NYT: Atkins Advises Dieters to Eat Smaller Steaks

[joeybee12]

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/Health/diet_and_nutrition/latest_developments/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040118/us_nm/health_atkins_dc_2

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Promoters of the popular low-carbohydrate, high-fat Atkins diet are saying that people should limit their intake of saturated fat by cutting back on Atkins staples such as meat, cheese and butter, The New York Times reported on Sunday.



Responding to criticism from scientists that Atkins could lead to heart disease and other health problems, the director of research and education for Atkins Nutritionals, Colette Heimowitz, is telling health professionals that only 20 percent of a dieter's calories should come from saturated fat, the paper said.


Beef, pork, lamb and butter were on the list of "foods you may eat liberally" in diet founder Dr. Robert C. Atkins' book "Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution," first published in 1992. Atkins, who died last year, always maintained that people should eat other food besides red meat, but had trouble getting that message out, the paper said.


________________

So, I guess they're just making up these rules as they go along, right?

[RobertSeattle]

1. Or preventing a major lawsuit

The more I hear, the South Beach diet sounds superior to Adkins.

[TopesJunkie]

2. It is, but it's still just another branded diet --

And that's not going to be the most up-to-date way to treat oneself.

[hlthe2b]

3. I think the healthy way of eating low carb is laid out best in South Beach

But, having said that, I also think, having both read Atkins books (and lost weight on his diet in the past, albeit with some modifications), that this is much ado about very little. Atkins never was a proponent of eating nothing but red meat and high saturated fat dairy in wanton abandon, as has been purported repeatedly by the media. He emphasized moderation and only during the first two weeks of induction limited carbs so strictly, in order to stabilize blood sugar and reduce cravings.

It is really funny what a trigger the word Atkins is for so many, yet it is important to set the record straight. Having said that, I do think South Beach's more moderate approach and clear emphasis on "good fat sources," and healthier protein options, along with those carbs that are low in glycemic index, as well as the fact that this is a lifestyle change, makes it a far superior approach.

[no name no slogan]

4. It's our quick-fix nature

All these diets basically do the same thing: they eliminate one group of food that's supposedly "bad" for you, and let you drop a lot of weight in a very short time.

Eventually this stops working, however, and you plateau out. Then you have to readjust your diet and get off your ass and EXERCIZE.

I've always thought fad diets like this are stupid and pointless and are merely there to fuel an entire weight-loss industry in our culture.

The only truly EFFECTIVE way to lose weight and keep it off is still moderation of your diet and exercize. It's still the most successful form of weight control around, and has the least number of harmful side effects.

(...he said, as he grabbed another Pepsi and candybar as he typed furiously while seated on his fat arse in front of the computer monitor!) :D

[joeybee12]

6. Diet Pepsi and low-fat candybar, right???????????

[no name no slogan]

73. uh, yeah, that's right! :D

(actually, I don't even drink diet soda half the time. But there's some diet Pepsi in the fridge left over from some company we had this weekend, so.....) :D

[joeybee12]

5. Doonesbury said it best...

Eat less and exercise more!

That was the "secret" to weight-loss that Jane Fonda discovered after years of binging and purging!

An old strip, back in the early 80's when she first started with her tapes!

[foo_bar]

14. isn't that the Bloom County diet?

Thus spake Milo, if memory serves.

[joeybee12]

27. I cna neither confirm, nor deny that, but I do know that J Fonda, in

Doonesbury did say it because I have the bookin which this particular strip is printed!

[Nikia]

7. A heavy guy at work tried it and got heavier

He basically went on an all you can eat brautwurst binge and gained 20 pounds in a short time.

[hlthe2b]

11. I'd be interested in what else he was eating....

But the relevent conclusion is really that he "claimed to go on Atkins" and gained weight. I have doubts that he was really following the diet as outlined.

[Nikia]

24. Just Bratwaurst and a lot of it

Without the bun of course. I think he said 12-15 per day.

[hlthe2b]

41. God, that makes me ill, just to think of it....

regardless of what it did to his diet efforts! I hope this guy gets some appropriate help to lose weight.

[Emillereid]

8. article : WHY THE ATKINS DIET IS HEALTHY

Here's an article you can find at: http://www.thincs.org/ While you're there follow the links to other websites maintained by the scientists who participate in thincs or The International Networks of Cholesterol Skeptics especially Ravnkov's. He's written an incredible book called "The Cholesterol Myths" which take the various studies on cholesterol and Heart disease apart number by number -- there's no there there. He's put a great deal of his analyses up on his web page.

Anyway, because of the four paragraph rule I can't post very much this Kendrick article so do go read it at www.Thincs.org. It's actually published at www.redflagsdaily.com, but that's a subscription service ( I have it) and I'm not sure just anybody can get to the articles.

Anyway, I'm sure Atkins is turning in his grave at this wimpy move by his company. There's nothing wrong with saturated fat -- it's the kind of fat that we make from excess carbs and it plays a vital role all over the body. Read articles by Mary Enig at www.westonaprice.org about fats. The following is a good article to get you started:

WHY THE ATKINS DIET IS HEALTHY
By RFD Columnist Malcolm Kendrick MbChB, MRCGP



(email - [e-mail] ) 
<snip>



Well, what is the evidence that a diet high in saturated fat raises your cholesterol level? Where does it come from? The Framingham Study? That world famous study that is quoted by medical experts around the world.





"In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...” Dr William Castelli 1992 (Director of the Framingham study)






So the evidence obviously didn’t come from Framingham. What about studies in children?  These poor vulnerable imps, where the damage is first being done? Just to get a bit of genetic diversity into the equation, let’s look at Chinese children first.

<snip>

The reality is that, in many different studies, it has been shown that the more saturated fat you eat, the lower your cholesterol - although the difference is not that great. Of potentially greater importance is that a high fat diet has a more significant effect on raising HDL and lowering VLDL. Which is supposed to be very healthy indeed.






<snip>
read the whole article!

[hlthe2b]

10. While I agree with you, Atkins did advocate moderation....

We've all heard bizarre stories of people maintining they were on Atkins despite going hog wild and eating pounds upon pounds of steak, heavy whipping cream by the half-gallon, etc. His naysayers love to point to that, but clearly these folks are not following Atkins.

[TopesJunkie]

17. If he's rolling in his grave, it's because he stopped looking

at the research years ago, thus failing to alter his plan as new information came out.

[private_ryan]

67. that heart attack didn't help him either

n/t

[hlthe2b]

71. Atkins did not suffer an earlier heart attack; he had a condition known

as cardiomyopathy, an inflammation of the heart muscle from an infectious agent. This condition, unlike myocardial infarction (MI = heart attack) is not, in any way related to diet.

[Shakespeare]

93. AND that's not what caused his death - it was a slip on the ice

Freak accident from which he never recovered. Atkins' health was excellent, especially for a man his age.

[BackDoorMan]

127. Mutton steaks topped with lard & trimmed beef fat with cow tongue

& pigs feet for dessert and chucks of tripe for a snack later.

Mmmm good...no carbs here...just good old fatty bloody dead meat!!!

Must be real good for the body...the kind of people you can sic on Bush.

[ScrewyRabbit]

9. I'm doing it and it works

Lost somewhere between 10-15 lbs in two weeks.

BTW, if you go to the Atkins website they deny that anything about their approach has changed:

http://atkins.com/about/recentnews/AtkinsHasNotChanged.html

[TopesJunkie]

18. That's scary in itself --

Any diet that doesn't change and hasn't changed over the years is going to be far and away out of date. This says all anyone needs to know about Atkins. Stay away from it -- as far as possible.

[Sandpiper]

30. The thing I find a little creepy

About the Atkins diet and its adherents is that it's almost like a cult. Dr. Atkins is the guru, and whatever he says about nutrition is gospel. If there is any research out there that pokes holes in his ideas, it is considered heresy against the enlightened teachings of the guru.

What I also find a little disturbing is that in his book, Atkins uses an awful lot of testimonials. Testimonials are usually a fallback for those who don't have a lot of scientific data on their side.

[TopesJunkie]

37. Yup.

I just compared it to religion, myself. That's what it feels like, that's for sure.

[lazarus]

97. Like low-fat high-carb?

The ol' pyramid hasn't undergone a lot of changing, has it?

