9 replies to this topic

[TTHQ Staff]

Now where's my LMAO smiley?

TORONTO (Reuters) - In 2002, a New York Times magazine article suggested that the medical establishment may be unwittingly making us overweight by recommending a reduced-fat diet, and a craze for low-carb eating began.

In "What If It's All Been A Big Fat Lie?" well-known science reporter Gary Taubes argued that researchers, nutritionists and public health officials had pushed low-fat diets without adequate supporting evidence. Taubes wondered if maybe Dr. Robert Atkins, the long-controversial creator of the eponymous diet, had it right after all -- maybe fat and calories didn't really matter, and carbohydrates did.

Five years later, Taubes' new book "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease" argues that the kind of calories we consume matter more than the quantity. Good calories come from foods without sugars or easily digested carbs - meat, fish, cheese, non-starchy vegetables.

Bad calories come from foods that overstimulate insulin secretion - bread, potatoes, pasta, sugar, tropical fruits.

In the book, Taubes comes to a few controversial conclusions: heart disease is caused by carbohydrates, not dietary fat; carbs are the most likely dietary causes behind diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer; exercise makes us hungry, not thin; and the fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we'll be.

...

Taubes believes that working off those carbs on a treadmill might not help either. Instead of making us lean, he says, exercise makes us hungry, putting our bodies in a position of always trying to reach a balance. The real cause of obesity may not be too much food and not enough exercise, he says, but instead could be an underlying physiological mechanism at work.

The overeating and sedentary behavior associated with overweight people may be a result of their weight, not the cause of it. Conversely, lean people may not be that way because they're physically active; they may be physically active because their fat cells make more energy from the food available to them.

Carbs may not just make us fat, Taubes writes, they might also kill us. Diseases like heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer's tend to cluster, and being overweight ups your risk of eventually getting one of them, so he argues that it's possible that excess weight could be the cause.

Taubes has already weathered a storm of criticism for his earlier writing on diet and obesity. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit health and science advocacy group, accused Taubes of ignoring evidence contrary to his hypothesis and featured researchers who felt they'd been misrepresented in the Times magazine article.

Taubes knows that some people think he is a quack, but argues that if beliefs aren't held up to scientific examination, we'd still be in the Dark Ages. "Science doesn't work without extreme skepticism and without challenges to the conventional wisdom."

Reuters News

[mss]

Taubes knows that some people think he is a quack, but argues that if beliefs aren't held up to scientific examination, we'd still be in the Dark Ages. "Science doesn't work without extreme skepticism and without challenges to the conventional wisdom."

And it all depends on WHO PAID the researcher for the research

Edited by mss, 11 October 2007 - 09:21 AM.

[TTHQ Staff]

Taubes knows that some people think he is a quack, but argues that if beliefs aren't held up to scientific examination, we'd still be in the Dark Ages. "Science doesn't work without extreme skepticism and without challenges to the conventional wisdom."

And it all depends on WHO PAID the researcher for the research

And WHY.
Sensationalism to sell books or to educate and challenge conventional wisdom?

[calmcookie]

The scientific evidence for low carb eating is overwhelming ... and that includes it's ability to dramatically lessen one's chances of getting cancer. As I posted earlier, quote from the former President of the American Diabetes Association (about low carb advocate, Dr. Richard K. Bernstein) -

"Dr. Bernstein's book is written from the unique perspective of someone who has not only lived with type 1 diabetes for over fifty years, but who has expertly translated insights gained from this experience into his medical practice as a diabetes specialist. Please read this book, if you really want to be proactive in the lifelong battle against diabetes and its complications."

John A. CoIwell, M.D., Ph.D.,
Former President, American Diabetes Association

Dr. Bernstein recommends a very low carbohydrate, adequate protein, adequate good fat, diet ... and he clearly provides sensible reasons and sound evidence, for his methods. Reading his book completely altered my view of this devastating illness (and I'd been working in the field for over 10 years). His approach can not only alter the lives of diabetics, but can also benefit many other types of illnesses.


Here's just ONE of the MANY MANY testimonials, from Dr. Bernstein's patients (several more can be found in his books and website) :

How does one begin to thank someone for saving their life? I was diagnosed with Type II Diabetes in January 2002. It was devastating because I have had ten members of my father's family die of Diabetes related problems (including my father). My elder sister had also developed the disease and was already taking seven tablets a day and still not achieving blood glucose levels in single figures. In the UK we use a slightly different method of measuring BG. I have found that to understand your book properly I just divide your BG figures by 18 to convert them to the UK equivalent.

