This article appeared today in my local newspaper, "The Daily Gleaner", e-mail:
dgnews~nbnet.nb.ca


"How often have you picked up a magazine while waiting in the grocery store lineup, only to see yet another diet being advertised? "Lose 20 pounds in two weeks." "Drink this delicious chocolate drink at every meal and your life will never be the same!" Isn't that the truth? Promises, promises. Do we really believe that these diets work? Many of my clients have learned that they do not and for some unfortunately, it has taken years for them to figure that out.

These same diets come and go over the years. Currently, a diet that has resurfaced is the low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet, supported by individual testimonials, rather than scientific evidence. You know the ones I am talking about. There is a bundle of them on the book store shelves: Sugar Busters, Dr. Atkin's "New Diet" Revolution, Protein Power, Enter the Zone, and Suzanne Somers's Get Skinny on Fabulous Food Diet. They all advocate that to lose weight, we need to restrict our carbohyrate intake.
Carbohydrates come from breads, cereals, fruits and veggies. They believe that these nasty carbohydrates will cause weight gain. They argue that when we eat a high-carbohydrate intake, this over-stimulates the production of insulin, the hormone responsible for the transport and storage of glucose. Eating protein foods, rather than carb foods are reported to have less impact on insulin production and they propose that our stored fat will be replaced as energy.

They also boast that by replacing our carbohydrates with protein, fewer calories will be eaten and we will lose weight. Maybe, but without a doubt food is less healthy. Compare these two breakfasts: a breakfast of three eggs, 1/4 pound of bacon and two sausages versus a breakfast of one bowl of bran flakes, two eggs and two slices of whole wheat toast. While the breakfast with the bacon, eggs and ham might fit into the low carb diet plan, it is far less the healthy of the two. Unfortunately, through media attention and popularity, Canadians perceive these low-carbohydrate diets as part of a healthy intake and lifestyle. Quite the contrary.

So what really happens when a person decides to go on a low-carb diet? The dieter boasts that he or she has lost a lot of weight over the first couple of weeks. Euphoria sets in! Yet the question begs to be asked: can you really lose nine pounds of fat in a week? Most likely, the lower number on the scales reflects water loss due to the low-carbohydrate intake.

So what do we eat, if we don't eat carbohydrates? Certainly not fat. The negative health risks we might encounter when we eat a high-fat diet - heart disease and some types of cancer - have been well documented. Why would we want to replace our troubles with weight for these health problems? And certainly not more protein. While we can't live without it too much is also associated with heart disease and cancers, and even osteroporosis and kidney damage.

Without carbohydrates, our bodies burn fat as an energy source. The downside is that we can't burn fat completely, and as a result a substance called ketones is produced and spills into the bloodstream. At first, dieting seems easier because ketones often kill the appetite and even makes us nauseated. Soon after, other negative side-effects come along such as weakness, diarrhea, dizziness and headaches. Can we stay motivated to stay on a plan when we know it makes us feel awful?

No matter whether we have weight to lose or not, many of us can afford to make changes toward improving our lifestyle. Improving our food intake means including foods from all food groups including carbohydrate foods such as breads, cereals, and fruits and veggies. In fact carbs should make up more than half of what we eat each day. They give us the necessary energy our body requires along with key vitamins and minerals important for good health. The rest of our food intake comes from fat and protein, which are also important for good health.

The right formula for managing weight is to learn to eat well and to take every opportunity to incorporate activity into our daily routine. In order for weight loss to be maintained, it should be slow and gradual. Our efforts will pay off over time, as we reduce our risks for illness and manage our weight more effectively.

Margaret Langille is a professional dietitian in private practise in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. She can be reached at langille~brunnet.net

Hey Bonnie,

Thanks for posting this. I need to vent a bit



Now this is how a "nutritionist" advertise their services. Accuse someone of not having scientific evidence (LC books are the most science laden plans, like PP), and go scare the hell out of people. Even cancer, now that's a new one.

Now what scientific evidence does she provide? The food pyramid and the "eat well" cliche.

Damn, I should get a mail certificate to become a nutritionist. I can memorize the pyramid in 5 seconds, and I know how to spell "eat well" and other cliches.

