(I had a good giggle over this article, it was soooooo bad!)

Chic but Chubby
By Michael Fumento
Scripps Howard News Service, October 16, 2003
Copyright 2003 Scripps Howard News Service

There's a magic formula to having a best-selling diet book — the book itself must offer a magic formula. Namely, it must claim to have found a way to fool human physiology so that weight is no longer determined by how much you eat and exercise.

Cases in point: The Atkins diet spent about 2,000 years on the New York Times bestseller list while The South Beach Diet reached No. 1 and is still going strong.

Although the very first sentence in cardiologist Arthur Agatston's book is "The South Beach Diet is not low-carb," like the Atkins diet that's precisely what it is.

Otherwise, Agatston wouldn't have invoked the same magic formula of the late Dr. Atkins, that of "hyperinsulinemia." This says that foods high on the hypoglycemic index, invariably carbohydrates, send sugar rushing into the bloodstream. The pancreas then shoots insulin like a fire hose to clear the sugar out of the blood and into the organs. But now that same insulin makes the body hunger for more sugar, creating a vicious cycle and causing obesity.

Yet, "There is no compelling evidence that in normal individuals day-to-day fluctuations of the blood glucose level are an important determinant of how much food is consumed," University of Washington endocrinologist Michael Schwartz told me. But "Although the concept that insulin triggers weight gain has little scientific merit," he wrote earlier in the journal Science, "it remains a key selling point for advocates of diets that are low in carbohydrate and high in protein and fat."

Advocates like Atkins and Agatston.

And because the South Beach diet is indeed low-carb, Agatston feels compelled to claim that, "When we eat fats, we become satiated." False. The literature on this is both voluminous and clear. Fat and carbohydrates reduce hunger equally, although protein may have a slight edge.

Were either the hyperinsulinemia or fat-satiety theories true, it would certainly show up in the decades of studies comparing diets of varying fat and carbohydrate content. It does not. For example, in April 2001 the Journal of the American Dietetic Association reviewed "all (such) studies identified," over 200 total. Conclusion: "Weight loss is independent of diet composition."

Most recently, a review in the April 9, 2003, Journal of the American Medical Association found "insufficient evidence to conclude that lower-carbohydrate content is independently associated with greater weight loss compared with higher-carbohydrate content."

In fairness, the South Beach diet is superior to Atkins in two ways. First, it encourages the consumption of healthier unsaturated fats, while saturated fats like lard and those in bacon are emblematic of Atkins.

Second, while the South Beach diet allows carbohydrates, it promotes higher-fiber ones. Fiber is good for overall health. Further, by adding non-caloric bulk to food, it can aid weight control. But South Beach still can't be called a high-fiber diet since it discourages carbohydrate consumption.

Ultimately neither regimen favors permanent weight-loss, which is why both authors fall back on anecdotes without having published a single study supporting their diets.

Obesity experts who do publish such studies, including those directly comparing Atkins dieters to high-carb dieters, say Atkins works only because it excludes so much of what we normally consume that we end up eating fewer calories. But soon people get bored and repack the pounds. A 12-month study in the May 22, 2003, New England Journal of Medicine showed as much.

Both Atkins and South Beach induce rapid weight loss in the first couple of weeks, because all low-carb diets promote quick water loss. Water is heavy, but it is not fat.

If you do lose fat with South Beach it's because you're following the recipes (comprising two-thirds of the book), which amount to a low-calorie diet. But the spontaneously eating Omnivorous Americanus will not stick to recipes for very long.

That's why, although the subtitle of Agatston's book modestly calls it "foolproof," a whole chapter is devoted to why people fail on it.



The South Beach Diet does have one other advantage over Atkins, at least in terms of salability. Strangely, it's become more chic to talk about losing weight than to actually do so; hence a glamorous title draws readers. "South Beach" is chic; "Atkins" is not. (Agatston's hospital, incidentally, is in the drabber Miami Beach.)

Alas, "chic" is not a scientifically proved method of weight loss and maintenance, while magic is the stuff of fairy tales. Only proper eating and exercise will cause permanent weight loss, as I and countless other former fatties can attest. Seven years later, when I look at myself in the mirror it still seems, well, magical.

Read Michael Fumento's additional work on obesity and on the FDA.

Gee, you'd think Mr. Fumento would have at least mentioned the recent Harvard School of Public Health study that directly contradicts his conclusion that "Weight loss is independent of diet composition."

There's an old legal saying:
When the facts are with you, pound the facts.
When the facts are against you, pound the table.

Is it just me, or do you guys hear a thumping sound too?

BTW, I love the modest way that Mr. Fumento informs us in the HTML title of his site that he's a "Bestselling author" --
<title>Bestselling author Mike Fumento writes: &quot;Hopeless Fad.&quot;</title>

Comedy gold!

For starters...this guy is a complete...who doesn't have a clue what he's talkign about.



Let's start with his first obvious error...It is the GLYCEMIC INDEX, not the hypoglycemic index. Hypoglycemia is what happens when you eat foods too high on the Glycemic Index.



"no compelling evidence"...I guess that would depend on what he defines as "normal." Those who are insulin resistant [which I believe is actually a good majority of the US Population] must not be included in his definition "normal individuals." Now that he's excluded most of the population, whose he counting as "normal" ??? The small percentage of folks who can eat their body weight in carbs and not gain an ounce ??? I hate to tell ya Fumento, but those folks ain't normal by any stretch.



It's official, Fumento's smoking some good shit...I'll make him an offer...Prove me wrong. I've eaten [on a few occassions] up to 1,200g of Carbohydrates in a day. If fat and carbs both satiate equally, then by his logic...he should be able to eat 14 sticks of Butter no problem. I'd like to see him try it.