I was put on the usual high carb diet and given no medications and have been left alone for three months to "see how I get on". Well, until I discovered your book I was not getting on well at all. My blood glucose readings were hovering in the range of 10 to 14 and I can remember my absolute delight when I actually saw a reading of 9.4 at one time! However, since buying your precious book and following your regime my blood glucose levels have dropped to 6.4 - 7.1 (apart from the dawn phenomenon which, without any medication I am unsure how I can overcome this). I fully expect my BG levels to fall further over the coming weeks (after all, I have only been on the regime for 11 days!!!!!! I expect that before my next visit to my doctor in two weeks I will have reached normal levels and will be extremely proud to tell her how I have achieved this with your help.

I am so very grateful that I found your book before it was too late. My eyesight has not been affected and my body shows no signs yet of any diabetes problems apart from a very slight raise in protein in the kidney for which I have been prescribed Ramipril 10mg per day. Now I am confident that I will never develop complications and that I will live a full and happy life with normal BG levels.

I read your book with tears streaming down my face when I discovered that, at last, there was somebody who truly understood what I had been and was going through. I also recommended the book to my sister. My sister and her husband (also diabetic and extremely ill after 7 strokes) both rang me to tell me that they were overcome with emotion at finding a solution at long last to their problems.

Thank you so very much. These are very inadequate words to express my feelings. I wish I could visit you myself to thank you properly. You are wonderful.

Mandy Rodrigues
North Wales
United Kingdom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/quote]

Edited by calmcookie, 11 October 2007 - 10:07 AM.

[EntropyModel]

Who's dumber, the guy who write this junk or the person that reads it? ....at least the author knows how to make a buck. This is prime example of the classic modern technique of flogging 'diet products' - 1. First, make some legitimate scientific points - - yes, indeed, the fat-cholesterol heart disease hypothesis is questionable, and - yes highly processed carbs are not as healthful as highly nutritious foods...wow, amazing, who knew...I thought everyone? * and also talk 'scientifically', quote lots of studies, talk about hormones - enough such only those with scientific training will know your full of it...and of course that's good, because THEY are the ESTABLISHMENT...so you want them against you. Marketing Purpose: try to establish yourself as a 'reputable scientist' who is for the 'good' and 'on your side', and establishment as the 'badies'. 2. Then make some sensational claim, but provide no scientific proof - - Carbs cause cancer, heart disease...etc - People are getting fatter due to carbs not Cal in versus cal out. Note. not new ideas, this kind of idiocy abounds on the internet, that's how the guy identified his target market!!! ....he see's how desperate people are to believe being fat/unhealthy isn't their fault and has a product to fill their need. Marketing Purpose: Controversy sells baby!! and ready made target market of wannabe believers identified. 3. Ignore all scientific evidence which destroys controversial theory - Ignore FACT that majority of overweight people have net calorie surplus i.e. eat more than they need..er hello? how many studies have been done proving this....earth to sanity? hello?. Ignore FACT that majority of people who eat high carbs, but monitor cal in versus out lose fat...duh! Ignore FACT that many countries and people with low body fat, low disease eat high carb diets...woops! Its not hard to exploit people....unless you have an ethical compass. Mark.

Edited by entropy, 11 October 2007 - 02:23 PM.

[calmcookie]

Mark ... while I understand what you're saying ... what is REALLY unethical is allowing food companies to market to young children in a way that makes them so FAT that they end up with diabetes at a young age. That illness is devastating. It's easy to say that they should just "eat less and exercise more" ... but HOW do you do that when our food is loaded with High fructose corn syrup (blocks the hormone leptin ... a major satiety signals ... and promotes overeating) and other JUNK. Kids do not understand how to experience SATIETY ... because so many processed food ingredients are chemically composed to promote overeating (not to mention the sophisticated advertising of cheap and junky carbohydrates). It's unethical and very SAD to think of what is happening to so many young kids. C.C.

Edited by calmcookie, 11 October 2007 - 05:06 PM.

[maineman]

The scientific evidence for low carb eating is overwhelming ... Cookie said...

Sadly this is very far from the truth. the data is quite poor, in fact, and is one of the reasons there is such a controversy about this book. Anytime large scale studies have tried to reproduce this information in real life, the results have been far from what was expected.

There is no perfect diet. Too many carbs is no worse than Too many fats or Too many carrots or Too many anything. The key word is "too many".

In medicine most of us are pretty skeptical of someone writing a "best seller" just because he can put MD after his name... kind of wolf in sheep's clothing... "those who can't do, teach"

Kind of like taking Investment Advice from someone, if you know what I mean...

I agree with Mark here... eat well rounded healthy food, shake your booty, and get on with your life.
People, parents, etc. are responsible for what they put in their mouths. There is no lack of adequate information for those who want to make good choices.