[Lindacooks]

110. The problem with saying

that Americans have gotten heavier after following the USDA Food Pyramid is: many, if not most, Americans DON'T follow it. The Pyramid is out there, and is still the best way to eat. Most people, however, eat far too much junk food, fast food, and fat-laden food because it's easier and cheaper than eating whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. Plus Americans like the taste of high sugar, high fat foods.

Saying that the Food Pyramid is a failure is ridiculous. Study people who actually follow it and you'll have an accurate portrayal of its effectiveness.

[Emillereid]

12. BBC article that clarifies -- they're not saying sat fat is bad!

<snip>
Collette Heimowitz, director of research and education for Atkins Nutritionals, said that the new advice was intended to clarify the correct approach for dieters.

She said: "The media and opponents of Atkins often sensationalise and simplify the diet as the all-the-steak-you-can-eat diet. This has never been true."


<snip>
However, a spokesman for the US arm of the company said that the advice did not represent a change of tack.

She said: "Saturated fat remains a valuable part of the Atkins nutritional approach.

"And there is absolutely no science to support any claims that eating red meat and saturated fat as part of your Atkins programme is anything other then beneficial." ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3408931.stm

[ScrewyRabbit]

20. That makes sense, and the book never said anything different

In fact, it explicitly says that your liberal intake of fats is "not a license to gorge".

I swear, if I were a conspiracy nut I'd say that this story is hitting the news because corporations just don't want Americans to stop eating french fries, fast food hamburgers, and soft drinks.

[TopesJunkie]

23. Or maybe --

Some researchers would like to see that the whole story about nutrition makes its way to the public, rather than these half-witted brands that catch everyone's fancy now.

[ScrewyRabbit]

32. I love the way you keep bringing up the branding

Are you implying that you have to buy Atkins products to follow this diet?

I bought the book, read it, and I only eat fresh foods from the perimeter isles of the supermarket (far away from the chips and cookies and crap). The diet itself recommends this.

As for your comment that the program has never updated itself, that's also not true. It's been updated several times since 1972 based on ongoing research.

[TopesJunkie]

36. The books are a brand. The products are a brand. --

The follow up by other products is a brand. Do you not understand the basics of branding and marketing in this country? Atkins is a perfect example of how to brand and sell a product. It is a brand and nothing more. It is not backed up by the most current science of nutrition. Period.

[ScrewyRabbit]

45. Yes, I know it's a brand

And I know what a brand is, believe me, because that's part of MY business.

My point was only that this isn't Weight Watchers where the diet IS the product. You don't need to buy an "Atkins Bar" or some such to follow the diet.

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion, Topes. I'm going to go on eating healthy food and losing weight. Peace.

[TopesJunkie]

46. Umm.

You argue and then you agree? Interesting. By the way, you can follow Weight Watchers without purchasing their products too.

[ScrewyRabbit]

55. I never said it wasn't a brand

I'm just taking stabs at this whole 'cultist' argument, which I find just a little silly.

This is my last post on this thread, it's too stupid.

[TopesJunkie]

56. The cultist argument is bolstered by this very thread --

[aQuArius]

13. If you've actually READ the book...

It is apparant to me that lots of fiberous veggies are a must for success on Atkins. Plus, lots of water and daily dose of cheese for calcium. Plus, after the 1st two weeks they want you to add berries and nuts to your diet. Its actually pretty well-rounded so you don't consume too much fat from protien.

[TopesJunkie]

16. I would hope that you would read much more than the book --

It's a brand's marketing statement. The real information about the most current nutrition is elsewhere.

[aQuArius]

22. I was raised by a nutritionist

Listen, I understand how insulin levels and blood sugar work. My mom was doing low-carb before anyone ever heard of low-carb or Atkins. She was an RN and always taught me how important whole grain foods are, plus ridding your body of processed and sugared foods and drinking plenty of water and constant exercise. By the time a person has lost the weight with Atkins, they can eat whole-wheat bread, pasta and oatmeal, fruit. Atkins is a way to loose weight and cut the sugar and eating habbits.

[TopesJunkie]

25. It's a way, that's for sure.

It's also not backed by up-to-date nutrition science. That's also for sure. By the way, I am a physician. And I do research on nutrition. Atkins is not the way to lose weight.

[supernova]

26. So what's your advice?

How do you maintain a reasonable weight?

[TopesJunkie]

33. Start here --

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743223225/ref=lpr_g_1/103-8492001-7217405?v=glance&s=books

[supernova]

40. I am already an admirer of Dr. Willett

I enjoy his work immensely. I've been priviledged to hear him speak on "The People's Pharmacy" multiple times. As an up-to-date physician, you should know Dr. Willette supports more research into atkins, and is in no way a chief detractor.

So, what else you got?

[TopesJunkie]

43. Actually, if you've heard him speak, you'd know that... --

he has plenty of criticism for Atkins and the branding of it. If you are truly following Willett and his compatriots you don't need me to hold your hand.

[supernova]

49. Actually I don't see that

when he talks about Atkins. He has a great deal of respect for Dr Atkins work.

And anyway, you still haven't satisfied my mind that you understand how we are using the Atkins plan.

Here's a stretch, why don't you ask how we work it on the individual level. Your bedside manner leaves much to be desired. And yeah, I've spent more time around Docs that the average person.

[TopesJunkie]

53. Not when I've heard him speak --

Sorry. Willett is a very serious researcher. Atkins chose to ignore much of the research. Where did you hear him speak? I'd really like to know.

On edit: Since I mentioned it below, I should mention it here. I've worked with the guy on a number of projects. He is no fan of Atkins, believe me.

[supernova]

82. I don't believe you

I don't believe you worked with Willett. I don't believe you are an MD (first year med, maybe if that).

Atkins explicitly said he was always open to other researchers collecting data on his theory and practice. That his peers (ACC, for starters) chose not to for 25 years says more about the stodginess of the institution than Atkins' willingness to submit his pet theories to research.

And yes, Willette has in fact said that the Atkins plan merits more study. If he didn't want to say that, he would either say 1) Atkins is a dead-end, why are we still pursuing this dead-horse? 2) decline to be interviewed. He has done neither. I'd say it's more of a qualified approval.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/community/DailyNews/chat_willett020109.html

From the article:

MODERATOR at 12:20 p.m. ET
A question from Lisa: "Would you recommend the Atkins program?"

DR. WALTER WILLETT at 12:23 p.m. ET
Many nutritionists have discarded the Atkins diet because it is so different from USDA recommendations. However, there are so many individuals who have experienced benefits in terms of weight loss by using this diet that I think it deserves long-term study.

We clearly have seen that many individuals do benefit by lower consumption of carbs, so I suspect there really is value in greatly reducing them.

However, I think there is also strong evidence that high intakes of animal fat can be harmful and that replacing these with unsaturated fats would surely be beneficial.

And before you get on a kick about mass animal protein consumption, again I say ask us how we use Atkins. There are many different types of protein You might be surprised.

[TopesJunkie]

124. I could care less --

You think a summary like that changes the real science of the matter? Sorry, it does not. Atkins is not healthy. That's the bottom line consensus of the science and of scientists.

[Emillereid]

64. Willett is a vegetarian -- and even he

said that the diet/heart idea was "only an hypothesis after all." He's done some good work, mostly epidemiological -- not experimental. The experimental work has been breaking Atkin's way in the last few years. And as Kendrick pointed out in an article I talked about in an earlier post, if doctors would go back to their textbooks and study basic biochemistry/physiology they'd have a better understanding on why Atkins works.

[HuckleB]

96. Since we're on Willett, here's a recent piece of his.

BEYOND THE ATKINS DIET

As far as the piece about basic biochemistry and physiology. Doctors have done that. That's one of the biggest reasons they have concerns about low-carb diets as presented to Americans en masse via products that are processed to all hell, just like the old "low fat" crap that was pushed down the consumer's throat back when.

[aQuArius]

28. My cousin's a physician and she fully supports low-carb

So, don't give me your "holier-than-thou" attitude, I can go the Mormon church to get that. Lighten up, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, you don't agree with mine, that's ok. Peace.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TopesJunkie]

42. I'm condescending?

That's rich. Thanks for not listening.

:)

[aQuArius]

47. that "I'm a physician" line, then everyone has to listen to the expert

I listened, then disagreed :)

[TopesJunkie]

51. Now you are cracking me up.

First you pull out a line about your mom being a nutritionist and an RN. Then you pull out the cousin who is a physician. And then you bash me for stating my career field. Give me a break.

[hlthe2b]

35. Well, there are plenty among the nutritional research elite that

are beginning to question prior dogma on this. Surely you've kept up with the work of Walter Willett at Harvard, Jim Hill at University of CO, the Duke University Group, Gary Foster at Univ. of Penn, Sam Klein at Washington University, and the ongoing NIH study.

BTW, I am old enough to recall the dogmatic viewpoint of the established medical community when a certain Australian researcher purported Helicobacter pylori to be the leading causal agent in gastric ulcers. Most involved in medical research (which includes me) are quite cautious in implying we have all the answers, when clearly, we do not.

[TopesJunkie]

39. I work with some of them --

Read what they have to say. It differs greatly from Atkins old time dogma. They use all the information available. Atkins chooses to stick with an old theory, refusing to adjust with the times and new information.

I just recommended Willett's book to another poster. Didn't you see that?

[hlthe2b]

52. Some recent comments by our friend, Walter Willett:

The perversity of this alternative hypothesis is that it identifies the cause of obesity as precisely those refined carbohydrates at the base of the famous Food Guide Pyramid—the pasta, rice and bread—that we are told should be the staple of our healthy low-fat diet, and then on the sugar or corn syrup in the soft drinks, fruit juices and sports drinks that we have taken to consuming in quantity if for no other reason than that they are fat free and so appear intrinsically healthy. While the low-fat-is-good-health dogma represents reality as we have come to know it, and the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in research trying to prove its worth, the low-carbohydrate message has been relegated to the realm of unscientific fantasy.

Over the past five years, however, there has been a subtle shift in the scientific consensus. It used to be that even considering the possibility of the alternative hypothesis, let alone researching it, was tantamount to quackery by association. Now a small but growing minority of establishment researchers have come to take seriously what the low-carb-diet doctors have been saying all along. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, may be the most visible proponent of testing this heretic hypothesis. Willett is the de facto spokesman of the longest-running, most comprehensive diet and health studies ever performed, which have already cost upward of $100 million and include data on nearly 300,000 individuals. Those data, says Willett, clearly contradict the low-fat-is-good-health message ‘‘and the idea that all fat is bad for you; the exclusive focus on adverse effects of fat may have contributed to the obesity epidemic.’’

While I've followed Walter's work for years and largely follow his advocation of the mediterranean diet with its emphasis on whole grains, omega 3 rich fish and fresh leafy vegetables, I also am heartened by his recognition that not all carbs are the same and that there is a lot to be recognized in terms of risk from saturated fat in diets that are quite low in highly processed (high GI) carbohydrates. The mediterranean-type diet that he, himself follows, is, in fact comprised of low glycemic index carbs, healthy monosaturated fat and high quality protein sources.

Keep an open mind. I think there is a lot yet to be learned and I'm willing to bet Atkins will not be proven to be EITHER totally right NOR totally wrong.

[TopesJunkie]

54. Like, duh?

I work with the guy. A quote out of context is meaningless, my friend.

[hlthe2b]

58. I am not implying that Willett is an Atkins proponent

but, rather that he is among several multi-center sites that is involved in looking at the issue of low carb diets versus other more traditional alternatives. He has spoken to the fallacy of the traditional food pyramid and our current obsession with high carb, low fat diets-- given the explosion of type II diabetes and obesity in this country.

[TopesJunkie]

63. Yup. Who hasn't?

However, Willett's conclusions are far more balanced and based in a holistic view of research than the conclusions one finds in the Atkins tomes. That's the point.

[hlthe2b]

66. No argument there....

[hlthe2b]

65. I've had the pleasure of attending many a seminar with Willett

In contrast to what you are presenting here, Willett does indicate that there is much requiring further research-- in terms of the impact of low carb (low GI carb) diets whether accompanied by high saturated fat, or moderate, largely monosaturated fat protein sources. He is refreshingly honest about what we do and do not know. If you work with him, I can only hope some of his open-mindedness rubs off.

[regnaD kciN]

90. REAL doctors don't say "Like, duh"...

Sorry, but you have slipped into more than a few cases of "Wayne's World"-type slang that suggest a teenager, or, at most, a college student rather than an established physician.

Fee, fie, fo, foll...I smell the blood of a big fat TROLL!

;-)

[HuckleB]

94. Actually, they do.

Many real doctors are incredibly lowbrow. Especially the research brethren.

That's all I'm saying.

[Emillereid]

60. I'm a nutritionist and I'm amazed you are unaware of all the recent

research vindicating the good Dr. Atkins. Lots and lots of it. I have tons of it on my computer -- or go to www.atkins.com (click on the link labeled the science behind the diet), www.thincs.org ( a groups of physicians and scientists from around the word doing their level best to get some real facts out to the public), www.westonaprice.org, (read Mary Enig's papers on fats -- she the scientist who did much of the original bench work identifying trans fatty acids in the food supply), http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp


What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?



By Gary Taubes



At the very moment that the government started telling Americans to eat less fat, we got fatter.  The truths about why we gain weight and why it is so hard to lose it just might turn out to be much different from what we have been led to think.



If the members of the American medical establishment were to have a collective find-yourself-standing-naked-in-Times-Square-type nightmare, this might be it. They spend 30 years ridiculing Robert Atkins, author of the phenomenally-best-selling ‘‘Dr. Atkins’ Diet Revolution’’ and ‘‘Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution,’’ accusing the Manhattan doctor of quackery and fraud, only to discover that the unrepentant Atkins was right all along. Or maybe it’s this: they find that their very own dietary recommendations—eat less fat and more carbohydrates—are the cause of the rampaging epidemic of obesity in America. Or, just possibly this: they find out both of the above are true.



When Atkins first published his ‘‘Diet Revolution’’ in 1972, Americans were just coming to terms with the proposition that fat —particularly the saturated fat of meat and dairy products—was the primary nutritional evil in the American diet. Atkins managed to sell millions of copies of a book promising that we would lose weight eating steak, eggs and butter to our heart’s desire, because it was the carbohydrates, the pasta, rice, bagels and sugar, that caused obesity and even heart disease. Fat, he said, was harmless.



Atkins allowed his readers to eat ‘‘truly luxurious foods without limit,’’ as he put it, ‘‘lobster with butter sauce, steak with béarnaise sauce...bacon cheeseburgers,’’ but allowed no starches or refined carbohydrates, which means no sugars or anything made from flour. Atkins banned even fruit juices, and permitted only a modicum of vegetables, although the latter were negotiable as the diet progressed.



Atkins was by no means the first to get rich pushing a high-fat diet that restricted carbohydrates, but he popularized it to an extent that the American Medical Association considered it a potential threat to our health. The A.M.A. attacked Atkins’s diet as a ‘‘bizarre regimen’’ that advocated ‘‘an unlimited intake of saturated fats and cholesterol-rich foods,’’ and Atkins even had to defend his diet in Congressional hearings. ..... more at http://www.lowcarb.ca/articlesb/article344.html

Read Taubes other article published in Science called the Soft Science of Dietary Fat -- here's a link to the article: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/taubes.html.
Actually Barry Groves maintain a great website with lots of informative links.

If you want more - let me know -- I can send you stuff.

BTW -- I have seriously done the pyramid and even Dean Ornish diets -- I have never been sicker in my life -- at least as far as all the numbers you doctors measure. High LDL cholesterol, high TGs, low HDL, high heart disease risk ratio, slightly high insulin and glucose and fast weight gain!!! When I tipped the pyramid on its head and started doing Atkins, my LDL dropped, my HDL doubled, my TGs plummeted, my insulin and blood sugar went way down and I even dropped a few pounds. Now my risk ratio is under 3 (down from 6+). My body cannot lie -- no matter what the official medical and government pronouncements on the subject of diet are, my body has made its own proclamation on the subject and it's the gold standard of references in my book!!!

[TopesJunkie]

62. I dearly hope you are not a nutritionist --

Since all you offered are old, pop-culture Foxified arguments that ignore much of the current nutrition science.

[Emillereid]

68. I don't even know what you're talking about --

I offered you recent articles and the promise of much, much more. I don't know what kind of physician you are, but you certainly don't seem very open-minded or scientifically oriented. When facts and theory disagree, the proper thing to do is can the theory -- not ridicule people.

I read current nutrition science every day -- and like I told you before, it's breaking Atkin's way. If all you can do is call names -- there's no point to this discussion.

[Sandpiper]

79. Response to Taubes article by two of the Doctors he quoted

Dr. Gerald Reaven, Stanford University on the Taubes article:

<snip>

"I thought article was outrageous," Reaven says. "I saw my name in it and all that was quoted to me was not wrong. But in the context it looked like I was buying the rest of that crap." He adds, "I tried to be helpful and a good citizen, and I ended up being embarrassed as hell. He sort of set me up."


Dr. John Farquhar, Stanford University:

<snip>

"I was greatly offended by how Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across as supporters of the Atkins diet," he wrote in an e-mail he broadcast to reporters and to colleagues who were stunned that Farquhar might actually hold the beliefs Taubes attributed to him. "We are against the Atkins Diet," he wrote, speaking for himself and Reaven. "I told him there is the minor degree of merit" to the idea that "people are getting fatter because too much emphasis is being placed on just cutting fats," Farquhar told me. But "once I gave him that opening -- bingo -- he was off and running, even though I said about six times that this is not the cause of the obesity epidemic."

[HuckleB]

95. Yeah, that piece was torn to shreds by those "quoted" as "supporting...

Atkins and his clones." It was a hatchet job, and, as usual, the corporate press never set the record straight.

[Emillereid]

102. Nutrition is not a black or white enterprise --

that scientist question a certain approach doesn't mean that he therefore gives whole hearted support to an opposing position. Reading Taubes I was under no illusion that the scientists he quoted were Atkins enthusiasts. Actually Reaven's work over the years has given a great deal of support to the restricted carb approach, even if the man Reaven has been unable to go all the way with his own data. Reaven is sort of stuck between the two paradigms and is not ready to buck the establishment totally. He still believes the diet/heart theory (that saturated fat and cholesterol in you diet cause heart disease)-- which in my estimation has been pretty much discredited. Although the establishment has backed off some, they aren't ready to abandon their high carb, low fat approach just yet. Actually it was Willett who has called for a total remake of the pyramid. The powers that be have said there wasn't the science to back another approach, he replied that the lack of science didn't stop them from erecting the pyramid in the first place. From my vantage point as a nutritionist I'm not sure that we fully understand enough -- especially not to recommend a one size fits all approach. People seem to respond differently to different diets -- some people tolerate more carbohydrates than others. I for one do disastrously on a high carb, low fat diet while others seem to do quite well. It probably reflects our differential genotypes as well as other factors such as age, stress levels, sleep patterns, hormones, etc. The final word on the diet people do is their own body -- how do you respond to the diet. I finally had to give up the low fat approach because regardless of what the 'book said', my body hadn't read the book and wasn't playing by the rules. My body functions best on a higher fat (including saturated) diet -- and regardless of theory, that fact trumps all.

[HuckleB]

103. Who said it was?

Sorry, but Taubes' article doesn't pass muster. It's not like it was just one guy who came out saying he was misquoted. Further, Taubes' left out the whole story in order to push a very clear agenda.

Again, I have read that piece numerous times, as well as the follow-up debate. It's very clear that the Taubes' piece is journalism at its worst.

http://ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2725

[Emillereid]

106. Read Taubes reply to BIG FAT FAKE --

as well as his article in Science called the Soft Science of Dietary Fat.

Also can you be more specific -- good journalists are forever being accused of 'misquoting' -- he has tapes and emails to back up his quotes. Also his purpose in writing the articles was not to give simply document the whole low fat vs low carb debate, but to raise awareness that their was a debate -- that there was an alternative to the low fat, high carb approach. That approach had been articulated and defended as nauseum and it was not his task to defend it. It would be like me writing an article articulating the reasons for not going to war in Iraq and then being accused of not adequately portraying Bushit's reasons for going to war. Give me a break -- not every article or book or whatever has to take on the whole universe of ideas.

I urge you to read Pubmed, not webMD -- the fact of the matter is that research is finally being done comparing the restricted carbohydrate approach to the low fat approach and the results are 'surprising' the establishment. A sea change is taking place.

If you do better on a high carb, low fat diet -- great. Listen to your body. My body however sings a different tune. Vive la difference!

Let's do science, not polemics.

[HuckleB]

107. Read the articles I have posted.

There are plenty of specifics about Taubes' various rants. I've read them all, as I already stated, including his rant against the Reason piece, which was shown to only dig his hole further.

As for research, I use Medline, Cinahl and others. That's the hardcore. You say you want to do science and not polemics, yet you seem to want to defend one of the greatest examples of polemics in recent journalism history to the bitter end. Why is that?

[Emillereid]

100. If you read the article carefully you will realize their concerns

about being misrepresented are unjustified. In the article,(or the more 'academic' article in Science) Taubes himself doesn't conclude that Atkins per se is best. His aim in both articles is to carefully examine the science behind the low fat, high carb approach -- and to that extent he was fair to both Reaven and Farquhar. They have raised serious questions about the low fat pyramid. In his book Reaven goes so far to say that his only problem with Atkins is the amount of saturated fat in the diet, but as a strategy for insulin resistance it was in the right direction. Taubes does not claim that these authors are saying that the low fat movement caused the obesity explosion -- he accurately quotes them as having their own questions about the appropriateness of low fat, high carb diets. There's many shades of opinion and suggestion in Taubes. These scientists should have thicker skin -- nobody is confusing their questions with wholesale support of Atkins!

[HuckleB]

101. I disagree wholeheartedly.

I've read those pieces repeatedly, including the numerous critiques that appeared afterward. Sorry, but Taubes' piece was horrendous in its misquotes and in its missing pieces.

[Liberal Christian]

29. Preach it, friend!!

I was a "it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you expend more calories than you ingest" True Believer for a long time.

Then I read The Carbohydrate Addicts Lifespan Program, which, like Atkins, The Zone, The South Beach Diet, Sugar Busters, and other controlled carb programs, talks about the problem of insulin resistance, sometimes called Syndrome X. All of the plans talk about limiting, not eliminating, high carb foods, many of which contain fairly empty calories.

Sorry, folks, but pasta, white potatoes, white rice, white bread, etc just don't have a lot of nutritional content. They also, in some people like myself, stimulate an insulin response that keeps carb cravings coming and keep the appetite stimulated. Eventually, the insulin response interferes with the body's ability to metabolize carbohydrates/sugars.

None of these programs encourages huge meat feeds. All of them encourage balance. And most people who try them report that cravings cease after just a few days.

Why is it so difficult for people to believe that different bodies process foods differently and need different approaches to food and weight management? What is it that threatens people when others have success following one program or another?

[TopesJunkie]

34. Preaching is exactly what it is --

Religion is as relgion does.

[aQuArius]

44. Religion is faith based

And for those who have not done their research, the have faith that Atkins and all other diets will work. Point is, do your own damn research and find what works for you to keep you fit and healthy. We are all different and we'll never agree on everyhting. :) If we did, this website wouldn't exist.

[TopesJunkie]

50. There are longitudinal studies that show healthy habits...

and what works over time. There's much included in Atkins that doesn't follow with what we know from those longitudinal studies. And Atkins refused to do any longitudinal studies more than 90 days.

By the way, the studies I'm referring to are decades old, following people over their lifetimes. That is real, research based stuff.

Atkins is faith based.

[hlthe2b]

59. You should know that NIH is funding these studies as we speak...

If, as you claim you are working with Willett.

[TopesJunkie]

61. Those studies aren't exactly the greatest --

As you should know. And they're very long in coming, and it will be decades before they could ever compare to the Harvard studies I am referring to. Further, those studies are minuscule by comparison, and are not looking at health on a holistic plane.

[hlthe2b]

69. All the more reason to keep an open mind.....

Nutrition is one area that dearly requires more research dollars, given we've barely brushed the surface of its impact on long term health, aging and disease prevention. Given the dramatic changes in food production methods, processing, and delivery in recent decades, what was true just a decade ago, may not hold true for the future.

