Vegans vs. Atkins

Animal-rights activists claim that low-carb, meat-heavy diets are killing people. Are they raising legitimate health concerns -- or are they just rabid anti-carnivores?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Katharine Mieszkowski, Salon.com

link to article

Dec. 8, 2003 | For all the deals with the devil made in Washington, it's not often they're owned up to at the National Press Club, before a roomful of reporters, armed with notepads, tape recorders and TV cameras.

But Jody Gorran, a businessman from Delray Beach, Fla., announced at a press conference on Nov. 20, 2003, "I made a Faustian bargain with the devil."

The trim 53-year-old's dark deal: "I traded a 32-inch waist for heart disease, and the devil was the Atkins diet."

Gorran testified that he had a heart scan six months before going on Atkins that showed no problems. But after two and a half years of losing weight and keeping it off on the high-protein, low-carb diet, while boasting about its incredible benefits to everyone he knew -- eat fat, while you lose the fat! -- he developed heart disease. Suffering from severe artery blockage, he underwent angioplasty to place a stent in his coronary artery.

Gorran shared the podium at the press conference with other self-proclaimed victims of the diet and their aggrieved family members: a 51-year-old hairstylist whose cholesterol went from 160 to 258, suffered kidney stones and had to have surgery to remove her gall bladder; the parents of an overweight 16-year-old from Sturgeon, Mo., who dropped dead from cardio-respiratory arrest at school while suffering from low levels of calcium and potassium in the first days of the diet; the sister of a 41-year-old man from Yardville, N.J., who also died of a heart attack while low carbing.

The master of ceremonies at this media circus of misery was Dr. Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a nonprofit that promotes the health benefits of vegetarian and vegan diets, and advocates against the use of animals in medical testing and in the training of medical students. As an advocate of "plant-based" diets, Barnard has written several books, including most recently "Breaking the Food Seduction" (St. Martin's, 2003), in which Chapter 4, "Opiates on a Cracker: The Cheese Seduction," asks, "Is cheese a drug?" Oozing with recipes for oven-barbequed tofu steaks and tempeh tostadas, the book also advises dieters how to best fend off "party platters and other torture devices."

Barnard may have considered Atkins, an eat-the-hamburger, not-the-bun approach to weight loss, a bad idea long before his group set up an online registry to record consumer complaints about it. But for vegans and animal-rights activists, for whom meat is as bad ideologically as they believe it is physically, the ever-rising profile of low-carb diets is a major public-relations setback. There may be no consensus on the healthiness of low-carb diets, but there is no denying their increasing popularity.

Meat is back! The magic words "low-carb" are popping up in beer commercials and Weight Watchers products. So clearly, something needed to be done. After a year of soliciting reports from low-carb dieters suffering from everything from gout to bad breath, PCRM collected 188 responses to its informal online survey, and decided to call the press conference to highlight the most heinous among them.

While stressing that the self-reported responses of a self-selected audience on a Web quiz do not constitute a scientific study, Barnard believes that his group has now amassed enough preliminary evidence to justify calling for further research by the feds. "We are asking the CDC [Centers for Disease Control] to go from indictment to conviction," he said at the press conference. "We are calling on the CDC to try to lure Americans away from its honeymoon with the diet that has made its reputation from the fact that it's so counterintuitive -- eat the worst possible food, and lose weight."

As news outlets gobbled up the story -- "Low-Carb, High-Protein Diets Can Be Deadly" and "Doctors Blast Atkins Diet" -- the "Atkins machine," as Barnard refers to the company that's sold millions of diet books, nutritional supplements and low-carb food products to the protein-hungry masses, blasted back. Atkins Health and Medical Information Services issued a statement defending the safety of its diet, and accusing PCRM of seeking to "further its own vegan political and philosophical agenda," while exploiting the "obesity and diabetes crisis in this country."

Was Barnard's press conference less about concern for the health and nutrition of overweight Americans looking to shed those extra 10 or 50 or 150 pounds, than it was about the concern for the beef and pork likely to be consumed by their hungry mouths on a high-protein diet? Had Jody Gorran, the Floridian who'd become convinced that the miracle diet he'd talked up to his family and friends had given him heart disease, just traded one deal with the devil for another? The plot thickens the closer you look -- the only thing for sure is that low-carb diets are becoming a major player in the fight for hearts and minds in a culture-wide struggle over the propriety of eating meat.

