I received this by email from the author, who wanted to share this:.
--

WHAT IF BOTH THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT AND DR. ROBERT
ATKINS HAVE PROMOTED BIG FAT LIES?
by Gregory Ellis, PhD, CNS

WHAT IF IT'S ALL BEEN A BIG FAT LIE? This was the title
of an article published by the New York TIMES SUNDAY
MAGAZINE on July 7, 2002, authored by Gary Taubes.
Taubes contends that, after more than 30-years of
attack by the American medical Establishment, the well-
known champion of the low-carbohydrate diet, Dr. Robert
Atkins, may have been right after all. Further, he
argues, it may be the medical Establishment's own
dietary recommendation to eat less fat and more
carbohydrates that's actually the root cause of the
burgeoning obesity epidemic that has a strangle-hold on
the American population.

There are many important issues surrounding this
debate. The first, and most important, one concerns the
SOLITARY focus on DIET COMPOSITION as the primary
factor undergirding the obesity and overweight
epidemic. A second issue is the majority opinion that
a high consumption of dietary fat is the cause of
obesity. This second point, however, must not be viewed
in isolation because it's also the majority opinion
that fat and its associated components such as
cholesterol are the primary cause of the so-called
heart disease epidemic. We must, therefore, keep at the
forefront of our thinking the fact that fat has been
implicated as the cause of both epidemics. As a result
of this belief, DIET COMPOSITION tops the list of
factors that contribute to the increased rates of both
obesity and heart disease.

In 2002, the "fat-theory-as-cause" of these two
conditions is being discredited. Comfort-desiring
Americans found solace in the idea that our medical and
scientific specialists had uncovered the cause of these
two conditions. Although it's a widely held belief that
fat is an evil and deadly substance, the public
remained confused as to the best methods to control
their ever-expanding waistlines. Clearly, they were
comfortable with the idea that eating less fat was
heart-protective, but the failure of low-fat foods to
solve their weight control problem proved that
something was very wrong about what it took to control
bodyweight.

Acknowledgement of these observations is a recent
phenomenon: Interested observers are beginning to
question the supposed efficacy of the low-fat
eating recommendations after 30 years of our national
experiment with low-fat eating. Some have surmised, as
does Gary Taubes, that the rise in obesity meshes quite
well with the beginning of the low-fat experiment. More
importantly, and the very basis of his article, is the
fact that some of our medical elite have also made this
same observation: obesity may, in some way, be partly
related to low-fat eating.

Dr. Robert Atkins' rise to fame began with his
publication in 1972 of DR. ATKINS DIET REVOLUTION.
His book met with much criticism from the scientific
and medical Establishments, but the public gobbled it
up in spite of the harsh criticism. He has been much
maligned by the scientific and medical Establishments
since then, and these attacks are no less vicious today
than they were in 1972. But, the cracks in the walls
are getting deeper, and according to reports, Atkins
has been asked to speak at several major medical
schools about his findings.

But, as you'll soon see, the Atkins approach is as
seriously flawed as the low-fat diet, but for
different physiological reasons.


WHAT CONTRIBUTION HAS TAUBES' ARTICLE MADE TO THE
DEBATE?

What has Taubes' article accomplished? Well, it
certainly flushed out the talking heads. The proponents
of all the different dietary schools of thought have
voiced their concerns. There's Dr. Dean Ornish, the
vegetarian zealot, who pontificates that eating pork
rinds and sausage is dietary suicide. Dr. Andrew Weil,
champion of the high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet program,
shares with the world his contrarian view concerning
the low-carbohydrate regimen despite the fact that he's
so fat it should be obvious to anyone that he can't
make a real contribution to the dialogue.

Taubes' article did nothing to change anybody: in fact,
it solidified each "expert's" position because these
people can't possibly ever admit that they were wrong.
We'd all know, then, that they hadn't done their
homework and that they were largely ignorant of the
facts that underlie obesity.

More important, however, is the fact that the article
dragged the American people out of their comfort zone,
dispelling their belief that it had all been figured
out for them. Now they're concerned that we really
don't know what's going on and that our unchallenged
reliance on medicine and science may have been
misguided. So a number of fundamental, cherished
beliefs are now tarnished, and people just don't know
what to do. Everyone's getting fatter, and even if
people aren't overweight, many have too much fat on
their bodies, and too little muscle, making for an
unsightly and uncomfortable appearance. So, if people
were confused before, with all the hundreds, indeed
thousands, of weight control opinions buzzing around,
they're even more confused now with the release of
Taubes' paradigm-shifting article.

