Atkins Corporation responds to AtkinsFacts.org

[DrGreger]

The Atkins Corporation is threatening to sue me for "defaming" Atkins on my website http://www.AtkinsFacts.org. I will not be bullied into silence by their corporate lawyers.

I've posted their threatening letter in full for all to see along with a point-by-point rebuttal at http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/135/Corporate_Threat.htm

Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. in their 6-page letter failed, after presumably combing through the 500+ references supporting AtkinsFacts.org, to find a single factual error. Instead, in making vague groundless accusations, they further misinterpret, mislabel and misrepresent studies, rely on outdated, unpublished preliminary data, and continue to make false and misleading statements.

For example:

* I am accused of making "misleading" assertions about the health risks associated with saturated fat, yet their own Director of Education and Research claims saturated fat has a "heart-healthy role" by citing the "well-known Framingham Nurses' Study." It may be well known to directors of education and research at the Atkins Corporation, but in reality... it doesn't exist. She must be thinking of the Framingham Heart Study, or maybe the Harvard Nurses' Study. Either way, I show that she's wrong.

* Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. claims their diet could prevent breast cancer, asserting that there is no link between saturated fat and breast cancer risk, by citing two papers--one that doesn't address the issue and another that directly contradicts their position!

* To argue that there is no link between meat and colon cancer they rely on preliminary, unpublished data from a single investigation they heard about at a meeting that took place years ago. That would be bad enough, if it weren't for the fact that they even misrepresented that data.

* They accuse me of ignoring the "overwhelming weight of evidence" evidently consisting of "no less than 34 studies" supporting the safety and efficacy of their diet. I go through all their studies, pointing out that most were published by Atkins-funded researchers, some in an "authoritative, peer-reviewed" journal founded by an Atkins spokesman and a quarter weren't even published at all.

Please feel free to read the best defense the Atkins Corporation could come up with to try to counter the truth and make up your own mind,

-Michael Greger, M.D.
http://www.AtkinsExposed.org
mhg1~cornell.edu
(206) 312-8640
185 South St #6
Boston, MA 02130

[rae_rae21]

troll....get a life! :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

[dodg4kat]

Dr Gregor,
Since you posted this in the war zone, I will address it as such but first I would like to address your intentions. While I understand that you feel the need to "inform" us seemingly backwards individuals on what you deem a healthy diet, you fail to address the purpose of the this particular forum. By your "profile" you are not a member of the low carb generation, nor do you see any health benefits to low carb. You do not post progress nor do you give us any information that would lead me to believe you wish to be participating member of this site as a whole. Now let's look at this particular thread.
So first to review the rules... since this is your first and (I suspect) your last. In the war zone, the purpose is to compare and contrast diet information using concrete, verifiable evidence (ie. statistics) to support one's position. You fail to do this, at least in the actual text of your post, and upon further investigation, fail to do this on your website as well. So I am led to the conclusion that your intention is simply to flame us and try to get a response to somehow bolster your own ego or further goad your mission to debunk low carb.
Now, in response to the content of your post....
First, you claim that Atkins Corp is suing you and that you posted the entire letter on your website. Actually, you posted what you say is a letter from them in your own words, with your own reactions interspersed. Nowhere on your site is the actual letter on Atkins or any other organizational letterhead. So there is no actual proof that a letter currently exists or ever existed.

Second, you accuse Atkins Corp of "mislabeling" and "misrepresenting" research, however, you fail to accurately refute anything that they claim with statistics or any other form of evidence. Your references section on your own website fails to completely cite (based on APA or MLA or any scientifically acceptable means of citation) any source you use, nor does it specifically show how Atkins misrepresented anything.

Third, you claim that Atkins Corp uses outdated research to support their claims, yet you yourself refer to research from the 30's, 50's, and 70's in your refutation. Could we argue that your own references are outdated and therefore not necessarily factually accurate when compared to the lastest research? I think so. Specifically within the last five years, many well known "no-no"s have been shown to actually be beneficial to health..for example: red wine, higher fat ratios in the diet, eggs ...while other "must haves" have had their importance questioned..for example: high fiber amounts, non-meat protein sources like tofu, margarine or any butter substitute that has trans-fats.

As for the rest, I'll let others take you apart piece by piece as I am sure they will have something to say as well. My opinion is unchanged...Atkins and low carbing works for me.

[doreen T]

Readers may be interested in a previous letter by Michael Greger which was circulated to various lowcarb mailing lists and forums, including ours, in June 2004 ... AtkinsFacts.org should be AtkinsFiction.org (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=193732)

:read:


Doreen

[dodg4kat]

Dr Greger = A proponent and regular contributor to VEGAN lifestyles..go figure he has a "bone" to pick. lol

[ItsTheWooo]

The Atkins Corporation is threatening to sue me for "defaming" Atkins on my website http://www.AtkinsFacts.org. I will not be bullied into silence by their corporate lawyers. <snip>

Let's assume for a second you and conventional nutritional opinions are correct. Atkins is either being deceptive or ignorant when he convinces people eating copious amounts of unprocessed natural animal fat & animal products is healthy. Let's assume there are very real dangers to eating this foods.

However, if what you and they believe is correct... please explain to me why when I try to eat the way you insist I should be eating, I fall horribly, horribly ill?

This morning I had the following breakfast:

1 container reduced carb yogurt (hood brand, 3 carbs... NON FAT yogurt mind you, and the ONLY animal product)
10 grams wheat bran, slightly toasted (2 carbs)
10 grams oat bran, slightly toasted (5 carbs)
half an ounce raw pecans and almonds, slightly toasted (1-2 carb)
3 ounces cantaloupe melon (3 carbs)
4 medium raw strawberries (3 carb)
half an ounce raw banana (2 carb)
a third of a cup non sugared orange juice (4 carbs)
a packet of splenda (1 carb)

This breakfast, all except the yogurt, could have been a "perfect" rather well balanced vegan meal. It contained lots of fruits, tons of fiber, minerals, all foods were raw and unprocessed. It wasn't even very high carb, as the total carbs were somewhere around 25.

Guess what? Within 2-3 hours I was STARVING. I was literally shaking internally... my hands were quivering, and I had that "jumpy nervous irritable" feeling that one gets when their blood sugar begins to take a nosedive. I frantically ate cheeses and peanut butter, both of which helped make the hunger go away a little bit... but the nervous system reaction to sugar symptoms remained. I "sweated them out" so to speak. They stayed for hours.

Feeling like I did (starving and panicked for food), after this so called "healthy" breakfast, is how I got to be 280 lbs. The only thing that kept me from making the problem (i.e. irrational hunger) worse is my now having the knowledge that carbs are sugar, and sugar is poison. If I did not have this knowledge I surely would have turned to the juice and the fruit instead of the cheese to make the symptoms go away.

I'd like to remind you I didn't eat cap'n crunch or some jellybeans or white bread or pasta here. I ate "whole raw" vegan type foods. I ate high fiber grains, I ate fruit and juice. This WAS a relatively low carb meal. However, like most people who become obese, I am extremely carb (i.e. sugar) sensitive. I'd also like to remind you I am no longer anywhere NEAR obese, so you can't blame "all the fat" for my sugar problems (doctors repeatedly told me all my hormonal problems and everything else would "go away" once I "lost weight", as if the weight weren't a symptom of a problem itself). I currently weigh in between 117-121 depending on fluid status on my 5'5 frame.
As far as I can tell, this problem I have with sugar is innate. It is not exclusively dependent upon lifestyle affects (e.g. exercise level, body weight) although these things do make it better or worse. All I can do is avoid the problems by avoiding the sugar. I can't make them go away, as far as I know I will have these problems to some degree until I die. I've had it since I was very young. I distinctly remember being in a mall with my mom as a 10 year old child, crying, begging for juice or soda to drink because my legs were shaking and I felt like I was going to faint. I've always been this way, with blood sugar symptoms and other hormone abnormalities. I just never knew the name or cause of it until about a year and a half ago. For whatever reason my metabolism seems to be messed up and I produce far too much insulin when not on a very low carbohydrate diet. The abnormal insulin signalling produces a whole host of symptomatic abnormalities too extensive to go into any detail here... I'll just briefly state that low energy/poor energy usage (resulting in over eating & obesity), depression, and sex hormone disorders (PCOS) are the main symptoms.

