Ok, so what book would you recommend? And are there any low carb alternatives to Atkins?

IMHO, the best book to understand low-carbing, by readers who are interested in medical/scientific details, is "Life Without Bread", by Dr. Wolfgang Lutz, MD and Dr. Christian B Allan, Phd.

Wa'il

.
.
Firstly, congratulations on your achievement... you look great!



Marketing probably comes into play here. I haven't read Atkins' earlier books, so I can only speculate how explicit he was about this - but certainly the idea of eating unlimited bacon, steak, and whipped cream would be a strong selling point to many individuals.

As for me I'm starting to reevaluate the idea that "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie". Our bodies may well digest and store nutrients from different foods differently, and this may vary amongst individuals. That does not mean however that calories (or portion sizes, as you point out) are irrelevant. One reason that I drink 1% milk instead of 2% or whole is to reduce calories.



I agree with most of your comments, but I believe that valid concerns about saturated fat still exist. So while I love beef, I've cut it back to about once a week, and substituted chicken and fish otherwise.

I also find it interesting how my appetite has shifted during the short time I've been on my new diet - in my case I notice that I no longer have the cravings for sweets that I used to. The other day I had a small sliver of S&S cheesecake (reputed to be on e of the best in the New York City area) and my stomach sent a strong signal of "Yuck" after I ate it - it felt like a rock was in there!



I agree with your comments about the advantages of slowly-digested carbohydrates and whole grains, but I don't agree that whole grains are simply an unhealthy food to be minimized as much as possible. I believe they contain important nutrients and that whole grains have a role to play in the overall diet. I forget exactly where they are on the Atkins for Life "carb ladder", but they are there, and depending on your total carb threshold, I think Atkins allows you to eat them at some stage of the diet. So I don't think the cigarette analogy is valid.



You seem to have gone through a lot of pain in getting to where you are... I'm sorry if you had to listen to people or doctors berating you for being overweight and insisting that you stick to a conventional low-cal or low fat diet, even after it was clear that it wasn't working for you. I am in no way suggesting that you should go off Atkins, and am delighted that you've found a way to lose weight and keep it off. (Incidentally, how long have you been at your goal weight?)

But please don't use me, Willett, or someone who expresses reservations about Atkins, as an indiscriminate straw man for every criticism of LC dieting that has been made over the years. Also keep in mind that some obese people can lose weight on other diets, too. Willett is in no way labelling Atkins as a fad diet in these statements; rather, he says that low carb diets cannot be dismissed. The key may be matching the right diet to the individual.

Thanks - added to reading list.

Here are the complaints from the three scientists in question:

“The article was incredibly misleading... My quote was correct,
but the context suggested that I support eating saturated fat. I was
horrified.”
-- Gerald Reaven, Stanford University

“There’s a clear benefit for reducing cardiovascular risk from replacing
unhealthy fats—saturated and trans—with healthy fats... And I told Taubes several times that red meat is associated with a higher risk of colon and possibly prostate cancer, but he left that out.”
-- Walter Willett, Harvard University

“I was greatly offended at how Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across as supporters of the Atkins diet... “What I was referring to wasn’t that low-fat diets would make a person gain weight and become obese. I meant that in susceptible individuals, a very-low-fat [high-carb] diet can raise triglycerides, lower HDL cholesterol, and make harmful, small, dense LDL. We’re overfed, over-advertised, and under-exercised. It’s the enormous portion sizes and sitting in front of the TV and computer all day that are to blame. It’s so gol’darn obvious—how can anyone ignore it? The Times editor called and tried to get me to say that low-fat diets were the cause of obesity, but I wouldn’t.”
--John Farquhar, Stanford University

Now let's look at what Taubes says in his response to the Fumento piece that bears on this:

"Reaven's name and research were mentioned in the context of two paragraphs on the history of Syndrome X that have precisely zero to say about the Atkins's diet and sit over 3000 words and 24 paragraphs after one discussion of the Atkins diet and 1500 words and 18 paragraphs before the next. When I interviewed Reaven last year, however, he did say the following about Atkins's diet, on tape, on the record, and I trust he won't mind me repeating it: "I think it's a great way to lose weight. That's not the issue." The issue, he said, was whether it was safe for long-term weight maintenance, which he doubted. Reaven believes saturated fat should be avoided, as well as carbohydrates. Atkins only advocates avoiding the latter."