In the aftermath of the article, web chat rooms and
forums were besieged with cries for help. The news
media scrambled to set up interviews with anyone who
had an opinion. Unceasing chatter filled people's
discourse and minds. Everyone was trying to figure out
what it all meant. Unbelievably, the article has
elevated the issue to one of the top news items of the
day. But more importantly, it demonstrates how
thoroughly confused everyone is about what to do about
bodyweight regulation. The single-minded focus on DIET
COMPOSITION as the controlling factor in overweight and
obesity obscures all the more important factors in
seeking workable solutions to weight control. And no
one, not the media, not the "expert" interviewees, have
derailed the attempt to keep us focused on DIET
COMPOSITION which plays only a minor role in bodyweight
regulation. The failure to move DIET COMPOSITION from
center stage seriously hampers finding effective
strategies people can use to reach their goals.

It's clear that people have been, and are, unable to
control their bodyweight, no matter what diet they
follow, Atkins' diet included.

They're lost souls because nothing they have done
works; they just keep getting fatter or fail to lose
any weight when they try. Taubes' article, therefore,
opened Pandora's box, raising, as it did, more
questions, yet, at the same time, providing few answers
or solutions. So, now it boils down to a few renegade
physicians, scrambling off the sinking ship, slipping
and sliding on a deck greased with the failed remains
of the low-fat dogma. The renegade doctors and
scientists became renegades because they were among the
very few who actually did what doctors are supposed to
do: they observed. They saw colleagues losing weight
when following Atkins' low-carbohydrate diet even
though they had trashed the man for more than 30 years.
One doctor was quoted as saying that he paid no
attention to Atkins because he, and all his colleagues,
thought that he was a "jerk."

The U.S. government never funded studies to look at the
low-carbohydrate diet. Now, Taubes tells us, it's
willing to provide such funding because of pressure
from the renegade doctors. Interestingly, when the
renegades talk openly to their fellow physicians, who
are still faithful to the low-fat regimen, they are
shouted-down because, again, to admit misunderstanding
and a lack of knowledge isn't a common characteristic
of medical doctors.

Everyone has an opinion but, despite that fact, it
seems that there's a profound shortage of knowledge and
facts about what is involved in controlling one's
weight and, in particular, the role that DIET
COMPOSITION plays. Now, it seems that some, still only
a few, researchers want to test the Atkins diet, and
other versions of low-carbohydrate diets, a desire
shared by a group of other low-carbohydrate supporters.

Having dissed the low-carbohydrate diet for more than
30 years, these doctors now propose studying it!

Unfortunately, they don't have the training, or
experience, or slightest clue as to the sort of
questions that should be asked in designing the
studies. They're wholly ignorant of the volumes of
existing scientific literature that are already
available, literature that addresses many of the
questions they're asking. They want to do it all over
again as if it hasn't already been done. But it has.

And to whom are they turning for guidance? None other
than the redoubtable Dr. Robert Atkins.

Is this a good choice? That answer is easy. No. In
fact, it's a very poor choice. Why? Because it's
clear that many people fail to achieve bodyweight
regulation when following the Atkins version of the
low-carbohydrate diet. Some succeed, but that number
represents only a small percentage of all those who
have followed this regimen.

You didn't know this? Just visit any of the low-
carbohydrate chat rooms. Or talk to colleagues at work
-- or people you meet at social functions. Millions
have tried the Atkins plan. And many millions have
failed to lose weight or to lose as much weight as
they've wanted. What's the main complaint? They all say
it: it's the Plateau in losing weight where weight loss
simply ceases. No matter how much they cut their carbs,
no matter how much they try to stay in ketosis (Atkins'
magic land of weight loss success), they can't do it.
Ketosis also stops, along with the weight loss,
somewhere around weeks 3-5 of the plan. If they're one
of the fortunate 25%, they lose some weight, but even
these people reach a Plateau, stalled in
their efforts to lose more weight. They have no
idea what to do about it, and Atkins' solutions
simply don't work, despite his claims that they do.