Anyway, back to today's breakfast. The only thing which helped tide me over and mitigate symptoms, ironically enough, is the yogurt itself (evil evil animal product) and the fat from the nuts. I am as certain of this as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow. I know this because I live my life.
Now, do you want to hear something that will REALLY make your mind spin? If I had a breakfast of 2 eggs, cooked in butter, with cheese and sour cream... positively LOADED with morally incorrect animal products, nutritionally incorrect saturated fat...and the only non-animal products coming from avocado, salsa, onions, garlic, and peppers (all very low carb)... I wouldn't have ran into the problems I experienced with today's breakfast. I would have felt wonderful. My body would be burning up with energy (indeed I literally feel "hot" when I eat a nice high fat induction style breakfast). My moods and spirit would have been better (a high fat breakfast would have made me feel "calm", and in high spirits... mildly euphoric almost). I would have been full for hours. When I did eventually get hungry, it wouldn't have been the "panicky" situation that low blood sugar brings... it would have been more like a slow ebbing of hunger, your body trying to remind you that you should probably take in some fuel.

I know this for a fact, because many many days I've eaten this high fat, high animal product & saturated fat breakfast and experienced these symptoms.
Just as many, many days I've eaten the relatively high carb breakfast (although still very low in carbs compared to how I'm "supposed" to eat) mentioned above, and experienced the exact opposite symptoms.

So, "Dr Greger", please explain to me why I'm supposed to believe in the unknown (that animal products/fat are evil evil beasties who cause disease), when it seems to contradict what I do know (that Atkins was spot on about everything that can be directly proven - it helps normalize the endocrine system, metabolism, and naturally produce self regulation of energy intake & weight-normalization)?
See, when you experience something - first hand - the alleged warnings of naysayers tend to lose all credit. If someone tried to tell you "STOP BREATHING, AS OXYGEN INTAKE HAS BEEN LINKED TO DISEASE"... how much credit would you lend to that claim? If someone tried to tell you "YOU NEED TO INHALE WATER, BECAUSE WATER HAS BEEN LINKED TO GOOD HEALTH", despite the fact you very well know breathing in water makes you feel bad, would you follow that person's advice?

Or to put this another way, even if we assume you and they are correct... I'll take the personally unproven and unfounded threat of colorectal cancer and heart disease over the most certain and decidedly imminent threat of boundless hunger & obesity, hypoglycemia, out of control PCOS symptoms, and food slavery. Because I know for me, personally, Atkins is the way I should be eating. My whole life I knew there was something "wrong" with my hormones, the whole system was just messed up somehow, some way. Just as I always innately knew I had some sort of problem that affected every system in my body, I also now innately feel "balanced" when I eat the Atkins way.

I respect reasoned out dissonance, I respect and do think counter arguments are needed so all sides can be fairly presented. I dislike fanaticism. I do read the research studies which are unsupportive of a LC diet in general, or any aspect of a LC diet. I do consider them, and weigh them against positive evidence, trying to stay as objective and unbiased as possible (as I said, I am personally in favor of LC, so it's hard for me to be unbiased, but I do TRY to read articles that are anti-LC as objectively as possible). Though I personally have come to the decision that a LC way of eating is the way I was meant to eat, that doesn't mean I'm completely closed minded to research that is against it.

However, I must say your whole page and stance against Atkins is positively dogmatic... like this is a religious matter for you. While you do support your opinions with research, you present them in a very emotionally charged aggressive authoritative manner. Basically, you seem personally and deeply disgusted with the Atkins plan. You refuse to believe any of the studies which lend credit to Atkins are valid, and you take any study which condemns Atkins as gospel. Are you a religious/moral vegetarian by any chance?

[ItsTheWooo]

Yep, as suspected he is an AR nut.
It was pretty obvious, I should have read further down the thread before wasting this reply as he is very militant and prone to spamming it seems.


oh and...
http://images.google.com/images?q=michael+greger&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=

http://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/libnow/greger.jpg
http://www.navs-online.org/fest02/photos/Michael_Greger_MD.jpg

I know people shouldn't be judged on their appearances, but this warrents exception. Mr. Greger is certain the way I eat is going to kill me and the way he eats will bring health. So what sort of health does he appear in?
First of all, Mr. Greger himself doesn't appear to be in very good physical health at all. In the first picture he looks grey skinned, tired, positively exhausted in fact... he has almost no muscle tone to speak of (very common in vegans I find, they often have this "skeleton with a layer of fatty skin pulled over it" look to them).
In the second one he looks as he does in the first - tired, dull, lifeless, no muscle tone to speak of - however he also looks prone toward roundness. In other words, the level of fat he is carrying around seems inordinately high compared to the level of muscle he has.

On my calorie-adequate morally and nutritionally incorrect Atkins diet, I am currently in the process of building muscle and losing fat... even in "maintenance". I'm not trying to lose weight, but I find my pants get larger and larger and my arms get more and more firm and muscular. Strange, eh? :)

[Dodger]

The Atkins Corporation is threatening to sue me for "defaming" Atkins on my website http://www.AtkinsFacts.org. ... their (http://www.atkinsfacts.org....%20their/) own Director of Education and Research claims saturated fat has a "heart-healthy role" by citing the "well-known Framingham Nurses' Study." It may be well known to directors of education and research at the Atkins Corporation, but in reality... it doesn't exist.

Mr. Greger,

I don't believe the Atkin Corporation exists either. Maybe you mean Atkins Nutritionals?

[OzSlimmer]

I think we could all learn a thing or two from Dr. Gregor-

-Such as how to hold a clipboard in photos so as to avoid embarassing fat stomach snapshots (the vegan diet seems to ensure love handles).
-Or the art of a combover.

Obviously he is a wealth of information that we have not explored yet. Too bad he's all hung up on the vegan stuff. sigh.

[cyberskive]

.... go too near the edge and you'll fall off!

[DrGreger]

Now, in response to the content of your post....
First, you claim that Atkins Corp is suing you and that you posted the entire letter on your website. Actually, you posted what you say is a letter from them in your own words, with your own reactions interspersed. Nowhere on your site is the actual letter on Atkins or any other organizational letterhead. So there is no actual proof that a letter currently exists or ever existed.

Please actually read the site before jumping to conclusions. I very clearly hyperlink to the full text of the complete letter. The direct link is http://www.atkinsexposed.org/filecontent/142f_atkinsexposed.org_letter_from_atkins.pdf


Second, you accuse Atkins Corp of "mislabeling" and "misrepresenting" research, however, you fail to accurately refute anything that they claim with statistics or any other form of evidence.


Once again, please read the site before commenting. By clicking the "[more]" hyperlink you're taken to a page that provides the details.


Your references section on your own website fails to completely cite (based on APA or MLA or any scientifically acceptable means of citation) any source you use, nor does it specifically show how Atkins misrepresented anything.


There are over 1100 citations listed. For the sake of brevity, so you wouldn't have to scroll forever, I just typically listed full journal title, volume number, year of publication and starting page number. Anyone can access any of those articles using PubMed for example using that information. If there are any articles in particular you are interested in, please let me know and I can send you reprints. Some of the articles are actually posted full text on the website. Go to: http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/22/Opinions.htm


Third, you claim that Atkins Corp uses outdated research to support their claims, yet you yourself refer to research from the 30's, 50's, and 70's in your refutation. Could we argue that your own references are outdated and therefore not necessarily factually accurate when compared to the lastest research? I think so. Specifically within the last five years, many well known "no-no"s have been shown to actually be beneficial to health..for example: red wine, higher fat ratios in the diet, eggs ...while other "must haves" have had their importance questioned..for example: high fiber amounts, non-meat protein sources like tofu, margarine or any butter substitute that has trans-fats.


Atkins Nutritionals says trans fats have been known to be dangerous since the 30's, so why did Atkins push vegetable shortening, the most concentrated source of trans fats in our food supply in his 1972 book? That's what I mean by outdated. Most of my citations are 2002 or later, but sometime I do need to go back to show that Atkins should have known better.

Thanks you for your feedback though--I'm looking forward to more constructive input,

-Michael

[mrfreddy]

Please actually read the site before jumping to conclusions. I very clearly hyperlink to the full text of the complete letter. The direct link is http://www.atkinsexposed.org/fileco...from_atkins.pdf

this link opens up a pdf, which displays some interesting cut and paste work. the footer for the page identifying Atkins as the source of the letter does not line up with the text of that page, the Atkins logo appears between pages... the letter could be genuine, but you'd never know from this evidence...

the rest of your arguments are just nitpicking over small details... I really don't care if Dr. A advocated vegetable shortening 30 years ago, c'mon, gimme a break...

the bottom line is that I am convinced that this nutritional approach is far more satisfying, healthier on so many levels, than any vegetarian approach. Not to mention that it is much closer to the diet that humans evolved on.

[Kristine]

Dr Greger,

I, and the clear majority of people who read your post here in the War Zone, could not possibly care less about your legal bickering with Atkins Nutritionals. The facts, in my case, are as follows.

