Agatston is trying to be all things to all people. He claims his diet is neither low-fat nor low-carb. Yet it is a controlled-carb and a controlled-fat diet. He permits only "good" carbs (fruits, vegetable, and whole grains--how revolutionary) and "good" fats. But he does prescribe a "cut" in carbs. Listen: "To make up for the overall cut in carbohydrates, my diet permitted ample fats and animal proteins." Here's where he smears Atkins. Agatston lets you eat "good" carbs "in marked contrast to the Atkins Diet, for instance, which ban virtualy all carbohydrates and leaves the dieter to exist mostly on proteins. That regimen also permits limitless saturated fats, the kind found in red meat and butter. These are, as most people know [sic], the bad fats..." (p. 10). Most people don't know this. They have been told it over and over, but that is not the same thing as knowing it.

The gross and irresponsible misstatement of Atkins is enough to discredit the book, in my view.

Now look what he says about fat 10 pages later: "When people eat high-fiber carbs such as vegetables and unprocessed grains and flour, the danger of most dietary fat becomes minimal. Only saturated fat remains a predictor of heart attacks, and even then not a very impressive one."

Huh? Saturated fat is a predictor of heart attacks, but an unimpressive one? That's like saying I'm a predictor of the stock market, but not a very impressive one. What good would that be? Here's a subtle concession to the pro-sat-fat camp.

He goes on to point out that the fall in the consumption of saturated fats over the years has brought a fall in HDL and a rise in triglycerides.

So is he pro or anti sat-fat? He's like an ink blot. You can see what you want to see. Good strategy if your main goal is to write a bestseller. And he has.

You can skip this book, unless you like the recipes.

Sheldon