THREE CHEERS FOR BARRY:

HIP HIP HOORAY

HIP HIP HOORAY

HIP HIP HOORAY

FOR HE'S A JOLLY GOOD FELLA AND SO SAY ALL OF US

(well, Lessliz and me and Wifezilla do)

BTW, until the low-fat craze hit Europe and America, it was common knowledge, "received wisdom", that too many cakes, cookies, sweets and other starchy foods made you fat.

I found this in a German cookbook published in 1973, which means that this way of thinking was prevalent in the preceding decade, because it took a lot longer to get a book into print in those days. I've translated the quotation, but if anybody wants the original, they can just send me a PM!

"Excess carbohydrates are converted by the body into fat and put into fat storage cells. Those who do not wish to put on weight, should therefore exercise restraint with sweet dishes, foods made of flour and bread."

What Atkins and MacKarness preached in the 1960s and 1970s was nothing less than what was perceived as common sense at the time. In the 1950s - and possibly well into the '60s and '70s, too - the ethos of post-war austerity also prevailed. Exercising restraint with regard to foods which were - literally - "the icing on the cake" - and not a "real meal" would have fit in well with the mood of the times, which was to only spend money on items that were absolutely necessary. People who began their cooking career in wartime and shortly after WW2 would have carried on cooking this way out of sheer habit.

Neither Atkins nor MacKarness made an earth-shatteringly new discovery in the 1970s.

amanda

Do you think America will be hit with this new Atkins soon?

It talked about normal white bread is stage 4.... really now?

I remember from reading Taube's GCBC, that Germans were at the forefront of nutritional and metabolism studies. I remember him saying that in those days, if you wanted to be successful in that domain, you had to speak German.

The war changed all that. Basically everything that was once known on the subject was thrown out and they started from scratch.

Imagine the damage done by that foolishness...we've basically spent 40 years implementing low fat, grain-based diets as *the* way to health. We've steered people into believing that if it is whole grain, it's healthy. Only now, and only grudgingly, are we starting to reverse it. But the USDA still puts grains at the base of the pyramid, the AHA and ADA still advocate grain based diets with limited fats rather than limited carbs.

If we ever were to change policy, it might take another 40 years to undo the damage. We were so horribly misled that many do not want to see it for what it is.

My father used to work for one of the biggest medical supplier companies. He told me that when he would go to purchase something, he had to look through these catalogs. They were huge and had like, hundreds of different itty bitty implements to hold itty bitty mice/rat/cat/dog paws in place so you could do experiments on them. He said that he understood science's needs but he just felt guilty every time he read the book.

But it wasn't just because someone does science on animals. It's because when you "create a market" for something, that market, its companies, *fight for survival*.

For example, there are many instances in which computer modeling is actually *more* accurate than animal testing, and animal testing was implemented solely because many decades ago a couple court cases ruled that if they'd done that got results they considered acceptable they couldn't be sued successfully. So in the end they weren't doing animal testing out of curiosity, they were doing it for ancient precedent and insurance reasons. (Strangely I am not against the 'animal rights' movement at all--I am a huge supporter of many aspects of it--I just think the PETA folks are carb-zombied morons, which is different.)

Reminds me of when I was in the hospital giving birth, in agony and they wouldn't let me stand or even make me vertical and instead I was stuck on my back with so many monitors I couldn't move. I said to the old doc there, "But wouldn't it be better for me if I could at least let gravity help? Maybe I'd dilate faster, and I know I'd feel better!" And he said, "Sure it would. But insurance laws require you be in bed and monitored, since we don't have birthing chairs." So... it had nothing to do with health. It had to do with money.

Well, our country has now built literally monolithic, global-sized industries based on corn, wheat, sugar, etc. as well as yet-more monolithic industries based on the retail food products made with that stuff, as well as yet-more monolithic industries in pharmaceutical that THEY know are based on these products. They are all interconnected and all profoundly powerful lobbyists in government, they are major employers and tax base, and they will and DO 'fight for survival' of their market share.

At this point, science is barely moving toward genuine scientific understanding not because all the scientists are idiots, but because scientists are educated in schools paid for by these companies, educated by people who were previously educated in schools paid for by these companies, are updated by magazines and conferences sponsored and paid for by these companies, and are influenced by media which is basically owned by the profound power of the marketing money/muscle had by these companies.

I am not anti-corporation at all (I'm a genuine conservative). About 20 years ago Rolling Stone had a cover story I wish I had a scan of, it focused on GE and it talked about how corporations use clauses our founders built into government for "the people" and various ways they hide and deal with outright criminal behavior via corporate shield and transfers and multi-national stuff; it was back when RS was a little more respectable and very well written. Unfortunately these factors are well in play when it comes to the agriculture (USDA), food (FDA), and medical (AMA, ADA) organizations.

The diabetes association seems surreal when it tells people candy and stuff is just fine to eat, go for it, just do it "in moderation" and take insulin if you need it -- until you look at their sponsors. Then suddenly it doesn't seem mysterious why lowcarb, easily proven by ANY doctor or layman to hugely improve if not sometimes reverse type 2 diabetes especially, is mysteriously not on their map for eons, and only "barely" (grudgingly) has appeared there as "acceptable" for two years now--though basically all their literature still has the opposite advice, sans that one line of caveat.

I don't think what we're waiting on is science. I think it is more like trying to fight an entrenched battle against the larger sole manufacturer of something on planet earth, and wondering why all your contracts, joint ventures, customer opportunities, etc. keep drying up, or never happening, or changing their mind at the last minute.

In my view, valid metabolic science is not competing against other science or other valid results; it is competing against what amounts to a consortium of many of the largest financial empires in the country.

Merely thinking that being right is going to win out eventually, to me, that is optimistic. When it comes to marketing, competition and history, it's the victor who writes the 'truth' for posterity and who wins is seldom about what is simply 'right'.

Dang it.