In science and medicine, the most dramatic explanations often grab headlines – but they can sometimes be wrong. Two classic examples are the mid-20th-century diet-heart hypothesis and early psychoanalytic theory. In the 1950s–60s, researchers convinced the world that saturated fat was the villain behind heart disease, leading governments and food makers to push low-fat diets. Meanwhile, Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis – with its emphasis on childhood trauma and unconscious drives – dominated psychology, sidelining Alfred Adler’s more future-oriented ideas. In both cases, decades of public policy, clinical practice and cultural belief were shaped by a compelling but oversimplified cause. Over time we’ve learned these theories were misleading: sugar and other carbohydrates, not just fat, were fueling obesity and diabetes, and goal-driven therapies (like CBT and Adlerian “individual psychology”) often serve patients better than digging endlessly into the past. These stories remind us that early science can latch onto a single, dramatic cause and stay on it for decades, with far-reaching consequences.
Thanks for reading Bariatric Journal! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
1. The Fat Fallacy: Keys, Low-Fat Diets, and the Obesity Surge
In the post-war era, heart disease was skyrocketing. A 1951 survey called body fat “America’s ‘primary public health problem’.” In 1952 President Eisenhower’s heart attack made heart disease a national crisis . Nutritionists scrambled to explain why. In 1958 Ancel Keys launched his famous Seven Countries Study – a large survey of heart disease risk factors – and emerged as the loudest voice blaming saturated fat. Keys famously concluded that “fat was to blame” for heart disease and that only a low-fat diet would reverse the trend . At around the same time, British researcher John Yudkin noticed that countries with high sugar intake also had high heart disease rates and argued that sugar (sucrose) was a major culprit .
Initially Yudkin even admitted both fat and sugar might play roles . But Keys was adamant that fat alone drove the epidemic. Yudkin later accused Keys of “cherry-picking” data to support his low-fat view . By the 1960s–70s, the idea “fat = bad” had won the day: public health guidelines and doctors told everyone to slash butter, eggs and meat fat out of their diets. The food industry rushed to replace fat with cheap carbs; low-fat products were sweetened heavily with sugar to taste good . In a sense, the sugar industry got what it wanted: by promoting the fat hypothesis, sugar became the “hidden” culprit (even as fat got demonized).
Over the same decades, obesity and related diseases exploded. US obesity rates more than tripled since the 1960s.
Globally the picture was similar. World Health Organization reports show adult obesity nearly tripled from 1975 to 2016 . By 2016 some 650 million adults (≈13% of the world’s population) were obese . If trends continued, models predicted over a billion obese by 2025 . In the US today roughly 42% of adults are obese , up from ~13% in the early 1960s . During these decades many Americans dutifully followed low-fat advice – eating fat-free cookies and high-sugar cereals – while gaining weight.
Why didn’t cutting fat stop the epidemic? Modern evidence suggests Keys’s theory was over-simplified. A growing body of research now points to refined carbohydrates and sugar (not fat) as major drivers of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. A 2023 review notes that clinical trials “could never establish a causal link” between saturated fat and heart attacks, and in fact concluded that saturated fats have “no effect on cardiovascular disease” or mortality . In other words, decades of guidelines capping fat intake are being re-evaluated. At the same time, sugar’s dangers have gained renewed attention. The World Health Organization now recommends cutting “free sugars” to under 10% of calories (5% ideal) because excess sugar intake promotes obesity and heart disease . In short, the dramatic focus on fat led us to ignore the growing evidence on sugar – and millions consumed low-fat/high-sugar foods that may have worsened weight gain and metabolic health.
This history wasn’t a conspiracy of ignorance – though industry influence played a role. In fact, internal documents reveal that the sugar industry actively paid for early research to downplay sugar’s risks. In the 1960s the Sugar Research Foundation funded Harvard researchers who published a landmark 1967 review in the New England Journal of Medicine, concluding that lowering cholesterol (by cutting fat) was the only dietary fix . That review conveniently dismissed evidence implicating sugar . More recently, uncovered archives show the industry had privately sponsored this work to protect its product . The result: public health messages and food policies were skewed. As one nutrition historian observes, the 1960s–70s saw an obsession with “single nutrient” explanations (good fat vs. bad fat) while “overall attention unquestionably focused on fat” , largely ignoring sugar.
Thanks for reading Bariatric Journal! This post is public so feel free to share it.
In summary, the Keys era pressed a simple, dramatic culprit (fat) for complex diseases, with huge fallout: low-fat nutrition guidelines, sugar-laden diets, and a continuing obesity epidemic. Only after decades did researchers start correcting course. Modern reviews now urge a balanced view: replace refined carbs with whole foods, and recognize that sugar is a prime factor in today’s health crisis . This reversal shows how a powerful but narrow theory can mislead for generations.
2. Freud’s Empire and the Overlooked Adlerian Way
At roughly the same time diet fads were taking hold, psychology was under the sway of another grand narrative. Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), an Austrian neurologist, founded psychoanalysis and became one of the century’s most famous thinkers. His revolutionary idea was that unconscious drives and childhood experiences – especially repressed sexual and aggressive impulses – shape all behavior . In the late 1800s and early 1900s Freud developed techniques like free association and dream analysis to uncover these hidden conflicts . His model of the mind (id, ego, superego) and notions like the Oedipus complex became deeply influential. As a historian notes, Freud’s impact on psychology was so huge that “throughout his life… he worked fervently… His impact on shaping the theoretical and practical approaches to the human mind… cannot be understated” . By mid-century psychoanalysis was the go-to theory for mental illness: many therapists believed that resolving past traumas was the key to treating depression, anxiety, neuroses and more.
But Freud was not alone. Among his early circle was Alfred Adler (1870–1937). Adler co-founded the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society with Freud, but in 1911 he broke away from Freud’s theories to form “Individual Psychology” . Adler rejected Freud’s emphasis on sexual drives and inner conflict. Instead, he saw people as primarily goal-directed and motivated to achieve significance and social connection. Adler focused on concepts like “striving for superiority” and “social interest,” believing that we compensate for feelings of inferiority by setting future goals and cooperating with others. For example, Adler stressed empowering children – helping them build confidence and tackle life tasks – rather than endlessly dissecting their childhood guilt or fear . He famously said that healthy growth comes from feeling connected and useful in a community, not from reliving past injuries.
Despite Adler’s insights, Freud’s personality and followers dominated the field. In the 1920s–50s, psychoanalysis grew into a massive movement (with institutes, journals and popular culture references), while Adlerian ideas remained on the fringe. Adler’s own biography notes that when he lectured in the US in the 1930s, “his followers found substantial resistance from those who adopted Freud’s psychoanalysis” . In practice, most psychologists and psychiatrists were trained in psychoanalytic or psychodynamic models and viewed Freud as the towering figure of psychology. (Indeed, Freud was the most-cited psychologist of the mid-20th century .)
Over time, cracks appeared in the Freudian approach. Psychodynamic therapy (the modern descendant of Freud’s methods) emphasizes resolving past conflicts and unconscious motives . Patients sit in therapy for years, exploring childhood memories, dreams and slips of the tongue. Critics argue this can become self-defeating. The process is often very lengthy and expensive – a common complaint is that it “has faced criticism for its focus on the past and the length and cost of treatment” . Some therapists and patients found it too passive: rather than learning coping skills, patients were encouraged to keep reliving trauma. As a primer on psychotherapy notes, psychodynamic therapy can indeed help foster insight, but it does so by digging into old wounds rather than building new strategies .
By the late 20th century, new schools of therapy were rising. Behaviorism (think Skinner, Watson) and then Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) turned attention to present thoughts and behaviors. Aaron Beck’s CBT (1960s onward) was evidence-based and short-term, aiming to change destructive thought patterns now rather than uncover hidden past drives. Today CBT is “extensively researched” and widely recommended – in fact it is regarded as the “gold standard” of psychotherapy in modern guidelines . It treats anxiety, depression and even trauma effectively by targeting current thinking and habits. Likewise, solution-focused and humanistic therapies emphasize future goals, personal agency and strengths. Even forms of psychodynamic therapy have evolved to integrate cognitive and interpersonal elements.
Adler’s legacy lives on in these shifts. Though “Adlerian therapy” remains a niche, it has influenced the field. StatPearls notes that Adlerian therapy is an “encouragement-based” approach emphasizing prevention, personal choice and social connectedness . Today therapists who draw on Adler’s ideas help clients set positive goals, recognize their strengths and engage meaningfully with community. Adler’s holistic view – seeing the person as “indivisible” and inherently striving for significance – parallels modern emphasis on holistic wellness and resilience . In practice, most therapists combine approaches: a patient might learn practical CBT skills but also explore life patterns in an Adlerian way.
It’s also telling that scholarly attention to Freud has waned. A recent analysis found Freud’s peak influence was decades ago – by the 2010s only about 1% of psychology journal papers cited him . In contrast, CBT is cited in guidelines and textbooks worldwide. This reflects how the profession has moved away from dogmatic focus on the past. As one modern review puts it, Freud’s ideas still exist, but “most clinical psychologists… roll their eyes when Freud’s ideas are brought up,” even though we credit his historic importance .
