how toxic is Gillespie’s new book- Toxic Oil?

6 Mar

Hi everyone!

Hope you’re doing well.

Today, I want to share with you my take on David Gillespie’s new book: Toxic Oil, which was recently published in Australia.

Gillespie is a corporate lawyer turned into an author (http://sweetpoison.com.au/?page_id=2). His first book is Sweet Poison Why Sugar Makes Us Fat.

undefined

It has brought so much controversy as he is neither a dietitian/nutritionist nor a health professional nevertheless saying that sugar is poisonous. (and i’m thinking- where did all these come from!)

Today, we won’t be talking about his first book but his latest one- Toxic Oil: Why vegetable oil will kill you and how to save yourself.

Toxic Oil

Before we start, I just want to make myself clear that I am just lining out the position statement on this book by Heart Foundation, released in February 2013. I have no interest or association with anyone or any food industry. I am here, as a dietitian, to reach out and inform the evidence surrounding this book. Why did I do it? Just because it is my interest to get the right message out to consumers and public. Because it bothers me that someone can publish a book based on theory which is against the national guideline, against the scientific evidence.

This is what the description of the book- from Itunes Books:

Everything you believe about fat is wrong.

Polyunsaturated oil – everyone knows it’s good for you, right? Wrong! And we all know artery-clogging, cholesterol-forming saturated fat is bad for you, don’t we? Wrong again! In his previous book Big Fat Lies, David Gillespie showed that these ‘truths’ are in fact myths, based on poor research and bad evidence.

‘Vegetable oil’, which isn’t made from vegetables at all, but manufactured from seeds, has systematically replaced saturated fats in our diets over the past one hundred years, but our rates of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer are higher than ever.

There have been many studies done in the past. All chronic diseases, including heart disease, are not caused by only one particular thing. There are always a few factors affecting heart disease in an individual. Take Mr.A- he is a successful businessman, a smoker, exercise everyday, eat quite healthily with occasional junk food. Can he have a heart disease? Maybe. And if he did have a heart disease, could we really pinpoint the cause? Is it the smoking? Is it the occasional junk food? or is it the stress? or perhaps the combination of everything? It’s really complex and it’s difficult to determine a single cause.

Literatures show that replacing saturated fat in your diet with unsaturated fat, in particular polyunsaturated fat, reduce your heart disease risk. This is in contrary to what Gillespie says in his book. The Heart Foundation believes that the claim in his book is dangerous, misleading and wrong (quoted from the position statement by Heart Foundation). If you follow such advice, it could lead to the rapid development of serious health conditions.

This position statement regarding unsaturated fats and heart disease risk is not only by Heart Foundation, but also by the worlds leading health organizations, such as World Health Organisation, British Heart Foundation and American Heart Association. On national level, this is supported by Dietitians Association of Australia and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC- contributor of our Australian Guide to Healthy Eating).

So, now you see what I meant- how could a lawyer give such advice- not to mention advice against world leading health organization?

The Heart Foundation, like other health organizations, is committed to helping Australians lead a healthy lifestyle by recommending advice based on good quality, strong scientific evidence and is continually reviewing the evidence.

To cut the story short- everyone, don’t be afraid of healthy fats (monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats). 

Image from http://www.livestrong.com/article/399182-safflower-vs-sunflower-oil/

Evidence shows that omega-6 polyunsaturated fats reduce your bad or LDL cholesterol and increase the good HDL cholesterol, which helps to lower the risk of heart disease.

and what about saturated fats? until this date, the literatures still strongly stand that saturated fats and trans fat are unhealthy fats. too much of it increases cholesterol and over the time causes the build up of fatty material on the inside of your blood vessels. These material blocks the blood flowing through the blood vessels and is a major cause of heart disease (stroke or heart attack). If you can imagine, you’re watering the garden with your water hose. If we are being slack and say- there is soil and dirt built up on the inside of the water hose, over the time the water flow is reduced and eventually blocked completely. no water coming out of the other side of the water hose=no blood flow which means no oxygen to the heart and brain thus stroke or heart attack occur.