"All of us at Atkins are deeply disturbed by PCRM's shameless exploitation of people who have struggled through personal tragedies," the Atkins press release said. "There is no logic and no science to support any association between these individuals and the ANA [Atkins Nutritional Approach], no more and no less than there is logic or science to support an association between the thousands of people who die from heart disease or kidney failure while following a low-fat diet."

In other words: With millions of people on a diet, some of them are going to get sick, and even die, especially if they're already likely to be suffering from the health risks associated with obesity. Should the Atkins diet be made to answer for the sins of the obesity epidemic, when all they're trying to do is help free people from the prison of their extra layers of fat? In short: Don't look at us.

Dr. Stuart Trager, chair of the Atkins Physicians Council, went further, criticizing the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in an "open letter" for eschewing the scientific method, and instead going straight to the TV cameras with its anecdotal evidence that low-carb dieting can kill: "This group of radical vegans and animal rights advocates abusing their medical degrees and masquerading as concerned and 'responsible' physicians must be held to the same standards that all scientists must adhere to, and to cease this practice of sensationalism."

In his letter, Trager cited the research of Dr. Eric Westman at Duke University, which unexpectedly found that cholesterol levels fell on the first six months on the diet, as one example of credible scientific work on the Atkins plan. But Trager conveniently failed to mention that Westman himself had said in a statement upon the publication of his research: "While we're impressed with the weight loss of this diet, we still are not sure about the safety of it. More studies need to be done in order to be confident about the long-term safety of this type of diet."

In turn, Barnard questioned the august credibility of a group of doctors paid to defend a lucrative diet plan. "I understand that they have to say that it's safe because they have a $100 million empire based on that, but the only credible response is to investigate," he said in an interview, adding: "What credibility do the Atkins doctors have? They are paid to do research to sell books. If somebody paid by Atkins wants to questions anyone's credibility, first they should question their own."

But pro-Atkins advocates aren't the only critics of the PCRM press conference. There are others who question the wisdom of taking nutritional warnings about the dangers of eating meat from a press conference set up by a group that works against animal testing.

"They are committed advocates against use of animals in any way, shape, form or manner, so they're not objective," says Robert Baratz, an internist in private practice in Boston, who is president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a nonprofit that fights medical quackery. "And they are strongly allied with, if not a front organization for, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), but they don't let it be known that that's the case, and that's deceptive."

Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, says that his organization has made some donations to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in the past to support "areas of mutual interest," and Barnard, who writes the "Dr. in the House" column for PETA's Animal Times magazine, has served as a medical advisor to the group. "But to suggest that there is anything else there is simply ludicrous."

Barnard says his group has a team of doctors and registered dieticians on staff, as well as about 5,000 doctors as members, and more than 100,000 other "supporting" members. And while he may agree with many of PETA's stances, he denies that he's the lab coat and stethoscope puppet for its animal-rights ideology: "I think that PETA has done a great job in many ways of encouraging people toward healthier diets," he says. "Your coronary arteries don't care why you stop eating meat. Having said that, we're not a front for them, or they for us."

The organization that has gone the furthest toward trying to smear PCRM as a bunch of unscientific PETA-sympathizers is the Center for Consumer Freedom, made up of paid flacks for the restaurant industry. The organization's strongly worded accusations about the group Barnard leads are one of the first things to come up after even the most cursory Google search.

But the Center for Consumer Freedom, which has received funding from Tyson Foods and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association among others, is hardly in a position to accuse other organizations of being front groups, says Laura Miller, associate editor of Prwatch.org, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, which has done investigative work on the organization and its founder.

"They're an interesting group because they illustrate how corporate money is funneled into these front groups that help confuse issues. They're hired P.R. hacks basically working for the industry to promote the industry's viewpoint. Their job is really to attack any organization or anyone who says that maybe Americans shouldn't eat so much meat."

So, if you can't trust the critics of a meat-happy diet, because they're vegetarians opposed to animal testing, and you can't trust the biggest critics of the vegetarians because they're funded by the meat industry, and you can't trust the doctors who are paid to defend a diet, then who should you listen to in this rancorous debate?

The Atkins camp has long viewed mainstream nutritionist putdowns of its diet with suspicion, but some specialists without any direct ties to the health industry or the "plant-based diet" promoters, are adamant that the Atkins diet simply isn't well-balanced.

Dr. Jeanne Goldberg, director of the Center on Nutrition Communication at Tufts University, a dietician with a Ph.D. in nutrition, suggests taking a look at the current issue of the Tufts University Health and Nutrition Letter, which tries to answer the question: "Is it possible to follow the Atkins diet healthfully?"

"The short answer is no," Goldberg observes. "It is virtually impossible to get adequate amounts of a number of essential nutrients. It contains three times the saturated fat as someone consuming an 1,800-calorie diet should. It's pretty tricky to get adequate amounts of calcium on it."

And while she dismisses "many of the arguments that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine makes" as "not grounded in good science," she is unflinching in her impatience for those who tout the health benefits of Atkins: "Here's my take on it: It's not a balanced diet. A diet which tells you that you really can't eat all fruits and very few vegetables is not a healthful diet."

That's not to say that you can't lose weight on the diet, as millions have done and continue to do. "What the data show so far is that people can lose weight on anything from the most sensible balanced diet to the Atkins diet," she says. "The problem comes in terms of maintenance. The Atkins diet as a maintenance diet is really a poor idea, because it is high in saturated fat and low in other essential nutrients. It isn't about losing weight. It's about keeping it off."

salon.com

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Katharine Mieszkowski is a senior writer for Salon Technology.

And unto people like Goldberg with Big Credentials(Tm) so sadly does a large part of the public place their trust in.

CALCIUM tricky to get? On Atkins? What IS she smoking?? I get 100% of RDA from eating one cheesy meal.

Someone send her a wheel of cheese to go with her whine.

I'll pass the whole other issue of her being totally wrong in every other part of her comment too, but picking CALCIUM as an example? Ph.D. on nutrition?! From which Mail-Order-PhD firm did she grab that from?

My favorite part is the "you can't eat all fruits and very few vegetables." This, I assume refers to the induction period. Although Atkins states in his book that he feels this can safely be maintained during weight loss, not even he suggests this for a lifetime. She should read the book, especially the examples of a maintence plan. These include a wide variety of vegetables, many fruits and occational whole grains. I have said this in other posts but it bares repeating. It seems to be much more important to some in the medical profession to appear right and to maintain the status quo than to actually be right.

One of the astonishing things about a month of Fitday was how many nutrients I was getting gold stars on. In fact, there are very few nutrients I WASN"T getting at least 100% RDA on.
Just like Dr. Atkins said would happen.

Very few Vegetables ? Bullshit...In fact, there are only a handfull of vegetables we cannot eat on Induction: Tubers (Potatoes, Parsnips, and Carrots.) Basically, we can't have potatoes and carrots [on induction]...Since 99% of the folks in this country probably couldn't even tell you what a parsnip is, I wouldn't even bother worrying about restricting it. The fact that most Americans think potatoes are the only vegetable out there is not our fault. I think everyone would be better off if they traded their potatoes for spinach, broccoli, romaine lettuce, and other green vegetables...as I did.

I don't even consider Tubers to be vegetables...Unlike the leaves, stems, and stalks which contain lots of vitamins, minerals, nutrients, and fiber...the Tuber, or Root is basically nothing more than a sack of starch. It is no more comparable to a vegetable than Liver is to a Steak. Yes, both come from the Plant/Animal, but their nutrient composition is wholly different. A Vegetable has a high percentage of fiber, because it is composed primarily of Cellulose. A Tuber, has a low percentage of fiber, because it is composed primarily of Starch. A steak has a even mix of Fat and Protein with ZERO Carbs, while Liver is mostly Protein, with small amounts of Fat and Carbs. Corn and Rice, the Whole versions of which are allowed in Maintnance, aren't Vegetables, but instead Grains.

As for Fruits, the only fruits are the folks making these claims. Cucumbers, Avocadoes, Olives, Lemons, Limes, Coconuts, and Tomatoes are all Fruits and allowed on Induction. All other fruits are allowed in later stages. No fruit is banned for life...Though, raisins and prunes should probably be avoided due to their super high sugar content. But, raisins and prunes aren't even real fruits...They're simply dried out grapes and plums, which are much lower in carbs ounce for ounce. They're no more a different fruit than a French Frie is a different "Vegetable" than Potato Chips. Bananas, technically aren't even really a fruit...they're a flower. Yet, they are still allowed in small amounts in Maintnance.

And, as for Calcium...that is f'in Bullshit. Cheese is VERY high in Calcium.

Never mind the technical inaccuracies...I get really angry when:

...zealots take personal beliefs (like eating choices) and decide that their choices are better and should be adopted by everyone else AND choose hostile means to force others to adopt their beliefs...

...and when they take it upon themselves to speak for others...

enough already!

Most vegans I know realize their choice is personal and not for everyone and are happy to coexist with (and even dine with) people who eat differently.

One thing I'm always impressed with on this board is the number of people who realize LC is their own choice. We're perfectly willing to share knowledge and experieince with those who are interested, but are careful not impose their own choices on other not interested in LC eating. In fact, I often see posts where people here explicitly don't recommend LC (or at least restrictive induction-like LCing) to people with little or no real weight lose.

Stay Strong!

Of course the biggest problem with the whole thing is that when they say things like:

"It is virtually impossible to get adequate amounts of a number of essential nutrients. It contains three times the saturated fat as someone consuming an 1,800-calorie diet should."

They are using standards for nutrition that Atkins and most low-carb diet plans says are messed up to begin with. If you look at the "balanced" diet as described by the low-fat, high-carb diet favored for the past 30 years, then of course you are not going to get the right "balance" from low-carb.

The problem is that people have accepted waht is "right" and no longer question it. So they can only compare Atkins to what they have been told is "right" rather than consider the idea that the very basis for their dietary knowledge might be wrong.

If you ever research old Dietary Guildelines, it proves very interesting.

1940s --

Dairy: 2 servings
Vegetables: 2 servings (Potatoes don't count; 1 must be Yellow or Green; Greens should be eaten "often")
Fruits: 2 servings (1 must be citrus or tomato)
Eggs: 3-5 servings/week; 1 serving/day is preferred
Meat, Cheese, Fish, and Poultry: 1 serving/day (Dried Beans, Peas, and Peanuts should be eaten only "occassionally")
Cereal & Bread: 2 servings (Whole Grain or Enriched; Adding [Whole] Milk will improve its Nutritional value)
Butter: 2 servings

1950s --

Dairy: 2 servings
Fruits & Vegetables: 4 servings (Include Dark Green or Yellow Vegetables, Citrus, and/or Tomatoes)
Meat, Cheese, Fish, Poultry, Eggs, and Cheese: 2 serving/day (Dried Beans, Peas, and Peanuts are alternatives)
Cereal & Bread: 4 servings (Whole Grain or Enriched; Adding [Whole] Milk will improve its Nutritional value)

1970s --

Dairy: 2-3 servings (Lowfat, Skim recomended)
Vegetables: 3-5 servings
Fruits: 2-4 servings
Meat, Fish, Poultry, Eggs, Dried Beans, Peas, and Nuts: 2-3 servings
Bread, Cereal, Rice, & Pasta: 6-11 servings

This country went from believing a healthy diet was low in Grain and Sugar and high in Fat and Protein...to believing the polar opposite. If this country went back to the 1940s Guidelines, we'd see a marked improvement in the Obesity, Heart Disease, and Diabetes rates. Does it not strike people as odd that back when we were suggesting people eat lots of Butter, Whole Milk, and Meat that these problems were almost unheard of, yet now that we've scared everyone over to Margarine, Skim Milk, and Packaged LF Foods that Obesity and related problems have skyrocketed ?

Why is it noone questions the false claim that this is simply the result of eating more Calories and Fat, when the statistics [at least those comparing current intake to those prior to the mid-80s] clearly show that Americans are eating less Calories, less Fat, and more Carbohydrates than we were 30, 40, even 90 years ago...when these problems were unheard of ? Why is it that my Fat/Saturated Fat intake is obscene when gram for gram, I'm eating almost the same amounts as the Average American did 40-90 years ago ? How can Potatoes be essential for a healthy diet, when they weren't even known to 90% of the world until the 16th century, and weren't widely eaten until the 18th and even 19th centuries and further were not even considered a Vegetable by most until 50 years ago ?

CC, those guidelines you posted are very interesting. May I ask where you found this information?

Interesting points CC, but don't forget to factor 3 keys factor that have changed over the past 30 years :How portions have increased dramatically, and how the consumption of sugar has skyrocketed and how many more meals are eaten out of the home

And let's not forget how the current culture has totally discouraged any form of physical excercise, especially with children.

Follow-up:

Letters

Why does Salon continue to ignore the vegetarian low-carb-diet community? Readers respond to Katharine Mieszkowski's "Vegans vs. Atkins."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Dec. 10, 2003
link to article

As writer Katharine Mieszkowski correctly noted, leading nutritionists share the concerns of my organization, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, about the health problems associated with high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets. But Mieszkowski's article omitted several crucial points.

