You're watching...
Author Gary Taubes and Nutrition Science Initiative Co-Founder Peter Attia on the science behind today’s mainstream diet and whether it’s correct.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
That's a pathetic picture of me as a kid.
My mom told me spinach is the healthiest food in the world and she thought that does it -- so much higher.
But now we're told spinach is just an okay source of iron no better than pizza -- apple.
The spinach iron myth grew out of mathematical miscalculation.
Or researcher accident -- moved a decimal point.
So.
He thought.
And should be there -- turns out it was supposed to be over here simple mistake any thought -- ten times more -- than it did.
Hoops.
But the press reported the spinach -- and I had to eat spinach.
I assume the nutritional advice we -- today is based on better science but Gary Talbots and Peter TSA.
Today's nutritional advice is just as dubious really.
-- -- You know they've got a lot of ideas got embraced since the 1970s.
That -- based on assumptions are rigorous science and the science that the experiments in -- observations made to test this hypothesis have been poor so we've been living with that ever since.
And in the process we've had an obesity epidemic -- Incidence of type two diabetes is increased fourfold.
And if our government got it right -- far in the USDA if the food guide pyramid might play -- that's right then the question is why has obesity and diabetes increasing so quickly.
-- good question now you're a science journalist Peter your indeed a hot -- when he went to Stanford residency Johns Hopkins.
Yet he.
That's a great point you know I thought it was and I followed it myself and I certainly told everybody around me to follow it and then now.
About three or four years ago our wound up being forty pounds overweight and pre diabetic.
Even though I was exercising three hours a day in.
Eating all the right foods supposedly so it certainly had me questioning.
What it was I was believing in what it was I was preaching is dogma.
-- -- let's back up in 1977.
How our government came out with dietary goals for you.
Increased carbohydrate consumption to fifty years 60% of your calories reduced fat from forty to 30%.
And this was based on research that ultimately led to the famous food pyramid which.
Told us to eat lots brands then vegetables.
Fruits less meat and milk and now Michelle Obama has -- new version now called money play.
It it's turning the know that this is all based on settled science but the -- producer found this -- this clip of -- Government scientists behind the rules testifying before the center.
I pleaded in my report and will -- again orally here.
For more search on the problem before we make announcements to the American public.
Well I I would on the argue that senators don't have the election period that their research scientist yes -- waiting.
Until every last shred -- evidences that.
So the politicians as usual went off half cocked and -- -- bill of goods.
That's from way to look at the head of the national academy signs have rebelled to engage in this huge nutritional experiment would you people are doing and you've got the American subjects.
The American public -- the subjects and then again you know thirty years later we've gotten sicker and sicker.
-- hum is money more information about nutrition and not getting fat and we're fatter.
And we're -- and -- there again we're more diabetic and what we wanna do one of the reasons we're here we wanted to.
With that can be fixed it cannot be fixed with good science.
-- -- good science you have a book out called good calories bad calories.
But I watch TV and I know that calorie is a calorie -- just -- difference what are you talking about.
You know the idea -- the calories -- -- -- reason you get fat is -- you take in more energy and you expand and yeah he comes in the form of calories it's a unit of heat.
And each one of the nutrients Huey pro -- fact that different types of carbohydrates.
Into glucose from start for the glucose and fructose from sugar they don't have entirely different effects in your body.
Some of them are metabolize them different organs they stimulates accretion of hormones that have different effects.
On whether or not you will store calories as fatter burn them as fuel and so there's always been this counter argument that maybe it's not the calories.
So hormonal effect of the foods.
On our body you know what these foods do to us on how much energy they bring to us.
But the US department of health the -- a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
On the -- government.
They're stupid.
I was just just -- it just hasn't -- faster and just hasn't been just hasn't been tested rigorously -- one of the things Gary and I did when we started this organization.
Was went back in this organization being the nutrition science initiative we went back and we looked at.
Every scientific study back to World War II that had at least attempted to answer that question.
I think Gary were found about 82 studies that have attempted to answer that but they were off fraught with the same sort of limitations and problems and so in 2012.
We actually don't know the answer to that question based on rigorous science although there's actually -- of anecdotal evidence to suggest.
The Gary's point might be correct in that a calorie is not a calpers.
And one thing I know it's absolutely must be true is the issue should -- less fat fat does all this harm and yet you eat lots of fat.
And year of a doctor but left the stand for doctor what's that about.
Well like I said about her for years ago when I just got to the point where it was too overweight to handle my own existence and my wife's that I needed to be a little less not thin.
I realize that I probably had a carbohydrate intolerance issue and that all those whole grains and things that I was eating were probably leading to me becoming fatter.
And I realize that if -- strip testified in my diet and a more fat believe it or not.
All of the metabolic arrangement that was underpinning -- propensity gain weight would go away.
And lo and behold the did you're not fat now.
By eating -- If so the question is what happened Peter.
And happens a lot of people anecdotally armed they get rid of carbohydrates in the -- they had back fat instead than -- with -- is that some kind of bizarre.
Anecdotal event that just happened to Peter -- because sees some.
You know weird Stanford educated doctor -- is it common maybe the nutritional advice are all getting.
Is wrong maybe the food -- -- mania back in the sixties -- we believe the carbohydrates.
That bread pasta potatoes rice for inherently fattening that's what our mothers -- -- the picture of the piece of bread with butter on your book that's because.
That's well the idea is used to be that the -- was considered healthy in the bread was considered fattening them that our government came along and decided that it was the butter that was fattening and the bread that we should all be eating in and that coincides with an obesity epidemic itself and they also said margarine is bad for you though but -- viewers -- -- -- -- you now and -- hope is trans -- here for eggs were terrible but now -- eggs are okay.
You know its -- -- and the reason for this flipping flopping back and forth is -- a kind of research we do.
To try and establish it is incapable of sort of establishing a definitive result there is -- why don't we do this is important.
Well it's really hard you could use laboratory rats for example has really easy put the retina KG give -- the chow and it does what it does or even a double blind test with people exactly with -- drugs for example is really easy it's take this pillar take that -- When you're studying nutrition infection really hard you send people home with a diet book can say John.
I want you to follow this diet come back invaded -- and and -- -- -- to do so we really can't measure what we think we're measuring and it's probably a result of this as opposed to some sort of been you know gross incompetence that's led to this ambiguity.
Fall.