- I've tried vegetarianism with roughly the same results as ItsTheWoo up there.
- Since low carbing, I have:
basically cured my PCOS
drastically improved my acne
drastically improved my chronic depression
super-charged my immune system. Colds used to leave me sick for weeks at a time, due to asthmatic bronchitis. Now, they come and go in days. No secondary infections. I've only had three colds in as many years - pretty good for Canadian winters.
the condition of my skin, hair and nails are all greatly improved
I'm finally free of hypoglycemia and the mood swings and raging hunger that go with it. Hunger is such a mild sensation now. I also have steady energy all day.
I did, indeed, lose the excess weight and keep it off.


So I know you're probably hoping to engage people in a discussion of Atkins Nutritionals, but frankly, they don't have a lot of friends here. We know they're just another big corporation trying to make money by selling us junk food.

But you're probably not going to convince anyone that the facts about low carb eating, as we understand them, are wrong. You can't argue with success, you can't argue with what your body tells you, and you can't argue with personal experience. There's simply no debating it.

[tom sawyer]

The Lancet article you are so proud to cite, is actually proof that low carb DOES work and works better than low fat. Granted, the author clearly doesn't WANT to come out in favor of low carb, and he is begrudging in his compliments. All he can say is, that he doesn't have the studies to show WHY it works. And in the one comparison, which shows a statistically signficant difference at six months (7% vs 3.2%), evn though the 1 year resutls weren't stat. sig they were even greater (4.4% vs 1.5%). So stats aside, the data is clearly in. Low carb works better than low fat. Low carb is easier to do long-term than low fat. Low carb gives better blood lipid profiles than low fat.

You have some cute little man-breasts there, Dr. Greger. I used to have those when I was eating low fat, they are quite embarassing aren't they? I know I never liked removing my shirt at the beach, for this reason. Try low carbing, you'll lose those. You can even do a vegetarian low carb, although I'd recommend eating plenty of meat since that is what we are adapted to eat.

Omnivoristically yours, Lennie

[paladiin]

Ok, so I checked out the site. I'm not all-knowing, maybe there's something here I can learn. I'm not afraid of knowledge.

Of course, I head right to finding out what's recommended instead of Atkins. I want to see what he's really promoting as an alternative for weight loss.

Wanna know their secret to successful weight loss?

Fewer than 20% of Americans trying to lose weight follow what's considered the optimal diet plan for weight control

The optimal diet is one centered around good carbohydrates (unrefined), good fats (like nuts) and the best sources of protein, which, according to the Harvard School of Medicine, are "beans, nuts, grains and other vegetable sources of protein

To lose weight, one can cut down on calorie intake by restricting the amount of food one eats, or one can transition away from eating junk food--foodstuffs long on calories but short on nutrition

So, lemme get this straight. You recommend that I:

a) Watch my caloric intake
b) Eat good fats (nuts are specifically mentioned)
c) Eat good carbs (from veggies) and avoid bad carbs (which I assume would include sugars and sweeteners, aka junk food)
d) Eat a healthy amount of protein

Wow, what a freaking revolutionary diet plan! Oh wait, no it's not. It was revolutionary when Dr. Atkins announced it. Because Atkins is:

a) Watch carb intake
b) Eat good fats (nuts included)
c) Eat good carbs (veggies) at a level that sustains weight loss, and avoid bad carbs (sugar and such) which have negative effects on the body (especially blood sugar levels).
d) Eat a healthy amount of protein (large quantities of protein are not allowed)

It's obvious you're trying to push a vegan lifestyle, since you certainly seem to have zero clue about what the Atkins diet is. You don't have a problem with Atkins. You have a problem with any diet that includes animal proteins. You're just wrapping it up in a shiny anti-Atkins package. How imaginative. Not.

I'm done with this one. Checked it out, unimpressed, and discovered the real motivation behind the site.

Good luck with whatever you're trying to accomplish by posting this here.

[dodg4kat]

I got a reply from the doc! Wow, I am suprised. Before I get to him though...ItstheWoo..you rock! I love reading your posts. Mrfreddy....thank you for the support.

Alrighty then *cracks knuckles in anticipation*
Dr Gregor,
I did go to your website. I did click on the references you provide and I did use your hyperlinks when listed. Specifically, I went to your refutation of the "letter" you recieved, because that is where the hyperlink goes. Upon further investigation, I opened the pdf file to a letter, supposedly from ANA. As the file opened, so did a disclaimer stating that the file was created using Adobe Photoshop, which means it has either a) been completely fabricated, or b) been altered in significant ways. In association with mrFreddy's post, the Aktins logo doesn't even appear at the top (where letterhead should be) but in the margin between the 1st and 2nd page. In addition, the letter does not follow legal, APA, nor any format that such letters usually follow, including the pg/date format at the top of each page, the closing, or the initial address, etc on the front page of the letter. In addition, I would assume that any letter sent from a rather large and influential corporation would be sent from the desk of someone rather important..ie someone with letters behind her name. This letter uses your OWN significant letters, but fails to label the education, position, or legal status of the so-called originator. Another ploy to strengthen your own position? I think so.

I'll get to the rest later, but I will get to it. Including your assertion in other forums that we have evolved to eat mainly carbohydrates...absolutely laughable.

Katie

[ItsTheWooo]

You have some cute little man-breasts there, Dr. Greger. I used to have those when I was eating low fat, they are quite embarassing aren't they? I know I never liked removing my shirt at the beach, for this reason. Try low carbing, you'll lose those. You can even do a vegetarian low carb, although I'd recommend eating plenty of meat since that is what we are adapted to eat.

Omnivoristically yours, Lennie
:lol: Poor Dr. Greger.

Dr. Greger, if you're reading this... you really ought to consider reducing carbohydrate and increasing fat. You can stay vegan if you like, seeing as you are obviously a moral/religious vegetarian, but there's no reason for you to wallow in nutritional ignorance and assault your poor body with sugar. If you replaced say, "whole grain" bread with avocados, your body would thank you.

A high glycemic load diet (a low fat diet) disrupts the entire endocrine system, including sex hormones. The thinning hair and female pattern fat deposits (excess subcutaneous fat & man boobs) you struggle with will get better in time if you change your diet. I know first hand how badly carbs affect sex hormones, as I'm a female with PCOS. I had all the symptoms of PCOS, quite badly, before I started the diet. As soon as I went on Atkins induction, within a week the acne I've had since 9 years old cleared up. Within a month I had the first period I ever had in my life (and I was 20 at the time). I used to have terrible excess hair problems on the sides of my face and arms. This not only stopped growing in new, but it got significantly lighter. Keep in mind, these changes were not so much the result of weight loss as I had lost very little weight when they started... it was in response to diet, to cutting out all the carbs.

Just some carb-controlled food for thought ;).

[DrGreger]

The Lancet article you are so proud to cite, is actually proof that low carb DOES work and works better than low fat.


For everyone's convenience I have posted a full-text reprint of the entire article for everyone to read at http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/134/Atkins_Diet:_Help_or_Hoax_.htm As you can see the author concludes "...low-carbohydrate diets cannot be recommended."

in the one comparison, which shows a statistically signficant difference at six months (7% vs 3.2%), evn though the 1 year resutls weren't stat. sig they were even greater (4.4% vs 1.5%). So stats aside, the data is clearly in. Low carb works better than low fat.


It's obvious you didn't read my rebuttal to the Atkins Corporation's similarly misguided statements. Allow me then to cut and paste the relavant section (the references--all 1157 of them--are available at http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/8/References_1-1157.htm):

One of the favorite ways drug manufacturers design studies to skew results in favor of their product is to choose inappropriate controls.[756] Just like a drug company might choose an inadequate dosing of the comparison drug to artificially inflate the results of their own product, many of the "supporting" studies of the Atkins Diet were compared to diets that were “low fat” in name only, and yet the Atkins Diet still failed to outperform them long-term.

In what was to become the single largest and longest controlled study of the Atkins Diet to date, researchers published "A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared to a Low Fat Diet in Severe Obesity" in the New England Journal of Medicine.[757] Both the press[758] and the Atkins Corporation[759] heralded the findings as proof that low-carb diets were in some ways superior to low fat diets. The problem is that the control group was never actually on a low fat diet. They started out eating 33% calories from fat like the rest of America,[760] and at the end of the 6 month study period in which they were supposedly switched to a "low-fat" diet, they were eating... 33% calories from fat.[761]

At the end of a year, those that remained in the "low-fat" group were eating even more fat than average--34% calories from fat,[762] yet you continued to erroneously describe this as a low fat diet. On your website "Atkins professionals" claim that the "low fat" control group "followed a calorie-restricted diet with less than 30% of calories from fat per day."[763] This is false. And even though the study was inadequately controlled, the low-carb diet, according to the researchers, "provided no weight loss advantage" compared to the group that hardly seemed to be on a diet at all.[764]

This is the same story we see in every single year-long controlled trial of low-carb diets. Not a single one showed significantly more weight lost at the end of the year on the low-carb diets than on the control "low fat" diets. And in the two year-long studies that compared low-carb diets to actual low fat diets, the low fat diets seemed to win.[765,767]

In one year-long study, those who ate as much as they wanted of a low fat vegan diet lost an average of 52 pounds--60% more than those reportedly on Atkins lost.[765,766] And in the year-long comparison of the Atkins Diet to Ornish's diet, Weight Watchers, and The Zone Diet, the Atkins Diet came in dead last in terms of weight lost at the end of the year. Ornish's low fat vegetarian diet seemed to show the most weight loss.[767] Yet you continue to list this study as "supporting Atkins."[768]

Most of the studies cited as "supporting Atkins" lasted at most a few months,[769-786] half had 15 or fewer people on the diet,[787-803] and a third lacked any control group at all.[804-814] And the majority of those that did randomize people into a control group compared low-carb diets to "low fat" diets containing between 29% and 35% calories from fat.[815-822] That is not a low fat diet.[823]

Calorie-restricted, portion-controlled, moderate fat (30%)[824] diets have a consistent history of failure to maintain long-term weight loss.[825] What better diet to use as a comparison group, then, to increase the odds that low-carb diets will show more weight loss. And still, even using inadequate controls, low-carb diets failed to outperform control "low fat" diets in every single long-term study ever done.[826-829]

A truly low-fat diet (<25%) and exercise is the only approach found to provide long-term successful weight loss, based on a study of 5000[830] Americans who lost an average of more than 70 pounds each and kept it off for more than 6 years.[831] According to one of the chief investigators of that study, "Almost nobody's on a low-carbohydrate diet."[832]


Low carb gives better blood lipid profiles than low fat.


This is also demonstrably false. As documented in the section of my website Atkins Distorted His Record on Cholesterol http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/44/Atkins_Distorted_His_Record_on_Cholesterol.htm), the Atkins Diet has failed to consistently improve the single most important risk factor for heart disease, LDL, or bad cholesterol. The Atkins website, however, claims "Almost every Atkins follower sees a drop in LDL ("bad") cholesterol."[995] Even Atkins-funded researchers concede that this is incorrect.[994]

Based on one analysis of your diet published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, long-term use of the Atkins Diet is expected to raise coronary heart disease risk by over 50%.[982] But before one even addresses the question of risk factors, as documented in The Proof is in the SPECT Scan (http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/45/The_Proof_is_in_the_SPECT_Scan.htm), there was a study published in the peer-reviewed medical literature that actually measured what was happening to people's arteries on the Atkins Diet.[983] The results, posted online (http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/87/Blood_Flow_on_the_Atkins_Diet.htm), validate that the Atkins Diet, according to the American Dietetic Association, is "a heart attack waiting to happen."[984]

If anyone is uncomfortable with a public posting of questions or comments and would like to email privately, please feel free to at mhg1~cornell.edu

-Michael Greger, M.D.
http://www.AtkinsExposed.org

[LukeA]

Dr. Greger.
I read every single word on your site, and to your credit you do put forward information is a relatively convincing manner.
However, I used to be on dr. ornish's plan (and after that mcdougals, which are basicly the same), i DID lose a lot of weight (about 50 pounds) very quickly, i am not arguing against that. The problem was, my cholesterol levels skyrocketed, and so did my blood pressure. I got severe eczema, and acne, my skin was in general in horrible shape. My asthma got so bad i had to start taking daily meds, and i never had to before. I developed severe arthritis (take note i was 17 years old at the time!), so much so that i had to be put on heavy duty pain killers. My bone density also plummeted, and i had the average bone density of a 65 year old woman (I broke my ankle walking to the bathroom from my bed). Once starting lc, my cholesterol and blood pressure are considered in a healthy range according to my doctor. I no longer have to take asthma meds. My acne is only a 1/4 of what it was, and my eczema is entirely gone. My arthritis pain is barely noticable and i don't take any meds for it. My bone density has stopped falling, and has actually recovered slightly. Frankly that is all the proof i will every need.

[mrfreddy]

Based on one analysis of your diet published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, long-term use of the Atkins Diet is expected to raise coronary heart disease risk by over 50%.[982] But before one even addresses the question of risk factors, as documented in The Proof is in the SPECT Scan (http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/45/The_Proof_is_in_the_SPECT_Scan.htm), there was a study published in the peer-reviewed medical literature that actually measured what was happening to people's arteries on the Atkins Diet.[983] The results, posted online (http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/87/Blood_Flow_on_the_Atkins_Diet.htm), validate that the Atkins Diet, according to the American Dietetic Association, is "a heart attack waiting to happen."[984]

If anyone is uncomfortable with a public posting of questions or comments and would like to email privately, please feel free to at mhg1~cornell.edu

-Michael Greger, M.D.
http://www.AtkinsExposed.org



you're actually using Dr. Flemming's "work" to support your arguments? Wow, that is rich, hooo wee, that's a good one. He's another pro-vegan crackpot, his methods are hardly scientific, his "studies" have been soundly refuted elsewhere...

...and oh yes, he's the guy that illegally obtained and released (via PCRM) Dr. Atkins medical records.

you gotta do better than that if you want anyone here to do more than dismiss you as misguided (and misshapened) nutter!

[Hellistile]

Dr. Greger.
However, I used to be on dr. ornish's plan (and after that mcdougals, which are basicly the same), i DID lose a lot of weight (about 50 pounds) very quickly, i am not arguing against that. The problem was, my cholesterol levels skyrocketed, and so did my blood pressure. I got severe eczema, and acne, my skin was in general in horrible shape. My asthma got so bad i had to start taking daily meds, and i never had to before. I developed severe arthritis (take note i was 17 years old at the time!), so much so that i had to be put on heavy duty pain killers. My bone density also plummeted, and i had the average bone density of a 65 year old woman (I broke my ankle walking to the bathroom from my bed). Once starting lc, my cholesterol and blood pressure are considered in a healthy range according to my doctor. I no longer have to take asthma meds. My acne is only a 1/4 of what it was, and my eczema is entirely gone. My arthritis pain is barely noticable and i don't take any meds for it. My bone density has stopped falling, and has actually recovered slightly. Frankly that is all the proof i will every need.

Dr. Greger can spend every last dime he has promoting his dietary advice on the internet, on public forums, in books but the litmus test will be testimonials such as Luke's above.

Luke, like all of us on this forum, have tried everything to either lose weight or improve our health, and have fortunately stumbled on to low-carbing for whatever reasons and have found that it works. We have found a cure for our problems and no matter what Dr. Greger does, he cannot change reality. The huge media campaign, conventional doctors, the government, the FDA, the pharmaceuticals and, yes even Dr. Greger, cannot derail us because we know we are right. We can feel it in our glowing cheeks, gleaming hair, abundant energy, loosened waistbands, decreased or now non-existent medications and the general euphoria of feeling great.

So keep flapping your gums all you wish Dr. Greger but you will never convince us. Go back under the bridge you came from and try to peddle your ideas elsewhere, although they cannot be sold as convincingly as before.

[dodg4kat]

Although these studies provide evidence that a low-carbohydrate diet does produce increased weight loss over 3-6 months and might be superior to the recommended calorie-reduced low-fat diet, the 12-month studies also indicate that the low-carbohydrate diet may be no better in the longer term. The studies also had important limitations. Adherence to the diets was low, and dropout rates were high. Furthermore the low-fat diet used by Sahama et al, provided 33% of total calorie intake as fat, which is more than the 20-30% energy intake normally indicative of a low-fat diet. In addition, dietary compliance was not assessed by Foster et al.12 The three studies are important, but are not evidence that low-carbohydrate diets in the long term are superior to the energy-restricted low-fat diet.

This is an excerpt from your website that you use as proof that low fat is better than low carb. I used your link in reference to the study to get it. As far as I can tell, none of the studies support your position. What is supported is that for short term, severely restricting carbs to Atkins induction guidelines will produce better weight loss w/in the first 6 months than low fat. What it also shows is due to the limitations of the study, NONE of the findings were statistically valid. You lose, again. By the laws of scientific testing, just because one hypothesis is not supported, it doesn't automatically support the opposing hypothesis. You should know that. Shame on you.

[mrfreddy]

Originally Posted by DrGreger
Based on one analysis of your diet published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, long-term use of the Atkins Diet is expected to raise coronary heart disease risk by over 50%.[982] But before one even addresses the question of risk factors, as documented in The Proof is in the SPECT Scan (http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins..._SPECT_Scan.htm), there was a study published in the peer-reviewed medical literature that actually measured what was happening to people's arteries on the Atkins Diet.[983] The results, posted online (http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins...Atkins_Diet.htm), validate that the Atkins Diet, according to the American Dietetic Association, is "a heart attack waiting to happen."




here's some more about Dr. Gregor's good buddy Dr. Fleming, written by Antony Calpo....

http://www.theomnivore.com/Ornish.html

(quoted from an article discussing Ornish)

Like Ornish, Fleming is an outspoken critic of high-protein diets. Fleming also appears to have a special knack for obtaining negative findings about these regimens that no other researcher has ever been able to duplicate. In 2002, for instance, he presented the only published study to have ever found greater weight loss in individuals randomized to follow a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet than those following a low carbohydrate diet. I have written at length elsewhere why this study is unlikely to be worth the paper it is written on.

The validity of Fleming's research that allegedly shows high-protein diets to impede blood flow to the heart is also extremely doubtful.

In August 2000, the journal Angiology published the results of an eight-month study by Fleming in which nineteen people "without prior history of documented heart disease" were assigned to a multi-faceted drug and dietary intervention, the aim of which was to halt the progression of atherosclerosis. Fleming wrote that, "…despite our best efforts, patients within the study subgrouped themselves unintentionally with three individuals deciding to go on a high-protein diet for varying periods of time during these 8 months."(25)

According to Fleming, those following his 15% protein, 70% carbohydrate, and 15% fat diet experienced reductions in homocysteine, triglycerides, and C-reactive protein (CRP), while the disobedient on-again, off-again high-protein dieters allegedly experienced an increase in all these variables. Furthermore, while the low-fat dieters reportedly experienced a regression of coronary artery disease (determined by echocardiography and myocardial perfusion imaging), the intermittent high-protein dieters allegedly experienced continued progression of atherosclerosis.

In October 2000, Fleming presented another paper reporting the twelve-month results of the same study. In this new paper, the study group had suddenly expanded to twenty-six individuals, with seven additional patients surfacing in the high-protein group. Why these additional high-protein dieters were never mentioned in the earlier paper was not explained, despite the claim that all twenty-six were followed for one year. Again, the hapless high-protein dieters were reported to fare much worse than the low-fat group; the low-fat dieters were claimed to have reduced the extent and severity of their atherosclerosis, while the high-protein group allegedly experienced a worsening of these variables.(26)

According to Fleming, increased CRP levels in the high-protein group were indicative of increased inflammatory activity, while the increase in homocysteine levels "…no doubt reflects an increased dietary loading of protein (methionine) and possibly increased physiologic stress". Exactly what Fleming means by the term "physiologic stress", and why a high-protein diet would cause an increase in this vague and all-encompassing syndrome, is anyone's guess.

His assertion that increased dietary methionine increases blood homocysteine levels is pure bunk; researchers have shown that dietary methionine has no effect upon homocysteine in humans.(27) What does raise homocysteine levels is deficient levels of vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid.

The richest source of B6 and B12 is meat (and organ meats in the case of folic acid). Not surprisingly, researchers have repeatedly found that omnivores display lower homocysteine levels than vegetarians.(28-30)

As for his alleged finding of increased CRP levels among the high-protein dieters, other researchers comparing high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets with low-fat diets have found no difference in CRP levels at maintenance calorie intakes, and greater reductions on low-carbohydrate diets at restricted calorie intakes.(31,32)

It is interesting to note that Fleming claims the renegade subjects went on and off the high-protein diet during his study, which effectively means they were alternately following multiple dietary patterns. Despite this, Fleming ascribes the blame for the alleged harmful changes solely to high-protein dieting.

Until someone who is not a fervent critic of high-protein and low-carbohydrate diets can replicate Fleming's extremely questionable findings, the Omaha cardiologist's research should not be cited as 'proof' that these diets are harmful.

It is most revealing that Ornish cites Fleming's doubtful research every chance he gets, but remains silent on the multitude of studies that totally contradict the latter's unusual findings.

[tom sawyer]

I've been on a low carb way of eating for over a year and a half now now and have maintained a stable weight for nearly a year. I eat plenty of satfats, plenty of eggs, plenty of meat, plenty of fresh veggies, and some fruit. By all rights, according to your assertions, my LDL should be through the roof. Guess what, its 109mg/dcl. TAG is 53mg/dcl. Nearly identical to last year's results, in fact. Hardly a heart attack waiting to happen, wouldn't you say? Or am I somehow just genetically gifted? Considering my father and his brother died of heart attacks in their early 50's, I think not.

So cite your studies from 1929, and spew the AMA and ADA party line when it suits you. Although you must be aware that they are not advocating the misguided vegan religion. You make strange bedfellows.

[LucyLucy]

OH MY GOD, I feel the brain anyerism growing in my head!

Remember, ANYONE can be ANYTHING on the internet, there is NO regulation, no rules, no guidelines, if you can type a keyboard, you're in. That said, honestly, why is everyone wasting so much time fighting with this guy? He's here to pick a fight with his bad hair and man-boobs, we should all simply do what works, what makes us feel great and what gives us energy.

There is a lot of great info on the site and a lot to learn, focus on the positive, and stop spending so much time fighting the negative........

Forget the rest..........

LL :)

[mrfreddy]

ah, but it's the war zone, and it's kinda fun to fight, er, debate with these nitwits...

and in a broader sense, it IS important to refute this type of nonsense. I can't tell you how many heavy people I know who refuse to consider a low carb diet, because they believe the propaganda these guys spread.

Science is on our side, and they know it... why else would they use such questionable methods?

[rpavich]

My only observation after reading all of this is....

Why did you come here "Dr."? Don't you realize you are trying to argue with several thousand "study subjects"? WE ALL KNOW THE TRUTH of the benefits of limiting our carbs...THIS IS THE WRONG GROUP OF PEOPLE TO TRY AND ARGUE THAT POINT FOR SURE....we all here have our personal stories about what "low-carbing" has done for us; health-wise...

Can't you go bother the "low-fatters" or the "fit for lifers"...or SOMEBODY else?

bob

[Lisa N]

the Atkins Diet has failed to consistently improve the single most important risk factor for heart disease, LDL, or bad cholesterol.

I'm sure that you're aware by now that researchers have discovered that there are several types of LDL, some thought to be harmful and some thought to be beneficial. Which of those several subtypes, specifically, has the Atkins diet failed to consistently improve? In fact, do you know which subtypes of LDL the subjects you claim had worsened cardiac profiles had? Also, your research may be a little behind the times since you fail to mention the subtypes of LDL, but you also fail to mention that the controlled carb approach has been shown to consistently raise HDL and lower triglycerides, two other factors thought to be important in cardiac health. In fact, even if my LDL increases, if my HDL also increases and my triglycerides drop (which is precisely what happened in my case) my cardiac profile is either unchanged or improved based on the ratios.
You can throw up all the smoke and mirrors you like, but my doctor is quite pleased with my results 3+ years in. Results speak louder than words:

-A1c from 11.8 pre low carb to 5.1 currently...unmedicated
-Blood pressure from 170/106 pre low carb to 120/76 (today, as a matter of fact)..unmedicated
weight from 260 pre-low carb to 185 presently (still need to update my stats)
-LDL 103, HDL 47, tris 108 (not bad for a 42 year old who's been diabetic for 12+ years)..unmedicated. Pre low carb; LDL 160, HDL 42, tris 250 (hmmm...what was that again about low carb raising LDL?)

My doc's words to me today? "Whatever you're doing...keep doing it!" :D

[ItsTheWooo]

OH MY GOD, I feel the brain anyerism growing in my head!

Remember, ANYONE can be ANYTHING on the internet, there is NO regulation, no rules, no guidelines, if you can type a keyboard, you're in. That said, honestly, why is everyone wasting so much time fighting with this guy? He's here to pick a fight with his bad hair and man-boobs, we should all simply do what works, what makes us feel great and what gives us energy.

There is a lot of great info on the site and a lot to learn, focus on the positive, and stop spending so much time fighting the negative........

Forget the rest..........

LL :)
I doubt he's looking for a fight. If he were, he would have responded to the personal insults.

He's not here for personal reasons, for the selfish pleasure of trolling. He's not even here to debate or learn. He's here as a crusader for his religion. He's here to convert the heathens to his wacky animal rights ideals. This is his only goal, and he is comfortable converting one to veganism on any pretense, even deception (e.g. a fraudulent health/scientific basis that he carefully constructs). The doctor's main strategy of converting non-believers to his religion is deception and deceptive sensationalist propaganda. Instead of approaching the issue truthfully... from a moral, emotional point of view which is where he is really coming from... he obfuscates his true motives (subjective personal morals) and pretends there is an objective, scientific, logical reason he wants us to eat almost no animal products.

To support his lie and make it more convincing, he presents and employs biased research that borders on fraud. The purpose of all this is to try to convince as many people as possible who don't know better that eating animal products is unhealthy and not in their best interest. He isn't hindered by scruples or considerations of objective reality (e.g. the obvious fact that humans are omnivores), nothing will stop him from promoting his insane vegan lifestyle as the panacea to human health. Part of the problem is he thinks he is justified, because he is so emotionally biased toward animal rights. Another part of the problem is because of the former, he is now so irrational that on some level he actually does believe his diet has "magical powers". He confuses eating with spirituality, and this is the unfortunate result. Lies, confusion, intolerance and aggression.

Compassion dictates such a warped person should be pitied. I don't think he's worthy of pity, because I am certain he knows on some level he is being willfully deceptive. He's not merely totally insane, he's also consciously aware that he's hurting people. How could he not? He is being bombarded with facts and testimonials which refute his point of view, but he seems throughly uninterested in them. If he were being honest with us at all, he would address cases like mine and Kristine and LukeA... people who ate his diet and failed on it. People who've BEEN there, who know for a fact their well being correlates with level and quality of dietary carbohydrate.

Furthermore, not only are there plenty of people who are living testimonials against veganism, but there is MORE than enough medical research against it as well. He's sitting there, pretending like this research doesn't exist. It's quite hysterical. The research which shows a percentage of animal products are needed in the human diet is far, far to extensive for me to go into this one post, but I"ll try. For starters, there's the fact we can't produce B12. It's an essential vitamin for a host of functions mainly energy production and nervous system function. There's the fact that animal products are the richest, most well balanced and abundant sources of many essential nutrients for the human animal. There's the protein issue. Unlike herbivorous animals, humans are more like carnivores in that we have to consume many of our amino acids because we can't very well make them. Don't be fooled by the moral vegan liars who would have you believe soy is an equally good protein source to animal products like eggs or meat or dairy... it's not even close. The amino acid profile is inferior, along with fatty acid profile, vitamins, minerals, and virtually every aspect of it. In addition to protein, plant fats are inferior to animal fats. Animal fats, like animal protein, is complete and preformed for human needs. Plant fats, like plant proteins, offer mostly the precursors and/or a limited and imbalanced range of fatty acids for human needs. For example, the omega 3 fatty acids in plants are mostly in the form of ALA, which isn't true omega 3 but actually the precursor. Many people, especially those with recent hunter-gatherer ancestry, fail to make the conversion very well. On the other hand, the omega 3s from animal sources is complete preformed DHA and EPA, available and ready to use for tissue anabolism.
More evidence is our mineral needs. Humans have a very high need for minerals which are abundant from animal foods such as calcium and phosphorus. A human eating a natural human diet gets these minerals from dairy products and the soft bones of aquatic animals and foul, as well as bone broths. A vegan, on the other hand, has a much harder time acquiring adequate calcium. Again, I implore you not to be fooled by the vegan lies that humans really don't need that much calcium, that we only need the calcium we do because of our meat eating habits. It's simply not true, and calcium has function in the body more extensive than bones and teeth. In fact, in the media/research room there is a post about how calcium is such a vital mineral for humans that it regulates our metabolism and energy usage. The theory goes that because traditional human food has a very high calcium load (animal products), a high calcium load signals to the body that you are eating high quality, abundant food. The calcium signals to the body that it's "ok" to use more energy and increase anabolism.

Basically, the pattern is the same for all animal vs plant sources of nutrition. In plant sources, the fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals tend to be mostly the precursors (which are hard to convert) and/or in poor balance with other nutritional co-factors for the dietary needs of the human animal. Conversely, animal products are much more complete and well balanced as a rule. This is because all anthropological and biological evidence points to humans being opportunistic omnivores with a decided bias toward carnivorism. It is only natural that animal foods would be more vital to us than plant foods.

Anyway, I'll stop here. Like I said, there is more than enough research which shows at least some animal products are absolutely vital in a human diet, and no human will thrive on a vegan diet after a period of time (it takes a long time to totally deplete your body, but eventually on a vegan diet you will reach that point). But does the doctor care about reality? Does he care about my health, Kristine's health, Lukea's health? No, not in the slightest. As I said, he is both emotionally irrational and intellectually dishonest. He's totally unconcerned with human health or objective reality. His sole purpose is to "spread the good word". Like a spam bot he just keeps repeating the same thing over and over. He's not interested in examining anything with anyone. His function on this forum is the equivalent of handing out vegan pamphlets at a Texas BBQ - propaganda, sensationalism, drawing attention to "the cause", or to put it bluntly "spreading the gospel".
I repeat: His only goal is to convince people to eat less animal products. He has no interest in science or human health what so ever. Though he may appear rational, and though the tries very hard to make it seem like he holds the opinions he does because of reasoned research, don't be deceived. He completely dismisses any testimonial or study in favor of increasing animal products - no matter how sound, and the fact he completely supports any testimonial or study in favor of decreasing animal products - no matter how flawed, is more than enough evidence to conclude he is hopelessly biased and unscientific. This shows his true motives.

[ryaxnb]

Yick. I disagree with your site.
Atkins is definetely a revolution if everyone disagrees with it. :D I mean, if it goes against accepted standards it's a rather revolutionary :idea: idea. I don't think Atkins is the perfect diet. Instead, I like the Somersize (man i hate that name) diet. :cool: Atkins requires too much counting and imposes too many limitations on carbs. Somersize finds the right balance by allowing as many veggies as desired while still limiting other Carbos and recommending lots of Protien and Fat.

[CindySue48]

ryaxnb: "Somersize finds the right balance by allowing as many veggies as desired"

Any veggies? even the high carb ones like potatoes and corn?

[adukart]

Dr Gregor,
I did go to your website. I did click on the references you provide and I did use your hyperlinks when listed. Specifically, I went to your refutation of the "letter" you recieved, because that is where the hyperlink goes. Upon further investigation, I opened the pdf file to a letter, supposedly from ANA. As the file opened, so did a disclaimer stating that the file was created using Adobe Photoshop, which means it has either a) been completely fabricated, or b) been altered in significant ways. In association with mrFreddy's post, the Aktins logo doesn't even appear at the top (where letterhead should be) but in the margin between the 1st and 2nd page. In addition, the letter does not follow legal, APA, nor any format that such letters usually follow, including the pg/date format at the top of each page, the closing, or the initial address, etc on the front page of the letter. In addition, I would assume that any letter sent from a rather large and influential corporation would be sent from the desk of someone rather important..ie someone with letters behind her name. This letter uses your OWN significant letters, but fails to label the education, position, or legal status of the so-called originator. Another ploy to strengthen your own position? I think so.
dodg4kat, Hmmm, so did he correct the mistakes http://www.atkinsexposed.org/filecontent/142f_atkinsexposed.org_letter_from_atkins.pdf

because almost all these things you mention are corrected, or maybe it's not the same letter? Anyway, I also get the warning that it was created by Adobe and found that kind of odd.

[kyrasdad]

I repeat: His only goal is to convince people to eat less animal products. He has no interest in science or human health what so ever. Though he may appear rational, and though the tries very hard to make it seem like he holds the opinions he does because of reasoned research, don't be deceived. He completely dismisses any testimonial or study in favor of increasing animal products - no matter how sound, and the fact he completely supports any testimonial or study in favor of decreasing animal products - no matter how flawed, is more than enough evidence to conclude he is hopelessly biased and unscientific. This shows his true motives.

Wooo, you have a way of cutting through to the real point. I have probably mentioned before that I've sent people to various of your posts because you explain things a lot better than I can. Thanks. :cool:

While it is the war zone, I tend to dislike the personal insults thrown at this guy. We have the facts, we don't need to insult him.

I'll offer my perspective from a personal standpoint. I've been on a low carb lifestyle about 13 months now. Since I started, I have lost 80 pounds - amazing enough in and of itself.

I've also seen other benefits. I am more aware and alert than ever. I have improved sexual desire and performance (I noticed this in the first couple of months, when I was down only about 30 lbs., so it isn't just a function of losing weight). I am stronger - noticably stronger - without much working out. I'm "on" more often, mentally.

I've also, by the way, received the best blood test results I have ever had. While I've always had excellent cholesterol levels, those levels are improved over that time.

Dr., can you remove your religious convictions from this argument and tell me why I am wrong, based on the facts of my situation? What could I do by shifting to low fat, besides awaken the dragon of my hunger, a dragon long slain by low carb?

Help me, Dr. I want to believe, but the facts don't point me your direction.

"I can be wrong, you can be wrong, but the evidence is just the evidence."
-Gil Grisson, from CSI

[bluesmoke]

Maybe this person's inability to comprehend the facts and reason from them is a result of carbohydrate poisoning. Nyah Levi

[kyrie]

Somersize finds the right balance by allowing as many veggies as desired

I guess I'm lucky-- on Atkins, I already eat as many LC veggies as I desire.

Never did understand why corn is considered a veggie. If it's cornbread, or grits, it's a grain.

Oh, and my doctor got really excited at my last cholesterol profile, he started laughing out loud. My LDL dropped 26 points, my HDL bumped up a few points, and so my cholesterol profile is now decidedly kick-ass.

[ryaxnb]

ryaxnb: "Somersize finds the right balance by allowing as many veggies as desired"

Any veggies? even the high carb ones like potatoes and corn?
No. Those veggies are out, just as most fruit is allowed but not bannanas.

[CindySue48]

No. Those veggies are out, just as most fruit is allowed but not bannanas.

how is it different from Atkins then?

[ItsTheWooo]

Bump.

You should know this guy forwarded this post to a whole host of LC oriented sites. Just wanted to point out that according to another low carb group I frequent (the low carb recipes mail listing), the Dr is spoofing the cornell university email address to lend him and his irrational vegan agenda more credibility. In reality, the university is unassociated with this spamming activity totally and completely.

[ItsTheWooo]

how is it different from Atkins then?

Atkins has you count (i.e. limit) veggies against your carb allowance. I am assuming his plan doesn't advocate counting of carbs and therefore low carb veggies/fruit are unlimited.

[doreen T]

You should know this guy forwarded this post to a whole host of LC oriented sites.
Hardly surprising. His previous communication with us (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=193732) back in June was similarly circulated to many LC boards, email lists and newsletters.
Just wanted to point out that according to another low carb group I frequent (the low carb recipes mail listing), the Dr is spoofing the cornell university email address to lend him and his irrational vegan agenda more credibility. In reality, the university is unassociated with this spamming activity totally and completely.
Actually, Greger is a graduate of Cornell School of Agriculture. Although they don't offer email addresses to alumni, Cornell does provide a forwarding service so that all mail addressed to their previous cornell.edu address will be forwarded to their new email, whether it's aol, yahoo or whatever. He's definitely NOT on staff or associated in any other way.


Doreen

[kyrasdad]

You know, I wouldn't mind seeing an honest Vegan come here and argue his religious beliefs. I'd respect that. But most of the time, we don't see that. We see deceptive drivel that tries to clothe this religion in nutrition.

If it's a religion, fine. I respect that. Just don't try to make it about nutrition.

[DrGreger]

He's definitely NOT on staff or associated in any other way.
Doreen

My students would certainly be surprised to hear that. :) I am currently teaching nutrition at Cornell (Nutritional Sciences 200).

Regards from sunny Ithaca,

-Michael

[kyrasdad]

My students would certainly be surprised to hear that. :) I am currently teaching nutrition at Cornell (Nutritional Sciences 200).

That is frightening, in and of itself, considering that what you're doing here is more religion (perhaps morality) than it is science. I don't know if it's worth having a nutrition-based conversation with you, since you seem to have a beliefs system rather than an open mind about these issues.

I'm not a religious low-carber, in that I do not care about "winning" other hearts and minds over to it. I don't care for many of the low carb processed products that have hit the market. I do not care if Atkins Nutritionals succeeds wildly or bankrupts.

What I do care about is what works. Low Carb works as a natural way of eating works. It works for weightloss, it works for general health. No study of any credence has found otherwise. Many of the boogeymen that have been thrown up (kidney damage, elevated cholesterol, even brain damage) by those with religious agendas similar to yours have been discredited.

The fact that you believe it's wrong to kill a cow is irrelevant to that. In the strictest sense of nutrition, you have failed to make a convincing case of any kind. You promote flawed, agenda-driven studies that lash low carb eating while you ignore academic studies (or parts of them) that promote it.

As I said above, I respect your religion. Just don't costume it as nutrition.

[kyrasdad]

A quick search of the Cornell website, www.cornell.edu has yielded the fact that Dr. Greger is "coming" for a speech to the local vegan group...

http://www.rso.cornell.edu/ccad

(Page has stuff like the group meeting up to protest a circus, Peta stuff) It says:

"Dr. Michael Greger will be coming to speak on the Atkins diet in a talk which is refered to on his website as "Atkins Diet: Sorting Fact from Fad." We will need to publicize this heavily. The date is October 28th at 5PM. It is tentatively located in Goldwin Smith auditorium D. We will start publicizing the event about two weeks in advance of the 28th."

What it doesn't say is if Dr. Greger is on staff. given that academia can be home to lots of radical people, I wouldn't find it surprising that he is. Given his dishonest approach here, I would not be shocked if he were spoofing it.

However, this page:

http://www.cornell.edu/search/index.cfm?tab=people&netid=mhg1&q=Michael%20Greger

Indicates that Michael is a student rather than a professor, and that the email address mhg1~cornell.edu is routed to an earthlink account. Michael Greger is certainly involved at some level with Cornell, but there is no guarantee based on these items that he is a professor.

This page,

http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/fst/faculty/

...does not list him with the food sciences faculty.

Jury's out, doc. Can you prove you are who you say you are?

[sinadial]

Nutrition 200? Sounds like an undergrad course...many of which get taught by grad students as teaching assistants. That doesn't mean you're actually part of the faculty.

Isn't having this guy 'teaching' a class about nutrition about on par with having Hitler giving lessons in Judaism?

[mrfreddy]

I found this info on Cornell's Nutrition 200 course, as you can see, it's a course on vegetarian nutrition, so it makes sense that Dr. Gregor could be involved.

However, as you can also see, the course is apparently taught by T.C. Cambell. Perhaps Dr. Gregor is some sort of TA or just a guest speaker? It does seem that, at the very least, he is intentionally misrepresenting his role....

http://nutrition.cornell.edu/course/ns200.html

NS 200 - Vegetarian Nutrition: An Introduction

Spring. 3 credits. S-U grades optional. Prerequisite: NS 115 advised but not essential. TBA. T. C. Campbell.

This introductory course surveys vegetarianism from a variety of nutrition and health considerations. The material to be presented and discussed primarily includes the empirical scientific evidence presented for easy comprehension for students without nutrition training. The course also considers the historical and sociocultural roots, both ancient and of more recent times, that have led to the growing interest in, and acceptance of, this type of dietary practice. Particular attention is given to the role of vegetarianism in the prevention and reversal of chronic degenerative diseases. Special topics on competitive sport, childhood nutrition, food preparation, and dietary transition are offered. Internationally known guest speakers provide six to eight of the lectures.

[mrfreddy]

Here is the guy that apprently actually teaches this course, TC Cambell...

http://www.human.cornell.edu/faculty/facultybio.cfm?netid=tcc1

T. Colin Campbell

Browse DNS Faculty
previous DNS Faculty Directory next

Campbell Pic


Emeritus Jacob Gould Schurman Professor, DNS

308 Savage Hall

Phone: (607) 255-2669
Fax: (607) 255-1033

tcc1~cornell.edu

Current Professional Activities
Cornell Graduate Field Membership:Nutrition; Environmental Toxicology

Current Research Activities
Interpreting diet and chronic disease etiology using information on both experimental animals and humans.

Selected Publications / Books
Hu, J.-F., Cheng, Z., Chisari, F. V., Vu, T. H., Hoffman, A. R., and Campbell, T. C. (1997) Repression of hepatitis B virus (HBV) transgene and HBV-induced liver injury by low protein diet. Oncogene 15:2795–2801.

Campbell, T. C., and Chen, J. (1994) Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: Perspectives from China. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 59:1153S–1161S.

Campbell, T.C., Chen, J., Brun, T., Parpia, B., Qu, Y., Chen, C., and Geissler, C. China: From diseases of poverty to diseases of affluence: Policy implications of the epidemiological transition. Ecol. Food Nutr. 27:133-144, 1992

Youngman, L. D., and Campbell, T. C. (1992) Inhibition of aflatoxin B1-induced gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase positive (GGT+) hepatic preneoplastic foci and tumors by low protein diets: Evidence that altered GGT+ foci indicate neoplastic potential. Carcinogenesis 13:1607–1613.

Campbell, C., Chen, J., Liu, C., Li, J., and Parpia, B. Non-association of aflatoxin with primary liver cancer in a cross-sectional ecologic survey in the People's Republic of China. Cancer Res. 50:6882-6893, 1990

Courses Taught

* NS200 - Vegetarian Nutrition: An Introduction

Education

* PhD 1962 - Cornell University
Animal nutrition
* MS 1957 - Cornell University
Animal nutrition
* BS 1956 - Pennsylvania State University/University of Georgia Veterinary School
Preveterinary medicine

[Quinadal]

Am I reading that right? TC Campbell has a PhD and MS in ANIMAL nutrition and a BS in VETRINARY medicine??? How does that qualify him to teach about HUMAN nutrition?

[kyrasdad]

On this page, which supplies every name of every member of Cornell's Nutritional Sciences Department, "Dr." Greger cannot be found.

http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/faculty/fac.html

I put the "Dr." in quotations because it's clear that if he'd lie about being on the Cornell faculty, he might lie about his other qualifications.

Mr. Greger: at best, you're misrepresenting yourself, your position at Cornell (you are definitely a student, not a faculty member), and your qualifications.

This, coupled with your religious convictions, tends to undermine the rest of what you;re trying to sell us.

[Grimalkin]

Dr. Gregor's website: http://www.veganmd.org/
Michael Greger, M.D. is a physician, a prize-winning cook, and an internationally recognized speaker on a number of important public health and social justice issues. Dr. Greger has been invited to lecture at countless universities, medical schools and conferences around the world, including the Conference on World Affairs and the World Vegetarian Congress. This semester he is also teaching part of Dr. T. Colin Campbell's Vegetarian Nutrition course at Cornell University.

As Farm Sanctuary's Chief Medical Investigator, Dr. Greger debated the National Cattlemen's Beef Association Director before the FDA and was invited as an expert witness to defend Oprah Winfrey in the infamous "meat defamation trial." Dr. Greger was recently featured on the Healthy Living Channel promoting one of his DVD's.

Dr. Greger is a general practitioner specializing in vegetarian nutrition and a founding member of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine...
etc., etc.

[ItsTheWooo]

A quick search of the Cornell website, www.cornell.edu has yielded the fact that Dr. Greger is "coming" for a speech to the local vegan group...

http://www.rso.cornell.edu/ccad

(Page has stuff like the group meeting up to protest a circus, Peta stuff) It says:

"Dr. Michael Greger will be coming to speak on the Atkins diet in a talk which is refered to on his website as "Atkins Diet: Sorting Fact from Fad." We will need to publicize this heavily. The date is October 28th at 5PM. It is tentatively located in Goldwin Smith auditorium D. We will start publicizing the event about two weeks in advance of the 28th."

What it doesn't say is if Dr. Greger is on staff. given that academia can be home to lots of radical people, I wouldn't find it surprising that he is. Given his dishonest approach here, I would not be shocked if he were spoofing it.

However, this page:

http://www.cornell.edu/search/index.cfm?tab=people&netid=mhg1&q=Michael%20Greger

Indicates that Michael is a student rather than a professor, and that the email address mhg1~cornell.edu is routed to an earthlink account. Michael Greger is certainly involved at some level with Cornell, but there is no guarantee based on these items that he is a professor.

This page,

http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/fst/faculty/

...does not list him with the food sciences faculty.

Jury's out, doc. Can you prove you are who you say you are?

Here is a copy of the letter I recieved from the lowcarb.com recipe exchange mailing list, regarding the doctor's abuse/misrepresentation of his affiliation with Cornell:




It seems the good doctor is NOT so legit after all. Or at the very least,
his emails to US were not legit. This is the response I got when I forwarded
the email to Cornell University.

Subj: Re: Fwd: [Low_Carb_Living] The Atkins Corporation responds to
AtkinsFacts.org
Date: 10/21/2004 3:04:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: ma15~nmc.cit.cornell.edu
Reply-to: abuse~cornell.edu
To: WildAngel6~aol.com
CC: abuse~cornell.edu
Sent from the Internet (Details)



Thank you for reporting these 4 incidents.

Cornell University does not have any authority or jurisdiction with regard
to E-mail that does not originate from Cornell University. All 4 incidents
seem
to have come from someoneone at 4.157.53.79 and they have spoofed the Cornell
address.

You do have an option to file a complaint with the internet service provider
where
the message originated. For assistance determining who the originating
Internet
Service Provider is, please see the following URL:

http://www.cit.cornell.edu/computer/responsible-use/report-other.html

If the unsolicited E-mail you received has a negative impact on you, such as
feeling
harassed or threatened, you also have the option of calling your local police

department to file a complaint.

Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reply-to: abuse~cornell.edu
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
607-255-9900




This letter is what a member of the list received when she fowarded the spam to the abuse department at Cornell. At the very least, Dr. Greger is acting totally independent on behalf of his status at Cornell (ie if he is a professional affiliated with Cornell, what he is doing here is not part of it). At the worst, Dr. Greger is totally and completely unaffiliated with Cornell other than as a student from years ago, and is merely holding on to the address to make his religion look scientific and professional.

Either way, it's plainly obvious he is hiding behind the cornell.edu address (spoofing it) to give his vegan religion an air of credit and authority. In reality he is not posting from cornell, nor is he actually using the address, nor is cornell affiliated with any of this.

[caligrrl]

I went to Cornell, and all alumni get those addresses. So he may have been a student there in the past, and not be affiliated with them now. You give them your email address and they route messages from the Cornell address to yours, they are all routed like that. You're not actually on a Cornell server when you use them.

[caligrrl]

The facts on Dr. Greger from the Massachusets Medical Board:

http://www.massmedboard.org/
Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine Physician Profile

MICHAEL H GREGER MD
License Status: Active
Business Address: None Reported
Hospital Affiliations: None Reported
Medical School: Tufts University School of Medicine
Graduation Date: 1999
Post Graduate Training: 7/1/1999-7/1/2000 - LEMUEL SHATTUCK HOSPITAL - INTERN
Area of Specialty: General Practice
ABMS Board Certification: Not Board Certified

So... for those of you not familiar with the medical profession: he went to medical school, but has not completed his residency training, and is not board certified in any specialty. You need 3 years of reisdency training to work unrestricted as an M.D. and he has only done one. This is unusual- he may have quit to pursue a career other than as a physician, or be pursuing a PhD, he may have been fired, we have no way of knowing.

[AtkinsBOY1]

The Atkins Corporation is threatening to sue me for "defaming" Atkins on my website http://www.AtkinsFacts.org. I will not be bullied into silence by their corporate lawyers.

I've posted their threatening letter in full for all to see along with a point-by-point rebuttal at http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/135/Corporate_Threat.htm

Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. in their 6-page letter failed, after presumably combing through the 500+ references supporting AtkinsFacts.org, to find a single factual error. Instead, in making vague groundless accusations, they further misinterpret, mislabel and misrepresent studies, rely on outdated, unpublished preliminary data, and continue to make false and misleading statements.

For example:

* I am accused of making "misleading" assertions about the health risks associated with saturated fat, yet their own Director of Education and Research claims saturated fat has a "heart-healthy role" by citing the "well-known Framingham Nurses' Study." It may be well known to directors of education and research at the Atkins Corporation, but in reality... it doesn't exist. She must be thinking of the Framingham Heart Study, or maybe the Harvard Nurses' Study. Either way, I show that she's wrong.

* Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. claims their diet could prevent breast cancer, asserting that there is no link between saturated fat and breast cancer risk, by citing two papers--one that doesn't address the issue and another that directly contradicts their position!

* To argue that there is no link between meat and colon cancer they rely on preliminary, unpublished data from a single investigation they heard about at a meeting that took place years ago. That would be bad enough, if it weren't for the fact that they even misrepresented that data.

* They accuse me of ignoring the "overwhelming weight of evidence" evidently consisting of "no less than 34 studies" supporting the safety and efficacy of their diet. I go through all their studies, pointing out that most were published by Atkins-funded researchers, some in an "authoritative, peer-reviewed" journal founded by an Atkins spokesman and a quarter weren't even published at all.

Please feel free to read the best defense the Atkins Corporation could come up with to try to counter the truth and make up your own mind,

-Michael Greger, M.D.
http://www.AtkinsExposed.org
mhg1~cornell.edu
(206) 312-8640
185 South St #6
Boston, MA 02130
First of all get a life. And stop being so annoying.