[Emillereid]

75. Epidemiology has it's uses but the gold standard is and always will be

experimentation. Longitudinal studies are good for identifying possible causative factors, but only experimentation can fully delineate causal relationships. And as should know 90 days is fairly long for a controlled study. Longitudinal studies have all sorts of problems -- not the least of which are subject fall-off, no control of the actual variables, confounding factors galore, etc. BTW, there is an ongoing database collecting data on people living low carb for life.

Also you should know that longevity studies have indicated that long-lived people seem to have 3 factors in common -- high HDL, low TGs and low fasting insulin -- these are generally related to restricted carbohydrate consumption.

[regnaD kciN]

92. That's the truth...

For the record, I'm not an Atkins devotee. In fact, I've never tried the Atkins diet. I did try the Zone (more below), but not Atkins itself.

However, about fifteen years ago, I found myself motivated to lose weight. Grasping at straws, since I'd previously tried the low-fat approaches with little success, I grabbed a copy of a now-long-out-of-print (but still available on Amazon) book titled The Two-Day Diet, the principle of which was to have vastly reduced caloric content for, at most, two days at a time, followed by a day or two of larger, though still restricted, food intake. Although I didn't realize it at the time, it was in the Atkins/Zone orbit of high-protein, low-carb diets. It seemed to go against every principle I had heard over the years. In fact, it seemed slightly dangerous, but I figured I'd try it out for a few weeks and drop it if I was showing health problems.

Within half a year, I lost 50+ pounds. For the first time since being an adult, I was within my teenage weight.

Well, mission accomplished, and all that. I figured that I could now simply start eating healthy and maintain my new weight. Since I was uneasy with the Two-Day Diet's high-protein, low-carb design (despite the success I had with it), I decided to go with a regime of "conventional wisdom"...slightly calorie-reduced, low on fat, low on protein, lots of complex carbs.

I wound up gaining over 100 pounds.

Every time my weight went up, I rationalized that I hadn't been strict enough with the low fat and high complex carbs, and redoubled my efforts to stick to the "accepted" way. The only result was more weight gain.

Finally, I decided that what must have happened was that the Two-Day Diet "screwed up my metabolism," so that, when I started eating a normal "healthy" diet, my body went nuts and piled on the weight. I concluded that the problem had been with the Two-Day Diet, and told people I wish I'd never tried it, and been happy with my original excess weight.

It was only when I started studying the Zone that I began to wonder whether the problem had been the Two-Day Diet, or the "healthy" eating that followed it? I tried the Zone for awhile, and had a nice weight loss. However, as I have written about earlier, it came to an end when our workplace stopped having a lunch wagon come by with a daily variety of chef-salad-type dishes, and "crunch time" on a chain of projects meant that I only had the choice of fast food, junk food, or no food (the Programmer's Diet). I've been thinking of going back on the Zone for some time. However, I'm now wondering if I should also give the Two-Day another look...

[supernova]

15. Oh boy, here we go again

I've never as a habit eaten more than the recommended serving amout of protein, be it beef, chicken, pork or fish, in any given meal. That's about 4 oz folks. About the size of a deck of cards.

Now I did find myself eathing a little more meat the first 3 or 4 days or so of induction when I started in July of 2002. But it evened out after than and I went back to normal portion sizes.

People who say they can eat all the steak, chicken and brats they want and are still "doing Atkins" are not using the plan as directed.

[TopesJunkie]

19. Umm. Yeah, there is A GOUT ABOUT IT! --

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1125659,00.html

[patdem]

21. For longevity NO MEAT...for skinny...a finger down the throat does the

same as a Adkins diet?

[beawr]

48. No, they're not

Their side:

http://atkins.com/about/recentnews/AtkinsHasNotChanged.html

[TopesJunkie]

57. Goodbye!

[joeybee12]

70. Good Lord! This ain't politics or football!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am shocked that what I thought would be a post-in-passing has gotten such a response, and such passionate ones, too.

Just goes to show you that you don't know what's going to set off a nerve. Well, at least I don't know!

[hlthe2b]

72. Your could post nutritional threads all day and ... nada

But mention Atkins and you'll blow the top off-- only second to threads on abortion, various Dem Presidential candidates, (and today, at least, anything that has to do with North versus South, refighting the Civil War issues)....

[joeybee12]

74. You're apparently right--now lets find out where the candidates stand

on Atkins, and we'll have ourselves a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ScrewyRabbit]

76. I naively thought it would be a benign topic

I wander into the minefield and end up practically being called a cultist! (As someone who considers himself a full-time skeptic, that rhetorical flourish was not appreciated.)

Got to remember to leave nutrition out of polite conversation!

[joeybee12]

77. Let's see, that means religion, sex, politics AND Atkins are not to be

discussed at dinner parties.

Let's just stick to abortion and other subjects that are less controversial!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

78. I thought this would have useful info and not become a flame war

I lost 35 lbs on Atkins. My cholesterol dropped, so did Mr. RR's. Diabetes runs in my family.

Nutritional info is always-changing. Everyone's body chemistry is different. I don't see why there has to be narrow-minded opinions regarding food. What is fine for one person to eat may cause health issues for someone else.

Everyone take a deep breath!

[hlthe2b]

80. RR, I think that people get so invested in their views on health matters

that they become alarmed at suggestions that they may be wrong. That fear of being wrong causes entrenchment on both sides of the debate. (I can't help but draw similarities between the dogmatic views of far right religious fundamentalists, who seem to be almost comforted the more close minded they are in their viewpoints).

While I personally prefer a modified low carb diet that emphasizes small amounts of whole grains, cold water fish like wild salmon and tuna, and legumes as primary protein sources, low fat (but not non-fat) dairy, and significant soy, I do eat red meat and poultry on occasion. I think the excoriation of Atkins is largely based on the tendency for some people to misinterpret it and go to dietary extremes. Nonetheless, my modified low carb diet does fit within Atkins' original dietary plan and were in fact, modifications that he mentioned for vegetarians and others seeing to avoid red meat.

I predict that in coming years, Atkins' work will be proven both right and wrong (i.e., some need for modifications will become apparent). Nonetheless, the adverse effects of highly processed
carbohydrates is becoming increasingly clear-- thanks (in part) to Atkins. I guess the take home message has to be moderation, with attention to getting needed nutrients, a balanced food plan that seems to work for you, and overall, EXERCISE.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

81. I agree-people who take low-carb to the extreme

suffer health consequences. You can't eat red meat and cream sauces everyday!

I also follow a modified Atkins since losing weight. I eat berries, sweet potatoes, and whole grains. I do not eat potatoes, white flour, white sugar, or white rice. I eat a lot of salad and green vegetables and tend to eat turkey, chicken and fish vs. red meat.

[Liberal Christian]

83. Unless there are permanent lifestyle changes, nothing works

I'm a yoyo. Several times, I've lost significant amounts of weight (over 80 pounds). I had wonderful success on a controlled-carb program. My bloodwork numbers were fantastic, I felt great, I lost a lot of weight. A combination of life circumstances came together -- new job, cross country move, father's illness and death, new work and lifestyle of being on the road a lot, etc -- and I went back to eating just any old thing. I gained the weight back quickly.

Find the program that works for you (as long as it's not just eating grapefruit and hardboiled eggs or some such thing) and stick to it. When you're at goal, follow the maintenance and make the changes permanent. And that's how you lose and maintain weight loss.

Maybe someday I'll actually be able to do the maintenance and lifestyle change for life part. Sigh.

[hlthe2b]

84. seems you've learned what works for you....

that's the first part of the battle. Don't be so hard on yourself. The behavioral literature actually affirms that change made after partial success (or partial failure), using those same methods, can be much more long lasting...

[supernova]

85. Agree totally

It's all about finding what combination of exercise and eating works best for you.

I've been able to keep the weight off and remain in maintenance mode for so long, I'm starting to forget what it was like to be overweight.

I want to always remain where I am on the scale.

[BiggJawn]

86. Yes, eat the 28-Oz. steaks instead of the 56-Oz ones...

Even though the 56 is FREE if you finish it in less than an hour....:7

[supernova]

87. Not Atkins-related

nothing about this post is related to Atkins.

Sorry, try again.

[BiggJawn]

88. No, it's related to SMALLER STEAKS

Just like the ORIGINAL post.

Sorry, YOU Try again.

I got nothing against Atkins. If it works for you, great!

Many roads lead to the same destination.

[supernova]

89. On that we can agree

Many roads lead to the same destination.