WHAT IS AT THE APEX OF BODYWEIGHT REGULATION?

What, then, is at the apex of bodyweight regulation?
One thing and One thing Only: the much-maligned
calorie. Now, that seems rather simple doesn't it? You
may even have heard about this calorie thing
already. But, I'll tell you: It's not simple. It's very
complex, and if you don't understand every aspect of
calorie control, you're doomed. The secret resides,
therefore, in the balance between the calories you
consume and the calories you burn. I call this the
Energy Balance Equation. I understand its complexities,
and I'll teach them to you. When I do, your confusion
will melt like butter in a hot pan. I can make you an
expert in the nuances of bodyweight regulation. And
quickly.

There's simply no question about the "factness" of this
Law regarding the calorie. It's the Law of Nature.
And no one can get away with breaking Mother
Nature's Laws. It's worse than trying to cheat on
your taxes, trying to get away with breaking the Laws
of Mother Nature. Don't bother mounting an argument
against them because you'll lose.

OK, if it's this simple, why then is everyone so
confused? Because it has never been made clear that
this is the One and Only Fact you must first know
before you try anything else. You've been hoodwinked
into believing that DIET COMPOSITION is the most
important factor in bodyweight regulation. Taubes'
article only reinforces that notion, further clouding
truth-seeking. You can now easily see the myopia in all
the competing camps because DIET COMPOSITION has
been their focus, one way or another, for decades.
There has been no effort to prioritize the facts
involved in the successful regulation of bodyweight.

Does the low-carbohydrate diet work? Yes. Do I support
a low-carbohydrate diet? Yes, but only the correct
version. Why does it work? It works for one reason and
one reason only: It reduces food consumption, thereby
reducing calorie intake. It adheres to the Laws of
Nature. Does this automatic reduction in food
intake work for everyone? Absolutely not. Why? I don't
know.

It works in varying degrees: in some, it reduces
food intake significantly, and in others, not at all.
Then it fails. But, no matter what, DIET COMPOSITION
and the low-carbohydrate diet are only part of what I
call the 100% Weight Loss and Weight Control Solution.

Why does one stall-out in his weight loss when
following the Atkins version -- and also the others --
of the low-carbohydrate diet? Because as one loses
weight, his calorie needs decrease, so he must eat less
to continue losing or to maintain the new, lower
bodyweight. And the decreasing calorie needs gradually
overcome the ability of the low-carbohydrate diet to
reduce food intake automatically. At this juncture, the
individual must be acutely aware of his calorie intake
and reduce food consumption so that weight loss can
proceed. I detail this whole process in my chapters
about DIET COMPOSITION and in my DR. ELLIS'S 100/100
PLAN and in Dr. Ellis's version of the low-carbohydrate
diet.

I have counseled Atkins' failures for more than 10
years, and this is no small number. Our Establishment
weight loss experts, whose own dietary advice has
failed, now propose siding with Atkins, whose dietary
advice also has failed. Even if a fairy godmother
tapped these doctors on the head with her smart-stick,
50 years from now they'd undoubtedly know little more
than they know today because they have no experience
and no knowledge of any of this. They simply don't
even know what questions to ask; that's why they're
blindly turning to Atkins. And Atkins is grinning like
a Cheshire cat. But he shouldn't be because he's wrong
too.


SO BOTH STANCES HAVE BEEN BIG FAT LIES.

The docs are just as confused as the public. They'll
study the low-carbohydrate diet to death, something
that has already been done, and they'll come up with
more incorrect theories and misinformation, just as
they did when they bought into the low-fat diet scam in
the first place -- all because they don't know what
they're doing.

Why, indeed, would you expect anything else? They
couldn't figure it out in the last half-century, so
what changes have occurred that will make comprehension
happen today? Taubes' and the renegade medical doctors'
observations suggest that low-fat eating is partly
responsible for the overweight epidemic. Does it follow
then that we should hand over the responsibility of
determining which dietary regimen is the better one to
the same medical Establishment that gave us the false
recommendations in the first place? This institution
took more than 30 years to make the INESCAPABLE
OBSERVATION that the low-fat diet is implicated in
weight gain. Now, how long will it take them to
discover this same truth, not just by observation, but
by Science, and, then, arrive at some conclusions about
the physiological and biochemical processes involved? I
argue that they simply will not be able to do it under
any circumstance, particularly if they base their
initial studies on the fatally flawed version of the
low-carbohydrate diet that Atkins has had on the table
for the last 30 years.