Image from http://www.wisegeek.org/how-does-artery-plaque-build-up.htm

the last thing I want to talk about is margarine. there is a claim that margarine and some oils are unhealthy because they undergo industrial process and have trans fats.

this was true a gazillion years ago. margarine in history (this was years and years and years ago) did contain trans fat due to the hydrogenation process (converting oil to a solid spreadable margarine).

However, Australian margarine nowadays are made from locally grown polyunsaturated and monounsaturated plant seed oils, water, milk and salt to taste. The most important thing is hydrogenation is no longer used in margarines and polyunsaturated oils on the supermarket shelf contain negligible trans fats. 

Image from http://www.hospitalityinfocentre.co.uk/Fats%20&%20OIls/margarine.htm

If you see preservatives on the label- it is often citric acid or lemon juice and is put to keep the spread tasting fresh. And what about carotenoids? it is there for colour.

I hope I’m not confusing anybody here! What you have to remember from this rather-long-post are:

  1. there is no reason to be scared of polyunsaturated oils. use them wisely, i’m not saying that you should drizzle generously, but there is absolutely no harm in using polyunsaturated oils.
  2. saturated fats and trans fats are unhealthy fats. they can be found in butter, processed foods, junk foods, biscuits and cookies, etc. we should minimize them in our diet. 
  3. Australian margarines contains almost no trans fat. if there is, it would be negligible and we shouldn’t need to worry!
  4. I would never recommend anyone to buy this book. waste of money for incorrect information. head over to a trustworthy website such as Heart Foundation website, DAA website, etc. even better, find an Accredited Practising Dietitian near you, if you need help! we are here to help!
  5. pass this message to your friends and family! we want everyone to get the right, evidence-based information. 

If you need more information on Heart Foundation’s statement on Gillespie’s book Toxic Oil, please click Heart Foundation statement – Toxic Oil – David Gillespie Feb 2013 (1) for the complete statement.

For more information about the Heart Foundation position on healthier fats, click here.

For more information about the Heart Foundation position on saturated fats, click here.

For more information about the Heart Foundation position on sugar, click here.

If you want to know what Paula Goodyer of Sydney Morning Herald has to say about Gillespie’s Toxic Oil, click here. I was really glad when she stated “I’m inclined to take dietary advice from respected nutritionists, rather than lawyers.”

References:

Heart Foundation. 2013. Heart foundation response to claims in David Gillespie’s Toxic Oil. 

Images of Gillespie’s Toxic Oil book and its description are from iTunes- Books website https://itunes.apple.com/au/book/toxic-oil/id602050247?mt=11.

Image of Gillespie’s Sweet Poison book is from iTunes- Books website https://itunes.apple.com/au/book/sweet-poison/id491198216?mt=11

Disclaimer: this post is intended only for education and is based on Heart Foundation’s statement which you can find on the references or Heart Foundation website. I am not associated with any industry or organization. and I did not receive any monetary reimbursement for this post. 

Advertisements

33 Responses to “how toxic is Gillespie’s new book- Toxic Oil?”

  1. Tracey March 7, 2013 at 6:51 pm #

    I think I would rather believe a corporate lawyer, who has looked at all the facts with fresh eyes, than dieticians and health bodies who are too scared to admit that they may have been wrong, as it would mean that they may have contributed to the pain and suffering of many people; and they wouldn’t want to take responsibility for that. (None of us would). It all comes back to – you can only do the best you can do, with the knowledge and information you have at the time. Dieticians and The Heart Foundation only go by what they were taught or was ‘proven’ at the time. But surely now would be a good time to challenge their thinking/policies. The population in general has been following their guidelines for years and all it has gotten us is fatter and unhealthier. Therefore something needs to change, for the good of us all.

    • Dea March 7, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

      Hi Tracey, thank you for reading this post! It’s completely up to you whether to believe a corporate lawyer or dietitians. Just a point to remember that although our nations are getting fatter and unhealthier, it is not dietitians’ fault or anybody else’s fault. We are doing our best to educate everyone on healthy eating nevertheless it’s not our hands who put foods in their mouth. It’s individual food choices. And another thing is that we are not scared to clarify or declare a change as long as it’s evidence-based. Take eggs recommendation for example. It used to be no egg for people with high cholesterol. But nowadays, based on latest evidence, we are recommending up to 6 eggs per week!

      • clairejoey January 12, 2014 at 10:44 pm #

        I ate 2-3 eggs a day a feel great.