Well, if anyone wants to tell her what a complete and utter moron she is, her email address was at the end of the article:

Margaret Langille is a professional dietitian in private practise in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. She can be reached at langille~brunnet.net

Karen

I've cut n pasted her address. I plan on drafting a response over the weekend

Thx, Bonnie
Nat

Nat, I have e-mailed a short rebuttal to her personal address shown at the bottom of the document but if you wish to cc: your article to the Editor, "The Daily Gleaner", I provided this e-mail address at the top of the article...

I first smiled at the catchy title and I also surmised that she had not read any of the books she so readily criticized....it is obvious since I informed her we do eat fruits and vegetables on this plan ...this woman was just printing facts she has seen out there by countless other shock media types without any documentation or by which I pointed out to her in my rebuttal, speaking with any one following the plan....

Bonnie

It's best to send your response as a letter to the editor of the paper.

Sending to the author will only change one person's mind (am I an optimist or WHAT!??)

BTW the content of her article is extraordinarily OLD thinking, was it a reprint of some ancient piece she wrote and pulled out of a manila folder for publication or something ?? LOL If she has a regular column there, it might have been just that, a last minute filler piece.

Also, when newspaper sales are down, they WILL print something controversial to *get a rise* out of readers - it helps if they can say to advertisers "We get 3,000 letters a week" (even if those letters say things like "are you stupid or something?")

And one MORE thing - as said previously she is a private dietitian so this article is an advertisement for her as far as she is concerned. There are enough people who FEAR low carb dieting who will feel confident to contract her for her services. Every business must have a niche and a target client base. Unfortunately she is expounding on why SAY NO low carb rather than WHY SAY YES anything else.

I intend to write a letter to the editor of the Daily Gleaner, cc'd to Ms. Langille.

However, when I visited the Daily Gleaner website, I was greeted with the front page of headlines only. Access to all news stories, including letters to the editor, is restricted to paid-subscribers only .. (for readers who do have access, the above quoted article can be found in the City Life section, Friday 23 November. 2001).

Perhaps Bonnie, you could keep an eye? and let us know of any published responses to this article? Including ours, if they make it past the editor's desk.

Doreen

Will do Doreen...The "Gleaner" is a small paper so I'm sure this will make news...the main reason I posted this editorial is that it was directed to Canadian LCarbers and here we are in numbers...yes, it is a joke that you cannot not access the "Gleaner" without a subscription...I was very upset about this when I was down south as I like to keep informed of what is happening in my home town ... on the other hand the newspaper "Florida Today" that I daily peruse online and has a greater reading audience is free....go figure...

Bonnie

Just to follow up in regards to the article that appeared in, "The Daily Gleaner", Friday, November 23, 2001; it appears as some of us suspected that this topic got buried...to date after reading each paper from beginning to end, there has not been mention of the subject in regular columns or in the, "Letter to The Editor"...to be quite honest I thought that at least one response to the article would have been printed... I will wait for another week and if there is still no sign of anything will contact the editor...

Bonnie

Well, folks, believe it or not this was in very large print headlining the letters to the Editor section today in, " The Daily Gleaner", this article is written by Keith Clayton, a gentleman here in the city...I am not familiar with him but intend to contact him and congratulate him on a job well done...the following is what he has penned:

" Dear Editor: this is in response to a recent article in the Daily Gleaner.

You stated that a low carbohydrate diet is not part of a healthy intake and lifestyle. My doctor, a well-respected cardiologist, heartily disagrees. Because of my success, he wants me to continue my low-carb diet.

First, I have lost 13.5 kilograms - much more than water weight. I have kept it off for 18 months so far.

Isn't this healthier? My cholesterol and triglycerides are greatly improved and the ratios are excellent. I am off all medications. My asthma has disappeared and I have no more problems with atrial fibulation. But best of all, my blood sugar is now under control.

Before low carbing, I had severe hypoglycemia, with dizzy spells, vertigo, my vision spinning around, and what felt like "electric shocks" to the brain. I now sleep much better and I have more energy at age 50 than I did at age 20, 30 or 40. Surely you wouldn't suggest I go back to my old lifestyle, against my doctor's recommendations?

