Posted on 12/09/2003 6:41:38 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Animal-rights activists claim that low-carb, meat-heavy diets are killing people. Are they raising legitimate health concerns -- or are they just rabid anti-carnivores?
Dec. 8, 2003 | For all the deals with the devil made in Washington, it's not often they're owned up to at the National Press Club, before a roomful of reporters, armed with notepads, tape recorders and TV cameras.
But Jody Gorran, a businessman from Delray Beach, Fla., announced at a press conference on Nov. 20, 2003, "I made a Faustian bargain with the devil."
The trim 53-year-old's dark deal: "I traded a 32-inch waist for heart disease, and the devil was the Atkins diet."
Gorran testified that he had a heart scan six months before going on Atkins that showed no problems. But after two and a half years of losing weight and keeping it off on the high-protein, low-carb diet, while boasting about its incredible benefits to everyone he knew -- eat fat, while you lose the fat! -- he developed heart disease. Suffering from severe artery blockage, he underwent angioplasty to place a stent in his coronary artery.
Gorran shared the podium at the press conference with other self-proclaimed victims of the diet and their aggrieved family members: a 51-year-old hairstylist whose cholesterol went from 160 to 258, suffered kidney stones and had to have surgery to remove her gall bladder; the parents of an overweight 16-year-old from Sturgeon, Mo., who dropped dead from cardio-respiratory arrest at school while suffering from low levels of calcium and potassium in the first days of the diet; the sister of a 41-year-old man from Yardville, N.J., who also died of a heart attack while low carbing.
The master of ceremonies at this media circus of misery was Dr. Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a nonprofit that promotes the health benefits of vegetarian and vegan diets, and advocates against the use of animals in medical testing and in the training of medical students. As an advocate of "plant-based" diets, Barnard has written several books, including most recently "Breaking the Food Seduction" (St. Martin's, 2003), in which Chapter 4, "Opiates on a Cracker: The Cheese Seduction," asks, "Is cheese a drug?" Oozing with recipes for oven-barbequed tofu steaks and tempeh tostadas, the book also advises dieters how to best fend off "party platters and other torture devices."
Barnard may have considered Atkins, an eat-the-hamburger, not-the-bun approach to weight loss, a bad idea long before his group set up an online registry to record consumer complaints about it. But for vegans and animal-rights activists, for whom meat is as bad ideologically as they believe it is physically, the ever-rising profile of low-carb diets is a major public-relations setback. There may be no consensus on the healthiness of low-carb diets, but there is no denying their increasing popularity.
Meat is back! The magic words "low-carb" are popping up in beer commercials and Weight Watchers products. So clearly, something needed to be done. After a year of soliciting reports from low-carb dieters suffering from everything from gout to bad breath, PCRM collected 188 responses to its informal online survey, and decided to call the press conference to highlight the most heinous among them.
While stressing that the self-reported responses of a self-selected audience on a Web quiz do not constitute a scientific study, Barnard believes that his group has now amassed enough preliminary evidence to justify calling for further research by the feds. "We are asking the CDC [Centers for Disease Control] to go from indictment to conviction," he said at the press conference. "We are calling on the CDC to try to lure Americans away from its honeymoon with the diet that has made its reputation from the fact that it's so counterintuitive -- eat the worst possible food, and lose weight."
As news outlets gobbled up the story -- "Low-Carb, High-Protein Diets Can Be Deadly" and "Doctors Blast Atkins Diet" -- the "Atkins machine," as Barnard refers to the company that's sold millions of diet books, nutritional supplements and low-carb food products to the protein-hungry masses, blasted back. Atkins Health and Medical Information Services issued a statement defending the safety of its diet, and accusing PCRM of seeking to "further its own vegan political and philosophical agenda," while exploiting the "obesity and diabetes crisis in this country."
Was Barnard's press conference less about concern for the health and nutrition of overweight Americans looking to shed those extra 10 or 50 or 150 pounds, than it was about the concern for the beef and pork likely to be consumed by their hungry mouths on a high-protein diet? Had Jody Gorran, the Floridian who'd become convinced that the miracle diet he'd talked up to his family and friends had given him heart disease, just traded one deal with the devil for another? The plot thickens the closer you look -- the only thing for sure is that low-carb diets are becoming a major player in the fight for hearts and minds in a culture-wide struggle over the propriety of eating meat.
"All of us at Atkins are deeply disturbed by PCRM's shameless exploitation of people who have struggled through personal tragedies," the Atkins press release said. "There is no logic and no science to support any association between these individuals and the ANA [Atkins Nutritional Approach], no more and no less than there is logic or science to support an association between the thousands of people who die from heart disease or kidney failure while following a low-fat diet."
