Tag: Michael Eades

Why are so many doctors so stupid about nutrition?

By Marika Sboros

Why are doctors so stupid – particularly about nutrition? It’s a question one of my favourite scientist doctors, US physician Michael Eades, has asked.

It’s a question I’ve asked myself many times. More so recently after a ‘conversation’ with two paediatrician trolls on Twitter. (It was more like a testy, trivial exchange.)

These doctors live far apart – one in South Africa, the other in Canada. They could be twins when it comes to god complexes and willful ignorance about nutrition.

Of course, not all doctors are stupid when it comes to nutrition. And Eades says that stupid is not quite the right word to describe the dear medical souls who don’t know about nutrition. Ignorance is the word.



Relax: Your meat-eating ‘can beat climate change’!

The next time anyone says that your low-carb meat eating will make climate change worse, quote US physician Michael Eades. Eades is a myth buster. He says that you don’t make a Faustian pact by adopting a low-carb diet.

Here, Eades looks at the science behind the real effect of the removal of animals to help restore the grasslands: It brought about desertification even quicker.

He also shows the cognitive dissonance that overcame many in the wake of the obvious failure in that outcome:

They could not believe that herds of herbivores would actually produce the effect they were removing these same herds to achieve. It was the same kind of thinking that said we should all cut fat and increase carbs to reduce obesity or cure diabetes, Eades says. And it had about the same effect on climate change. 

He explains the seeming paradox of “more animals equals better grasslands equals better climate”. It’s controversial and not everyone is on board. It’s contained in a book called The Grazing Revolution: A Radical Plan to Save the Earth. – Marika Sboros



Cancer treatment road ahead: tripping over truth

By Marika Sboros

US physician Dr Michael Eades has written an extraordinary review of an extraordinary book on cancer treatment. He says everyone should read it. I couldn’t agree more. It is a revised version of Tripping Over The Truth, by Travis Christofferson. It is a challenge to orthodox medical dogma on the dread disease. Chirstofferson says that cancer research is “way off track”.

CLICK HERE TO BUY THIS BOOK ONLINE
IN THE FOODMED.NET BOOK STORE

Like Eades, I read it when Christofferson first published it in 2014. Eades says that in its revised version, Christofferson has produced “an absolute gem”, as “gripping” as a mystery novel.

He wrote the review while “hurtling through the sky somewhere over the North Atlantic” flying business class on his way back to the US from Germany.  Eades begins it with what can seem like a strange comparison: commercial aviation today compared with when he first flew to Europe in 1969.

What does that have to do with cancer? More than I wish were the case. Eades says that were he to get cancer today,  he would make a nasty discovery. Unlike commercial aviation, cancer treatment mostly wouldn’t be much different or any more effective than in 1969. Or even 1959. That’s “an awful realization”, Eades says. But there’s a lot more to why his review really is so remarkable.



TAUBES AND THE CASE AGAINST SUGAR: SWEET AND SOUR

By Marika Sboros

Unless you’ve just beamed down from another planet, you’ll know that US science journalist Gary Taubes has a new book out. It’s called The Case Against Sugar. I haven’t read it yet. I’ve only read the reviews, most of them favourable – except one. It is Bad sugar or bad journalism? An expert review of “The Case Against Sugar”. The author is US neurobiologist and obesity researcher Dr Stephan Guyenet.

Guyenet’s review is not a complete hatchet job. First, he damns Taubes with faint scientific praise. Then he sticks the knife straight into Taubes’s research heart. Guyenet says that Taubes “misunderstands (or chooses not to apply) the scientific method itself”. He accuses Taubes of “extraordinary oversight”. He also says that Taubes ignores “inconvenient facts”.

Buy Gary Taubes books online
in the
Foodmed.net bookstore

US physician Michael Eades has read the book – twice – and reviews it in a post on his Protein Power blog. He has given me permission to republish it here. He comes to very different conclusions compared to Guyenet. Here’s the sweet and the sour of reviews.



Framingham: fatal flaws in low-fat science for hearts

heart CVDYou may idly wonder sometimes why doctors and dietitians still trot out advice to eat a low-fat diet to protect your heart when there wasn’t ever much science to back it up. More so in the wake of a growing body of science to show low-fat is not protective of most hearts after all. So just how did scientists manage to persuade doctors and the public otherwise – that low-fat was the way to go? They simply buried the evidence to show that it wasn’t, says US physician Dr Michael Eades. They did so not because they were bad, but likely because they just couldn’t face up to data that contradicted their passionately held beliefs. In other words, they were suffering from a nasty bout of cognitive dissonance, a relatively common phenomenon in scientific circles. In this blog below, Eades takes apart the “Framingham Study”, an egregious example of that cognitive dissonance in action. It remains as relevant today as when Eades wrote it some years ago. Reading it is enough to make hearts race at the implications for public health worldwide. – Marika Sboros

 By Michael Eades

Have you ever watched a movie that had a surprise ending, say, The Sixth Sense, for example, then watched it again? Once you know the ending, you see all kinds of things that make the ending obvious that you didn’t see the first time:



Has the low-carb, Banting bubble finally burst?

Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 3.21.04 PM

Are low-carb foods on their way out?

By Marika Sboros

The low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) bubble appears finally to have burst. A new study shows that doctors and  dietitians who say LCHF is a passing fad have been right all long. Carbs are fine even if you are obese as long as you keep fat low in your diet.

You might even believe that if you buy into findings of a study presented by US metabolism specialist Dr Kevin Hall at the International Obesity Congress held in Vancouver Canada earlier this month.

Hall has participated in studies in the past hinting at mortal wounding of the carb-insulin hypothesis of obesity including a study in the journal, Cell Metabolism, in 2015. Now he says his new research delivers the terminal blow.

Other doctors and scientists say: Not so fast. Hall is premature in declaring the death of the carb-insulin hypothesis. US physician Dr Michael Eades, a world authority on LCHF, goes further and says Hall may be “going rogue” and has “done something extremely bizarre” …