As far as not getting nutrients, I eat more vegetables than the majority of the world population. Now, you alluded to fats being associated with heart disease, cancer, etc. yet you cite no studies as references. A study is flawed unless all variables are the same except for the variable being tested.

The studies linking high fat intake to heart disease etc. allowed unrestrictive carbohydrate intake. This only shows an association, if carbohydrates are unrestricted.

In reality, studies that were performed on diets low in carbohydrates reveal that dietary fat promotes the production of HDL chloresterol - the one that prevents heart disease. At the same time, limiting carbohydrate in the diet results in decreased levels of LDL cholesterol, which is associated with atheroschlerosis.

As for cancer, show me a study that examines whether the amount of fat in a low carbohydrate diet has shown an increased risk over a diet that contains more than 50 % of calories from carbohydrates. More than 100 years ago, people in North America consumed most of their fat from animal sources, and very little from vegetable sources. They consumed far more protein and fat in total intake, yet heart disease and cancer was nearly unheard of.

The traditional diet of the Eskimo and aboriginals consist of almost all meat and fat, including plenty of blubber. Yet heart disease is virtually unknown for these people (unless they move to cities and take up their eating habits). Why is it that many diet articles written by professional dieticians seem to indicate that "one size fits all" for instance, the low-fat high carb diet?

Since everyone is different, isn't it possible that a low carb diet might be the perfect ticket for some people? Shouldn't we follow the advice of our doctors? Shouldn't we do our own research and determine what's best for us?

Keith Clayton
Fredericton, NB

Hi Bonnie,

Thanks for taking the time to type in the ltter to the editor! If you contact Keith, make sure to point him to our forum, we need activists like him!

Wa'il

Most definitely!

These dietitions and psuedoscientists make me so angry I am an anthropologist and know for a fact that agriculture and the domestication of grains was not part of any human cultures until 10 -12 thousand years ago; pit that against 4.4 million years of human evolution, in which there were virtually no grains used because the energy expenditure to get them wasn't worth it. Our bodies evolved to eat meat and vegetables. No sugar either, even the fruit early humans ate wasn't nearly as sweet as it is now, no, humans have selectively bred fruit to be bigger and sweeter. Point is, if humans were meant to be plagued by the cancers and heart diseases and obesity and diabetes that we are now, we wouldn't be here today. Our bodies didn't evolve to handle what we're putting into them, especially the refined grains and sugars, and these diseases and conditions are the pure and simple result of overconsumption of grains and sugars. You wouldn't expect a horse which evolved on a vegetarian diet to survive on an all meat diet, then why do people expect humans to survive on a diet that their bodies didn't evolve to eat.

speck, you got that right.

i reckon if we fed a horse on what most kids eat today it would die pretty quick, just like the kids probibly will. And its not just high carb food such as pasta and potatoes, its the cheap rubbish that is designed to appeal to kids ( the school that got funding from McD's and in return had to have Cheesebuger day etc)

When i was a kid take away food was expensive, a treat that we had maybe a few times a year. We really dont know what effect the consumption of burgers, coke, fries and pizza from early child will have. We just know that it will be very very bad. Even baby food has added sugars these days( they just dont call it sugar)

we are the first generation of humans to live on the kind of rubbish we do

not only that, there is genetic engineering to concider also

it is sad how we humans are managing to to distroy our beautiful plant, kill off other species and contaminate our food supply


sorry got off the subject, it all seems such a mess sometimes

so...
people such as the mis informed twit that penned the article are responsible for people like me who spend years suffering with weight problems while trying to do what they told me would help me, namely follow the food pyramid etc. I have said it before and i will say it again. When will Jenny C, WW and the rest of the crew wake up and stop the brain washing??

Yep, and all you have to do is look at the evidence from (the x-rays of) the 18th dynasty Egyptian mummies in the museum at Cairo to see the direct effect of a diet based on too many cereal grain foods. Arthritis, scoliosis and other degenerative problems were pretty rampant... there are only a few of them that seemed to be in excellent physical health (the best examle is an unfortunate general who died young from plague). Bread and beer were said to have been the mainstay of the commoner's diet until Roman times, when of course the general level of health improved!