background

Slim is simple.TM

 
Simplifying and applying a 10+ year collaboration with top researchers around the world and the analysis of over 1,300 studies, The Smarter Science of Slim (SSoS) bridges the gap between the scientific world and the everyday world to dispel the myths and marketing that have fueled the current health care crisis, and to provide a proven program for lasting wellness by focusing on quality of food and exercise and then eating more and exercising less – but smarter. SSoS is endorsed by the world-wide scientific community including top doctors at the Harvard Medical School, John Hopkins, and UCLA, and approved as curriculum for registered dietitians (RDs) by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

 

benefits

Lower your risk of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and cardiovascular disease
Lose body fat
Improve cholesterol and blood pressure
Avoid hunger
Enjoy higher energy levels
Improve confidence and self-esteem
Increase insulin sensitivity and control diabetes
Curb cravings
End overeating
Get sick less often
Improve complexion and skin tone
Boost your ability to concentrate and mood
Sleep better and feel more rested
Enhance strength, fitness, cardiovascular health, and athletic performance
Enjoy less anxiety and depression
Improve sexual performance
Reduce chronic pain and arthritis
Speed-up metabolism
Improve estrogen and testosterone levels
Develop compact lean muscle tissue
Enhance bone density
Increase regularity
Decrease desire for cigarettes
Reduce age-related vision loss
Enjoy relief from IBS, migraines, arthritis, acne, and eczema
Decrease risk of Alzheimer’s disease

 

Real World Results   |   What People Are Saying

 

detailed background

  1. Fat Loss Facts: When did biology become a matter of opinion? Chemistry is not a matter of opinion. Nobody cares what anybody thinks combining two hydrogen molecules with an oxygen molecule causes. You and I know we get water. We know the proven science. Why is biology any different? Why do we care what anyone thinks causes our bodies to burn fat? Why don’t we rely on proven science? Because the facts of fat loss are buried in obscure academic studies…until now. Read more

    2.  

  2. Myths and Marketing: There is a long history leading up to today’s myth-filled world. For example, our government continues to recommend starch as a cornerstone of our diet while biologists have proven that the body needs absolutely no starch and that a surplus of starch removes our body’s ability to burn fat. Big food, fitness, and pharmaceutical corporations go on to make things worse. They exploit the government’s guidelines and graphics to keep people and profits fat. Read more

    3.  

  3. Smarter Scientific Solution: Long-term fat loss and health has nothing to do with dieting and everything to do with eating so many more non-starchy vegetables, fish, meat, select dairy products, fruits, nuts, and seeds that we are too full for starches and sweets. And when it comes to exercise, using it to enable our body to burn fat for us long term requires a much different method than using exercise to burn a few calories right now. Read more

 

 

fat loss facts

 

Hippocrates wrote that the obese should “eat only once a day and…walk naked as long as possible.” Progress in this area will require that we move beyond this 2,000-year-old prescription and instead develop strategies that are based on twenty-first-century science. – J.M. Friedman, Rockefeller University

I have spent over ten years reading thousands of fat loss studies. Not gurus’ theories. Not what magazines say. Not what TV tells us. Not what marketers promote. Not what everyone else does. Not even the opinions of doctors whose specialties have nothing to do with fat loss. Only the proven data. Just the facts.

My investigation uncovered:

  • Studies stating how certain foods cripple our ability to burn fat
  • Scientists showing how to burn a bunch of fat while eating more food
  • Researchers revealing how to get all the benefits of traditional exercise in a tenth of the time
  • Physiologists finding out how eating less sets us up to gain fat in the long run
  • Doctors discussing how a few minutes of a new form of exercise immunizes us against fat gain
  • Endocrinologists explaining how we fix the underlying condition causing us to gain fat

Then I found bureaucrats and businesses burying all this biology so they could profit off our fat loss struggles.

Keeping us overweight so the food, fitness, and pharmaceutical industries stay overpaid is shady. We deserve to know the proven fat loss facts. But who has time to read tens of thousands of pages of scientific studies? It took me more than a decade. It should not take you that long to find the facts. That is why I wrote The Smarter Science of Slim.

 

It summarizes, simplifies, and applies over 10,000 pages of little known academic fat loss research. And no worries if science is not your strong suit. The science is simple. The only potentially challenging part is how different the science is from what we have been told. Then again, that may be easy too since we would expect an effective approach to be different than what we have been trying.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. – Mark Twain

Enough with marketing and myths forming our fat loss future. We tried it. It failed. It is time to move on to a smarter science of slim.

For example, starting in the 1970’s we were told to eat less and exercise more. Today, nearly half of women and a third of men are dieting, and studies from the University of Southern Denmark show we have significantly increased the amount of exercise we get. In other words, we have taken the “eat less, exercise more” theory to heart. Here is what that has done to our hearts (and waistlines):


Judging by these results, attempting to eat less and exercise more is not effective. The approach is either wrong, impractical, or both. From researcher S.C. Wooley from the University of Cincinnati: “The failure of [heavy] people to achieve a goal they seem to want—and to want almost above all else—must now be admitted for what it is: a failure not of those people but of the methods of treatment that are used.”

Fortunately, hundreds of the most brilliant academic health and fat loss researchers from around the world agree with Dr. Wooley. Take researcher A. Stunkard at the University of Pennsylvania who said: “How may the medical profession regain its proper role in the treatment of obesity? We can begin by looking at the situation as it exists and not as we would like it to be…If we do not feel obliged to excuse our failures, we may be able to investigate them.”

Why should you and I care? With researchers shelving the old “spend time excusing the failures of the traditional fat loss” approach, and moving on to a “forget the theories of the past, let’s find the facts of fat loss” approach, thousands of pages of revolutionary fat loss research have been release over the past few decades. The only catch has been that the research was only accessible to academics. Fortunately, this book puts the last forty years of fat loss facts in the palm of your hand. Even better, the science is simple, slimming, and shocking.

