Great site! Just stumbled upon it an like what I see. About this whole milk issue being paleo or non-paleo. From where I sit it's all about common sense. Milk (regardless of species) is designed to provide nutrition to newborns for a very short period. The newborn is then weaned and never again consumes milk for the rest of it's life. Except man. Man is the only animal that you find as an adult sucking off the hind-teat of a cow (this image alone is quite disturbing). Why do we think that the life giving substance from another totally different species was designed to help us in anyway, post infancy? And I'm not advocating the use of cows milk for infants. Human infants should drink human milk. This from a guy that for a long period in his life consumed cows milk an it's by-products by the gallon/pound but who today no longer touches the stuff.

Thanks for all the great info!
Dave

[...] (3) http://www.gnolls.org/1086/the-lipid-hypothesis-has-officially-failed-part-1-of-many/ [...]

[...] only is Ohio 20 years behind Seattle in espresso, they also are still stuck in the 1990s low-fat lipid hypothesis thinking when it comes to nutrition. Cholesterol and saturated fats are still considered evil, [...]

The Lipid Hypothesis addresses atherosclerosis and heart disease. It does not address obesity, so this article is setting up a straw man by using that chart. For what it's worth, the Lipid Hypothesis is very well accepted by the scientific community, and denying it is akin to creationism. There are a multitude of studies (such as those done by Caldwell Esselstyn) which show that a low fat diet reverses heart disease. What you will never find is a study showing that a high fat diet reverses heart disease, outside of a few rigged studies done by the Atkins Foundation.

Esselstyn uses statins only on his most severe patients. Your second study proves my point to a tee. Search for another paper by this same team called "Reply to P Scarborough et al." and look at the acknowledgements:

"RMK [Ronald M. Krauss] receives research support from the National Dairy Council, National Cattleman's Beef Association, and the Robert & Veronica Atkins Foundation."

Thanks for that. You should watch some videos on this YouTube channel, especially his videos on Ancel Keys, LDL, and Low Carb Research.

http://www.youtube.com/user/PrimitiveNutrition

I was skeptical about the Lipid Hypothesis myself until watching these videos. Now I know why it's an established pillar of science.

Primitive Nutrition is not Don Matesz. This is roundly refuted by listening to Don Matesz speak. As it happens, PrimtiveNutrition has a video on the 2010 meta-analysis and why it is anomalous:

link to YouTube video

You may find some of Frank Hu's work outside of this study particularly intriguing. What are these papers that he's supposedly misquoting and how would they destroy his entire hypothesis? I assume you're talking about the Lipid Hypothesis, which is not "his," but a scientific consensus validated by mountains of clinical and epidemiological data. Here you are acting like the Lipid Hypothesis is about WEIGHT, and you're accusing others of being misleading? Laughable.

I have recently discovered your site, I have Gnolls book coming my way. Good stuff.

The interesting thing about the timeline is that it follows my experiences as a paramedic. I started working EMS in 1975. We had the occasional patient that weighed over 225 pounds, maybe once every couple of weeks. Patients that weighed over 300 pounds were maybe every 3 months or so. The over 400 pounder was an once a year thing.

Now it has become so common that large EMSs are putting bariatric units in service that can handle up to 1000 lbs with ramps and wenches. This these: http://media.commercialappeal.com/media/img/photos/2012/03/20/ambulance_appcrop_t607.jpg

Back in the day our stretchers were only rated to around 250 lbs.

Now the basic Ferno stretcher has a weight limit of 400 lbs with their higher end stretchers have a limit of 700 lbs.

And the timelines fits with the rise of moving away from "real foods" and into following government guidelines.

Go figure

Readers of this blog may be interested in downloading and reading the full text of this open access paper. 

Food for Thought: Have We Been Giving the Wrong Dietary Advice?

Background: Since 1984 UK citizens have been advised to reduce total dietary fat intake to 30% of total energy and saturated fat intake to 10%. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence suggests a further benefit for Coronary Heart Disease  prevention by reducing saturated fat intake to 6% -7% of total energy and that 30,000 lives could be saved by replacing SFAs with Polyunsaturated fats. 

Methods: 20 volumes of the Seven Countries Study, the seminal work behind the 1984 nutritional guidelines, were assessed. The evidence upon which the NICE guidance was based was reviewed. Nutritional facts about fat and the UK intake of fat are presented and the impact of macronutrient confusion on public health dietary advice is discussed. 

Findings: The Seven Countries study classified processed foods, primarily carbohydrates, as saturated fats. The UK government and NICE do the same, listing biscuits, cakes, pastries and savoury snacks as saturated fats. Processed foods should be the target of public health advice but not natural fats, in which the UK diet is deficient. With reference to the macro and micro nutrient composition of meat, fish, eggs, and dairy foods the article demonstrates that dietary trials cannot change one type of fat for another in a controlled study. 

Interpretation: The evidence suggests that processed food is strongly associated with the increase in obesity, diabetes, CHD, and other modern illness in our society. The macro and micro nutrients found in meat, fish, eggs and dairy products, are vital for human health and consumption of these nutritious foods should be encouraged.