Comments on the Fat Summit, Day 5, Part 2

Published 2.5.2016
These are notes and commentary from presentations given on day 5 of Mark Hyman's Fat Summit. The primary reason for the summit seemed to be to promote Hyman's new book, Eat Fat, Get Thin.

That duly noted, however, a number of interesting conversations did occur. Before beginning the commentary on the final two talks I listened to on day 5, I want to make a comment about the reactions noted in the comments sections under the links for each talk. Many, many, many commenters found Hyman's interjections and comments during the presentations annoying and distracting. However, I think that's because they misunderstood the format of the summit. These were not conference or meeting presentations with slides and then a question and answer period. Rather, these were set up to be conversations between friends and colleagues, which were recorded for publication. Some people also seemed to miss the fact that they were all pre-recorded, so there was no way for Hyman to implement their suggestions, even if he'd want to do so. With that off my chest, let's begin, remembering that what follows is not a detailed recap of the talks, but rather the notes and commentary I made while listening.

Daniel Amen MD

Daniel Amen is a psychiatrist who created the "Daniel Plan" with Hyman and a guy named Pastor Warren. The plan mixes biblical references with calorie restriction (because that is the only way to lose weight) and with that plan they've helped a lot of church congregations to lose weight. Which is great, I have no issue with that.
Amen has clinics around the country and is an integrative guy.
His claim to fame is that he started to look at the brain— which psychiatrists don’t usually do. By imaging the brain, he saw the effects of drugs on the brain and claims that Xanax users' brains looked like the brains of alcoholics.
Amen thinks environment matters, noting that obese people are often surrounded by "food pushers," a phrase that encompasses more than food companies. To combat this people need to have a "warrior's mindset."
People with attention deficit disorder (ADD) have three times the risk of getting Alzheimer's is the claim, but is that an innate risk or the effect of ADD drugs?
His diet recommendation is not extreme: 70% plant based. 30% high quality protein, and again it’s plant based fat. They are not saying shovel butter down your gob. Nuts, seeds, and avocado are the sources noted.
He's not a fan of supplements, unless there's brain damage (found in the imaging. I think there's controversy surrounding brain imaging, because it's newer and not well standardized yet.)
I almost didn't listen to this talk, but in the end it was an interesting conversation.
He's a believer in sugar addiction, which I remain unconvinced of. This is part of why brain imaging is controversial. Yes, sugar lights of the same pleasure center as cocaine— as well as other things that give pleasure. Addiction may require activation of the pleasure center of the brain, but activation of that center does not equal addiction.
Amen is not a dairy fan, and he gives red peppers some love as a source of vitamin C.
Statins come in for abuse. Statins increase aging and are associated with memory loss.
www.brainwarriorswaycourse.com is his website (or at least one of them.

Jeffrey Bland MD

Introduced as the father of "Functional" medicine as he coined the term. That's also the reason I almost skipped this talk, but in the end was glad that I didn't. For the record though, THERE IS ONLY MEDICINE. Any "alternative" that can be proven to work by science becomes medicine. Without the scientific evidence, at best it's a hypothesis, most commonly it's woo.
Bland has published tons of papers and 11 books. He's not adverse to science.
His take on fat is much more nuanced than that of Nina Teicholz. Fat isn't a homogenous substance; it's just as wrong to say fat = good as it is to say fat = bad.
Weston Price gets a mention as the Charles Darwin of nutrition, Bland seems not so much pro-fat as anti-industrial processing. Price after all never made it Asia to catalog the MANY peoples there thriving on a LOW fat unprocessed diet. He specifically singles out industrialized fats (which would include Hyman's precious coconut oil) as dangerous. Just eat real food.
Bland says that everything (including fat) in excess is dangerous.
Sweet fat and salty fat increases postprandial metabolic endo-toxicity, which means gut effects and inflammation.
Bland notes that most studies do not specify which fats are being studied, which means that Teicholz is using junk data to come up with her junky results (GIGO as engineers put it).
Eicosanoids (a new term to me) are a key factor in inflammation and they are regulated by the fat that we eat. Insulin is important to control the level of fat in our blood, so a diet that controls insulin will help control inflammation.
He's not a fan of vegetable or seed oils (high in omega 6 (O6)). He's another fan of the odd omega oils. Omega 3 (O3) oils are found in fish and olive oil. Omega 9 (O9) is found in olive oil, and he's a big fan of olive oil.
HA! Control the calories FIRST he says. If you’re eating to excess you’re not eating healthy, the fats don’t matter as much— calls it a diet “luxurious” in calories. I might have to steal that…
And of course, nobody likes trans fats, though he claims that many were late to the party and like to forget that fact. Also notes that a healthy body probably figures out what to with O6 and O3 (Willett’s position) but it won’t work for all. If you're insulin resistant, the body won’t always decide best.
All calories are not the same if you're talking of nutrition. For simple weight loss he says, yes they are. Fats are also easily stored.
Bland's list of factors that matter in heart disease: cholesterol, insulin resistance, inflammation, homocysteine, oxidative stress, mitochondrial function.
Says that Ludwig’s "you need insulin only to store fat" is OVER SIMPLIFIED! It’s not just insulin that matters. Then reels off a whole list of hormones and enzymes involved in metabolizing fats.
At the end, they spend a bit of time bashing statins and the effects they can have on the elderly (who are mostly who take them). It does make me wonder about this notion that cholesterol can be "too low." Certainly if they're lowered with drugs I can see that being the case, but is it the case if cholesterol is low due to diet and lifestyle?

Disclaimer

Search this site: