PETA must have choked when praise for red-meat diet poured in

The Virginian-Pilot
© November 20, 2002

Monday may have been the darkest day ever suffered by my good friends at the downtown international PETA enclave, where, given the opportunity, folks would sooner take a hatchet to Oscar Mayer than to Osama bin Laden.

That was the day that serious scientists, tugging thoughtfully at their serious-scientist goatees, began to wonder aloud if there might actually be something to the widely debated Atkins diet plan.

News stories of this event, on each of the three networks I saw, were accompanied by footage of huge piles of raw meat being grilled on an open flame.

Succulent sausages, beautifully marbled steaks, massive patties of gorgeous ground chuck, all of them splattering and simmering and searing away, as the news-readers told the grim tale of reality: In a scientific test of the high-fat Atkins diet against the American Heart Association's low-fat, live-forever diet, the Atkins eaters lost more weight and had better cholesterol readings than the tofu-and-turnips crowd.

For my friends at PETA, this had to have been the worst news since word leaked out that the Dalai Lama likes to end his day with a feisty slab of filet mignon.

Meanwhile, in a receding market, shares of pork-happy Smithfield Foods rose steadily Monday.

I have never studied nor adopted the Atkins diet plan, but if I understand it correctly, it works like this: If you largely replace the fruits, vegetables, pasta, bread and other carbohydrates in your diet with meat, eggs, cheese, butter, shellfish and other stuff that's supposed to be bad for you, you'll lose lots of weight because your body will get really hungry and begin to eat itself. Or something like that.

Atkins-diet proponents say they look and feel great. Their opposition is prone to argue that Atkins is a sort of auto-cannibalism, a great way to leave a slimmer, splendid-looking corpse.

And therein lies the conundrum. Each side can trot out serious scientists, dedicated doctors and respected researchers who will swear on a stack of ham bones that their way is the only true way to a longer, happier life. And that's supposed to be the goal, all in all -- a longer, happier life.

Which makes me wonder why another scientific study, released the very same day, got absolutely buried in all the screeching over meat vs. lettuce. In The New York Times, the story ran under this headline: ``Power of Positive Thinking Extends, It Seems, to Aging.''

The story said that 660 people over the age of 50 were interviewed back in 1975 about their attitudes toward life. When researchers returned nearly 25 years later and interviewed those who were still alive, they found that ``those who viewed aging as a positive experience lived, on average, 7.5 years longer than those who took a darker view.''

(It didn't say how many of them were vegetarians. However, I was living in Ohio in 1975, and I'd guess that in a crowd of 660 Ohioans in 1975, roughly one of them would have been a vegetarian -- and he would have been beaten up by the other 659.)

The story said, further, that happiness seemed to be ``an advantage far greater, researchers point out, than what can be gained from lowering blood pressure or reducing cholesterol, each of which has been found to lengthen life about four years. It also beats exercise, not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight, strategies that add one to three years.''

Still, one researcher warned that the reasons for all this are ``complicated'' and that it's too simplistic to say to somebody, ``Just cheer up and you'll live longer.''

I would imagine that applies in particular to people whose definition of total happiness is a pack of Marlboros, a bag of Doritos, and a La-Z-Boy's autumn worth of NFL football.

So who's right? The meat gurus? The veggie gurus? The happiness gurus?

Well, the scientists say that before we can know for certain, it will take more study -- probably with government grants, which makes the scientists very happy, which means that at least they'll live a lot longer.

For my part, I'm betting on a formula that says ``Eat what you like, but less of it, drink a little red wine, and smile as you do both.''

I just hope that I live long enough to be proven right.

Contact Dave at 446-2726 or dave.addis~cox.net

http://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/op1120add.html