First, Salon readers should know more about the case of Rachel Huskey, a Missouri teenager who died of cardiorespiratory arrest while on a low-carbohydrate diet. Low calcium and potassium levels in Huskey's blood disrupted her normal cardiac functions and caused her heart to stop, according to Paul Robinson, M.D., an assistant professor of child health at the University of Missouri who spoke at the PCRM's recent news conference. An article coauthored by Dr. Robinson and published in the Southern Medical Journal explains that these depletions were likely caused by her adherence to a low-carbohydrate diet.

Moreover, Mieszkowski did not mention that many of the nation's largest public health organizations, from the American Kidney Fund to the American Heart Association, have strongly cautioned consumers against high-protein diets. For example, an advisory on the Web site of the American Heart Association warns, "People who stay on these diets very long may not get enough vitamins and minerals and face other potential health risks."

Because of such concerns, PCRM is calling on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to begin an immediate investigation into the prevalence of adverse effects associated with high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets. We believe consumers deserve an accurate account of the risks.

-- Neal D. Barnard, M.D.


Vegans are often attacked, but it seems rare that their claims are held up to even-handed critical examination, and it is refreshing that Ms. Mieszkowski does so in her article. The fact of the matter is that vegans and proponents of the Atkins diet both believe that it is unilaterally beneficial for any and every human being to eliminate an entire class of foods from their diet. And while the meat lobby and the Atkins supporters are not to be trusted because of the obvious conflicts of interest, it must be noted that vegan organizations like PETA and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine are equally untrustworthy because of their ideology. As far as they are concerned, stopping the morally reprehensible practice of eating animals is the first priority.

An objective view of some of the nutty and alarmist arguments proffered by PETA and their ilk makes it clear that they are more concerned about your possible conversion than a balanced look at the facts. To paraphrase Dr. Barnard, vegans don't care why you stop eating meat; if bad science and scare tactics work, good enough. Those unfortunates he highlighted should have seen their doctor before they embarked on the late Dr. Atkins' equally nutty fad diet. People are different, and they need to tailor their diets to what works best for them, not what is morally acceptable to PETA, or financially acceptable to the Atkins crowd and the meatpackers of America.

-- Christopher D. Coccio


One more time: The Atkins diet is not a diet without vegetables. It encourages, indeed it requires, fairly large amounts of green vegetables: salad, broccoli, zucchini, green beans, all that. Nor does it require large amounts of saturated fats; indeed, it explicitly says not to go overboard with the butter and heavy cream. And it requires regular physical exercise. Read the poor man's book.

It just doesn't worry about saturated fats all that much. (In fairness, it's hard to work up a major fear of animal fat, which is a key source of calories in most of our primate relatives.) It's worth remembering that the body produces the great majority of cholesterol itself (not surprising, since it's needed for proper health). Accordingly, a diet high in cholesterol that lowers weight will lower blood cholesterol.

What it does prohibit are breads, potatoes and the like. Some "vegetables" are actually starches -- so yams are not included. Some fruits are really sugar juice with vitamins -- so bananas are not allowed. But once one finishes the very early "induction" phase, one essentially eats a balanced diet full of fruits and vegetables but without starch.

Why is that so scary? It isn't. The "Atkins diet" that is criticized simply isn't the diet that poor Dr. Atkins invented.

The medical data are actually very clear: The healthiest thing you can live on is a low-calorie, low-fat diet. However, the only human beings who actually do live on such a diet are either too poor to eat anything else or have amazing will power. The second-best choice is a low-calorie, higher-fat diet... which apparently human beings can maintain. A low-fat, high-calorie diet, which is what real humans actually eat when they reduce their fat consumption, is a very poor option -- and may indeed be the cause of the current obesity epidemic.

People who disparage the Atkins diet -- the real one, the one he wrote -- have an obligation to present a healthier diet that humans can actually stay on.

-- Alan Kornheiser


I am a longtime vegetarian, but my problem with the Atkins diet is not its promotion of meat eating but its close resemblance to an eating disorder. The Atkins plan claims only to make you lose weight. Not to make you healthier or lower your cholesterol or lower your blood pressure. Just to make you thin. All those other health issues be damned. And desperate people with body-image problems so severe that they'd willingly trade 10 years of their life just to shed pounds throw themselves into it with frightening abandon. Like an anorexic who knows she's killing herself but can't squelch her desire to be even skinnier, these people are killing themselves just to look good.

I work in the health-food industry, and the people I encounter who purchase low-carb products are often quasi-religious in their zeal to eat fewer carbs, to lose more pounds, to get better results from their ketosis urine tests, to convert everyone they encounter. I often wonder if the lack of so many nutrients in their diet is not leading them to dementia.