        It would be nice to see you reference so scientific studies yourself if you want to effectively rebut someone else’s interpretation of the science.

        But alas you just resort to name dropping. I’d rather listen to someone that’s done independent research. Have you see the list of companies that sponsors the heart foundation lately?!

  2. farmer_liz March 7, 2013 at 7:03 pm #

    so did you actually read the book?

    • Dea March 7, 2013 at 7:23 pm #

      Hi farmer_liz, thank you for reading this post! To be honest with you, I read only snippets of his book. After discussing with my colleagues, I decided not to go through with it. Above is my outline of the position statement by Heart Foundation, not my own. However, I agree with this statement.

  3. jan March 7, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

    So here you are degrading a book that you haven’t even read, totally laughable and makes your credibility non existent because you haven’t read it with an open mind looking at the investigation that has been done. I agree with Tracey, dietitians, doctors and organisations are too buy parroting what has been thought to be true for the past 40 years. Read The Cholesterol Myth by Doctors Bowden and Sinatra for a more rounded version. And actually, none of the several long term studies conducted have ever made a definitive connection between eating cholesterol and plaque in the veins! When the first guidelines came out by the US Heart Foundation to eat less fat, it was based on the Framingham study and they stated that there was no direct link between eating cholesterol and plaque but they still recommended lowering fat intake, parroted by Australia, parroted by dietitians … and so the myth continues.

    • Dea March 7, 2013 at 8:32 pm #

      Hi Jan, thank you for reading this post! I apologize if you think I degraded anyone/any book, I didn’t mean to. Again, I am just outlining the position statement by the Heart Foundation. And again, I stand by the Heart Foundation, DAA, and other health bodies.

  4. Claire Thomson March 7, 2013 at 8:52 pm #

    Perhaps, just perhaps if David Gillespie was the first and only recommendation that espouses what he espouses then you argument/explanation/call it what you will might put my mind at rest. Yet his message is just one of many voices, many of which are those of nutritionists, dieticians, and even cardiologists raising the issues he raises. Just quietly, I am far more convinced by what I’m reading from them (which contrary to your assertions IS based on science) than I am by what you have written here. Look at the obesity levels an health issues in our society: SOMETHING IS DRASTICALLY WRONG WITH OUR MODERN DIET. Yet when a bloke comes out and says, “don’t eat sugar” and “eat oils that nature created all by itscleverself” he is decried. Personally, the proof is in the pudding and for me an many many other people that pudding is refined sugar free and doesn’t contain “vegetable” (Ha! Like they even come from vegetables) oil.

  5. lifedeb8 March 7, 2013 at 9:01 pm #

    Dieticians Association of Australia? Would that be the same organisation whose ’16th Annual Conference’, in The Sydney Convention centre, was supported by Kellogg’s, Nestlé, PepsiCo et al.? Stall after stall of processed foods..including SOY baby formula(!)…offering free samples to all those qualified dieticians who influence our governing bodies and mainstream media?? Are you really surprised that the ‘unqualified’ don’t trust a word that comes out of the DAA anymore??!!

    Incidentally, and somewhat crucially, saturated fats are no longer found in processed foods, junk foods, biscuits and cookies: THEY’RE FULL OF POLYUNSATURATED OILS!!!

  6. Claire Thomson March 7, 2013 at 9:02 pm #

    Oh, and I just wanted to add that I find it quite strange that you would say that you discussed it with your colleagues and decided not to read the book. Why would you not read it? Why would any dietitian or nutritionist not survey ALL the evidence? Surely in your university training, as in mine, you were taught to do that???? Or at the very least go and read his source material. Actually give the issue consideration. What if you and the heat foundation and everyone who is so bloodymindedly determined not to budge on these issues, what if you are wrong? Just what if? And how can you absolutely know you are not if you’ve not read the sources?

  7. lauren March 7, 2013 at 9:37 pm #

    Ahh the DAA…. no surprises there! The heart foundation is also a croc.I personally have been living on a full fat, high (good fat) diet for many years thanks to my eyes being opened by the western price foundation many years ago.I am a perfect weight , have no health conditions , my vitamin/mineral tests are perfect, my immune system works better than most peoples and MY CHOLESTEROL LEVELS ACCORDING TO MY DOCTOR ARE PERFECT…Hmm funny that.David is no villan , if anything he is a hero for getting the truth out there.Wake up people and at least have an open mind.. what we are doing is not working.Its time to stop banging our heads against a wall.