But if folks want to go eat at all you can eat Chinese Buffet, or stand in line to get into Applebees, or drive through Burger King, well, its a free country and there is no law against bad taste.... to each his own....

mm

[EntropyModel]

Mark ... while I understand what you're saying ... what is REALLY unethical is allowing food companies to market to young children in a way that makes them so FAT that they end up with diabetes at a young age. That illness is devastating.

It's easy to say that they should just "eat less and exercise more" ... but HOW do you do that when our food is loaded with High fructose corn syrup (blocks the hormone leptin ... a major satiety signals ... and promotes overeating) and other JUNK. Kids do not understand how to experience SATIETY ... because so many processed food ingredients are chemically composed to promote overeating (not to mention the sophisticated advertising of cheap and junky carbohydrates).

It's unethical and very SAD to think of what is happening to so many young kids.

C.C.

I agree CC..that is unethical as well.

But I also agree with maineman, that in the case of children, its the parents responsibility. I have written here that I and many friends are dealing with this - I have twin boys who are 9, and 6 year old daughter.

I might be a bit exteme, but I feel that allowing your kids to eat junk to the point they are obese is a form of child abuse. As parents, I'm responsible for their health and safety - everyone now knows the health results of being obese, and also the functional damage i.e. its a physical disability, and the emotional damage especially to kids of self esteem.

HOW? do you do that ...you use PARENTING SKILLS.
I know loads of parents who have healthy kids, and some with obsese kids at 7...talk about depressing.
There are some very clear differences to those two results, that have everything to do with parenting -

1. Healthy Kids were started on healthy food as soon as solids were started, and NOT given any sugar via sweets, drink etc ...which often means being the 'uptight party pooper' who tells relatives, friends, strangers not to give junk to their kids...the parent know the brains/taste buds are being set down. Junk is for birthdays and other special occasions.

Obese kids parents like to give them sugarly treats, yeah its fun to see that happy look after downing junk...but at what cost?..programming kids taste buds to prefer junk.

2. Healthy kids are given vegatables, and told you don't get desert/movies/go to bed etc unless you eat them. When they throw a huge tantrem ( which most do ), you stick out the 3hours + of trauma, which occurs many times, because you know why its so important - eventually ALL kids prefer to eat healthy than not get desert, not watch movie's, have to go to bed etc..this is what parenting is.

Obese kids parents give in, and once they do its over - the kid learns if they cry, scream enough..they won't have to eat vegatables and can eat junk.(and they learn to apply this to more than food).

3. Healthy kids parent give them respect for the body so they want to keep it healthy, exercise as a family, and educate them how to use nutrition to keep it healthy - the parent has to lead by example.

Obese kids parents provide poor examples to their kids.


Sure its difficult, parenting is frickin' difficult, but its no more difficult than dealing with drugs issues, sex issues, or many other social issues in our society, alot less difficult I would say.

I've said before, this is why I believe the obesity problem is NOT about food at all, its a symptom of a lack of skills - in this parenting, and also psychological in that the easiest way for society to deal with stress is to medicate with food. If you banned all junk food, a new problem would replace it - increased drug use, or some other way to deal with societal stress..its just food is the easy and cheap way currently.

So the big HOW? is how to get the 'grown ups' to parent better, and stop medicating with food?

There's tons we could do -

For parenting, I think there are things we could do
- You can't drive a car without going on a course but you can be responsible for a human life? ..all new parents should be offered a free course on parenting teaching basic skills, and specifically how to deal with this issue.

Society can re-enforce the message -

- Like smoking , we could try economic solutions. We could levy a tax on junk, and use that revenue to subsidize healthy food to make it much cheaper - currently its the OTHER WAY, junk is cheaper than healthy food.

But the medicating with food is a deep rooted psychological issue, that no amount of 'educating/harraging' is going to change - we have seen that the last 10 years. Doctors, media, everyone bangs on about what to do, but no effect.....most people try to do 'the right thing', but because their psychological drive to medicate with food is not dealth with, they 'fall off the wagon'..

- Expecting people to stop medicating with food, its like expecting an anorexic to 'just eat', or a depressed person to 'just cheer up' .....yes, its obvious WHAT they need to do, but its incredibly hard to do it.

I really am not optimistic about this situation for that reason, were are not all going to go the 'head shrink' to deal with all our dysfunction that lies at the root of this medicating.

So I dunno'....the obvious thing to do is look at other countries with similar lifestyle( stress)...say the UK..yeah, and guess what...obesity is going up as fast now ..especially in cities like London.

People say 'Europeans' have less obesity and eat healthier - well, maybe the French and Italians.

OK - but they have culture of eating healthy, UK and USA do not ....and its very hard to establish a 'new culture'....I mean, I guess that's the only way. It would take a massive effort supported by Govt' and state' to bombared everyone in every way to 'healthy culture' ......over maybe 10-20years that might work....i'm talking using every t.v. programs for example to ram home the message ( like war time propoganda)

But this takes us full circle, the sharks are making fortunes off this problem.......40$billion diet industy, the junk food industry, the phara' industry, medical companies.....this CRISES is very profitable and in our weak form of democracy, they pull the levers of the political/media system ...and so have no interest in actually do this.