-- C. Magaro


This article is guilty of a common error of authors that write about low-carb diets. It confuses one phase of the diet with the whole thing. Most low-carb diets have three phases. Phase 1, the two weeks to indefinite period of time that one does not eat many vegetables or any fruits, is only one small part of the diet. This phase gets so much publicity because it is the phase during which the most dramatic weight loss occurs.

In the second phase of the diet, a phase during which weight loss slows but continues, more vegetables as well as nuts and berries are added to the approved menu. In this phase the recommendations are more varied than the diet of the average American. The last, or "maintenance," phase, with its focus on lean meats and complex carbohydrates, sounds more like Dr. Shapiro than Dr. Atkins. Even vegetarian diets require supplements, and most vegans can be recognized by their slender pallor -- neither diet screams robust health.

In my lifetime the food pyramid has been revamped five times and they are still fiddling with it. For every nutritional rule there is not only one person but a whole society breaking it with healthful benefits. As a society we must continue to test, study and learn. As for the rest of us, we can only follow the research and try to decide on the best path.

-- W. Brown


While as a vegetarian I was a little put off by some of the tone of this article, it does make a point often lost on people -- the extraordinary difficulty of getting unbiased and scientifically founded dietary advice. The media is dominated by groups with an agenda, and even the government is precious little help, because of the politicized nature of any guidelines it issues -- mustn't disturb key industries, even in the name of getting out the public-health message.

The message should be the one supported by the best and least-biased science -- a temperate use of rich foods including meat, dairy and sweets; plenty of whole grains, legumes and nuts; and a broad variety of vegetables and fruits. The modern plagues of heart disease and stroke, diet-related cancers, obesity, and myriad lesser ailments ought to be enough reason to depoliticize diet in the public discourse, even when it goes against the grain of Americans' dietary habits and preferences and the bottom line of food industries. Who's going to give it to us straight?

-- Elizabeth Durack


First off, something that is almost always missing from reports on Atkins.

1. Atkins is not the only low-carb diet there is. To be sure it is the most popular ... but there are many more out there.

2. It is entirely possible to be an ovo-lacto vegetarian and low carb. Not on Atkins per se, but on your own version of the diet. (I say this because my partner and I are basically ovo-lacto vegetarians who are also low carb.)

I think much of the low-carb debate gets taken up with Atkins ... there is a lot more to this type of diet than just Atkins.

Might be nice for Salon to also report on nontraditional Atkins types.

-- Drew Oetzel


I was struck by the fact that your article didn't once use the words "cow" or "pig," instead repeatedly using the words "meat," "beef" and "pork." The reason vegans are against eating meat or wearing leather is that it requires causing an animal fear, pain and death. It is not some abstract ideological belief, but a genuine, progressive movement to end a massive source of very real suffering.

Unfortunately animal rights seems to be the one issue most commonly absent from the agenda and Web sites of otherwise progressive organizations or news groups. It is also ironic since it is the one injustice that most people could actually affect by taking a personal action.

Animal rights can also give you an insight into the mentality of mainstream America. If you want to know how the Bush-voting states feel about gay rights or world poverty, think about how you feel about animal rights.

-- Randy Belknap


Thank you Salon, again, for giving us the issues and not shying away from controversy.

Clearly both sides are a bit out of control on the carbo/fat debate. This is not politics -- it is science, so the answer comes from more studies, not more talking heads, not more arguments. I think that there are some surprises that haven't been discovered yet about how the body metabolism works. I think low carb works for some people in some situations, and low fat for others. That's my guess.

I've been on Atkins for about six months, and what works for me is suppression of appetite. You eat fatty food, and it's filling, and you're not hungry four hours later. You just eat less.

A lot of the things the Atkins detractors say are just loony.

"A diet which tells you that you really can't eat all fruits and very few vegetables is not a healthful diet."

Read the book. In the most austere level of Atkins, you can eat no fruit, but most vegetables. You are supposed to stay on that for two weeks, and then loosen up. Some of the things you start eating are berries, which Dr. Atkins recommended specifically because they have lots of nutrients and relatively little sugar.

The key idea is to avoid sugar and white starches like rice and potatoes that burn too quickly. It's like any realistic diet -- you never completely eliminate anything.

"It's pretty tricky to get adequate amounts of calcium on it."

I eat tons of cheese and cream. I might microwave some broccoli and then melt a quarter pound of brie on it. It's like she's making a straw-man diet and then tearing it down.

-- Allan Bonadio