Berkeley Wellness Letter attack
 

From the November issue of the Berkeley Wellness Letter (the article is not on line for nonsubscribers):

Weighing in on the Diet Debate: Special Report
In July an article in the New York Times, "What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" by Gary Taubes, set off the latest, and loudest, round in the ongoing debate about low-fat versus high-fat diets. The fact that it generated such an uproar shows the power of the Times. But it also shows that lots of people are worried, confused, and/or angry about their growing waistlines. More than 60% of American adults (and nearly as many Canadians) are now overweight or obese. Taubes says the culprit is the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet the government and most nutrition experts have advocated. And he proposes that high-fat diets, notably that of Dr. Atkins, may be the solution. Taubes's article was filled with half-truths, "what ifs," and muddled science. It presented only one side of the debate—the Atkins side. Still, it raised important questions about the obesity epidemic and the failings of mainstream dietary advice.

* * *
This is largely a repetition of all the low-fat mantras. No evidence is reported. It mostly takes the form of: "There is no evidence that..." You can fill in the blanks: that excess carbs cause insulin resistance; that high carbs stimulate appetite; that high carbs lead to more fat storage, that Americans have been eating less fat in the last 20 years, that Atkins followers eat less because they are nauseated, that ketosis is dangerous, etc., etc., etc.

Essentially they are repeating a line from the Marx Brothers: Who are you going to believe: me or your own eyes?

Berkeley is not above using some cheap debating tricks, for example:

"A diet rich in aminal fat (and low in plant foods) increases the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, various cancers (such as colon and prostate), and diverticulosis."

Low in plant foods? Who recommends that? Huh? And where's the evidence for the rest of the claim? It doesn't exist. See The Cholesterol Myths.

I don't see one study cited in the article, except the Duke study (pointing out that people lowered their cholesterol). It claims of course that all weight loss on Atkins-style diets is either water or from calorie restriction. Ho-hum. Same ol' same ol'.

Get this one: "There's virtually no place on earth where people regularly eat such a high-fat, high-protein diet, so there's no long-term safety record." Note the word VIRTUALLY. In fact there are many such places, including the Arctic. Seek and ye shall find.

Sheldon

I got a kick out of the hedging they display here: The Final (Maybe) Verdict on the Low-Fat Diet

I think the experts are starting to set themselves up with wiggle-room just in case the low-carb argument gains momentum. It will turn out that they were right all along- just ask them!

But they also say...
 

and regarding eating fats They are still promoting high-carb and saying that you will gain weight if you eat more fat!

;-Deb

Don't get me wrong, they should fry just for this statement in Be Choosy About Carbs: "There is no reason to avoid foods high on the glycemic index—many are very nutritious. Even people predisposed to diabetes, or with the disease, can eat these foods in moderation."

Think about the potential medical liability in that statement.

No, The Berkeley 'Wellness' Letter is not onboard.

Hey, what a great sub-title for their nutrition section: "The Failings of Mainstream Dietary Advice" (taken from the last line of their Taubes summary).