For instance, this whole Calories In – Calories Out theory of weight loss has been proven wrong in study after study, but you and I do not even need to go that far. All we need is a bit of common sense. A pound of body fat contains 3,500 calories. Cutting a measly 100 calories—less than one cup of reduced fat milk—per day cuts 365,000 calories over ten years. If Calories In – Calories Out is correct, if biology works like math instead of working like biology, then a 150 pound woman who drinks one less cup of reduced fat milk per day will lose more than 104 pounds and weigh less than forty-six pounds ten years later (365,000 calories divided by 3,500 calories per pound of fat equals 104 pounds of fat). That is crazy. So is explaining our bodies using math instead of biology. That is why you and I will stick with biology and burn body fat instead of burning money on low-calorie “food.”

Or take the old favorite, A Calorie Is A Calorie. That does not make any sense. Is a Ferrari a Chevy because they are both cars? We know a car is not a car. Is a tiger a chipmunk because they are both animals? We know an animal is not an animal. Then what makes calories different? Nothing. Researchers have discovered that calorie quality varies wildly. High-quality calories from non-starchy vegetables, lean protein, and natural fats trigger hormones which cause our body to burn fat. Low-quality calories from starches and sweets trigger hormones which cause our body to store fat. The clinically proven fact is that a calorie is not a calorie, and that by eating more high-quality calories we burn more body fat.

Then there is all the misinformation along the lines of Calories Are All That Matter. What about the millions of Type 1 Diabetics—people who cannot effectively get energy into their cells because they are missing the hormone insulin? Why are these unfortunate people injecting themselves with the hormone insulin if calories are all that matter? Because calories are not all that matter. Hormones—not how much we eat or exercise—determine if we are burning or storing body fat.

Finally, we are given the government’s Dietary Guidelines and pyramid and plate graphics. From the Chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health: “…the USDA Pyramid is wrong…at best, the USDA Pyramid offers wishy-washy, scientifically unfounded advice…it ignores the evidence that has been carefully assembled over the past forty years.” And from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: “The low-fat-high-carbohydrate diet, promulgated [encouraged] vigorously by the…food pyramid, may well have played an unintended role in the current epidemics of obesity…diabetes, and metabolic syndromes.” With our primary source of nutrition information hurting rather than helping us, is it any wonder we are struggling with our health and weight?

On the bright side, researchers at top universities around the world have discovered a dramatically different set of dietary guidelines which make us thin and fit instead of heavy and sick. These glorious guidelines have dramatically improved my life and they will dramatically improve your life too. All you need is access to the information.

And while you and I are summarizing, simplifying, and applying thousands of pages of fat loss and health research previously only available to academics, we will also discover what the food, fitness, and pharmaceutical industries have known for decades: There is a lot more money to be made off sick, stocky, and sad people than there is to be made off of healthy, hot, and happy people. We will uncover the unfortunate fact that the bigger we are, the bigger the profits of the $3.1 trillion food, $150 billion fitness, and $500 billion pharmaceutical industries. And how this makes big food, fitness, and pharma want us to stay slim like big tobacco wants us to stop smoking. And just like big tobacco tried to keep the science of smoking from surfacing, big food, fitness, and pharma are trying to keep the science of slim from surfacing.

By 1964, there was sufficient scientific evidence…[but] many years passed and many millions died before decisive action was taken to [turn the tide against smoking]…Repeating this history with food and obesity would be tragic. – researcher K. Brownell, Yale University

But no worries. You and I will bring the science to the surface and benefit dramatically and permanently because of it. And once we have freed ourselves from profitable fat loss fiction and empowered ourselves with proven fat loss facts, we will be able to heal our hormones, improve our basic biology, and enable our bodies to burn fat for us automatically.

Sound too good to be true? Have you ever met anyone who eats as much as they want, does not exercise, and still stays skinny? Put differently, have you ever met anyone who’s body burns fat for them automatically? We all have. So the question is not: “Is automatic lifelong fat loss is possible?” Millions of naturally thin people have already demonstrated that. The question is: “How can you and I burn fat automatically like naturally thin people?”

Researchers have revealed a simple and surprising answer: Eat more. Exercising less. Smarter.

Smarter is the key. By eating more—but higher-quality food—and exercising less—but with higher-quality—we provide our body a unique combination of nutrition and hormones which reprograms it to behave more like the body of a naturally thin person. Our body starts burning—instead of storing—fat. It is not magic. It is:


 

myths and marketing

 

[The Food Guide] Pyramid is wrong. It was built on shaky scientific ground…[and] has been steadily eroded by new research from all parts of the globe…[it] ignores the [scientific] evidence that has been carefully assembled over the past forty years. – researcher Willett, Harvard School of Public Health

Getting to the bottom of all this calorie-quantity confusion, let’s start from the beginning. Let’s review the history of eating. The easiest way to do this is to think about human evolution like one day. Say 12:00am last night was the dawn of our first ancestors and 11:59pm is right now. Basically all day (from 12:00am last night untill about three minutes ago) people stayed healthy and fit eating only what could be hunted or gathered—vegetables, seafood, meat, eggs, fruit, nuts, and seeds. Three minutes ago people started farming, became “civilized,” and began eating starch and a small amount of sweets. Three seconds ago, people started eating processed starches and sweets. One second ago, people starting getting most of their calories from manufactured starch- and sweetener-based food-ish products.

That means the diet recommended by the government’s Dietary Guidelines, pyramid graphic, and plate graphics, and manufactured by food-ish product companies was not possible—forget about healthy or helpful for burning body fat—for at least 99.8% of our history. Our ancestors did not hunt or gather pasta, rice, cereal, and bread. They did not eat whole grains. They ate no grains. They did not cut back on added sweeteners. They did not know what added sweeteners are. Emory University researcher S.B. Eaton tells us: “…during the late Paleolithic [during the vast majority of human history], the great majority of carbohydrate was derived from vegetables and fruit, very little from cereal grains and none from refined flours.”

“…there is a lot of money being made…feeding both oversized stomachs and feeding those enterprises selling fixes for oversized stomachs…And both industries—those selling junk food and those selling fat cures—depend for their future on the prevalence of obesity.” – researcher Weis, in the Academy of Health Care Management Journal

And while this natural way of eating is terrible for food-ish manufacturers and blasphemy according to the government’s Dietary Guidelines and graphics, it is interesting to think about when it comes to our hotness and health. There is a reason obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cardiovascular disease are called “diseases of civilization.” They did not become issues until agriculture enabled production of starches and sweets about 12,000 years ago. And they did not reach epidemic status until bureaucrats started playing biologist and corporations started stuffing us with food-ish products.

But before I start implying we are “designed” to eat the way our ancestors ate for 99.8% of our history, and that is how we avoid obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cardiovascular disease, I need some data to defend against this reasonable objection: “Over 12,000 years ago is a long time ago. Back then, people did not live as long as we do now, so this whole their-health-versus-ours comparison is suspect.”

That is an excellent point. I thought the exact same thing until I read research revealing three facts about starch-, sweetener-, and processing-free hunter-gatherers:

  • They are few and far between today, but hunter-gatherer tribes are still around, and scientists have studied the heck out of them. These studies show them free from obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cardiovascular disease, and confirm the next two points.
  • While their average age is lower than our average age, many ancient hunter-gatherers lived beyond the age of sixty and stayed free from the diseases of civilization. Emory University researcher S. Boyd tells us: “Occasionally one hears the claim that primitive people all died too young to get degenerative diseases. This claim is simply false—many lived well into and through the age of vulnerability for such disorders, yet didn’t get them.”
  • Taking old age out of the equation entirely, obese and Type 2 Diabetic “civilized” children are running around all over the place while hunter-gatherer children were obesity and diabetes free.

Could it be the lowering in the quality of our diet and the lowering in the quality of our health are not coincidences? Could it be possible we are not designed to digest the quality of calories making up the majority of the modern diet? And could this “square diet peg in a round fat metabolism system hole” issue be the source of our clog and raised set-points?

Yes.

From the Chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, “…the USDA Pyramid is wrong. It was built on shaky scientific ground…[and] has been steadily eroded by new research from all parts of the globe…at best, [it] offers wishy-washy, scientifically unfounded advice.” From the Journal of the American College of Cardiovascular exerciselogy: “The low-fat-high-carbohydrate diet, promulgated [publicized] vigorously by the…food pyramid, may well have played an unintended role in the current epidemics of obesity…diabetes, and metabolic syndromes.” And from the Co-Founder of Center for Science in the Public Interest: “…good advice about nutrition conflicts with the interests of many big industries, each of which has more lobbying power than all the public-interests groups combined.”

We are not getting bigger and sicker because we are putting too much fuel into our fat metabolism systems. We are getting bigger and sicker because we are getting clogged from putting the wrong quality of fuel into our fat metabolism system. The further the quality of our calories has gotten from the high-quality SANE non-starchy vegetables, seafood, meat, eggs, fruits, nuts, and seeds we ate for 99.8% of our evolutionary history, the bigger and sicker we have gotten.

 

 

The deteriorating quality of our calories is the cause of the deteriorating quality of health and waistlines. And the source of this caloric corruption is politicians playing physicians—why recommend so much low-quality starch?—and big businesses boosting bottom lines—do we really need added sweeteners in everything?

Decades of advanced dietary research have taken place alongside spiking obesity and disease rates. This research recommends a diet much different than any version of the government’s Dietary Guidelines and graphics while proving big business’ government-guideline-friendly food-ish products addictive and deadly. Why don’t the government’s guidelines and graphics reflect this research? Why hasn’t big business been required to stop infusing everything with low-quality?

Well, who needs all this science when there is a constant barrage of food, fitness, and pharmaceutical industry marketing bullying us into believing that the government’s low-fat-low-protein-high-starch diet and resulting food-ish products are healthy? It is pretty amazing how much money is made, how much nutritional confusion is created, and how clogged we become when bureaucrats and big businesses are allowed to define healthy.

 

But no need to fear. Bureaucrats and big business also used to say smoking is harmless, and look how that turned out once we got access to the science of smoking.

 

smarter scientific solution

 

The primary finding of the current study is that [the smarter science of slim]…results in greater improvement in body composition, cardiovascular risk factors, and muscular strength than a program comprised of a traditional diet and…exercise regimen… – researcher Arciero, Skidmore College

The Smarter Science of Slim is all about eating more and exercising less—smarter. It’s about eating so much high quality food that we’re effortlessly able to avoid the low quality food causing fat gain. It’s about exercising with such high quality that it’s unnecessary to exercise more than twenty minutes per week (check-out the book and the blog for the science around what make a food high or low quality).

And yes, eating more and exercising less—smarter—to burn fat seems backward. But after we step back from the mass of fat-loss marketing and myths we’re attacked by daily we’ll see eating less and exercising more—harder—is the backwards bit.

“…[eating less] continues to be the basis of…weight reduction programs…[the results] are known to be poor and not long-lasting.”- researcher Bray, Pennington Biomedical Research Center

“We thought the findings [regarding exercising less, smarter] were startling because it suggests the overall [quantity] of exercise people need to do is lower than what’s recommended…” – researcher Gibala, McMaster University

Even the American Heart Association has gone on record that there is little if any proof that eating less and exercising more is an effective way to burn fat when they said: “It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures would be less likely to gain weight over time compared with those who have low energy expenditures. So far, data to support this hypothesis are not particularly compelling…”

Then why do we keep on getting told to starve ourselves and spend hours in the gym? Enough of that. Especially when there is a mass of data supporting the smarter scientific solution to fat loss.

 

Eating less and exercising more is the backwards bit

In 1977 the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs told us the cause of fat gain was eating too much and exercising too little, and the solution was eating less and exercising more: “To avoid overweight, consume only as much energy as is expended; if overweight, decrease energy intake and increase energy expenditure.”

Since politicians started playing physicians in seventies, obesity and related diseases have increased at record rates. Maybe we missed something, but it sure seems like we’ve got a few decades and few hundred million people demonstrating that “eat less, exercise more” is wrong. It’s either impractical, scientifically invalid, or both. Either way, judging by results, eating less and exercising more isn’t an effective way to burn fat long term.

“[We] reviewed studies of the long-term outcomes of calorie-restricting diets to assess whether dieting is an effective treatment for obesity…In sum, there is little support for the notion that diets lead to lasting weight loss or health benefits.” – researcher Mann, University of California

“…after 18 months of exercise training and achieving 2,000 [calories] per week of exercise, college-aged women had no weight loss.” – researcher Church, Pennington Biomedical Research Center

And none of this: “Eating less and exercising more works just fine…the problem is people are lazy and don’t do it.” That’s silly. If a program is too hard to use, then the program is ineffective. If we try to buy something online and the checkout process is so difficult and time consuming that we skip the purchase, we’re not the lazy ones, the folks who designed the checkout process are the lazy ones. We didn’t fail the system. The system failed us. Bottom line, an impractical approach to fat loss is as useless as a scientifically invalid approach to fat loss. Sadly, eating less and exercising more is both impractical and scientifically invalid.

After all, studies show nearly 50% of women and 33% of men dieting, and that we’re getting way more exercise than any time in history. Exercise didn’t even become a mainstream concept until the 1968 publication of the book Aerobics. Take Dr. Entin from the department of Biological Sciences at Northern Arizona University on the recent history of exercise: “In the 1930’s and 40’s it was believed that weight training would slow an athlete and most athletic coaches banned weight training…high volume endurance training was thought to be bad for the heart. Through the 50’s and even 60’s, exercise was not thought to be useful in older people and endurance exercise was thought to be harmful to women.”

And no more: “Then it’s because heavy people are inactive throughout the day.” From researcher Nestle at the New York University: “…the activity levels of Americans appear to have changed little, if at all, from the 1970s to the 1990s [when the obesity rates rose the fastest].”

There’s also the point-blank studies showing eating less and exercising more failing 95% of the time. Clearly a 95% failure rate is bad. But just how bad is it? Studies show more folks are able to quit smoking cold turkey than are able to keep fat off by eating less and exercising more. Let that sink in for a second. More people are able to successfully give up one of the most addictive substances on earth than are able to lose fat effectively eating less and exercising more.

So before anyone frets about eating more and exercising less—smarter—it’s worth asking: What do we have to worry about? It is not as if “eat less, exercise more” is working.

 

The scientific approach is about quality, not quantity

Everything we’ve ever been told about fat loss is rooted in the theory that fat gain is a quantity problem. Too many calories in, too few calories out, or both. Quantity is king.

The quantity theory of fat loss has been proven wrong in academic circles for decades.

“This study examined the relationships among body fat…energy intake, and exercise…There was no relationship between energy intake and [body fat]” – Miller, Indiana University

“…the best data available suggest that the obese…eat no more than the lean…” – Wooley, University of Cincinnati

Studies show fat gain isn’t a quantity problem. It’s a quality problem. The cause of fat gain is low quality food destroying our body’s need and ability to burn fat while low quality exercise does nothing to restore our bodies’ inability to burn fat.

The easiest way to free ourselves from the quantity myth and to internalize the smarter science of quality is to stop thinking about fat loss like a balance of calories in and calories out and to start thinking about fat loss like a clogged sink. Excess fat building up in our bodies is like excess water building up in a sink. And what causes water to build-up and overflow in a sink?

It’s not too much water flowing into the sink. We don’t wash our hands quickly because we know too much water will make our sink overflow. The best cutting quantity can do is slow the overflow. It’s not about quantity. Similarly, the overflow isn’t fixed by us bailing a bunch water out of the sink. Increasing quantity out is a temporary treatment. As soon as we stop, the overflow starts.

Sinks and bodies overflow because they are clogged. And they get clogged when we put the wrong quality of stuff in them. The problem is the clog (aka “metabolic dysregulation” in academic circles). The solution is removing the clog. And neither have anything to do with too much in or too little out.

  • The Clog: An abstraction of the body’s inability to respond to hormonal signals which otherwise automatically prevent us from storing excess fat. As Harvard Medical School researchers put it, “The circulating [hormone] level…directs the central nervous system in regulating energy [balance]…and metabolism… [However] The vast majority of obese humans…[are] resistant…to [these] weight-reducing effects.”

When we take a step back and think about it, saying the cure for chronic weight gain is eating less and exercising more, is like saying the cure for allergies by inhaling less and exhaling more.

Allergies don’t cause chaos with our respiratory system because we’ve got too much air coming in and too little air going out. It’s not about quantity. The issue is the quality of air we’re breathing. Similarly, the clog destroying our need and ability to burn fat isn’t caused by the quantity of food we’re eating. The issue is the quality of food we’re eating and exercise we’re getting.

 

Eating less and exercising more fails 95% of the time because it’s a quantity based approach to a quality based problem. It’s like trying to get someone who doesn’t speak our language to understand us by speaking louder and louder and repeating ourselves over and over. It’s like pushing on a door labeled “pull” more and more.

On the bright side, eating more and exercising less—smarter—provides the quality of food and the quality of exercise we need to clear the clog and restore our body’s ability to keep us from overflowing.

“Even short-term [high quality eating] improves blood pressure and glucose tolerance, decreases insulin secretion, increases insulin sensitivity and improves lipid profiles…[i.e. clears the clog]” – researcher Frassetto, University of California San Francisco

“…[the type of muscle tissue developed by high quality exercise] led to improved insulin sensitivity and reductions in blood glucose, insulin, and leptin levels [i.e. cleared the clog]. These effects occurred despite a reduction in physical activity…” – Izumiya, Boston University

 

 

In sum, in 1977 the government told us to turn right—i.e. eat less and exercise more—and we ended up further away from where we wanted to go.