Now, back to reality...on Atkins, I eat up to 200g of fat and 300g of Protein. Normally, my fat is closer to 100g and Protein to 150g. This even blows his theory about Protein being more satiative out of the water...Otherwise, my Protein intake would be lower than my fat intake. Also, how is it that I feel full at between 100 and 200g of Fat...yet can easily eat an entire box of Graham Crackers (which are Whole Grain IIRC)...with up to 400-800g of Carbs IN ONE SITTING ???



Uh...you might want to take a closer look at some of those studies...'cause a number of them show the exact opposite: that folks who eat a diet in low in carbs and high in fat are more easily satiated.



Kekwick, A., Pawan, G.L.S., "Calorie Intake in Relation to Body-Weight Changes in the Obese," The Lancet, July 28, 1956, pages 155-161.

In one study, 3 groups took in the same number of calories. One group was fed a diet of 90% Carbs, another 90% Protein, and a third 90% Fat. The 90% Carbs group on average gained weight, while the 90% Protein group lost weight...But, the 90% Fat group lost the most weight.

In a second study, two groups were fed diets of either 2,000 Calories Low-Fat or 2,600 Calories Hi-Fat. The Low-Fat group gained weight, while the Hi-Fat [and presumably Low-Carb] group lost weight.

Young, C.M., Scanlan, S.S., Im, H.S., et al., "Effect on Body Composition and Other Paramters in Obese Young Men of Carbohydrate Level of Reduction Diet," The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 24, 1971, pages 290-296.

In one study, 3 groups took in the same number of calories, at varying levels of Carbs. Fat weight change corresponded inversely to carb intake. I.E. The less carbs eaten, the more fat lost, the more carbs eaten, the less fat lost.

There's a number of other studies...But, typing 'em all up would take forever.



Did he even read the book ??? Bacon is discouraged. While Lard is technically allowed, yain't gonna be able to find allowable [non-hydrogenated] Lard in most Grochery Stores...and as a result very few Atkins Dieters use Lard. Also, he seems to forget Beef [and Lard] are a majority Unsaturated...While they have a decent amount of Saturated Fat...The levels of Palmitic and Myristic Acid [the only two Saturated Fats that have been proven to raise LDL considerably] are exceeded considerably by the levels of Stearic Acid and Oleic Acid, both of which are known to Lower LDL and possibly raise HDL.



Obviously, he does NOT get the concept of NET Carbs.



"A single study" ??? If he really believes that, he seriously needs his head examined. While I can't speak for SBD, Atkins has shown dozens of studies that back up his WOL. More and more studies are coming out every day that show Atkins works...I'm reminded of the time Atkins gave a speech and asked the audience: "How many of you could do this for life ???" Then, he asked how many could eat Low-Fat/Low-Calorie for the rest of their life...We all know what the results were...A number of folks indicated they could do Atkins for Life, while almost none believed they could starve themselves for life. Oh and BTW, the USDA Diet has done so well at generating permanent weight loss in Americans...Heavy Sarcasm intended, as if you couldn't tell.



There was a recent study that showed Atkins Dieters eat more, yet lose more than those on a Low-Calorie/Low-Fat Diet. in fact, a number of studies...including those I previously mentioned showed that persons eating a LC/HF Diet, lost more weight than those eating a LF/HC Diet, even when consuming significantly more Calories.



Water is stored with Glycogen [and possibly fat, though I am not sure on that part.] Obviously, any person on a Ketogenic Diet will lose alot of water in their first week. By my estimates [using weight/measurments/etc...] I lost over 2 pounds of fat and over 2 pounds of lean weight my first week in induction. My second week I lost just as much fat, but little to no lean weight...After that, I continued to lose significant amounts of fat. Admittedly, I lost 2 pounds of water [or more] my first week. But, I also lost an equal amount of fat. I have continued to lose fat, and the majority of my weight loss has been fat, not water, muscle, bone, or whatever non-fat part of my body du jeur the LF Advocates claim I'm losing.



My understanding of SBD is that it is realatively low in Calories. But, assuming it is truly low in carbs...that would not be the only reason folks lose. Otherwise, they would not lose faster than LF Dieters on comparable caloric intakes.



Any good diet book should have such a chapter. It is possible to fail at any diet...The reasons, not the least of which include not following it properly. Atkins speaks of Carb Creep in his part on those who fail...He also considers the possibility of medicine or a sluggish thyroid being the cause. None of these are the diet's fault...yet, if he's chosen to leave that portion of his book out...many of those who plateau or experience carb creep...would quit and tell everyone that Atkins doesn't work, rather than finding out what was really causing them to fail.

I don't know who he's talking about when he says that 'normal' individuals do fine eating as many carbs as they like. How did so many become overweight, and later develop type 2 diabetes????

I mean, c'mon....so you can eat 1500 calories worth of cinnomon rolls, and that's IT for the day, and you are't going to be hungry???? Why are people hungry an hour later after eating, say, Chinese food.

Ever hear, "Eat a steak, you'll be hungry an hour later???' I don't think so.

I remember, YEARS ago, when a health food 'fadist' would say that whole wheat bread was healthier than white, all the doctor's and nutritionist's laughed it off-Now what do they say???? Eat more fiber...

Many in a few years the tide will turn...

Oh lord, not Michael Fumento *again*. He's a total twit. He utterly *refuses* to acknowledge that HIS way won't work for everybody.

You're being gracious, Kristine. I can think of a whole lot of other non-publishable colorful adjectives to describe what I think of this guy. What's funny, is that he's not a doctor, biochemist, nutritionist or dietician even...he's a lawyer! The use of "hypoglycemic index" as a term shows the extent of his medical and nutritional knowledge.



Yeah...but I haven't decided yet if it's Fumuento pounding the table or him pounding his head against a wall for not thinking of low carbing first.