In short, the Freud vs. Adler story is another cautionary tale: an early theory (psychoanalysis) that spotlighted a single narrative (repressed past trauma) came to dominate thinking and training. Alternative frameworks that highlighted future goals and agency were marginalized. When the dust settled, therapists learned that one size does not fit all – many problems respond better to active, present-focused techniques (like CBT) than to decades of introspection alone. Adler’s more optimistic, future-oriented insights are finally being appreciated as a complement to Freudian ideas, rather than dismissed out of hand.
3. Lessons Learned: The Peril of Single-Cause Thinking
These two historical episodes – the war on dietary fat and the reign of Freudian psychology – share a common pattern. In each case, early scientists gravitated toward a simple, dramatic cause for complex problems, and it caught on in the public imagination. Keys’s assertion that fat was “the enemy” of health and Freud’s insistence that childhood trauma was “the key” to all neuroses were powerful narratives. They provided clear advice (cut fat; talk about your past) and often aligned with cultural currents (the fitness movement of the 1950s, the introspective tendencies of mid-century therapy). But complex phenomena like heart disease or mental health have many contributing factors. By focusing on one flashy factor, both fields overlooked other critical pieces of the puzzle.
The consequences were real. The low-fat craze may have left us with a generation that consumed more sugar and refined carbs, arguably making the obesity and diabetes epidemics worse. Decades of high-carbohydrate processed foods were sold as “healthy” because they were fat-free . In mental health, patients sometimes endured years of expensive psychoanalysis without reaching clear solutions, while therapists debated obscure theory. Sufferers might have benefited sooner from practical coping strategies, medication or behavioral change methods that were shunned or slow to develop under the Freudian model. In both arenas, reputations rose and fell slowly: Keys and Freud each remained influential for decades even as their ideas weakened.
Importantly, our modern understanding doesn’t completely invalidate those early theories, but it puts them in context. Saturated fat isn’t a harmless food, but its role in heart disease is more nuanced (some fats are neutral or even beneficial) . And early experiences do matter for personality – but they’re only part of the picture. Personal choice, lifestyle, genetics and current environment all interact with biology and history. Emphasizing one cause oversimplifies. Today’s science is more likely to promote balanced diets (reducing sugar and refined grains, not just fat), and integrative therapies that combine insight with action.
Conclusion: Learning from the Past to Build a Healthier Future
Looking back, the twin missteps of blaming dietary fat for the obesity crisis and clinging to Freudian psychoanalysis for psychological healing reveal a deep human tendency: we crave simple, dramatic explanations for complex problems. Yet as the obesity epidemic and mental health struggles have shown, single-cause thinking often leads us astray. It can create public health disasters, misguide generations, and delay real solutions.
Today, modern science offers a clearer, more nuanced path forward. Nutrition research has largely moved beyond the simplistic “fat is bad” narrative. We now understand that not all fats are harmful, and that sugar and refined carbohydrates play a major role in metabolic diseases. A healthy, sustainable diet isn’t about cutting one nutrient but about balancing whole, minimally processed foods: vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, healthy fats, and unrefined grains. As the American Heart Association and WHO now stress, reducing added sugars and processed carbs is key for both heart health and obesity prevention. Meanwhile, certain fats — like those from fish, nuts, and olive oil — actually promote better health outcomes.
Similarly, psychology has evolved beyond Freud’s heavy focus on the unconscious past. Approaches like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which empower individuals to reshape their thoughts and behaviors in the present, have proven highly effective for treating depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and even obesity itself. Instead of endlessly reliving old wounds, CBT and Adlerian-inspired therapies help people envision a better future self — building confidence, resilience, and practical strategies to change their lives step-by-step.
When we combine these modern insights, a powerful new model emerges for tackling today’s health crises:
* Feed the body with a balanced, whole-food diet, not ruled by fear of fat or obsession with quick-fix products.
* Feed the mind with evidence-based psychological tools that teach resilience, goal-setting, and self-compassion, rather than endless backward-looking analysis.
If we want to truly reverse the obesity epidemic and cultivate better mental health, we must help individuals think differently about themselves and their future, while giving them the physical nourishment to sustain those changes. Food and thought are not separate battles — they are deeply connected. Studies increasingly show that dietary improvements boost mood and cognitive function, while effective therapy helps reinforce healthier lifestyle choices.
Ultimately, the lessons of the past teach us to be skeptical of “one villain” explanations — whether it’s fat, sugar, childhood trauma, or any single factor. Health is multi-dimensional. Successful futures are built not by blaming the past, but by building the skills, habits, and environments that let people thrive going forward.
Our scientific understanding is far from perfect — it never will be — but today we have more tools than ever to support real, lasting change.
Balanced eating + future-focused thinking = a powerful foundation for a healthier world.
The time to embrace it is now. “The past can teach us, but only the future can heal us. Let’s build it wisely.”
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit drmuratustun.substack.com