  8. David M Driscoll March 7, 2013 at 9:42 pm #

    To the doubters, please go and read the research David quotes (and then find the one’s he conveniently leaves out) and tell us what the Corn Oil Trial actually says as well as the Veterans Trial!
    Bill Shrapnel also links to many of the studies David Gillespie doesn’t mention!
    http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=673

  9. David M Driscoll March 7, 2013 at 9:44 pm #

    The first red flag in David’s entire ‘research’ process is the definition of science that he uses in Toxic Oil. He states that “Science is based on people making hypotheses about how things might work and then collecting evidence that will prove them right (or wrong)”. This ISN’T how science works, in fact to me, it sounds more like how the law works.

    In science, a person would normally read the literature and then come to a conclusion or form a hypothesis on that basis. They would actually test their hypothesis and then compare it to existing data, not simply collect the stuff they liked! Cherry picking isn’t science! A lawyer is usually given their conclusion first (which ‘side’ they are on) and then collect evidence to support that position. Scientists commonly refer to papers which disagree with their own work in a study – usually found in the ‘discussion’ section of a paper. There, the results of a study are normally put into context with other data, pointing other the weaknesses and strengths of all relating studies to see how that paper adds to the body of evidence. In contrast, I’m sure anyone would be shocked to hear a lawyer get up in court and discuss any weaknesses of their case, where the opposition had a stronger case and where their own needed improving. In fact, I would predict that the lawyer wouldn’t mention the weaknesses of their case and certainly not mention evidence against (unless it was to discredit or argue against it). As a friend stated (somewhat facetiously) when discussing this exact topic “Lawyers are trained to make a case, not find the truth!”

    This is exactly the manner in which David Gillespie writes his books and discusses data in interviews. From David, you hear about the research that (allegedly) supports his case. Often only the evidence against his theories are referred to when David attempts to debunk it (sometimes merely with an ad hominem attack of sponsorship and vested interests). You certainly aren’t made aware of how much evidence appears to contradict David’s theories. In fact it is often the opposite – you are led to think that the evidence can only lead a reasonable person to the same conclusions. A small amount of research will show exactly how much evidence David leaves out of his discussions – data that would at best, suggest caution but hardly agree with his black and white, true or false, 100% confident views of many aspects of health and nutrition. A perfect example of this is David’s position on exercise and weight loss. Not only does David reference less than a dozen papers (and misquotes many, cherry picking certain pieces of evidence) in Big Fat Lies but he ignores the vast bulk of the research (thousands of studies). Here is a more detailed discussion of where David falls down in the ‘exercise debate’ http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/32/science-does-support-using-exercise-for-weight-loss/ and http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/75/big-fat-lies-on-exercise-and-weight-loss/

    Similarly in Toxic Oil, David picks out bits of information that make his case, often misrepresenting the authors actual findings in order to make that case. Let’s start with the LA Veterans trial (A Controlled Clinical Trial of a Diet High in Unsaturated Fat in Preventing Complications of Atherosclerosis
    http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/40/1S2/II-1.abstract) – where David claimed there were more cancer deaths (which is correct). The original paper lists 7 vs. 2 in the experimental vs. the control groups, but a follow-up reanalysis (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673671910865/abstract) gives the figures at 31 vs. 17. The most relevant point is that in both cases, the figures weren’t statistically significant. In the original paper, the important quote David Gillespie conveniently doesn’t mention is that “Consideration of causes of death in this category suggested that this difference probably did not reflect a toxic effect of the experimental diet.” The re-analysis states that “Our results and those from the literature are uncertain and confusing in respect of the role of polyunsaturated fats in an increased incidence of malignancies. The high incidence of fatal carcinomas in our experimental group is of borderline significance. A retrospective review of any large collection of data will suggest causal relationships which are chance occurrences.” The authors also make an interesting observation regarding the fact that a considerable number of those with cancer in the experimental group (10 of the 31) were placed in the 0-10% group for adherence to the experimental diet. On this the authors stated “Many of the cancer deaths in the experimental group were among those who did not adhere closely to the diet. This reduces the possibility that the feeding of polyunsaturated oils was responsible for the excess carcinoma mortality observed in the experimental group. A high incidence among high adherers would be expected if some constituent of the experimental diet were contributing to cancer fatality.” These statements, especially those in the reanalysis, directly contradict David Gillespie’s representation of the study! But David cites this as evidence for his hypothesis and most people are none the wiser!

