NEW YORK, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- The following release was written by Robert C. Atkins, M.D., Chairman of The Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...001797678&EDATE

Over the past few months, responsible members of the scientific community and the media have entered into a healthy dialogue seeking a solution to what is arguably the worst public health crisis to ever face this country-the linked epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Most everyone agrees that there is a real possibility that the 20-year-old government nutrition policy has failed our nation. So, why, we must ask ourselves, have the National Academies issued new dietary guidelines that suggest an unhealthy mixture of inconclusive science, politics and economics?

Perhaps the most bizarre example of just how flawed these guidelines are is the recommendation that added sugar can account for up to 25 percent of daily caloric intake. Right now, today, more than 60 percent of the American population and more than 25 percent of our children are either overweight or obese. Moreover, there are 17 million Type 2 diabetics and
another 16 million people with pre-diabetes. These statistics aren't theory. They aren't debatable. Did the prestigious National Academies actually tell a nation of more than 160 million dangerously overweight adults and children that it's okay to consume candy bars, cake, ice cream and soda pop on a daily basis? Of course they didn't, because these guidelines were designed for the minority of Americans who are slim, fit and physically active adults. They don't help the majority of Americans, including children, who are facing a lifelong struggle to achieve and maintain a normal weight.

As physicians and nutritionists we need to provide a dietary regimen that will help Americans lower their weight and then maintain it throughout life. In such a plan, added sugar should be eliminated. Along with the rest of America's science-based nutrition and medical community I eagerly await the good science that defines added sugar as a nutrient so vital to good health that it can provide up to 25 percent of our daily caloric intake.

I am also extremely disappointed that the new guidelines fail to
distinguish between refined and unrefined carbohydrates, such as those found in nutrient-dense foods. Each person needs to find his or her individual carbohydrate intake level for weight maintenance and health. It may be perfectly appropriate for individuals to consume fewer grams of carbs per day than the level set in these new recommendations. The specious claim that the brain needs a minimum of 130 grams of carbs a day for normal function is at best based on research looking at carbs, fats and proteins in a high carb setting. Research focused on a controlled carb diet paints a very different picture and has long shown that every cell in the body, including the brain, is capable of using ketones as energy. (Ketones are the byproduct of fat
burning, which occurs on a low carb diet.) In fact, in a recent interview quoted in The New York Times Magazine, Dr. Richard Veech, an N.I.H. researcher and one of the world's experts on ketones, claims that the heart and the brain run 25 percent more efficiently on ketones than on blood sugar.

In a more reasoned recommendation, the National Academies have finally acknowledged that not all fat is bad and that excessively low-fat diets may actually increase the risk of heart disease. But the guidelines are based upon science that examines the role of fat in the context of a high-carbohydrate
diet. In fact, research in a controlled carb setting does not show that saturated fat has a deleterious effect on good health. I do, of course, agree that trans fats are unhealthy and I strongly discourage people from consuming them at all.

Ironically, research that supports the safety and efficacy of controlled carbohydrate nutrition is only now emerging, unfortunately not soon enough to have had an impact on government recommendations. All this despite the fact that this paradigm shift about the dangers of over consumption of
carbohydrates is at the center of national discussion on how to solve the nation's obesity and diabetes epidemics. As a result, the needs of the majority of the American populations are being ignored-increasing their risks for obesity, chronic disease-and ultimately-death.

For many years the medical establishment has criticized me for not conducting scientific research in an objective examination of my theories and practice. In response, two years ago I stablished a not-for-profit foundation for the purpose of funding and supporting independent studies expressly to provide such august bodies as the National Academies with the evidence they've
sought. This research and the results of other excellent work conducted by prestigious institutions have been published in peer-reviewed journals such as the American Journal of Cardiology. I encourage the members of the National
Academies panel to read these studies and use the information to prepare truly helpful guidelines.

It is time for all health professionals to focus on the real life health issues most citizens face. It is also time to smash the old paradigms represented by the food guide pyramid and low-fat ideologues and to come together to make dietary recommendations based on science that apply to the situation at hand. Added sugar indeed!