The science has been around for more than fifty years.
The low-carbohydrate diet was exhaustively studied,
particularly by Dr. John Yudkin, who published his
seminal paper back in 1960, having found the same
thing that the more recent studies are finding.

Why must we repeat studying what we already know?

Now, if you want, you can wait around until this new
group of scientists, who haven't studied the
historical records, perform the same research all over
again, or, better yet, you can read all about it now:
every last detail and piece of information that
you need and want. You can end the confusion
immediately. And this includes our scientists too
because I've pulled it all together for them as
well. Do you want to wait or...

do you want it today?


I have written 600 pages of SOLUTIONS. Why me? I got
fat, really fat, at age 12. I spent the next 43 years
of my life researching every aspect of how the body,
itself, regulates its weight. And do you know what I
discovered? Everything. I learned it all. And I can
tell you accurately, precisely, and exactly how you can
succeed. You see, bodyweight is governed by the Laws of
Nature, and we all must obey these inviolate Laws -- or
we're doomed to fail.

What is the Fatal Flaw in the Atkins version of the
low-carbohydrate diet? Atkins denies the Law of Nature
and, instead, claims that the calorie theory is a myth,
exalting carbohydrates as the primary regulator of
bodyweight. This notion leads to many flaws in his
program's design. His success, limited as it is, has
been achieved because of the powerful effect that
carbohydrate reduction has on reducing food intake.


WHAT DOES BIOCHEMISTRY HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

Taubes tells us about the growth in the understanding
of Endocrinology 101, a term coined by Harvard
researcher David Ludwig. It's Ludwig's contention that
Endocrinology 101 was poorly understood during the
1960's when the whole anti-fat dogma was fueled by the
belief that fat was the cause of heart disease. In
conflict with Ludwig's argument, however, is the
historical fact that Endocrinology 100 (which
preceded 101 by about 100 years) was all very well
worked out by 1960. Therefore, all the elemental
science was in place for those scientists who might
have chosen to read it and, hence, we could have
avoided the decisions that have taken the country down
the wrong road for the last 40 years.

Important to any discussion about DIET COMPOSITION is
the understanding, well-known already by 1960 and first
discovered in 1852, that carbohydrates turn-on a
process in the body in which they are rapidly converted
to body fat. Carbohydrates have been the darling of
nutrition scientists for decades. It was believed, and
still is today, that carbohydrates are the primary
source of fuel for all of the organs and tissues of the
body. In fact, as late as 1966, many researchers
believed that carbohydrates provided 100% of the fuel
needs of exercising muscle. We know now, in 2002, that
80% of the fuel requirements in resting man are
supplied by fat and that 75% or more of the fuel needs
of exercising muscles are supplied by fat. As I've
said, the fact that carbohydrates are rapidly converted
to body fat was known by 1960, and it was also known
that eating fat, and no carbohydrates, abolishes
entirely the process that leads to increases in body
fat stores. But no one seemed to read the papers,
certainly not those who were responsible for dictating
public dietary policy.

The low-carbohydrate diet has a long history, dating
back to the early 1800's. It had been trotted-out
publicly by the 1920's and was introduced nationally
on a very large scale during the 1950's as the Dupont
diet because Dr. Alfred Pennington introduced it to the
corpulent executives of the Dupont company in
Wilmington, Delaware. It was highly publicized in
HOLIDAY magazine and picked up the moniker of the
HOLIDAY diet. By the time Atkins wrote his book, the
diet had been used for decades.

Where did Atkins go wrong in damning the calorie
theory? Well, we need a little more history to get that
answer. It has been well-known for 150 years, at least,
that man is held accountable by the Laws of
Thermodynamics, the Laws of Conservation of Energy.
This, of course, is the Energy Balance Equation:
calories in vs. calories out. Nutritionists have long
accepted the calorie theory, and to help them
understand the causes of obesity, they gathered
information about what people ate and how much physical
activity they performed. Interestingly, the self-
reports of the overweight and obese indicated that they
didn't eat more food than normal weight people. So the
idea arose that obese people had a metabolic defect, a
disease. Do you think this made a confusing situation
even more confusing? You bet it did.