    It is curious that David Gillespie finds the Veterans Trial compelling evidence. Why does he ignore the statistically significant improvement the polyunsaturated group regarding atherosclerotic events (i.e. less chance of another cardiovascular event) but highlights the changes in cancer incidence which weren’t statistically significant? Surely if it is a quality study, all of the findings are relevant?

    The reanalysis of the Sydney Heart Study as published in the British Medical Journal was titled “Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study and updated meta-analysis”. This reanalysis also has some questions over it, especially with regards to sample size, statistical analysis, accurate analysis of the trans-fats effect, target population and how well these results can be extrapolated to the general population. Many of these issues are summarised by experts comments found on this page http://www.smc.org.au/2013/02/round-up-dietary-fats-and-heart-disease-bmj-experts-respond/. It will be interesting to see how the authors respond to letters sent to the journal in the coming weeks and months (some responses can be seen here http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707?tab=responses).

    Not only does David Gillespie misrepresent the data, he seems to enjoy taking his message to the most extreme (and illogical) interpretation. Statements such as fructose is poison and every mouthful of vegetable oils takes your one step closer to a deadly and irreversible outcome aren’t supported by ANY evidence to my knowledge! David’s claims that Australians don’t eat animal fats any more, or that type II diabetes “is a disease which is entirely put down to over-consumption of sugar” also are pure conjecture and contradict a large amount of evidence, not to mention common sense. If David Gillespie did represent the research properly, he should admit that NONE of it is strong enough to draw these extreme conclusions! There is no justification for these polarising and irresponsible claims! Studies using 15% Omega six oils or 25% fructose as a percentage of total calories DO NOT prove David’s positions that these products should be eliminated! ‘The dose makes the poison’ has been known since the Renaissance! Even the group from the BMJ article with the questionable re-analysis of the Sydney Heart Study data state that their conclusions “caution should be used when extrapolating results to other populations”.

    So we must ask on what basis David Gillespie states that every mouthful is causing irreversible damage?

    • david osbourne November 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm #

      dave, why is it that when individuals (and i know many) have followed the anti sugar and toxic oil recommendations have turned around type 2 and hypertension issues and have general well being improvements, without a single diet or training regime? yet when they followed the low fat, excersize regularly model it made no difference and in some cases made things worse. I know this is not empirical science but its anecdotal evidence and there is lots of it around. mate you’re in the industry. you keep banging on about those two studies. so from your knowledgeable and deeply scientific perspective, what then is the cause of all this chronic illness associated with obesity sky rocketing since the 50’s? i think it was you who mentioned its peoples choices. what exactly are they choosing? Sugar and toxic oil from what i can tell…? but hey, im not a scientist either so i guess in have no cred

  10. Peter Mason March 7, 2013 at 11:04 pm #

    Best review i have read in ages, much better than the ones written by people who have read the books. Can’t wait not to read the book and tell my friends it was rubbish.

    • Fiona March 8, 2013 at 8:34 am #

      Haha! Thanks for the laughs this morning!

    • david osbourne November 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm #

      good one pete, love it. david gillespie has sure scared off a lot of carpetbaggers of the so called health industry. i have no agenda other than my own personal health and how by keeping me around longer can allow me to be of service to my kids and others. davids or sarah wilsons books cost less than most bottles of vitamin pills and you only need the one dose. sounds like great bang for buck! to me. reading sweet poison was a revelation. ive never felt so good in years. in my youth, when i followed the food pyramid the w.h.o . suggested and foods with the h.f. tick of approval, Id never been sicker. i was an exceptionally healthy kid in the seventies, the days of butter and lard, a sickly 25 – 45 year old, and now on the mend 52 year old, and largely due to eliminating as much sugar that my addiction would allow. i still have a way to go but at least i know what one of the main problems is. toxic oil is my next battle. my faith will always lie in individuals, never corporations, organisations and the like.