Again, Akins does not recommend eating more than the normal amounts of protein.

[HuckleB]

91. "BIG FAT FAKE."

Yeah. It looks ugly up there, and I'm not going to get into it. However, this piece is well done, and it does show some of the hype that has bolstered Atkins, including some of Atkins own less-than-noble marketing acts.

Big Fat Fake
The Atkins diet controversy and the sorry state of science journalism.

"It was exactly what millions of obese Americans wanted to hear: Diet guru Robert Atkins has been right all along; conversely, the "medical establishment" that has routinely criticized him has been entirely wrong. Unlimited-calorie, high-fat meals are the key to low-fat bodies. So claimed award-winning science writer Gary Taubes in an 8,000-word New York Times Magazine blockbuster that appeared last July, "What If It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie?"

The magazine’s cover was even juicier than the title: It featured a slab of steak topped with butter and asked, "What If Fat Doesn’t Make You Fat?" In fact, Taubes declared in his article, the consumption of too little fat could explain the explosion in obesity.

Atkins quickly wrote an editorial for his Web site claiming the article "validated" his work. Gushingly favorable follow-up stories appeared on NBC’s Dateline, CBS’ 48 Hours, and ABC’s 20/20. Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution, with 11 million copies already in print, shot up from No. 5 to the top spot on the New York Times paperback bestseller list for "Advice, How-To, and Miscellaneous" books. It went from No. 178 to No. 5 in Amazon’s rankings. Taubes himself landed a book contract from publisher Alfred A. Knopf for a big fat $700,000.

But there were serious problems with this revolutionary argument about one of our nation’s most serious health problems. For example, Taubes omitted any reference to hundreds of refereed scientific studies published during the last three decades that contradicted his position. Researchers from whom he could not pull even a single useful quote supportive of his thesis were banished from the piece, while many of those whom Taubes did end up quoting now complain that he twisted their words."

[joeybee12]

98. I'm responding to this just so it gets kicked back up and people

rant a little longer.

I agree, I think Atkins is pretty shady. Any diet that causes your body to stop processing certain foods/nutrients cannot be good for you.

[HuckleB]

99. I suspect.

That the BIG FAT FAKE piece is too long for most folks, so it won't get the attention it deserves. It's one of many well done pieces that debunked the NY Times Mag article that Atkins himself pushed to the forefront of his marketing machine. It's half-truths and dishonesty such as this that make it clear to me that Atkins isn't about improving health in the long run. Blah. Blah. Blah.

[Emillereid]

104. Taubes well thought out reply to BIG FAT FAKE --

Note particularly the email exchange between Taubes and Farquhar. Looks like he says one thing for the record and one thing off. Sounds like a politician to me -- and believe you me, nutritional science is riddled with political forces not least of which are the interests of the bigFood industry. I'm reminded of a story an organic chemistry teacher of mine told one day in class -- the day the government had approved the use of Olestra, she received a call from a woman she had studied chemistry with who now worked for the government as a research scientist. She wanted to let my teacher know that she and the other scientists were not responsible for the decision -- the scientists had not signed off on it -- they had been over ruled by political considerations.

http://www.reason.com/0303/taubes.shtml

March 4, 2003

Michael Fumento's article "Big Fat Fake" in the March issue of Reason led Gary Taubes to make the following response. Taubes is the author of the New York Times Magazine story "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?," which Fumento examined in his Reason story. To read Fumento's reply to Taubes, click here.


Michael Fumento’s March article Big Fat Fake is an exercise in vitriol rather than sound journalism

By Gary Taubes
I am ambivalent about writing this response to Michael Fumento's article ("Big Fat Fake"). On the one hand, the article simply doesn't deserve a response. It is a noteworthy exercise in vitriol, and perhaps self-aggrandizement, but it falls far short of legitimate journalism. On the other hand, journalists and historians, not to mention the occasional lay reader, have a tendency to assume that if something makes it into publication it is somehow de facto true or justifiable. This is never necessarily the case. For that reason, which I find slightly more persuasive, a published response might mitigate that tendency toward excessive credulity, at least in this particular circumstance.



Fumento's article attacks my work and my credibility, and then tries to sell it as a commentary on the state of science and medical journalism. His attempt might have been compelling had he managed to get at least a small percentage of his facts right and to avoid journalistic sins of omission and commission worse than any of which he accuses me. To put it simply, even on those rare and splendid occasions when Fumento does get a fact right, he still manages to thoroughly misrepresent my article and mangle the interpretation of the relevant science. While it's effectively impossible, even in the copious space I've taken, to rectify all Fumento's excessive distortions, the following attempts to clarify the key issues and correct some of the more egregious errors.



For starters, in his second paragraph, Fumento characterizes my article as arguing "that the consumption of too little fat could explain the explosion in obesity." He does not quote the article, which would have been easy to do had it included such a declaration anywhere in its nearly 8,000 words, but it doesn't. Rather my article challenged the accepted dogma that obesity and excess weight are caused by the excessive consumption of fat calories, and instead suggested that it was caused by the excessive consumption of calories from refined carbohydrates and starches. I referred to this proposition repeatedly as the "alternative hypothesis", using the word "hypothesis" to imply strongly that it is not a fact but a supposition that should be rigorously tested. The article discussed the possibility that refined carbohydrates and starches might have a unique effect on our metabolism that either causes excessive hunger or an unbalanced deposition of calories in fat tissue. If so, it suggested, such a metabolic effect could explain the 150-year-old popularity of low carbohydrate diets for weight loss.



Dr. Robert Atkins and his eponymous diet played a major role in the article because Atkins has been preaching the evils of carbohydrates for at least 30 years. Only recently, however, have mainstream medical researchers concluded that perhaps his very-low-carbohydrate diet is worth testing. These trials, as a result, might shed light on whether the alternative hypothesis is scientifically meaningful....

I hope and pray that those who take this issue seriously will read this and the other Taubes articles carefully. He's an award winning science journalist (mainly Science) whose analysis should be taken seriously. I think he's presently writing a book to take a closer look at the issue.

[HuckleB]

105. Sorry, but that was not a well thought out reply.

I read it through twice back when it was first published. Taubes' really made himself look even worse with this piece. He is simply dishonest in his representations of those he quotes and of those who criticized his piece. He will never again be taken seriously as science journalist. As Fumento shows in his own reply to Taubes' rant:

http://reason.com/0303/fumentoreply.shtml

[Emillereid]

108. Specifics?

Just what is your agenda?

I am scientist --I speak science. Data, please.

[HuckleB]

109. I don't believe you are a scientist.

On the other hand, I am.

It's very clear from your responses that you have a very one-sided view of this matter, and that you refuse to read anything that calls that view into question. That's not very scientific. Not by a long shot.

I have offered pieces with plenty of specifics. I don't have to repeat them in order to play the good old Internet roulette games. Read first. Then ask me for clarification of anything you don't understand. I'm not going to summarize for you.

By the way, have you even read the original refutation of Taubes' piece? Well, here it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A55532-2002Aug23¬Found=true

Speaking of agendas, what is your agenda? It's very clear that you have one, and it's not based in science, as you try to claim.

[Emillereid]

111. I think you need to read all my posts --

you'll realize that I don't have a 'view' as you call it. Nutritional science is more and more suggesting that there is probably not a 'one size fits all' diet for all humans.

We are probably experiencing a paradigm shift in many ways wherein the old dogma is straining under the weight of anomalies popping everywhere in the literature. The old theories have to explain the data, not just dismiss. For instance, the recent study that put obese adolescents on either a 1200 calorie low fat diet or the Atkins diet showed that those on the Atkins diet lost more weight, experienced better lipid changes, etc. while actually consuming on average 1800 calories a day.

The low fat hypotheses has to explain all the data coming that suggests that the Atkins or other restricted carb diets lead to greater lipid profiles as well as greater weight loss. It's not enough to just dismiss them with well, yes, the data does suggests this or that, but what about long term studies. Do longer term studies -- but don't dismiss the data as somehow illegitimate because it wasn't long enough. Actually 90 day controlled studies are fairly long for the field (look at the low fat studies for comparison; Reaven's were generally much shorter). There's an ongoing study going at Duke (for over a year) that is finding lots of benefits of the low carb diet and finding none of the supposed dangers.

