Disease Proof

Super-Size that Organ Damage

If you ever see me eating fast-food, odds are I’ve got a gun pointed to my head. A quick burger and fries is a bad idea, and now, a new study has determined that fast food can stress the liver. ABC News reports:
In a new study, 18 slim, healthy Swedish men and women took on a fast food diet, eating meals from popular chains twice a day for four weeks while refraining from exercise.

At the end of the experiment, blood tests showed evidence that the subjects eating fast food had liver damage. They also had gained an average of 16 pounds.

The subjects were eating "an outrageously high amount" of calories, said Keith-Thomas Ayoob, associate professor of pediatrics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. Ayoob said the calorie intake was almost double the average daily caloric intake of most Americans, which is about 2,700 calories.

Studies have shown that a diet high in fat and calories — the magic recipe for delicious, greasy fast food — puts people at greater risk for obesity and type 2 diabetes, both of which can lead to cardiovascular diseases and heart failure.
How can a boardroom of fast-food executives live with themselves? I guess they just call the tobacco execs for support.
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (7) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Amy - February 26, 2008 9:46 AM

Yes--in the movie Supersize Me, didn't Morgan Spurlock have liver damage at the end of his month eating McDonald's food?

joshv - February 26, 2008 1:14 PM

I eat about 75-80% of my calories as fat. I am losing about 4 lbs a month. How is it that "greasy" foods cause obesity again?

Spurlock's diet was high calorie, as well as high carb.

joshv - February 26, 2008 2:52 PM

No, I am not at all advocating fast food. I am pointing out that fats in and of themselves do not cause weight gain.

As for fats being "incredibly dangerous" - the results of the Nurses Health Study disagree - overall fat intake did not correlate with CHD.

joshv - February 26, 2008 3:22 PM

No, I am not distorting it. It's a fact, in the Nurses Health Study, overall fat consumption was not correlated with CHD. Great, increasing fruit, controlling for whatever variables the study is capable of controlling for, reduced the risk of CHD. Did I say fruit was bad for you somewhere?

joshv - February 26, 2008 4:22 PM

Just keep repeating your mantra and it may come true. How can you claim any level of scientific credibility if you quote one portion of the Nurse's Health Study, and ignore another entirely. The fact of the matter is that in the NHS, total fat consumption was NOT significantly related to cardiovascular disease.

I am all for fruits and veggies. But I am also all for fats, animal or otherwise, and the data backs me up.

Michael - February 26, 2008 5:17 PM

What are the fat percentages compared in the Nurses study? If the difference is say 40% vs. 50%, I would understand the difference. Regardless, I have a hard time believing a diet consisting of 75% of calories by fat would be healthy in the long-term.

LLouise - February 26, 2008 5:38 PM


Do you even acknowledge that there is a difference amongst fats? You cant consume a higher-fat diet of lard and conclude it's as healthful as a high-er plant-based fat diet (sans the tropical fats in large amounts).

Dr. Fuhrman allows for some animal foods in the diet, but, even then the leaner. One reason being, that animal fats store higher concentrations of toxins.

You should read Eat To Live! :^) It's really informative and has all the references you need to understand Dr. Fuhrman's recommendations.

Glad you're eating lots of veggies. Do you eat a lot of leafy greens? They're the best!

Dr. Fuhrman's Executive Offices
4 Walter E. Foran Blvd.
Suite 408
Flemington, NJ 08822