As i say, not on optimist on this one....too many powerful vested interests exploiting it.

Importantly, I hate this blame game, I'm a fitness/health nut but I try to help people not berate them and errode self esteem further - I could equally 'blame' many 'thin people' for not being fit as they don't exercise, or majority of people for 'not thinking! But I don't see anyone is 'too blame'...most people are dysfunctional in my experience, me too and proud of it!... and that leads to problems like poor impulse control.... are we 'too blame' for that....I thought we could blame our parents!!!.....


Mark.

Edited by entropy, 12 October 2007 - 01:06 PM.

[maineman]

A couple of more points: 1. kids do what their parents do. An excellent recent piece of research showed that what defines Fat or Ok is determined by one's family or group of friends.... (I got yelled at by the chief in pediatrics during my pediatric rotations in med school...mothers would bring in their 2-4 year old kids and say, "Doctor, my child only eats chocolate or candy or Coco Puffs, what can I do?" and I'd go all "maineman" on them and scream, "Who the hell is giving them that stuff or are they taking the keys to the car and going to the store for themself?....etc. and then I'd get reported to the Chief. He said I was right but perhaps needed to work on my "approach"..) 2. Healthy food is not more expensive than junk food. Crap "Healthy Food" all cute and wrapped up in a Health Food Store is hugely overpriced and one of the biggest ripoffs in the world. A little bag of "Lovingly Rolled Oats" costs 10 times what a box of rolled oats cost at the supermarket. A bag of dryed lentil beans at the supermarket costs less than a buck. At the healthfood store its a buck a bean or something outrageous. And then all the "this is organic" or "this is cleaner" or some false "testimonial" claim... But fruits, vegetables, chicken, fish, in the supermarket is not expensive. If you venture into the middle of the supermarket and get into the canned/boxed/prepared/frozen stuff "convenient" "easy to prepare" etc. that is not only full of crap (unreadable preservatives, odd "dyes", salt, fat, etc) that stuff costs much more than fresh produce. Junk food at fast food is cheaper, no doubt. But most food at "fancier" restaurants, while costing more, is not always so much healthier... In our family we save our "junk" event to eating at the best restaurant we can find and savoring a treat. 3. I am not optimistic about changing people's habits individually.... BUT.... there is good news. People do what they do until they are ready. This goes for smoking, dieting, exercising, whatever. But there has been excellent progress in work-place health programs. Large and small corporations with the help of the CDC and others have developed very successul work-health-incentive programs, focused on weight loss, smoking, blood pressure and others. If you quit smoking you get a reduction in your health insurance premium. Lose weight, same thing, Same for BP, breast cancer screenings, etc. The programs are well run and voluntary.People have joined up by the thousands and the results are terrific. In fact, so good, that CDC is tabulating the results and developing guidelines for other companies. So, there is real hope. These folks go to work, are given real advice, real support and real feedback. They do well. They feel good about themselves. They become more productive They are proud. THey go home and help their families eat/live bettter, too. I've written about this before. Our hospital has a little program going. I've had several fat, diabetic patients with High Blood pressure I've been haranguing for years with no luck who through the "group" program have lost 30 to 50 pounds, and have been able to stop pills and feel/look great. Read the reveiw in this week's New England Journal of MEdicine about the success of these programs at General Mills (5 to 10,000 employees) and others with the CDC guidelines. It will lift your heart and give you hope. mm

[EntropyModel]

...MM..yeah I agree many basic ingredient can be bought at similar price or cheaper than junk. But when you cook for a family of 5+, its hard to compete with price of junk, economies of scale come into it. A large Pizza's for example can feed an entire family for 5-6$, fresh chicken or fish for 5 people costs at least that or more. But the reason for the difference is pizza has little quality protein, hence the cheap price - so were not comparing apples to apples - thats the problem. The bigger problem though is time cost. Families with kids are very busy, especially if there are two working parents. The overweight people I know rarely 'cook', they buy takeout, or prepackaged stuff....and I mean 5-6 days a week!....maybe they will cook once a week. That 6$ pizza's can feed an entire family with no preparation time..just stick it in the oven.....its hard for healthy food to compete with that. Many of the kids at school also have a lunch of pizza...just in case they aren't getting enough at home I guess! I am being a tongue in cheek here, but adding a 20$ per junk item tax, and subsidizing cost of fresh fish would help change the equation - though lord knows we'd need a Govt dept to decide what is junk, so forget this idea! Mark.

Edited by entropy, 13 October 2007 - 12:44 PM.