Around 1983, Dr. Dale Schoeller, of the University of
Wisconsin, really threw a monkey wrench into the wheels
of obesity-theories by introducing a new technique,
doubly-labeled water: a method that allows scientists
to accurately measure people's calorie burn over a
period of several weeks. Extensive studies were
undertaken using the doubly-labeled water technique
after about 1990. It was inarguably discovered that the
obese didn't, in fact, require the same number of
calories as their normal weight counterparts. What was,
in fact, discovered is that they burned MORE calories
and that calorie burning was related to bodyweight. The
results of these studies trashed at least 75 years of
nutritional scientific findings, as well as existing
theories. These facts, of course, invalidate the
nonsense spewing out of the mouth of Kevin Trudeau, the
infomercial salesman selling Atkins' video tapes.
Trudeau tells us, with great aplomb, the "fact" that
thin people can eat all that they want, while fat
people, eating the same amount, keep gaining. This is
why confusion reigns: People with no training,
infomercial salesmen, and doctors too, spew endless
amounts of misinformation every day and in every way.

It's now known that all people tend to under-report how
much food they eat by a whopping 20-50%! They also
over-report their physical activity by about 50%. This
is what caused Atkins to reject the calorie theory.
He'd ask his new clients what they ate, and they, in
turn, under-reported the amount they ate, and he
believed them. In my book, I detail Atkins'
misunderstandings through an exhaustive analysis of his
faulty beliefs.

Atkins would put the client on a low-carbohydrate diet
of a known calorie content, which was higher in
calories than the amount the subject REPORTED that he
consumed previously. Thus, he developed his idea of
"Metabolic Advantage," his belief that a low-
carbohydrate diet allowed its followers to lose weight
while consuming more food than those on mixed diets.
This, of course, is a mistaken assumption.

We can calculate people's calorie needs based on
formulas because we are not very different from one
another. There's no such thing as a "fast" or "slow"
metabolism despite what most people believe. Calorie
needs are based on body size and on the amount of
physical activity we perform; it's that simple.

What of the low-carbohydrate diet? I detail all of this
in my grand opus, Dr. Gregory Ellis's ULTIMATE DIET
SECRETS. In short, carbohydrates are converted to body
fat; they're not the preferred fuel of the body's
tissues, and they do send a signal to the body to store
this fuel as fat. The main hormonal signal for this is
a shift in the ratio of the two pancreatic hormones,
glucagon and insulin. Most authorities implicate
insulin as the primary driver of this process, but it
is, rather, the digested carbohydrate itself, glucose
or blood sugar, that drives this process. In fact,
there's a whole metabolic shift that occurs in the body
under the influence of carbohydrate eating that turns
the body into a highly efficient fat-making plant, even
down to an increase in the genes that manufacture the
enzymes responsible for converting carbohydrate fuel
into fat.

And what happens to appetite and hunger when
carbohydrates are converted to fat? The blood is
cleared of fuel, and the "active" tissues, denied fuel,
send a feeding signal to the brain that drives
appetite. The result? Overeating. This is what I call
starvation in the face of obesity -- both processes
occurring simultaneously. More about this shortly.


IS DIET COMPOSITION THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN
BODYWEIGHT REGULATION?

Taubes attempts to reconcile some of the other issues
that may underlie the obesity epidemic. But, here
again, we get more questions than answers. He
interviewed Dr. William Dietz, who runs the nutrition
division of the Centers for Disease Control, about the
role of too little physical activity in the etiology of
obesity. Dietz denies a relationship and points to the
increase in "leisure exercise mania" that has occurred
since about 1970, citing that this apparent increase in
daily physical activity did nothing to stop the
burgeoning increase in weight gain. This suggested to
him that physical activity isn't implicated as a cause
of the obesity epidemic. He doesn't understand,
however, that, as leisure exercise increased, total
daily physical activity decreased to an even larger
extent so that total daily calorie burning is less now
than it was 30 years ago. This is a process that's been
on-going in the increasingly-mechanized Western nations
ever since the end of World War II.