In other words: With millions of people on a diet, some of them are going to get sick, and even die, especially if they're already likely to be suffering from the health risks associated with obesity. Should the Atkins diet be made to answer for the sins of the obesity epidemic, when all they're trying to do is help free people from the prison of their extra layers of fat? In short: Don't look at us.
Dr. Stuart Trager, chair of the Atkins Physicians Council, went further, criticizing the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in an "open letter" for eschewing the scientific method, and instead going straight to the TV cameras with its anecdotal evidence that low-carb dieting can kill: "This group of radical vegans and animal rights advocates abusing their medical degrees and masquerading as concerned and 'responsible' physicians must be held to the same standards that all scientists must adhere to, and to cease this practice of sensationalism."
In his letter, Trager cited the research of Dr. Eric Westman at Duke University, which unexpectedly found that cholesterol levels fell on the first six months on the diet, as one example of credible scientific work on the Atkins plan. But Trager conveniently failed to mention that Westman himself had said in a statement upon the publication of his research: "While we're impressed with the weight loss of this diet, we still are not sure about the safety of it. More studies need to be done in order to be confident about the long-term safety of this type of diet."
In turn, Barnard questioned the august credibility of a group of doctors paid to defend a lucrative diet plan. "I understand that they have to say that it's safe because they have a $100 million empire based on that, but the only credible response is to investigate," he said in an interview, adding: "What credibility do the Atkins doctors have? They are paid to do research to sell books. If somebody paid by Atkins wants to questions anyone's credibility, first they should question their own."
But pro-Atkins advocates aren't the only critics of the PCRM press conference. There are others who question the wisdom of taking nutritional warnings about the dangers of eating meat from a press conference set up by a group that works against animal testing.
"They are committed advocates against use of animals in any way, shape, form or manner, so they're not objective," says Robert Baratz, an internist in private practice in Boston, who is president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a nonprofit that fights medical quackery. "And they are strongly allied with, if not a front organization for, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), but they don't let it be known that that's the case, and that's deceptive."
Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, says that his organization has made some donations to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in the past to support "areas of mutual interest," and Barnard, who writes the "Dr. in the House" column for PETA's Animal Times magazine, has served as a medical advisor to the group. "But to suggest that there is anything else there is simply ludicrous."
Barnard says his group has a team of doctors and registered dieticians on staff, as well as about 5,000 doctors as members, and more than 100,000 other "supporting" members. And while he may agree with many of PETA's stances, he denies that he's the lab coat and stethoscope puppet for its animal-rights ideology: "I think that PETA has done a great job in many ways of encouraging people toward healthier diets," he says. "Your coronary arteries don't care why you stop eating meat. Having said that, we're not a front for them, or they for us."
The organization that has gone the furthest toward trying to smear PCRM as a bunch of unscientific PETA-sympathizers is the Center for Consumer Freedom, made up of paid flacks for the restaurant industry. The organization's strongly worded accusations about the group Barnard leads are one of the first things to come up after even the most cursory Google search.
But the Center for Consumer Freedom, which has received funding from Tyson Foods and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association among others, is hardly in a position to accuse other organizations of being front groups, says Laura Miller, associate editor of Prwatch.org, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, which has done investigative work on the organization and its founder.
"They're an interesting group because they illustrate how corporate money is funneled into these front groups that help confuse issues. They're hired P.R. hacks basically working for the industry to promote the industry's viewpoint. Their job is really to attack any organization or anyone who says that maybe Americans shouldn't eat so much meat."
So, if you can't trust the critics of a meat-happy diet, because they're vegetarians opposed to animal testing, and you can't trust the biggest critics of the vegetarians because they're funded by the meat industry, and you can't trust the doctors who are paid to defend a diet, then who should you listen to in this rancorous debate?
The Atkins camp has long viewed mainstream nutritionist putdowns of its diet with suspicion, but some specialists without any direct ties to the health industry or the "plant-based diet" promoters, are adamant that the Atkins diet simply isn't well-balanced.
Dr. Jeanne Goldberg, director of the Center on Nutrition Communication at Tufts University, a dietician with a Ph.D. in nutrition, suggests taking a look at the current issue of the Tufts University Health and Nutrition Letter, which tries to answer the question: "Is it possible to follow the Atkins diet healthfully?"
"The short answer is no," Goldberg observes. "It is virtually impossible to get adequate amounts of a number of essential nutrients. It contains three times the saturated fat as someone consuming an 1,800-calorie diet should. It's pretty tricky to get adequate amounts of calcium on it."
And while she dismisses "many of the arguments that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine makes" as "not grounded in good science," she is unflinching in her impatience for those who tout the health benefits of Atkins: "Here's my take on it: It's not a balanced diet. A diet which tells you that you really can't eat all fruits and very few vegetables is not a healthful diet."
