Active Low-Carber Forums - Bad Housekeeping

(following up from the thread last week on the Good Housekeeping misreporting on low carb diets).

Date: August 22, 2003

Dear Mr. [xxxxx(me)]:

Thank you for taking the time to write to Good Housekeeping. While we are sorry to hear you were disappointed with the September 2003 article "Fad diets: What works?," we appreciate you sharing your opinions with us.

Because Good Housekeeping editors are always interested in learning the reactions of our readers, your letter will be circulated for them to read.

Best Regards,

Jennifer Wysmuller
Editorial Assistant

(the above being in "response" to the feedback I emailed them below)

GHKLetters
08/18/2003 02:48 PM

To: Sarah G Wharton/Magazines/Hearst~Hearst
cc: Jennifer L Wysmuller/Magazines/Hearst~Hearst
Subject: (EDITOR)

GoodHouseKeeping~prodweb4.bup.ivillage.com on 08/16/2003 04:01:57 PM

To: ghkletters~hearst.com
cc:

Subject: (EDITOR)

Why doesn't the GH authors writing these articles on low carb dieting bother to glance at the books about them?
Your misinformation abounds. You mention most of the weight loss on the early induction phase of the Atkins Diet is mere water loss. Not true.
People can and do remain on induction for several months - are you saying those 20, 30, 40 or more pounds is mostly just water? Stop a moment: what do you honestly think would happen to a person who lost 40 or even more pounds of water from their body? Further, you instruct people to get off Atkins so they can enjoy vegetables and fruit. I am on Atkins and enjoy more veggies and fruit than I have ever had in my life. Just like they instruct in their book you seem to haven't bothered to read before you wrote your ill-informed story. You claim that there are such restrictions in the foods one can eat on Atkins that therefore it reduces calories.
Again, not necessarily true. You need to stop implying this is just a meat & cheese diet - it shows you don't know even know what you're writing about. Pick up the Atkins book and glance at the first two chapters, at least, before writing your articles on the Atkins Diet! As far as your claiming that calorie counting is the key, again, you're not really dealing with practical reality how our bodies do not process everything put into it the same. Are you honestly trying to tell me that if I cut down to, say, 1800 calories (regardless of what it is - say, chocolate sundaes) instead of 1900 calories of nutrient-dense low carb veggies and protein - that I'll lose weight eating those 1800 dessert calories instead of the 1900 healthy atkins calories? Really? You need to hire more objective authors, not one who is implicitly pushing their low-carlorie book as Jim Karas is doing. This calls into serious question how
accurately you are reporting your other articles.
READ THE BOOKS YOU 'RE REPORTING ON and maybe you'll stop misreporting!
re: Fad Diets: what works? September issue of GH. "
(end of original feedback I sent) ... and then finally (below) is the response I sent to GH in response to the response I listed at the beginning of the article:

***
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for taking the time in sending a note confirming that the editors will be informed of my note of serious concern - it's important they take note of such inaccurate reporting which they can (and could and should have) easily verified for themselves before allowing such to have gone to print. Once they've verified (again, which is quite easy to do) what I've listed, maybe they'll be courageous enough to issue a retraction or, failing such a demonstration of journalistic integrity, at least try to "get the story right" next time they actually write about the Atkins Diet, rather than the distorted diet they're instead reporting as being the Atkins Diet - which it isn't.
Concerned,
Gary