The low fat diet hypothesis has to explain me -- I lived (stubborn I was) on a low fat, high carb (complex, no white flour/sugar/refined for me) that averaged 1200 - 1400 calories a day. I enjoyed the diet -- at heart I'm a peasant and love rice and beans -- unfortunately, they didn't love me. I gained weight, my cholesterol went up, especially the LDL fraction, my HDL went way down, my TGS skyrocketed and my risk ratio for a heart attack began to scare both me and my doctor. All those things were reversed when I restricted carbs.

I have dozens and dozens of studies that need to be explained. Theory has to follow data -- "The great tragedy of Science-the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." (Thomas Huxley, 1825-1895)    

I have no great attachment to any one theory -- but I do have an attachment to science; to devising theory that explains the facts on the ground. Years ago Weston A Price found that indigenous people did very well on all sorts of native diets -- they ranged from the Masai who ate nothing but beef, milk (rich in cream) and blood to other people who ate more or less a vegetarian diet -- although all the people he surveyed had some kind of animal fat in the diets. The answer to why people do better or worse on different diet schemes may reside in their genes. I can say that nutritional science is an exciting field just now.

BTW, I am not going to dignify your accusation that I'm not a scientist -- you can think whatever you want. However, if all you want to do is impugn my character, then we have nothing to discuss. If on the other hand you want to discuss science -- I'm here. 

[HuckleB]

112. You claim one thing, while saying another.

Sorry, I don't buy it. You write more than you read. That much is clear from your posts. I posted in earnest, while your replies made little sense in return. It was as if you hadn't bothered to read my posts and the articles attached but wanted to reply anyway.

I'd love to talk science, but I haven't noted your willingness to do so, though you claim to do so in this last post. Your prior posts on this board do not back those claims. For Pete's sake, you posted Taubes' article as a defense of Atkins. Did you not know how poor that piece was? Had you not read the follow up pieces to it? The debate surrounding it? How could you post that and tell me with a striaight face that you don't subscribe to any one theory. Sorry, you are posting as it suits you, without any consistency. I've got no time for such games.

I wish you well.

[Emillereid]

113. Nor I.

[Emillereid]

114. Oh HuckleB I can't resist --

Did a little investigating and although you claim to be some kind of scientist (a nutritionist you're not), I suspect you have more to do with journalism/media than science.

You obviously don't seem to think much of Taubes as a journalist -- I think because you don't like what he has to say. But in the interest of furthering your education not only has Taubes been an science journalist for the esteemed Science journal for many years, (I'd sure like his job) he won the 2001 Science in Society Journalism Award for his article The Soft Science of Dietary Fat (for link see one of my posts above)

2001 Science in Society Journalism Awards
"Freelance writer Gary Taubes won his third Science-in-Society award with his Science magazine story, "The soft science of dietary fat." Following his prize winning technique of evaluating how inadequate scientific tools are used to dictate important national health issues—what people should eat—he once again shows there is still much to be mined in a topic long considered settled and indisputable. With painstaking research and in-depth reporting, he challenges the accepted wisdom on dietary fat and displays the chinks in its armor. Many of his reported findings are still controversial, yet judges lauded his risk-taking reporting, making us think twice about obsessing about our dietary choices.



Taubes, a freelance writer, spent a year on the story mostly supported by other writing projects. Each story in this vein takes longer than the last, he said. For this one, He interviewed about 150 people. As a result, in his own shopping Taubes ignores the nationally approved health advice and hunts, sometimes in vain, for yogurt made out of whole milk. When his friends ask him for scientifically sound dietary advice, the only thing he can tell them is still what his mother told him: Eat your fresh fruits and vegetables, and watch your weight.



Bio
Gary Taubes has written about science, medicine and health for Science, Discover, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times Magazine, Esquire, GQ, and a host of other publications. He is currently a contributing correspondent with Science and a contributing editor with Technology Review.



Taubes has won numerous awards for his reporting including the National Association of Science Writers Science-in-Society Journalism Award in both 1996 and 1999. .....

I'm a scientist, not a media specialist, but I'd say that not everyone in the journalism field agrees with your assessment of him.

http://nasw.org/mem-maint/awards/01Taubesbio.html

[HuckleB]

115. You're funny.

What does that show? Nothing. Awards are meaningless. And they are no protection against poor journalism. Not in this world.

Supposedly, it's science you are after -- though, again, your posts above show a clear agenda aimed at support for Atkins without consideration for evidence that sees things differently. And again, the science and the scientists show Taubes' piece to be very unscientific, yet all you want to do is spend your time finding new ways to defend him. Nevermind that the defense grasping at some very thin straws. The funny thing is, the Reason articles acknowledge Taubes' awards. As noted, I've read those repeatedly, so I knew all about his awards. So why act like you think this should be a surprise to me? Or, as I suspect, is it true that you still haven't read any of the pieces that show exactly where Taubes' erred repeatedly?

Again, you claim a status that is not backed up by your posts. Why is that?

[Emillereid]

116. The eye of the beholder --

I concur with Taubes references and reasoning, you don't. Fumento erected and then tore down the proverbial strawman. I am intimately acquainted with the literature to which Taubes refers -- and he is absolutely correct. His mission was to take a hard look at the science that supposedly supports the low fat edifice -- and found it wanting. He is not particularly an advocate of Atkins -- but he does give him credit where it is due. I do not know who or what you are -- but you do seem overly attached to some kind of anti-atkins/low carb point of view.(Maybe you're not in journalism after all, but part of health establishment that tells people to eat low fat??) But in science we let the chips/facts fall where they may -- and the fact of the matter is there are an awful lot of studies indicating all sorts of health benefits from a low or restricted carbohydrate diet -- these are the things I was hoping we could discuss instead of the relative journalistic merits of Taubes and Fumento.


So how do you explain the most recent findings of the multi-center study indicating 'surprising' health benefits of an Atkins style low carbohydrate diet -- I'm sure you know which one I mean?

[HuckleB]

117. Please.

In other words, all your talk about science doesn't mean a thing. Taubes' ignored science, he misquoted to serve a clearly predisposed agenda. You and I both know it. The evidence shows this. Yet you persist. Well, you've shown your true colors fully and completely. This is not about "the eye of the beholder." This is about taking an honest and complete look at the evidence and the research. Something your posts have clearly shown that you have yet to do. Fumento is but one of many who ripped apart the Taubes piece. I have posted other references by other writers and researchers here. It's time for you to look in the mirror and realize that there is nothing to defend when it comes to the Taubes' piece unless you are defending the future marketability of "low carb" products. The science ain't there, my friend.

I will not respond again. You can have the last word. It's clear that it's important to you, even if a full review of the science of the matter is not.

[Emillereid]

118. OH HUCKLEB -- you still avoid actual data and evidence

Let's agree that you don't like the Taubes article and I don't like the Fumento one.

But what about all the recent evidence indicating all kinds of benefits of a low carb diet. You do know the literature don't you. What about the Duke University study, the one at the U of Chicago, Berkeley, Stanford, the Long Island study?? Are they all lying to cover for Taubes or Atkins. Is my own doctor amiss in recommending restricting carbohydrates? Are respectable scientists like Enig and Ravnskov in some kind of conspiracy to kill us with fat? Gosh even our good friends Willett and Reaven tell us it's OK to eat fat. I am in total favor of low carb products -- especially organically grown broccoli, arugula, cabbage, asparagus, berries, mushrooms, etc. etc. I confess -- I am league with my local farmers. That's my agenda -- you flushed me out. You devil you.

[HuckleB]

119. You clearly have an agenda.

For every study you show, there are many that go the other way. There are many more scientists that argue the other way. Are they all lying? Your red herring arguments are to the point of ridiculousness, and they've left you all tied up in knots, because you don't care to actually discuss or to look at the full body of evidence.

You want to claim that I avoid actual data and evidence, when it's clear that you are the one who is practicing that way. Well, fine. I don't give a rip. Further, you are referring to partial and short-term studies with plenty of problems with them, and plenty of refutations elsewhere. I am talking about the literature and research as it comes down over time in a holistic manner. Taubes didn't want to deal with that, and it's clear that you don't either. You are simply playing games. There is no science in that. Further, you are now making assumptions that you cannot make based upon what I've offered in my posts. In other words, you are putting words in my mouth. That, again, is simply playing games. There is no genuine desire to discuss or learn on your part. Yes, your agenda is clear for anyone to see. You won't be able to deny that. You will, as you have shown, but you have contradicted yourself so many times by now, no one would be able to gather which way your winds are blowing.

