http://www1.wsvn.com/features/artic...reports/DBM498/

I caught this one when it aired, and tried to record it using my video card. But, for some reason the Audio and Video are terribly out of synch, and the Audio runs too quickly. So, the video file I got is pretty much worthless. But, the link has a transcript...Its a repetition of the same basic BS from so-called experts. They start off with how you need carbs to be healthy; how LC will cause cancer, etc...; how its an unbalanced diet; how the term "Net Carbs" is too confusing for our puny little brains; etc...



Nothing vexes me more than when some so-called expert makes an idiotic statement like this. "Net Carb" has a specific meaning and if they'd bothered to read the book, they'd know what it means. "Reduced Carb" simply means less Carbs than the regular product, but not necessarily low carb [see: Coca Cola C2, Pepsi Edge, Minute Maid Lite, CarbWise Buns.] I've never seen "Carb Free," but the most obvious meaning would be either Zero Carbs [which can mean anything less than 0.5g] or truly no carbs [Some meats, and such.] "Low Carb" is meaningless.



No mention of Veggies. But, later on the guy admits he doesn't even know for sure what exactly contains Carbs. Obviously, they picked folks who never even read the book.



Cancer feeds on Sugar and Carbs. Carbs [Especially Fructose,] Artificial Trans-Fats, and Alcohol raise Triglycerides which are the best indicator of Heart Disease. Monounsaturated and Omega-3 Fats lower LDL and in some cases raise HDL. Some also lower Triglycerides. Saturated Fats, despite the constant attacks, raise both LDL [the lowest numbered - non-harmfull/good - subtypes] and HDL, while not negatively effecting Triglycerides. The only things [food wise] that cause the diseases mentioned are an excess of Carbs [especially refined] and Artificial Trans-Fats, both of which abound in the diet these folks push...and both of which are severely restricted/banned on LC Diets.



Despite what some folks might claim, there is NO hard evidence that lowfat helps people lose weight any better than low-carb or that it prevents heart disease any better. In fact, side-by-side comparisons of the two types of diets have shown low-carb to be superior for weight loss, and better for raising HDL and lowering Triglycerides. LDL change varied by the study. Some studies showed Low-Fat to be slightly better at lowering LDL, but it also lowered HDL and raised Triglycerides. Low-Carb diets proved better for lowering LDL in some studies, but unlike LF also improved HDL and TGs. Also, the few studies that have looked into LDL subtypes have found that the LDL particles in persons who eat LC, are are of the less harmfull subtypes vs. of the more harmfull subtypes for those who eat lots of Carbs and Trans-Fat.



Whole Grains are not good for you. They've gotten a free ride, because all the studies into them have compared people who eat Whole Grains vs. people who eat Wonder Bread and Twinkies [refined grains.] That's like giving one person Arsenic and another Strychnine and then seeing how long they survive, and drawing the conclusion from that that one of the two makes you live longer. Both kill you, one just doesn't do it as quickly as the other. Same for grains. All grains make you fat and unhealthy, when eaten in excess. Whole Grains just cause these problems to develop slower than Refined Grains.

Beans have no beneficial value. With the exception of Soy and Green both of which are allowed at all stages of LC,] they're mostly Starch with some Fiber and a few Vitamins thrown in. Nothing you couldn't get by eating some Green Veggies...and the Greens aren't loaded with Starch like the Beans.

We get plenty of Vegetables on LC. In fact, the only so-called "Vegetables" not allowed in more than small amounts on LC are some tubers, and I don't consider them to be true veggies. The leaves and stems [true veggies] are low in starch, high in fiber, high in vitamins/minerals, and in many cases high in antioxidants. By comparison, the roots [tubers] are usually primarily starch with little fiber, only a few vitamins/minerals, and less antioxidants [than true veggies.]

Fruits are not always good for you. Berries, which are allowed on LC, are a good source of antioxidants, fiber, and Vitamin C. Fruits like Bananas, which are almost entirely sugar, with only a trace of fiber, and very little antioxidants have little value outside of their vitamins/minerals, which can easily be had from much more healthfull sources, such as true veggies or berries, or even red meat [in the case of Potassium.]



Note my previous statement...This guy never read the book.



Now, here's an interesting point. The Gov't pushes a Diet which is 30/60/10. Atkins Induction is 65/5/30, with OWL being about 60/10/30 or thereabouts. Later stages are more like 50/20/30 or thereabouts. Basically, a LC Diet is almost identically balanced in Induction and OWL with the USDA's recomendations, except that we switched the Fat, Protein, and Carbs around so that it was 30% Protein, 60% Fat, 10% Carbs instead of 30% Fat, 60% Carbs, 10% Protein. In fact, in later stages LC is much closer to balanced than the Carb Heavy diet recomended by the USDA. As for exercise, did they miss the Chapters in DANDR and AFL that made it clear Exercise is a must. Oh, that's right, they never read the book.





HELLO !!! This is not a Low-Fat diet, in fact, its a HIGH FAT Diet, so products made for LCers [with the possible exception of SBD] are supposed to be high in fat.



Just on a side note, this is Channel 7 (Miami FOX Affiliate.) For the folks who haven't lived in South Florida at some point, they have a well earned reputation for being frequently less than accurate in their reporting. So, it comes as no suprise they'd be bashing LC with such baseless accusations.