But he didn't print Reaven's reservations about saturated fat - and two paragraphs before citing Reaven in the original NY Times story, Taubes wrote:

"What this means is that even saturated fats -- a k a, the bad fats -- are not nearly as deleterious as you would think. True, they will elevate your bad cholesterol, but they will also elevate your good cholesterol. In other words, it's a virtual wash."

The context of mentioning Reaven shortly after this, suggests that he supports the concept - that's what's got Reaven annoyed.

Next on to Willett. Taubes writes:
"As for Willett's red meat/cancer anxieties, which he did indeed reiterate to me numerous times, Willett himself acknowledges that the data are ambiguous. Willett's own Nurses' Health Study revealed an elevated risk of colorectal cancer in women who ate red meat frequently, but the Nurses' Health Study has recently arrived at the wrong answer on several major health issues--most notably, the effects of post-menopausal hormone replacement therapy--and so its credibility is debatable. Moreover, Willett played a major role in preparation of a 1997 report published by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research. That report noted that of seven studies similar to Willett's, three, including Willett's, saw an association between red meat and colorectal cancer, while the other four did not. As for prostate cancer, the authors of the report could find neither "convincing" nor even "probable" reason to believe that diets high in red meat increase risk. I could have mentioned this but, like Fumento, I was working with limited space and chose to use what seemed most relevant."

An unsatisfactory reply. He tries to rationalize omitting Willett's red meat/colon cancer reservations with the argument that if the data are ambiguous, Willett's reservations aren't worth printing, and anyway, Willett's Nurses Health Study isn't all that credible, either. He engaged in heavy handed editorializing - printing Willett's endorsement and then rationalizing away the caveat - and that is bad journalism.

Finally Farquhar:
"Here's the specific context: Farquhar is quoted only in the last paragraph of my story. It follows directly from a discussion of my own difficulty in accepting the seemingly counter-intuitive possibility that fat might be beneficial to one's health and weight, and carbohydrates detrimental. The (original NY Times) story then ends with the Farquhar paragraph:

This is the state of mind I imagine that mainstream nutritionists, researchers and physicians must inevitably take to the fat-versus-carbohydrate controversy ... this kind of conversion may be happening at the moment to John Farquhar ... he explained why low-fat diets might lead to weight gain and low-carbohydrate diets might lead to weight loss, but he made me promise not to say he believed they did. He attributed the cause of the obesity epidemic to the ''force-feeding of a nation.'' Three weeks later ... he sent me an e-mail message asking the not-entirely-rhetorical question, ''Can we get the low-fat proponents to apologize?"

Taubes admits he broke a promise. Furthermore, the implication here is that Farquhar is a closet Atkins supporter - and that's what's got Farquhar annoyed. Rather than ending with Farquhar's joke, it would have been more accurate to cite him as

"regarding the possibility that low fat diets contribute to the obesity epidemic--i am remaining a bit cagey on that point."

which I think better represents Farquhar's position.

As I said earlier, a journalist - particularly a science journalist - owes a professional duty of accurate representation to his sources. One source's disavowal could be attributed to a simple misunderstanding - but here we're talking three - three individuals with well established repuations in the field. In order to score points - or a book deal - Taubes set aside journalistic ethics and opted for sensationalism instead.

(Disclaimer: I'm attacking Taubes' journalistic ethics, so please resist the temptation to turn this into a debate over the science.)

(Edited for spelling)

I don't see where Taubes broke his promise to Farquhar - he disclosed the promise, true, but nowhere does he paint Farquhar as an unabashed Atkins supporter. Rather, Taubes said "this kind of conversion may be happening" to Farquher and that "he explained why low-fat diets might lead to weight gain and low-carbohydrate diets might lead to weight loss".

By the disclosure of the promise - in the orginal article - Taubes is clear that Farquhar did NOT want to be seen as pro-Atkins.

Indeed, Taubes bent over backwards qualifying Farquhar's words and explaining Farquhar's wishes. I've never seen any journalist with higher ethics than that.

Once Farquhar said ''Can we get the low-fat proponents to apologize?", Taubes would have been remiss if he had ignored such a pregnant quote. If there is a problem here, it is Farquhar's fault for saying it, not Taubes's for reporting it.

I don't see it that way, and apparently, neither does Farquhar.

I agree that Taubes does not paint Farquhar as an unabashed Atkins supporter. But the implication of the original article is that Farquhar is undergoing "conversion" to the low-carb way of thinking, but doesn't want it known. For Taubes to mention the "promise" in the article suggests that he is letting the reader in on a piece of juicy gossip, and the last tantalizing quote is the icing on the cake (pardon the high carb expression).

Your point that Farquhar should have chosen his words more carefully when speaking to a reporter has some merit - perhaps Farquhar felt he knew Taubes well enough from his previous work to trust him with an unguarded statement. He should not have relied on Taubes' ethics to keep anything he said out of the papers.

Westerner,

If you carefully read their reactions, they all agree on the following:

1. He quoted them accurately
2. They are upset he did not quote them on saturated fats
3. They conclude this makes it out of context.

First, nothing in there calls his integrity into question, even if we assume all this is true.

However, there is no need to repeat each claim they make on the "evils" of saturated fats, since this was mentioned in the article already. It is quoted as the "current scientific wisdom" of existing theories by nuteritionsits, that saturated fat is evil.

To expect him to print the same thing several times for each person interviwed is an unreasonable expectations, as the article was not a single interview. Had he failed to mention that many scientists consider saturated fats unhealthy, then, and only then, they may have a point. Other than that, they are clearly upset by how the article became popular, with opinions they disagree with.

As for the context, I doubt anyone would agree with any context, if they disagree with his findings. The point is, they all failed to show a single study showing saturated fats (without carbs) are unhealthy. They are upset about that, but tough luck, the burden remains on them to show evidence to their claims.

None of us can make them happy about that, but it's their problem, not an issue of Taube's integrity.

Quote:

(Disclaimer: I'm attacking Taubes' journalistic ethics, so please resist the temptation to turn this into a debate over the science.)

No problem. Let's take a look at your ethics, then. You first claim he misquoted them, and that it's a question about his ethics and integrity. It turns out that he never misquoted them, by their own admission, they just disagree with his findings, and the context..

If one doesn't like what he said, or his findings, or the context, they can easily write him off as someone who is mistaken about something, or advocating something wrong. That would be totally ethical, and boils down to a disagrement or difference of opinions.

Wa'il

Tamarian, you are perhaps filling in this context based on your pre-existing familiarity with the saturated fat issue, but what Taubes actually says in the original article, in terms of background on saturated fat, is:

When Atkins first published his ''Diet Revolution'' in 1972, Americans were just coming to terms with the proposition that fat -- particularly the saturated fat of meat and dairy products -- was the primary nutritional evil in the American diet.

and

The A.M.A. attacked Atkins's diet as a ''bizarre regimen'' that advocated ''an unlimited intake of saturated fats and cholesterol-rich foods,'' and Atkins even had to defend his diet in Congressional hearings

both times mentioning it together with Atkins. He does not disclose the nuanced position currently held, by, say, Willett, who feels that mono- and polyunsturated fats are good, but not saturated fats. Instead he says:

What this means is that even saturated fats -- a k a, the bad fats -- are not nearly as deleterious as you would think. True, they will elevate your bad cholesterol, but they will also elevate your good cholesterol. In other words, it's a virtual wash. As Willett explained to me, you will gain little to no health benefit by giving up milk, butter and cheese and eating bagels instead.

Not only does he not convey Willett's negative opinion of saturated fats, he manages to make it look like Willett agrees with him. Now I understand that he is working from limited print space, and he doesn't need to quote each sources' often technical caveats verbatim. But he could - and should - have included the additional sentence required to capture the core of their positions on saturated fat accurately.




"Misquoted" was not entirely accurate on my part, as none of the scientists has claimed Taubes attributed comments to them that they did not actually make. What he did do was omit their caveats, pick certain isolated statements and apply them to a different context, and reveal "juicy" statements in order to make waves.

If they were complaining about Taubes' findings, then yes I would agree it's their problem; but the mischarcterization of their own positions is another matter. Your comment that they failed to prove their position on saturated fat is similar to Taubes' rationalization, but the burden is not on his sources to "prove" anything in order to have their position accurately reported - the burden is on Taubes. And that's where the breach of professional ethics lies.

I think we're beyond questioning ethics, it's now down to sanity, or the lack there of...

You need some sense of medieval ethics, to place the burden on him to disprove their "scientifc" nonesense, which even they failed to prove.

He provided the records showing they said what he said they did. It's unethical of you and Fumento, or anyone, to demand he writes his article in the way they want it to be written. He never misquoted them, as you and Fumento claim. They want an article to support their theories, they can write it themselves.

It's unethical of you to question his integiry, just because you disagree with his findings. At least Willett, et al, had the integrity and ethics not to claim he misquoted them.

And now that you can't find such misquotes, it'd down to proving what he failed to mention? Well, he didn't mention anything about racial equality. Does that make his a racist as well? He didn't mention evolution, does that prove he's a creationist?

Wa'il

Your tone makes your position clear: the part of their position that does not support Atkins is nonsense (something, btw, that I don't think Taubes is as dead certain about as you are) - therefore Taubes owes them nothing. Not so. Taubes has a duty to his readers not to leave them with mistaken impressions on what Willet, et.al. actually think about Atkins.




Please don't lump me with Fumento - I didn't bring him up and I haven't quoted or used any of his material as a source.



I've already backed off on the term misquote, which I admit I misused. I should have said "misrepresented".

You are trying to mix Taubes' findings, and disagreement thereon, into this discussion, but that's not what I am talking about. You also did not address my substantive point on saturated fats, preferring instead to question my ethics and sanity.

What is that mistaken impression.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, in order for your claims to be true, you have to show where Taube has stated that Willett said saturated fats are good.

But he didn't. And for this, low-fat advocates (or anti saturated fat advocates) are upset that his article questions their long held theory.

Tough luck, let them write articles or whateve they want in support of their thoeries. They, and you, can't force someone to write for their approval.
You didn't bring him up, you just sounded like him, by making the same accusation.

Good for you. What did he "misrepresent" then?

Make up your mind first.... You want us to start talking about the science of saturated fats now, and not mix that with Taube's ethics and integirt?

When I mentioned saturated fats, you said

So, which is it? You want us to talk science, or journalistic ethics?

Wa'il

(Thank you for the reasoned response, Tamarian.)


He misrepresented their positions, and I believe the statements of the three back me up on that. I think I've already covered this in detail above. Please re-read my posts if you are unclear about it, as we seem to have lost the thread of discussion.


I think I've been clear about that as well. You said



which I responded to above - a response that you seem to have missed.

Sure, as clear as Mr. Fumento.

So, you think in the above thread so far, you have shown:

1. That Taube's said they told him saturated fats are good.
2. That you have provided scientific refrences that saturated fats, without the presense of high carbs are harmful.
3. That all the above was shown in your posts, but I somehow missed it?

I think I now know who you really are. Mr. Fumento!

We have several threads here, where readers will email Mr. Fumento asking for his evidence, and all he kept saying "I showed it to you, but you missed it!".

Wa'il

Shrug. I guess you're more interested in taking shots at me as a Fumento proxy, and editorializing me, than in any meaningful discussion.

Have a nice day, Tamarian.