragic epidemics that are out of control. You have the director general of the World Health Organization, predicting that said that they're gonna get worse they're, not going to be able to curb them in, and we have a medical research community in public the authorities who are convinced that they know what's causing these epidemics does the over eating thing people reading the much there under exercising their physically their send Harry and in any their scenario like that we would be questioning our assumptions you imagine if whatever one thousand nine five. The HIV virus is the HIV virus as the cause of aids and thirty years later, HIV Aids prevalence and mortality and increase seven hundred percent.
We would be overwhelmed with scientific investigations and public health investigations trying to figure out what it is. We don't understand about this disease. What mistake we had made and assuming that it was just stage I be. And in obesity and diabetes. There is not about the assumption. Tat is ubiquitous as we understand the cause, the diseases. We don't have to challenge our assumptions And their health, clearly, I met effectively the only journalists whose done the job of going back to see whether these assumptions are valid, and I think I make a pretty compel The argument that they're not- and you can see the must not just what mistakes were made. You can actually seen them literature who made them and when were made and how they were made and you could then I wouldn't take my advice anyway, but all of this can indeed be tested, and that's where we are
to do so began. Part of my job is always been convince the community this isn't just about like, I said how you and I should eat that we wait ten pounds more ten pounds less her. We lived to be eighty five or eighty seven, it's about establishing what is causing these epidemics causer out of control, costing the medical system in the EU, Where's Phoebe CDC estimate is a billion dollars a day, nerves, remarkable health crisis that, because it is on its surface, linked to the just most and human behavior. It gets moralized in a way. That is that very few things can in in a space, so people are blamed for being obese and
any understanding of the biology here that seems to exonerate them as agents right, there's a very moralistic rejection of that interpretation of things, because, as it comes back and religion are at the very least, its shadow can be seen here, because it is this basic notion of sin that everyone as for every religious person is operating with, and if you can pray the gay away. Certainly, you can pray thee the doughnuts away, but today one way, the other it becomes a you take a physiological defect. You turn it into a moral failing. And in credit, I can tell you how ubiquitous is thinking as even by people who don't realize their thinking. That way, the other your judge, mental of
an obese person in a way that you couldn't be judge mantle of a person with a brain tumor and its because it is obvious that they keep eating right, and so they they are part of the process that is caught. In them to gain weight and then, as long again as long as you're thinking, it's an energy balance thing. One way, the other they're taking in more calories and they need and that's a behavior. It's not official logical, problematic behaviour- might be triggered by who knows the lion, leaped and resistant. You can think of all kinds of ways to it, why and why their brains are making them taken access calories, but it become the did. Its ultimate maybe explanation and what we do today, then we blame the food and destroy so we have the food industry make, so it makes it too easy for them to eat this. How idea of bliss points near they make it so that we can say no
to the Red owes and that we can blame the food industry. We can blame leather, obese people, we don't have to blame, cells for simply misunderstanding on a very profound level, the cause of these disorders, given the current state of uncertainty, but you want your confidence. The midst of it on this thesis and how do you as a parent live in? This will be my final question. So have you have kids? I know you've been asked a question before, but no no matter how convinced you are of the validity of this thesis and the your dude apparent to keep your kids healthy. How do you regulate or struggle to regulate their sugar intake just how Rynch, like are you in not
punctuating their lives with celebratory sugar intake when it within my power. Their sugar intake is very low. Ok, so we don't keeps odors and fruit juices in the House We don't they don't. They know that when dad is cooking they're, not gettin dessert, They know enough not to ask me for cookies or, but we have cabinets full of health, food bars and the air quotes, and when it's out of me control when their at school or third parties are there at athletic events, then you know them my control, I don't try to prevent that. I'm guilty, I'm a hypocrite and that I am healthy of rewarding them on occasions with sweets, because I think they will be healthy, again. We don't have a family history of obesity and diabetes and heart disease if I can keep it to the kind of diet that my health,
and his mother fed me on and the six these I think, they'll be relatively helping and on the other, when there are eighteen they're on their own home? I think it's our job as parents to educate kids and tell the eating, just as it is to educate them on the ethical behaviors and morality, and they don't have to and to me in their kids and become adolescents and They'Ll- probably actively dismiss what I say. Hopefully when they get older they'll come back to it must not become, Bible something don't Jane operators, if they rightly royal, could make some happy. It wasn't here It's been greater talk to you and I just have a final piece of information where can people send you the the hate mail? They haven't been able to get to you on social media your twitter handle while twitter handle is scary, towns,
it's easy to, find my website, its garret helps dot com, and now our I tried answer most email, although getting harder and harder. Ah, that's another lengthy conversation, but the Gary Tabs that common Twitter is Gary Tabs and googling in the books. I hope are easily available, yeah not out I'll, provide links to all of that. On my blog, where I am that this podcast and they again I encourage you to keep the inspiring, if not directly, funding research, because these questions are answerable and it would be great.
More clarity. Whatever the answer is and to see you on a part of that panel discussion, we used to talk about a new, see my not for profit. What would constitute success and to me successes I can get x eyes about obesity and children, because if I might obese children who are pushed to eat less and exercise is more, are being tortured in effect, so there being an obese child, anything but fun and then being Having your obesity treated by something that would torture, anyone else is unacceptable and so My feeling is again assuming I'm right. I think there's clearly I think, there's
A lot of evidence to assume I should they buy The iron everyone should get the right of the right advice in this, ever you know, everyone you go too should reinforce the advice of how people need to eat to be, you know at least metabolic beheld, the, if not as long as they can comfortably may finance in pediatricians- and I mean you talk about keeping your kids away from sweets and it's too early how many juice boxes are there. My kids go to sporting events, you give them popsicles and juice boxes when they're done, they preschools at juice, boxes and suites are acceptable. Snacks,
and again at their source of joy. I understand there is no way in this society. There's no way to avoid that. This is a way to make children happy and to distract them from their pains and uncomfortable ness, but they would help of people. Here you again, if I'm right that this message was was universal retransmitted to the kids into their parent Ivan cutting down my in taking in anticipation of this conversation, and my wrath has extended to the rest of the family you allow report back after some months and I will save the heresies or lean and happier just haggard and end. Happy leaner, that's what we're leaner and happier ok wasn't. There has been a pleasure. Thank you SAM. Tat if you find this pancakes
viable. There are many ways you can support it. You can review I tunes or stitcher. Whoever happens to listen to it. You can share it. So for media with your friends. You can blog about her, discuss it on your own, podcast or or even supported directly, and you can do this by subscribing through my website at SAM Harris, DOT, org and there you'll find subscriber only content which includes my ask me anything episodes. He also get access to advance tickets to my live events as well streaming, video of some of these events,
Transcript generated on 2020-03-23.