Most scientists have concluded that the obesity
epidemic is LARGELY a function of the decrease in daily
physical activity and that it has little to do with
food intake. But what they don't know is that the
decrease in physical activity, itself, has a direct
impact on food intake because inactive people fail to
achieve an intake of food that adjusts itself downward
so as to match their decreased physical activity. This
is the case because a too-low level of physical
activity actually drives people to eat more food than
they really need. This extremely important but little-
known fact was discovered more than 50 years ago by
Dr. Jean Mayer. Recently Dr. Dale Schoeller has re-
validated Mayer's research by using doubly-labeled
water, a technique far more sophisticated than the
tools available to Dr. Mayer in the 1950's.

Unfortunately, current-day scientists consistently
miss the actual contribution of DIET COMPOSITION to the
obesity and over-fat epidemic because they have
universally bought into all the beliefs that "sanctify"
the low-fat dogma. This is scientific Reductionism at
its grandest -- and worst.

I discuss these details extensively in ULTIMATE DIET
SECRETS. As a side note, Dr. Dale Schoeller supports
the idea that decreased physical activity is one of the
main causes of the obesity epidemic. Dr. William Dietz,
as we've observed, has denied this relationship. Since
Dr. Dietz and Dr. Schoeller have co-authored scientific
papers, it's surprising that Dietz is unaware of
Schoeller's research. It's noteworthy that Dietz has
also used the doubly-labeled water technique in his
studies. So even at the level of the scientist, there's
mass confusion, and Taubes is unable to provide any
resolution because he's a journalist and must rely
solely on the opinions of those he interviews. And
those opinions do nothing to provide answers to the
public's dilemma. I am a scientist, and because of my
many years' investigation into every aspect of
bodyweight regulation, I can clear the air because this
is what I have spent 43 years studying -- and doing.


THE FAT THEORY OF HEART DISEASE

The fat theory of heart disease was first proposed in
1953 by Dr. Ancel Keys of the University of Minnesota.
Keys' study was a study in scientific skulduggery
because it was later uncovered that his data didn't
reflect the facts about the relationship between diet
and heart disease. Soon after the release of Keys'
findings, many scientists showed that the fat theory of
heart disease was false and untrue. Their research and
evidence, however, didn't stop the burgeoning
juggernaut led, largely, by the American Heart
Association's fueling of the fire. Keys' study,
however, still serves as the Rock of Gibraltar for the
proponents of the fat theory of heart disease. After
two decades of on-going research, Dr. George Mann
declared irrevocably that "Saturated fat and
cholesterol in the diet are not the cause of coronary
heart disease. That myth is the greatest scientific
deception of this century, perhaps of any century."

Taubes was able to uncover these shenanigans because
the facts about the invalidity of the fat theory
of heart disease are well covered in the scientific
literature, not hidden behind locked doors like
information about the Kennedy assassination. Taubes
says, "The case was eventually settled not by science
but by politics."

False as it is, the fat theory of heart disease came
to be closely associated with the idea that fat causes
obesity.

The public was never fully informed as to the
logic behind decreasing dietary fat as that
logic was understood by nutritionists. Fat contains
9 calories per gram; and carbohydrates contain less
than half that amount, 4 calories per gram. The
promoters of reducing fat intake reasoned that people
would reduce their calorie intake by 50% if they
substituted carbohydrates for fat. But it didn't work.
The take-home message for the people was that fat,
itself, made one fat. In a too simplistic sense, they
came to the notion that the fat eaten becomes,
directly, fat on one's body. This, of course, was in
direct conflict with the scientific fact that few knew:
it's actually carbohydrates that turn to fat. Fat,
when eaten with few carbohydrates, provides the
necessary calories and fuel for the active tissues,
thereby reducing food intake. Carbohydrates drive an
increased food intake because they are stored as fat,
which eliminates the availability of their calories
and fuel to the active tissues. The tissues, at that
point, are starving and do what they need to do to get
the fuel they want: They tell the feeding centers of
the brain to send out hunger signals so that the animal
(the human being) will follow his in-born Biological
drives and get some food. Unfortunately, the now-
educated animal eats carbohydrates and sets into motion
a vicious cycle of getting fat in the face of
starvation. What a Biological catastrophe.

