Paradox relating to hunger: Leith 1961 (“nagging discomfort”); Peña et al. 1979; Hanssen 1936; Krehl et al. 1967 (“more than amply satisfied”). “Isn’t the proof…”: Interview, Bruce Bistrian.

Sims’s overfeeding experiments: Goldman et al. 1976:167.

Bloom’s articles on starvation therapy: Azar and Bloom 1963 (“At a cellular level…”); Bloom and Azar 1963.

“little hunger”: Bloom 1958. “In total starvation…”: Keys, Brozek, et al. 1950:829. “The most astonishing aspect…”: Drenick et al. 1964. “The gratifying weight loss…”: Anon. 1964c.

“mighty stimulant…”: Pennington 1954. “Many individuals spontaneously…”: Dwyer 1985:185.

“The fact remains…”: Anon. 1973.

“If you put a restaurant-size…”: Mayer 1975a:30–31. Fallback for the NIH recommendation: Ernst and Levy 1984:733–34; interview, William Harlan.

“Yudkin showed that…”: Interview, George Bray. Two papers: Yudkin and Carey 1960 [six subjects]; Stock and Yudkin 1970 [eleven subjects].

Yudkin explained: Yudkin 1958 (“The irrefutable, unarguable…,” 59; “much of the extra fat today…,” 141; fat calories will come down, 149).

Experimental evidence: Yudkin and Carey 1960.

Subjects losing weight consuming considerable calories: Milch et al. 1957; Werner 1955; Rilliet 1954 (“numerous and encouraging”).

“all-you-can-eat diet[s]…”: Brody 1981c. “The best definition”: Keys, Brozek et al. 1950:32.

“persistent clamor of hunger”: Keys, Brozek, et al. 1950:835. “nonappetizing nature”: Cahill 1975:58–59.

“token” amounts: Keys, Brozek, et al. 1950:74.

“their appetite-depressing…”: Spark 1973. “Substances called ketones…”: Brody 1996.

The existing research refutes ketone hypothesis: Drenick et al. 1964 (“It is not clear…” “…did not reappear”); Sidbury and Schwartz 1975. See also Kinsell 1969.

“these foods digest…”: Brody 2002. Even those investigators: Werner 1955; Kinsell et al. 1964 (“There is a good reason…”).

Yudkin had struggled: Yudkin and Carey 1960 (“for reasons…” “It would seem…”).

“It is better…”: Bernard 1957:37. “inevitability”: Yudkin and Carey 1960. “Claims that weight loss…”: White and Selvey 1974:48.

Physicians who took Pennington seriously: Thorpe 1957; Taller 1961.

Pennington set out: Pennington 1954 (“voluminous…,” “meager…,” “These tended…”). See also Pennington 1951b.

Something Benedict suggested: Benedict 1925:57. And Du Bois believed: Du Bois 1936:254–55. “index of calorie nutrition…”: Pennington 1953b.

“static phase”: Rony 1940:47. “His caloric intake…”: Pennington 1952.

Diet-induced decrease: Benedict et al. 1919:694–95; Strang and Evans 1929; Brown and Ohlson 1946. Lusk suggested: Lusk 1928:173. “their tissues are not…”: Pennington 1952.

A conundrum: Pennington 1953d. Stetten reported: Salcedo and Stetten 1943.

Applying the same law of energy conservation: Pennington 1952.

“the size of the adipose deposits…”: Ibid.

“provides for a more effective…”: Ibid.

“It dawned on me…” and “like clockwork”: Pennington 1954.

Defect explains sedentary behavior: Pennington 1951a.

Pennington explained this wasn’t the case: Ibid.

Consider the kind: The example of Keys’s conscientious objectors is my own, based on Pennington 1951a.

Maintain weight at seventeen hundred calories: Keys 1949.

“What happens when…” and “The first noticeable effect…”: Pennington 1951a.

“A more rational form…”: Pennington 1953d. directs “measures primarily toward…”: Pennington 1951a.

Healthy equilibrium reestablished: Pennington 1953b (“Mobilization of increased…”); Adolph 1947; Richter 1976;353 If fat can be mobilized: Pennington 1953c (“sufficient effectiveness,” “no calorie restriction…,” “Weight would be lost…,” “The result would…”).

Energy expenditure would increase: Pennington 1953a. Du Bois’s observation: McClellan et al. 1931.

Four thousand calories a day: Evans in Newburgh 1931a; Werner 1955. Might eat three thousand calories: Pennington 1953b.

Pyruvic acid: Pennington 1955. His contemporaries dismiss him: see Yudkin 1959.

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE:
THE CARBOHYDRATE HYPOTHESIS, I: FAT METABOLISM

Epigraph. “Looking at obesity…”: Bruch 1957:147–48.