  11. Kelly March 7, 2013 at 11:09 pm #

    Why dont you have a look at this story by CBN News the word is slowly getting out. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2013/February/Forget-Cholesterol-Inflammations-the-Real-Enemy/#.UQ_iuFGapMQ.facebook

  12. Julian March 7, 2013 at 11:56 pm #

    Wow irrational ad hominim attack shows you have no idea how science actually works. we have this thing called evidence. Heres some (don’t be scared the person who put this together is a doctor which makes all the difference to whats in the studies- no wait it doesn’t ) http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

  13. Mike Parish March 8, 2013 at 10:39 am #

    I haven’t read the book yet, but have read about 5 books lately, by cardiologists, heart surgeons and other qualified people that see patients on a daily basis. They all have been saying the same message. Sugar, vegetable oils and grain products are in their opinion causing the majority of our chronic disease problem. They change their patients diet and eliminate these foods that have been recommended for the last 40 years and their patiet’s health returns.
    I own a health food shop and have hundreds of customers that have ditched the “guidelines” and gone back to what our grand parents ate, and the feedback overwhelmingly agree their health has significantly improved.
    Watch a documentary on Youtube – The Men Who Made Us Fat it goes into the flawed science and the politics of our current “Guidelines” ……yes politics.

  14. Grace March 8, 2013 at 9:31 pm #

    Heart Foundation… tick tick tick kaboom!!! They lost their credibility when they got into bed with all the big sugar companies and then forgot to base their ticks of approval on sugar content. David Gillespie did not sit on his front porch one day and decide to write the first thing that popped into his head. If you had of read any of his books including Toxic Oils everything he says is based on scientific evidence, yes evidence by other health professionals, doctors, scientists and published medical journals, all of which are referenced for you non readers to check for yourself.

  15. David M Driscoll March 10, 2013 at 10:09 pm #

    If you believe that David Gillespie has looked at all of the research, please read the Corn Oil and Veterans Trials that he claims support his posiiton!

    http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/294/david-gillespie-misrepresenting-the-science-on-toxic-oil-part-1/

    http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/306/david-gillespie-misrepresenting-the-science-on-toxic-oil-part-2/

    If people are critical of someone who hasn’t read the whole book and like to talk about David’s research – it would be safe to assume that those people have read the research too?

    And let’s hope that you all can read and interpret a paper better than David Gillespie – http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/264/can-david-gillespie-actually-read-and-understand-a-science-paper/!

  16. David M Driscoll March 10, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

    And if people would like to talk about science and what it is (such as Julian) – David Gillespie has it wrong!

    The first red flag in David’s entire ‘research’ process is the definition of science that he uses in Toxic Oil. He states that “Science is based on people making hypotheses about how things might work and then collecting evidence that will prove them right (or wrong)”. This ISN’T how science works, in fact to me, it sounds more like how the law works.

    In science, a person would normally read the literature and then come to a conclusion or form a hypothesis on that basis. They would actually test their hypothesis and then compare it to existing data, not simply collect the stuff they liked! Cherry picking isn’t science! A lawyer is usually given their conclusion first (which ‘side’ they are on) and then collect evidence to support that position. Scientists commonly refer to papers which disagree with their own work in a study – usually found in the ‘discussion’ section of a paper. There, the results of a study are normally put into context with other data, pointing other the weaknesses and strengths of all relating studies to see how that paper adds to the body of evidence. In contrast, I’m sure anyone would be shocked to hear a lawyer get up in court and discuss any weaknesses of their case, where the opposition had a stronger case and where their own needed improving. In fact, I would predict that the lawyer wouldn’t mention the weaknesses of their case and certainly not mention evidence against (unless it was to discredit or argue against it). As a friend stated (somewhat facetiously) when discussing this exact topic “Lawyers are trained to make a case, not find the truth!”