It’s time to back up, look at the map laid out for us by thousands of researchers over the past few decades, and turn left. It’s time to focus on quality instead of quantity. It’s time for a smarter scientific solution.

Of course the questions of the day are:

  • “How do I eat more, smarter?”
  • “What are high quality calories and how do I eat more of them?”
  • “How do I exercise less, smarter?”
  • “What is high quality exercise and how do I do it?”

While we’ll see that the real cause of fat gain is a little more complex than we’ve been lead to believe, we’ll also see we’re a lot smarter than we’re given credit for.

 

Get the Book

 

A sampling of sources

  1. ” A word about quitting success rates .” American Cancer Society :: Information and Resources for Cancer: Breast, Colon, Prostate, Lung and Other Forms. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Jan. 2011. .
  2. “Diabetes mellitus.” Belinda Rowland., Teresa G. Odle., and Tish Davidson, A. M. The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine. Ed. Laurie Fundukian. 3rd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2009. 4 vols.
  3. “Economics of the Food and Fiber System.” USDA Economic Research Service – Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 June 2010. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/February04/DataFeature/>.
  4. “HHS Tackles Obesity.” FDLP Electronic Collection Archive. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 June 2010. <http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps1609/www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/304_fat.html>.
  5. “How just six minutes of exercise can be as healthy as six hours | Scotsman (Edinburgh, Scotland), The Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET.” Find Articles at BNET | News Articles, Magazine Back Issues & Reference Articles on All Topics. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. .
  6. “Investor Relations.” Nestle Global – Homepage template. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 June 2010. <http://www.nestle.com/InvestorRelations/>.
  7. “To avoid overweight, consume only as much energy as is expended; if overweight, decrease energy intake and increase energy expenditure.” Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs (US). Dietary goals for the United States. 2nd ed. Washington: Government Printing Office; 1977.
  8. <a href=”http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp”>http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp</a>
  9. <a href=”http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/”>http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/</a>. Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System reveal that nearly half of women and a third of men are dieting and about 50 million Americans pay for gym memberships.
  10. <a href=”http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html#ixzz0Wz0PTtHj”>http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html#ixzz0Wz0PTtHj</a>
  11. 2000 U.S.DA DietaryGuidelines: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2000/2000DGProfessionalBooklet.pdf
  12. 2005 U.S.DA Dietary Guidelines: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2005/2005DGPolicyDocument.pdf
  13. Agriculture started about 12,000 years ago. Our ancestors débuted about 5,000,000. Early food processing—canning etc—started about 200 years ago. Low-calorie food engineering started about 60 years ago. All of human evolution = 5,000,000 divided by 24 hours in a day = 208,333.33. A day has 86,400 seconds in it. One second is .0016% of a day. Smallest increment needed = 60 years…which is 0.0012% of all of human evolution. .0012% of a day is 86,400 seconds times .000012 is about 1 second. 12,000 years is .024% of human evolution. 0.24% of a day is .0024 times 86,400 seconds which is about 207 seconds, or 3 and a half minutes. 200 is 0.004% of all of human evolution. .00004 times 86,400 seconds is about 3.5 seconds.
  14. Arciero PJ, Gentile CL, Martin-Pressman R, Ormsbee MJ, Everett M, Zwicky L, Steele CA. Increased dietary protein and combined high intensity aerobic and resistance exercise improves body fat distribution and cardiovascular risk factors. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Aug;16(4):373-92. PubMed PMID: 17136940.
  15. Arthaud JB. Cause of death in 339 Alaskan natives as determined by autopsy. Arch Pathol. 1970 Nov;90(5):433-8. PubMed PMID: 5476239.
  16. Arthus, Maurice, Warfield T. Longcope, and Henry E. Sigerist. Philosophy of Scientific Investigation: Preface to De L’Anaphylaxie Á L’Immunité, Paris 1921. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1943.
  17. Association. Circulation. 2007 Aug 28;116(9):1081-93. Epub 2007 Aug 1. PubMed PMID: 17671237.
  18. Baba NH, Sawaya S, Torbay N, Habbal Z, Azar S, Hashim SA: High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet for the treatment of obese hyperinsulinemic subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999, 23:1202-6.
  19. Barovick, H., Romero, F., Sanburn, J., Silver, A., Suddath, C., Tharoor, I., Webley, K. Breifing. Time [serial online]. January 17, 2011;177(2). Available from: Business Source Corporate, Ipswich, MA. Accessed January 19, 2011.
  20. Benedict, Francis Gano. Human Vitality and Efficiency under Prolonged Restricted Diet,. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1919. Print.
  21. Blundell John E., Stubbs R. James. Diet Composition and the Control of Food Intake in Humans In: Bray GA, Couchard d, James WP, eds. Handbook of Obesity. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1997: 243-272.
  22. Boden G, Sargrad K, Homko C, Mozzoli M, Stein TP.Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels, and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:403-11.
  23. Boyd, S., Melvin Konner, Marjorie Shostak, and M.D. Eaton. The Paleolithic Prescription: A Program of Diet &amp; Exercise and a Design for Living. New York: HarperCollins, 1989. Print.
  24. Bray, George and Claude Bouchard. Handbook of Obesity. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press, 1998.
  25. Brownell, Kelly, and Katherine Battle Horgen. Food Fight. 1 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Print.
  26. Campbell LV, Marmot PE, Dyer JA, Borkman M, Storlien LH. The high-monounsaturated fat diet as a practical alternative for NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1994;17:177-82
  27. Cassels, Alan, and Ray Moynihan. Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients. 1 ed. New York City, New York: Nation Books, 2006. Print
  28. Church TS, Martin CK, Thompson AM, Earnest CP, Mikus CR, Blair SN. Changes in weight, waist circumference and compensatory responses with different doses of exercise among sedentary, overweight postmenopausal women. PLoS One. 2009;4(2):e4515. Epub 2009 Feb 18. PubMed PMID: 19223984; PubMed Central PMCID:PMC2639700.
  29. Cordain L, Eaton SB, Sebastian A, Mann N, Lindeberg S, Watkins BA, O’Keefe JH, Brand-Miller J. Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;81(2):341-54. Review. PubMed PMID: 15699220.
  30. Coulston AM, Hollenbeck CB, Swislocki AL, Chen YD, Reaven GM. Deleterious metabolic effects of high-carbohydrate, sucrose-containing diets in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Am J Med 1987;82:213-20.
  31. Coulston AM, Hollenbeck CB, Swislocki AL, Reaven GM. Persistence of hypertriglyceridemic effect of low-fat high-carbohydrate diets in NIDDM patients. Diabetes Care 1989;12:94-101.
  32. Crawford D, Jeffery RW, French SA. Can anyone successfully control their weight? Findings of a three year community-based study of men and women. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000 Sep;24(9):1107-10. PubMed PMID: 11033978.
  33. Daly ME, Paisey R, Paisey R, Millward BA, Eccles C, Williams K. Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes–a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med 2006;23:15-20.
  34. Diamond, Jared M.. Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton &amp; Co., 1998. Print.
  35. Dr. Pauline, Entin. “History of Exercise Science.” www2.nau.edu. Northern Arizona University, n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. .
  36. Eaton SB, Eaton SB 3rd, Konner MJ. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: a twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;51(4):207-16. Review. PubMed PMID: 9104571.
  37. Eaton SB, Konner M. Paleolithic nutrition. A consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med. 1985 Jan 31;312(5):283-9. Review. PubMed PMID: 2981409.
  38. Frassetto LA, Schloetter M, Mietus-Synder M, Morris RC Jr, Sebastian A. Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 Aug;63(8):947-55. Epub 2009 Feb 11. PubMed PMID: 19209185.
  39. Friedman JM. Modern science versus the stigma of obesity. Nat Med. 2004 Jun;10(6):563-9. Review. PubMed PMID: 15170194.
  40. Fuh MM, Lee MM, Jeng CY, Ma F, Chen YD, Reaven GM.. Effect of low fat, high carbohydrate diets in hypertensive patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Am J Hypertension 1990; 3: 527-32.
  41. Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Saeed A, Jordan K, Hoover H An increase in dietary protein improves the blood glucose response in persons with type 2 diabetes. Am J Clin Nutr 2003;78:734-41.
  42. Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ. Effect of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2004;53:2375-82.
  43. Garg A, Bantle JP, Henry RR, Coulston AM, Griver KA, Raatz SK et al. Effects of varying carbohydrate content of diet in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. JAMA 1994; 271: 1421-8.
  44. Garner DM, Wooley SC. Confronting the failure of behavioral and dietary treatments for obesity. Clin Psychol Rev. 1991;11:729–780. doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(91)90128-H.
  45. Golay A, Allaz AF, Morel Y, de Tonnac N, Tankova S, Reaven G: Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr 1996, 63:174-8.
  46. Golay A, Eigenheer C, Morel Y, Kujawski P, Lehmann T, de Tonnac N: Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1996, 20:1067-72.
  47. Greene P, Willett W, Devecis J, Skaf A: Pilot 12-Week Feeding Weight-Loss Comparison: Low-Fat vs Low-Carbohydrate (Ketogenic) Diets. Obesity Research 2003, 11:A23.
  48. Gutierrez M, Akhavan M, Jovanovic L, Peterson CM. Utility of a short-term 25% carbohydrate diet on improving glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Am Coll Nutr 1998;17:595-600.
  49. Harper AE. Dietary goals-a skeptical view. Am J Clin Nutr. 1978 Feb;31(2):310-21. Review. PubMed PMID: 341685.
  50. Harrison BC, Leinwand LA. Fighting fat with muscle: bulking up to slim down.Cell Metab. 2008 Feb;7(2):97-8. Review. PubMed PMID: 18249167.
  51. Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR, Powell KE, Blair SN, Franklin BA, Macera CA, Heath GW, Thompson PD, Bauman A; American College of Sports Medicine; American
  52. Hays JH, Gorman RT, Shakir KM. Results of use of metformin and replacement of starch with saturated fat in diets of patients with type 2 diabetes. Endocr Pract 2002;8:177-83
  53. Heart Association. Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart
  54. http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp
  55. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
  56. http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.727/news_detail.asp
  57. http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/2/341/F1.large.jpg
  58. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/
  59. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/. Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System reveal that nearly half of women and a third of men are dieting and about 50 million Americans pay for gym memberships.
  60. http://www.celiac.com/articles/76/1/Why-So-Many-Intolerant-To-Gluten—-by-Luigi-Greco-DCH-MScMCH-MD-Department-of-Pediatrics-University-of-Naples-06301995/Page1.html
  61. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2005/2005DGMessageFromSecretary.pdf
  62. http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/assets/pdf/kraft_foods_fact_sheet.pdf
  63. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html#ixzz0Wz0PTtHj
  64. In 1990 the following report estimated that United States consumers spend more than $33 billion yearly on weight loss products and services.The U.S. Congress H. Deception and Fraud in the Diet Industry, Part 1. 101st Congress, 2nd Session. 1990. Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulation, Business Opportunities, and Energy. Nearly twenty years later this number is estimated to have grown to $50 billion. See: Freedhoff Y, Sharma AM. “Lose 40 pounds in 4 weeks”: regulating commercial weight-loss programs. CMAJ. 2009 Feb 17;180(4):367-8. English, French. PubMed PMID: 19221340; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2638047. The European diet market is estimated at 100B Euros. See: Cannon, Geoffrey. Dieting Makes You Fat: The Scientifically Proven Way to be Slim without Lowering Your Food Intake. Revised edition ed. None: Virgin Books, 2008. Print.
  65. Izumiya Y, Hopkins T, Morris C, Sato K, Zeng L, Viereck J, Hamilton JA, Ouchi N, LeBrasseur NK, Walsh K. Fast/Glycolytic muscle fiber growth reduces fat mass and improves metabolic parameters in obese mice. Cell Metab. 2008 Feb;7(2):159-72. PubMed PMID: 18249175.
  66. Jacobson, Michael F.. Nutrition Scoreboard. New York: Avon Books, 1975. Print.
  67. Jeevanandam M, Young DH, Schiller WR. Obesity and the metabolic response to severe multiple trauma in man. J Clin Invest. 1991 Jan;87(1):262-9. PubMed PMID: 1985100; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC295040.
  68. Jeffery R. Prevention of Obesity. In: Bray GA, Couchard d, James WP, eds. Handbook of Obesity. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1997: 819-829.
  69. Jensen AR How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educ Rev 1969;39:1–123.
  70. Keen H, Thomas BJ, Jarrett RJ, Fuller JH. Nutrient intake, adiposity, and diabetes. Br Med J. 1979 Mar 10;1(6164):655-8. PubMed PMID: 435710; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1598272.
  71. Keen H, Thomas BJ, Jarrett RJ, Fuller JH. Nutrient intake, adiposity, and diabetes. Br Med J. 1979 Mar 10;1(6164):655-8. PubMed PMID: 435710
  72. Kelesidis T, Kelesidis I, Chou S, Mantzoros CS. Narrative review: the role of leptin in human physiology: emerging clinical applications. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jan 19;152(2):93-100. Review. PubMed PMID: 20083828; PubMed Central PMCID:PMC2829242.
  73. Layman DK, Boileau RA, Erickson DJ, Painter JE, Shiue H, Sather C, Christou DD: A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. J Nutr 2003, 133:411-7.
  74. Lean ME, Han TS, Prvan T, Richmond PR, Avenell A: Weight loss with high and low carbohydrate 1200 kcal diets in free living women. Eur J Clin Nutr 1997, 51:243-8.
  75. Lee, R.B. (1968) What hunters do for a living, or how to make out on scarce resources, in Man the Hunter (Lee, R.B. &amp; DeVore, I., eds), p.30 Aldine, Chicago
  76. Low CC, Grossman EB, Gumbiner B. Potentiation of effects of weight loss by monounsaturated fatty acids in obese NIDDM patients. Diabetes 1996;45:569-75.
  77. Macaulay V, Richards M, Hickey E, et al. The emerging tree of West Eurasian mtDNAs: a synthesis of control-region sequences and RFLPs. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;64:232-249.
  78. MacLean PS, Higgins JA, Johnson GC, Fleming-Elder BK, Donahoo WT, Melanson EL, Hill JO. Enhanced metabolic efficiency contributes to weight regain after weight loss in obesity-prone rats. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2004 Dec;287(6):R1306-15. Epub 2004 Aug 26. PubMed PMID: 15331386.
  79. Mann T, Tomiyama AJ, Westling E, Lew AM, Samuels B, Chatman J. Medicare’s search for effective obesity treatments: diets are not the answer. Am Psychol. 2007 Apr;62(3):220-33. Review. PubMed PMID: 17469900.
  80. Miller WC, Lindeman AK, Wallace J, Niederpruem M. Diet composition, energy intake, and exercise in relation to body fat in men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 Sep;52(3):426-30. PubMed PMID: 2393005.
  81. ML Piatti PM, Magni F, Fermo I, Baruffaldi L, Nasser R, Santambrogia G, Librenti MC, Galli-Kienle M, Pontiroli AE, Pozza G: Hypocaloric High-Protein Diet Improves Glucose Oxidation and Spares Lean Body Mass: Comparison to High-Carbohydrate Diet. Metabolism 1994, 43:1481-87.
  82. Moodie PM. Aboriginal health. Canberra, Austrlia: Australian National University Press, 1973:92.
  83. Nestle M, Jacobson MF. Halting the obesity epidemic: a public health policy approach. Public Health Rep. 2000 Jan-Feb;115(1):12-24. PubMed PMID: 10968581; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1308552.
  84. Nielsen JV, Joensson E . Low-carbohydrate diet in type 2 diabetes. Stable improvement of bodyweight and glycemic control during 22 months follow-up. Nutr Metabol 2006;3:22.
  85. O’Keefe JH Jr, Cordain L. Cardiovascular disease resulting from a diet and lifestyle at odds with our Paleolithic genome: how to become a 21st-century hunter-gatherer. Mayo Clin Proc 2004 Jan;79(1):101-8.
  86. Oliver, J. Eric. Fat Politics: The Real Story behind America’s Obesity Epidemic. New Ed ed. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2006. Print.
  87. Ottoboni A, Ottoboni F. The Food Guide Pyramid: will the defects be corrected? J Am Phys Surg 2004;9:109-113.
  88. P.J. Skerrett, and Walter Willett. Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating. Free Press Trade Pbk. Ed ed. New York City: Free Press, 2005.
  89. Parillo M, Coulston A, Hollenbeck C, Reaven G. Effect of a low fat diet on carbohydrate metabolism in patients with hypertension. Hypertension 1988;11:244-8.
  90. Parillo M, Giacco R, Ciardullo AV, Rivellese AA, Riccardi G. Does a high-carbohydrate diet have different effects in NIDDM patients treated with diet alone or hypoglycemic drugs? Diabetes Care 1996;19:498-500.
  91. Petersen CB, Thygesen LC, Helge JW, Grønbaek M, Tolstrup JS. Time trends in physical activity in leisure time in the Danish population from 1987 to 2005. Scand J Public Health. 2010 Mar;38(2):121-8. Epub 2010 Jan 11. PubMed PMID: 20064919.
  92. Pirozzo S, Summerbell C, Cameron C, Glasziou P. Should we recommend low-fat diets for obesity? Obes Rev. 2003 May;4(2):83-90. Review. Erratum in: Obes Rev. 2003 Aug;4(3):185. PubMed PMID: 12760443.
  93. Popkin, Barry. The World is Fat: The Fads, Trends, Policies, and Products That Are Fattening the Human Race. New York: Avery, 2008. Print.
  94. Prentice AM, Black AE, Coward WA, Cole TJ. Energy expenditure in overweight and obese adults in affluent societies: an analysis of 319 doubly-labelled water measurements. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;50(2):93-7. PubMed PMID: 8641251.
  95. Rabast U, Hahn A, Reiners C, Ehl M: Thyroid hormone changes in obese subjects during fasting and a very-low-calorie diet. Int J Obes 1981, 5:305-11.
  96. Rabast U, Kasper H, Schonborn J: Comparative studies in obese subjects fed carbohydrate-restricted and high carbohydrate 1,000-calorie formula diets. Nutr Metab 1978, 22:269-77.
  97. Rasmussen OW, Thomsen C, Hansen KW, Vesterlund M, Winther E, Hermansen K. Effects on blood pressure, glucose, and lipid levels of a high-monounsaturated fat diet compared with a high-carbohydrate diet in NIDDM subjects. Diabetes Care 1993;16:1565-71
  98. Ravnskov, Uffe, and Joel M. Kauffman. Fat and Cholesterol Are Good for You. [S.l.]: GP, 2009. Print.
  99. Roberts, Paul. The End of Food. New York: Mariner Books, 2009. Print.
  100. Roberts, Seth. The Shangri-La Diet: The No Hunger Eat Anything Weight-Loss Plan. Chicago: Perigee Trade, 2007. Print.
  101. Rolland-Cachera MF, Bellisle F. No correlation between adiposity and food intake: why are working class children fatter? Am J Clin Nutr. 1986 Dec;44(6):779-87. PubMed PMID: 3788830.
  102. Samaha FF, Iqbal N, Seshadri P, Chicano KL, Daily DA, McGrory J, Williams et al. A low-carbohydrate as compared with a low-fat diet in severe obesity. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2074-81
  103. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs (US). Dietary goals for the United States. 2nd ed. Washington: Government Printing Office; 1977.
  104. Shah M, Adams-Huet B, Grundy SM, Garg A. Effect of a high-carbohydrate vs a high-cis-monounsaturated fat diet on lipid and lipoproteins in individuals with and without type 2 diabetes. Nutr Res 2004;24:969-79
  105. Stern L, Iqbal N, Seshadri P, Chicano KL, Daily DA, McGrory J. The effects of low-carbohydrate versus conventional weight loss diets in severely obese adults: one-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:778-85.
  106. Summerbell CD, Cameron C, Glasziou PP. WITHDRAWN: Advice on low-fat diets for obesity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jul 16;(3):CD003640. Review. PubMed PMID: 18646093.
  107. Taller, Herman. Calories don’t count . New York: Simon and Schuster, 1961. Print.
  108. Taubes, Gary. Good calories, bad calories: challenging the conventional wisdom on diet, weight control, and disease. New York: Knopf, 2007. Print.
  109. The Principles and Practice of Medicine, William Osler, M.D. Fourth Edition
  110. Truswell AS. Diet and nutrition of hunter-gatherers. Ciba Found Symp. 1977;(49):213-21. PubMed PMID: 244410.
  111. Truswell, A. S. &amp; Hansen, J. D. 1976 Medical research among the !Kung. In Kalahari hunter-gatherers. Studies of the !Kung San and their neighbors (ed. R. B. Lee &amp; I. DeVore), pp. 168–195. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  112. Vernon MC, Mavropoulos J, Transue M, Yancy WS, Westman EC. Clinical Experience of a carbohydrate-restricted diet: Effect on diabetes mellitus. Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders 2003;1:233-7.
  113. Weigle DS. Human obesity. Exploding the myths. West J Med. 1990 Oct;153(4):421-8. Review. PubMed PMID: 2244378; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1002573.
  114. Weinberg SL. The diet-heart hypothesis: a critique. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Mar 3;43(5):731-3. Review. PubMed PMID: 14998608.
  115. Weis W. Academy of Health Care Management Journal, 2005. http://www.alliedacademies.org/public/journals/JournalDetails.aspx?jid=20
  116. Westman EC, Feinman RD, Mavropoulos JC, Vernon MC, Volek JS, Wortman JA, Yancy WS, Phinney SD. Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Aug;86(2):276-84. Review. PubMed PMID: 17684196
  117. Whitehead, Saffron A.; Nussey, Stephen (2001). Endocrinology: an integrated approach. Oxford: BIOS. pp. 122. ISBN 1-85996-252-1.
  118. Wood B. Hominid revelations from Chad. Nature. 2002 Jul 11;418(6894):133-5. PubMed PMID: 12110870.
  119. Wooley SC, Garner DM. Dietary treatments for obesity are ineffective. BMJ. 1994 Sep 10;309(6955):655-6. PubMed PMID: 8086992; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2541482.
  120. Wooley SC, Wooley OW, Dyrenforth S. The case against radical interventions. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980 Feb;33(2 Suppl):465-71. PubMed PMID: 7355820.
  121. Yancy WS Jr, Foy M, Chalecki AM, Vernon MC, Westman EC. A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet to treat type 2 diabetes. Nutr Metab 2005;2:34-40.
  122. Yancy WS, Vernon MC, Westman EC. A Pilot Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders 2003;1:239-43.
  123. Young CM, Scanlan SS, Im HS, Lutwak L: Effect of body composition and other parameters in obese young men of carbohydrate level of reduction diet. Am J Clin Nutr 1971, 24:290-6.
--------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------