That's not to say that you can't lose weight on the diet, as millions have done and continue to do. "What the data show so far is that people can lose weight on anything from the most sensible balanced diet to the Atkins diet," she says. "The problem comes in terms of maintenance. The Atkins diet as a maintenance diet is really a poor idea, because it is high in saturated fat and low in other essential nutrients. It isn't about losing weight. It's about keeping it off."
LOL! Ok, what is it?
Yes, that is true but it has been my experience that folks on Atkins will begin eating fewer calories per day. They also tend to have more energy and often boost their activity levels. I'm convinced that this is why folks who truly follow the Atkins plan keep the weight off: we end up eating less and being more active.
But I'm sure as heck eating less!
YOU STUPID, FREAKIN' IDIOT, THAT IS THE DUMBEST THING I'VE EVER HEARD!!! YOU ARE INSANE!!! I'm sorry, I meant to say I love you.
But seriously, vegans and vegetarians are not the same thing. Vegans eat no animal product whether milk cheese or fish ETC... vegetarians eat all of those things. there is a big difference.
Its been known for years that DHMO kills. Most of the water we drink today contains staggering amounts of DHMO contamination - far worse contamination than arsenic ever was. But there are too many multinational corporations that use DHMO in their products, that contribute too much $$$ to politicians, for us to hope that the Bush administration will ever do anything about it.
But you don’t need a 300-page diet book to advise you on making adjustments. Just eat smaller portions less often—and cut down on the junk.But you don't need a $3,000 drug rehab stay to advise you on making adjustments. Just snort shorter lines less often - and cut down on the crack.
Wow, congrats! You've lost more weight than I have in 4 years! (But 24 lbs is all I had wanted to lose.)
Do you have any "before" pictures in reserve for later when you'll insist on showing us your before & afters? More importantly, do you have a "before" blood lipid panel, so later on you can impress us all with your improved cholesterol numbers? I have several "after" numbers, but no "befores". So I can attest that my cholesterol looks great today, but I can't point to any firm numbers from before for comparison. That's my only regret with how I did low-carb.
Yep. Very simple once you practice it. Like anything, after 2 weeks of devotion, it's almost habit.
Probably B12. It's sufficiently abundant in dairy and eggs that run-of-the-mill vegies don't have the serious problems vegans do. It must be supplemented and I've read diverging opinions on the efficacy of plant-derived analogs, synthetic B12, and animal derived. The literature is pretty firm that B12 from animal sources are more easily absorbed by the body.
AL Rauma et al. Vitamin B-12 status of long-term adherents of a strict uncooked vegan diet ("living food diet") is compromised. J Nutr, 1995, 125:2511-5; found that most if not all (raw food) vegans have severe B12 problems.
MG Crane and others. Vitamin B12 studies in total vegetarians (vegans). J Nutr Med, 1994, 4:419-30; found the same as Rauma.
I Chanarin and others. Megaloblastic anaemia in a vegetarian Hindu community. Lancet, 1985, Nov 2:1168-72; This is an interesting one. It seems that some of the Hindu vegans living in India do not have B12 deficiencies. The study looked at one grop that relocated to England and, while their diet stayed pretty much the same, they quickly developed anemia- a complication of B12 deficiency. The researchers identified insect eggs and larva in the Indian food supply as the source of the B12. I'm sure the Hindus were just thrilled to find that out.
Interestingly, there's a school of vegetarian thought that levels a similar claim at meat eaters. That the terror an animal experiences at the time of death is imbued into the meat and transfered to the person that consumes it causing that person to become irrational and violent. "Dr." Ballentine (sp?) I think. Haven't found anything in the literature to support it.
I don't honestly think it is the meat that makes you lose weight on Atkins, it is the low carb intake.I've been vegan on a low carb diet and lost weight quickly and easily.
I agree. The meat & fat are there more for keeping you satisfied. If you don't need lots of protein and/or fat to keep yourself from feeling like you're starving between meals, then it should still work for you. (Not for me, though.)
It just doesn't make sense to eat high fat meats, butter, cream, etc. all the time though. If you are eating 3,000 calories a day in fat, you won't lose weight, no matter how few carbs you take in. Lean protien is healthy for you, just as fruits and vegetables...
Well, one recent study found that low-carb dieters were able to eat 300 calories per day more than low-fat dieters for the same amount of weight loss.
Could be the same "bioavailability" debate I keep stumbling across. There are several vitamins that occur in animal tissues that have analogs in plants. Sometimes it's a problem of funky isomers that don't fit the same way into the human metabolism. Other times the plant molecule is a precursor to the desired molecule- requiring the body to work harder to get at the needed nutrient. Vitamin A and it's plant version (beta carotene) comes to mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.