Scientists, specializing in the study of what drives
appetite and hunger, have convincingly shown that we
don't eat for the number of calories that go into the
mouth: appetite and hunger are controlled by fuel
availability. Food that's stored (carbohydrates stored
as fat) is no longer available to be burned. We must
then eat more to provide fuel to the active tissues.
This desire to eat is a Biological drive and is not
easily overcome by Willpower. Plus, people have been
taught that hunger signals must be obeyed. Of course,
if the food you're eating is stored as fat, hunger
signals arising from the depletion of fuel in the blood
will spell disaster for bodyweight regulation. This
process is profoundly turned-on in people who have lost
weight, making it difficult for them to avoid "weight
gain relapse." And when the body is actively converting
carbohydrates into fat, any ingested fat gets carried
along for the ride into fat storage in the fat cells.
This storage of fat as fat, however, doesn't easily
occur when the diet is carbohydrate-reduced. So, it's
actually a mixed diet of carbohydrate and fat, the
"super-market diet," that drives weight gain, and the
real culprit is the carbohydrate, not the fat, because
carbohydrates create a nutritional and hormonal
environment that sets the stage for fuel storage as
fat. Fat merely piggy-backs along (via some complicated
enzymatic changes in the fat and muscle cells) for the
ride into fat storage because the fat-making and fat-
storage machinery are revved up into a high gear. Most
people's low-fat diets contain enough fat and
carbohydrate to qualify as a "super-market" diet.

In a recent survey I conducted, I discovered that 70%
of the people I polled believed that fat was more of an
issue in bodyweight regulation than calories. A fatal
misunderstanding! So Americans were granted a license
to eat all the low-fat food that they wanted. And they
did, decreasing, at the same time, how much they moved.

One could not have a more deadly prescription.

And the Atkins plan? Why does it fail so miserably?
For the same reason that the low-fat diet fails. He
grants people a license to eat all the protein and fat
foods that they want as long as they restrict
carbohydrates. Will this work? It works a little
better than the low-fat protocol but still not very
well. One group says, "Eat all you want of this food
type." Another says, "Eat all you want of this other
food type." You just can't eat whatever you want
because you must match what you eat to what you burn in
order to stay in calorie and bodyweight balance. I
teach special techniques that help people control
these processes.

Since bodyweight regulation is controlled by the Laws
of Nature, adherence to those Laws guarantees 100%
success rates. This is what I call Dr. Gregory Ellis's
100% Weight Loss and Weight Control Solution. If you do
what I recommend, you cannot fail.

In summary, Gary Taubes' article does nothing to allay
the confusion; it only adds to it. He must rely on what
he believes is expert opinion; in fact, however, it is
little more than misinformation. Misinformation,
needless to say, triggers only more questions, not
answers. He tells us that it all "may be settled sooner
rather than later and we might have some long-awaited
answers as to why we grow fat and whether it is indeed
preordained by societal forces or by our choices of
foods." And he places his faith for the uncovering of
the answers in the very same doctors who failed to
figure it out during the last 40 years. How does he
expect doctors, who had no clue for 40 years, to
become enlightened -- all of a sudden?

He's wrong, of course; we have all the answers right
now. I wrote them all in my book, ULTIMATE DIET
SECRETS. And I, unlike my scientific brethren, knew
what questions to ask because I have personally done
everything there is to do in the bodyweight regulation
game. After I solved my own obesity problem, I decided
to develop a good physique. But to do that I had to go
the extra mile because developing a good physique means
paying exquisite attention to details.

So as our scientists plunge into a study of the
flawed Atkins' program, little new light will be shed
on bodyweight regulation because Atkins disavows the
Energy Balance Equation. It'll take them at least ten
years to figure out the flaws in the Atkins' plan, and
then, instead of realizing that the problem is directly
related to the faultiness of Atkins' basic premise,
they'll blame the low-carbohydrate diet and, thus, send
us all off on another 20 years of wild goose chasing.

There's no longer any need, however, to wait for the
answers people need. Every single one of them is
already written in the pages of my book. We need no
further studies; and we don't need to wait 40 more
years to get the information that's available today.

Gregory Ellis, PhD
Certified Nutrition Specialist
July 23, 2002
www.ultimatedietsecrets.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~