Defaming orange juice is a crime in Florida.
So they have to be anti-LC.

danny

I agree with everything you've said, spot on...
One minor point of contention though, regarding saturated fats. It appears that in some people saturated fats raise only LDL and not HDL as well. This very board is riddled with people who've gotten their blood lipids checked only to find their HDL staying roughly the same or risen only slightly, however their LDL shot up a huge amount of points.

Now, whether or not the subtypes of LDL which are raised by the increased saturated fat consumption for such fat sensitive individuals are dangerous or indicative of problems still remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen whether or not nutritional co-factors which individuals may be deficient in are responsible for the poor fat metabolism (meaning "fat tolerance sensitivity" might actually just be the result of an imbalance or deficiency somewhere else, kind of how being deficient in chromium will result in "glucose tolerance sensitivity").

However, I think it is still worth mentioning that my own observations demonstrate that not everyone does well on a very high fat, high saturated fat diet. Though I fully support a high fat diet (my own diet is 55/15/30), I also realize that not everyone has the same nutritional needs and some might not do so well on it.

Good post! I enjoy your analyses, CC. However, criticisizing local news stations is like shooting fish in a barrel. They're crackpots. My stupid local news station actually did interviews and mini-documentary on Ghost hunters and gave them credit for finding ghosts.

Good point. We have raged against the establishement that seeks to makes us all conform to the same so called "balanced" diet. It wouldn't do to repeat this mistake by insisting that low-carb high-fat is the perfect choice for everyone.

Good review... I will disagree with your beans rant. I think they give a good bit of protein and fiber, and rather small amounts of starch and I use them quite a bit. They are good at filling me up!!!

http://www.truestarhealth.com/Notes/1878008.html

Nutritional Highlights

Pinto beans, 1 cup (171g) (boiled)
Calories: 234
Protein: 14.0g
Carbohydrate: 43.8g
Total Fat: 0.89g
Fiber: 14.7g
Iron: 4.5mg
Potassium: 800mg
Selenium: 12 mcg
Folate: 294mcg

Looks like a net carb count of 29.1 gm for a cup of Pintos - yikes - more than twice as much starch as protein. The fiber count is nice, the protein is so-so.

For comparison, consider 170 g of almonds (6 oz; Blue Diamond, Smokehouse flavor). (This is 6 servings of almonds).

Calories: 1020
Protein: 36g
Carbohydrate: 30g
Total Fat: 96g
Fiber: 18g
Net carbs: 12g
Iron: 7.3mg
Potassium: 1238mg
Selenium: 4.76 mcg
Folate: 49.3 mcg

Three times as much protein as starch: pass the almonds, please!

Good point. We have raged against the establishement that seeks to makes us all conform to the same so called "balanced" diet. It wouldn't do to repeat this mistake by insisting that low-carb high-fat is the perfect choice for everyone. It's high time that attention be payed to how individual metabolism varies instead of lumping us all in the same basket

How vague was that article?

Am I to believe that you can get cancer from eating too many eggs and bacon? That article needed more info to convince me, and that's only because I've done my research, and I can spot the holes in that article.

I've been on many low fat diets and I was always hungry so I ended up going off them and gaining more weight. I am not hungry on this wol so it must be fulfilling my need for more of the right kind of food? Wouldn't ya think? Peg

Good analysis...interesting item.

cc48510 -- it infuriates me that they always seem to pick the duffus who has never read the book and is doing Atkins-by-proxy: He has a friend who knows someone who heard about someone who read the book so he thinks he knows how to do the plan. Then the media interviews him. And he complains about how he can't lose weight, how constipated he is and how tired he is of eating bacon for every meal.

Interview us!! Ask us!!

But if you are a bean producer, you would advertise the higher folate and selenium and lower calories and fat of the beans when compared almonds. That would make them sound so much healthier. It's all in your viewpoint.

You're right - a lot more starchy carbs in the beans. But 4X as many calories. It all depends on how many carbs you'd allow in your diet. For someone like me who eats 60-80 carbs a day, I could easily fit in 1/2 cup of beans into my diet, no problem. On <20 carbs a day, yeah stick with the green veggies.

There is a certain validity to attacking the low-carb "craze", but the focus is wrong. Instead of attacking the "low-carb", it's the "craze" that should be addressed. That goes with any "craze". Craze is defined as "A temporary passion or infatuation, as for same new amusement, pursuit, or fashion..."

That is not what a true low-carb WOE is. But recently, it has become something to pursue because of the attention the media and Madison Ave. have given it, and not because of its true benefits.

I have read, learned, lived and been instructed by my doctor about LC WOE for years, but when somebody asks me how I'm losing this weight and I tell them, I hear the old "Oh, now you're doing that, too" comment.

It's just like the comment that people who low carb gain all the weight back, I think, "No, people who stop low carbing gain the weight back.

It's an educational thing that can only be shown to others in the way we live and the results of that WOL.

Good post! And I particularly agree with you here.


Grains are bad . Especially when you take into account reports that up to 75% of the population has sub-clinical or clinical allergies to them. Based on my reduction of symptoms since quitting all grains and my reactions when I've tried them since starting low-carb, I'm allergic to wheat and corn. I don't know about barley since I haven't tried it since I started low-carbing.


I also agree with you on the beans. Although, I don't think soy is particularly good for us. Especially if we have problems with estrogen dominance, which I still do because of the extra weight I'm still carrying around.




BTW: One of the best alternatives to bananas, in my opinion, is avocados -- high in monounsaturated fat and postassium and a host of other benefits.