    This is exactly the manner in which David Gillespie writes his books and discusses data in interviews. From David, you hear about the research that (allegedly) supports his case. Often only the evidence against his theories are referred to when David attempts to debunk it (sometimes merely with an ad hominem attack of sponsorship and vested interests). You certainly aren’t made aware of how much evidence appears to contradict David’s theories. In fact it is often the opposite – you are led to think that the evidence can only lead a reasonable person to the same conclusions. A small amount of research will show exactly how much evidence David leaves out of his discussions – data that would at best, suggest caution but hardly agree with his black and white, true or false, 100% confident views of many aspects of health and nutrition. A perfect example of this is David’s position on exercise and weight loss. Not only does David reference less than a dozen papers (and misquotes many, cherry picking certain pieces of evidence) in Big Fat Lies but he ignores the vast bulk of the research (thousands of studies). Here is a more detailed discussion of where David falls down in the ‘exercise debate’ http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/32/science-does-support-using-exercise-for-weight-loss/ and http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/75/big-fat-lies-on-exercise-and-weight-loss/

    Similarly in Toxic Oil, David picks out bits of information that make his case, often misrepresenting the authors actual findings in order to make that case.

  17. Andrew April 18, 2013 at 12:29 pm #

    Newer evidences are now pointing to sugary processed foods causing the inflammation to the veins and arteries over a higher cholesterol level. Yes, a very high cholesterol level does cause issues, but less than thought 10 years ago. High omega 6 levels – particularly from seed oils are further creating problems. I have gone away from the old conventional thinking I was also taught. Back to the basics of animal meats, nuts, coconut oil, fresh fish (omega 3) and full cream milk. I feel better than ever. Though Trans fats are still very bad.

    I was always taught at university to open my mind and use evidence based practice in my opinions, maybe you should do the same.

    • davidgillespiesbigfatlies April 20, 2013 at 5:25 pm #

      Andrew, maybe you could share the ‘newer evidences’ amongst other professionals instead of just telling us what they say? Please share the evidence on which your newly found ‘evidence-based practice’ is based.

  18. Eddie Ventley April 30, 2013 at 11:46 am #

    Nothing like good robust discussion! The ‘oxidised cholesterol’ causing athersclerotic lesions I think should be more discussed. The test for oxidised cholesterol apparently has an 80%(?) chance of picking up athersclerotic damage (if I’ve got the terminology correct) vs around 50% or less chance with “traditional” cholesterol tests. Search on “oxidised cholesterol test”, and there seems to be a world of medical discussion, papers etc. I’m not about to have my GP prescribe ‘cholesterol lowering’ statins, if its true that (non-oxidised) LDL is the body’s way of getting building blocks to your cells.
    Concomitantly, my high-school science is successful at confirming that a more reactive molecule (read polyunsturated fat) is far more likely to increase the amount of oxidised fat (read oxidised LDL) in the blood. Either there is or there isn’t something in this – read all the research and medical discussion apart from what D GIllespie says.

  19. Mark July 4, 2013 at 12:06 am #

    If in the year 2013 people are still recommending vegetable oils, they should just look in the mirror and slap them self. This isn’t 1985 anymore. Things progress, we’ve learned, yeesh

  20. Mark July 4, 2013 at 12:16 am #

    Forgot this one: veggie oils (soy and canola) have been found to contain trans-fats 😉

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-4522.1994.tb00244.x/abstract

  21. DJ July 4, 2013 at 7:54 am #

    Sure, oils that are chemically extracted and washed with yet more chemicals are perfectly healthy! The oils are rancid before they’re even bottled… could someone explain how can this can be thought of as healthy? We consume way too much omega 6 thanks to these oils… and that leads to excessive inflammation which then leads to heart disease. Not to mention the oxidization going on when you heat the oils…

    The real science supports natural oils like coconut oil. Butter is also high on the good list… as long as it comes from naturally raised livestock. I understand how people can be conned into believing the alternative is healthier… after all I bought into it for a long time. Then I started reading and soon realized that we are being lied to… and some people are only too keen to perpetuate those lies.

  22. web page September 1, 2013 at 11:42 am #

    I really love your blog.. Excellent colors & theme. Did you
    make this website yourself? Please reply back as I’m
    wanting to create my very own site and want to learn where you got this from or exactly what the theme is called.
    Kudos!

  23. clairejoey January 12, 2014 at 10:40 pm #

    What a pointless article. If your going to argue someone’s interpretation of the science then reference science rather than resorting to name dropping.

    Enjoy your margarine!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: