In this post, he discusses the challenges in the business of helping people sort out dietary right from dietary wrong. The title - Eat Less Move More and Die Anyway - points to the oft cited formula for how to change the world's predicted health care disaster (if everyone is sick, you can't pay for all the necessary meds and care). The benefit of this simple approach is it is not intimidating - you might think "anyone can do this, even me." The downside - the science that is available indicates that moving more and eating less does not help you dodge those nasty terminal endpoints of life that we would like avoid so that we can live long enough to die in our beds (as we used to say when I was a Patrolman trying not to get killed in the line of duty). At the link above he details a 9 year study which proved fairly convincingly that a low fat, low calorie intervention with moderate exercise was not effective at combatting the diseases of civilization.
Not that you would have heard about that 9 year study, because if they mentioned that, they'd have to start saying things like "we never really knew whether low fat, low cal was good for you or not, but we were sure hoping it would be. Sorry about all your dead relatives and all those meds you are taking to help with hypertension, gout, and diabetes." As to that point, one might be concerned that government health care authorities made recommendations that may be killing us, and may be making us sick and at the same time enormous consumers of the medications that sick people get in this country, AND that those recommendations were not proven by science. The implications are immense, but that's another discussion.
Nor were you likely to have heard about these studies, which could have changed the debate all by themselves (these quotes are also from Mike Eades' blog):
there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.
The point Mike Eades is grinding on is the abuse of the mantle of science by the combination of the "gurus" and the science journalists, who should know better than to simply babble on about the results of studies that, almost always, can't show cause and effect, but are treated as if they do.there are few epidemiologic or clinical trial data to support a benefit of replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate. Furthermore, particularly given the differential effects of dietary saturated fats and carbohydrates on concentrations of larger and smaller LDL particles, respectively, dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity.
You can see the resulting cognitive dissonance here, where Forbes reviews the book Grain Brain:
Some in the nutrition and medical communities take issue with Perlmutter’s premise and prescription. Several critics, while not questioning the neurological risks of a high-carb diet, have pointed out that readers may interpret his book as a green light to load up on meat and dairy instead, a choice that has its own well-documented cardiovascular heart risks.