Further, I tell you I'm done with this crappy discussion of yours, and you choose to go even lower than you already have done. That's simply despicable.

It's really time for you to give it a rest. Your hole is deep enough.

[Emillereid]

120. But you promised me the last word!

1. Actually the Duke and U of Chicago have been going on for well over a year. And as everyone knows who has actually done clinical trials, that's a long time.

2. If you have any studies that pitted a truly low carb approach up against a low fat approach wherein the low fat approach gave better beneficial results -- pony up -- I'd love to see it.

3. I'm not sure you understand how science works -- say you have a theory or hypothesis that says A is true but not B. Then you do an experiment pitting A against B, but the results tell you that B is true and not A. You have to either abandon your hypothesis or at the very least question it -- maybe it's true under some circumstances but not others. So you keep on testing. Falsification reigns supreme in doing scientific research. The reason Taubes goes after the low fat theory is because so many negative results have come in -- the science supporting it never materialized. A competing hypothesis has been proffered -- suggesting that restricting carbohydrates might lead to better weight loss and better results with regard to CVD risk factors. The results so far have been coming in supporting this hypothesis. It also finds support theoretically insofar as it seems to mesh with what we know of physiology. We also can look at societies that have lived a natural low carb lifestyle for thousands of years like the Masai and the Inuits who enjoy great health and weight. Willett himself did a study looking at the consumption of fat in Europe and discovered much to his surprise that for men there was no association with weight and their fat intake. But the ladies actually showed an inverse relationship-- that is the more fat they ate, the lower their weight. Might have something to do with the fact that fat (and the protein it's often attached to) are more satisfying and leads one to eat less. Or maybe some other reason. We have much to learn regarding nutrition. I am particularly intrigued about metabolic differences between people which might explain contradictory stuff in the literature. As an example there's evidence that most women don't gain weight on HRT, but that a certain subset do and lo and behold those ladies carry different genes.

Anyway, I've got to back to my tedious, methodical academic work -- but it's been fun HuckleB. And remember, whatever you eat -- enjoy and savor every morsel. (Because there's even some evidence that what matters might not be so much what we eat, but how we eat it.) C'est la science!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

121. Thanks for the enlightening debate..very good read

You'd think it would be simple...Americans are eating more carbs than ever...Americans are fatter than ever. :shrug:

[TopesJunkie]

123. Actually, as noted.

Americans are eating more of everything than ever. Not just carbs. That's the real problem. Interestingly, the low-carb fanatics don't want to note this reality.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Emillereid]

125. Like I said to HuckleB -- where's the beef?

You two never actual present real evidence. Bring 'em on! The hundreds of research projects that show big problems with the restricted carb diet -- I mean I don't notice the Masai or the Inuits keeling over in bad health or for that matter the hundreds of people in my database who have lived a low carb lifestyle for many years.

Just innuendo about my status. I have the credentials and the work experience and the track record to call myself a scientist -- and if I sound a little academic, must be all the years I've spent in the those murky corridors.

Before I became a nutritionist, I confess I was a psychologist and before that I did an undergraduate major in philosophy (my speciality was philosophy of science).

Have I read the Fumento stuff -- of course. Ages ago.

I'm beginning to wonder what you two figure low carbers eat -- we do not sit down to mounds of lard or mountains of whipped cream. Actually most low carbers I know eat an extremely nutrient dense diet rich in all sorts of wonderful veggies as well as meat, fish and fowl, some fruits, nuts and of course, some fine wine.

Is America's obesity problem just to be laid on the carbohydrate door step -- of course not! Americans do eat too much of everything. But the USDA pyramid encouraging people to eat 7 - 9 servings of grains (sugar) while skimping on fat did contribute to the problem. It overlooked and oversimplified human physiology -- we are after all not simply energy burning furnaces -- the food we eat is also information and in the case of amino acids and fats, structural components. Personally I'd like to see all the white flour, high fructose corn syrup, artificially flavored, hydrogenated fat products, infesting our grocery stores gone -- I do not think they have a place in a nutritious diet. But you guys can eat what you want -- that's your choice. Government policy is something else again -- then it becomes my business.

Anyway, I have work to do -- and since the two aren't offering me anything new, I bid you adios.

P.S. If you do indeed work with Willett, let him know that I admire his work! It's generated a great number of good working hypotheses for people like me!

[TopesJunkie]

126. What evidence have you presented? Nothing! --

Yet, both of us presented scads of evidence that clearly showed the junk science you offered to be what it is - junk. Yet you keep crying that we didn't present evidence. Baloney! You are simply playing games, as HuckleB clearly noted yesterday. Nevermind that if you were a scientist, you would know how to do a search and find the hundreds upon hundreds of research pieces that show, piece by piece, exactly what you don't want to hear. It's also clear that you have not laid a hand on a serious nutrition research journal in some time, yet you say you are a nutritionist. Give us all big break! You are clearly full of it. Please stop dropping your loads. You've been caught!

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Emillereid]

130. I got beef (organic, pastured fed) -- do you?

Unfortunately the reply I gave to you to your latest diatribe got canned by the moderators -- too bad because it took some time to cut and paste so many abstracts -- my sin I suppose was that I didn't clip them. I mean how can you clip an abstract?

In order to be fair to both you and HuckleB I decided to reread the Taubes-Fumento debate and though it doesn't rise to the level of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, it does make interesting reading. My conclusions upon reading it remain the same as my first go round with however. Taubes is the clear winner -- you'd know how right he is if you know the literature well. That USDA/ADA piece is garbage and doesn't even address the pertinent issues that Taubes raises. And besides their review promises 200 studies, but actually only gives us 58. (Is that where you're getting your hundred of studies stuff?) Of course the establishment folks are going to squeal (I've often made the prediction than in order for nutrition policy to change in the US, a whole generation of standard low fat dogma proponents will probably have to die off). Actually I'd forgotten how bad Fumento's piece was -- if I had him in my research methods class and he handed in that article he'd get torn to shreds. Taubes also remains in the cat-bird seat pointing out the anomalies of their theory -- and that's his whole point. Actually I have studies that would provide a much more lethal arsenal for Taubes. Among them are studies that indicate that when fat in the diet goes too low we turn in to 'fat making machines'(comparisons of isocaloric low fat diets and high fat diets found that de novo lipogenesis goes up alarmingly on very low fat diets and not a twiddle on high fat fare) -- and the irony is that the type of fat we make is the kind everyone's so afraid of -- namely saturated.

I beseech all of you out there reading this thread to read carefully/critically any medical or nutrition article -- don't take the authors' word for what they purport to show, etc. Read the whole article -- especially the tables. Believe it or not you'd be amazed how often the claims or conclusions are not borne out by the data. The catchy title might indicate dramatic results, but a more careful perusal will often show not much there. Watch out too for the frequent misuse of statistics -- especially the reliance on relative rather than absolute percentage claims.

Anyway, I'm not going to go to all the trouble of cutting and pasting again -- but for those of you who might like to see some the anomalies that have been popping up driving all the low fat folks mad, you can go to Atkins site and click on the science section. They usually provide a link to the Pubmed abstract and sometimes you'll get a link to the whole article for free. Or another site that provides links to abstracts is
http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp. Another site that provides a wonderful portal to all kinds of medical research is www.mercola.com. Remember you don't have to subscribe to all the claims made by a website in order to make use of their search engines. I love the www.thincs.org site myself -- there's always a good discussion taking place among world famous scientists most of whom are skeptics to the bone. Of course you can also go out to Pubmed itself.

Anyway, I am saying good-bye to this thread -- I was hoping to actually share some real substance instead of just rehashing the merits of Taubes/Fumento exchange. I think Taubes is a first class science journalist, but he doesn't me to defend him -- he does a phenomenal job all by himself.

[HuckleB]

131. You never read one of my posts did you?

It's very clear. You didn't even note why I responded after I said I would give you the last word. I expected you to show some decency. You offered none. You still don't. Your agenda is clear. Your lack of a coherent argument is clear. Your lack of understanding of science is clear, even though you try to feign it.

Have you no sense of decency?

[joeybee12]

129. Let's keep this sucker going--it's more exciting than politics!