No, I think about this too. Whether or not they care about people's health, the simple fact is that there would be a huge economic shakeup if lots of people go low-carb. Grain products, especially processed ones, have high profit margins and are also heavily subsidized by the government. The sugar industry is enormous. And the pharmaceutical industry... well, they would lose so many statin and diabetes medication customers, it could be catastrophic to them, it could also really impact funding sources for medical research which would be a shame. I'm sure there are lots more repercussions than those that we may see someday.

Well certainly not cynical as far as agriculture and food producers are concerned considering their influence in constructing the original pyramid. (see this bit from Harvard magazine's "The Way We Eat Now";

"U.S. government agencies' attempts to deal with obesity during the last three decades—encouraging people to eat less fat and more carbohydrates, for example—actually may have exacerbated the problem. Take the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Guide Pyramid, first promulgated in 1992. The pyramid's diagram of dietary recommendations is a familiar sight on cereal boxes—hardly a coincidence, since the guidelines suggest six to 11 servings daily from the "bread, cereal, rice, and pasta" group. The USDA recommends eating more of these starches than any other category of food. Unfortunately, such starches are nearly all high-glycemic carbohydrates, which drive obesity, hyperinsulinemia, and Type II diabetes. "At best, the USDA pyramid offers wishy-washy, scientifically unfounded advice on an absolutely vital topic—what to eat," writes Willett in Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy. "At worst, the misinformation contributes to overweight, poor health, and unnecessary early deaths."

Note that the pyramid comes from the Department of Agriculture, not from an agency charged with promoting health, like the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The USDA essentially promotes and regulates commerce, and its pyramid (currently under revision; expect a new version in 2005) was the focus of intensive lobbying and political struggle by agribusinesses in the meat, sugar, dairy, and cereal industries, among others."

http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050465.html

It would be interesting to see how drug companies could justify even being at the negotiating table when the new pyramid is debated, but that is not to say that their money and influence could not be used in other ways.

Cheers,

Malcolm

From Bottom Line's Daily Health News: (June 7, 2004)

METABOLIC SYNDROME

Doctors have discovered a whole new way to identify risk for heart disease and stroke. Rather than looking at individual risk factors, they have identified five core measures that, when viewed as a group, act as a significant indicator of future risk. If you have at least three of the five problems, you have "metabolic syndrome."

Components of the syndrome are elevated blood pressure, large waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, low HDL (the "good" cholesterol) count and elevated blood sugar level.

In a sense, metabolic syndrome is having a little bit wrong with a number of things. The bar for diagnosis of a syndrome risk factor is set lower than it is for a diagnosis of the actual disease.

For example, a fasting blood sugar level greater than 110 mg/dl is a syndrome risk factor, but a diabetes diagnosis requires a level of 126 mg/dl or higher. To be a syndrome risk factor, high blood pressure is 130 over 85 or higher... for a diagnosis of high blood pressure, the reading must be 140 over 90 or higher.

New research has shown that metabolic syndrome -- once called "syndrome X" -- is a significant risk for heart disease and stroke. Research on the Framingham Heart Study at Boston University School of Medicine showed that women who have the syndrome more than double their risk for stroke and men with it have a 78% greater risk for stroke compared with those who do not have the syndrome. The researchers presented their findings at the American Stroke Association's International Conference earlier this year.

I asked Ralph L. Sacco, MD, MS, professor of neurology and public health at Columbia University and a spokesperson for the American Stroke Association, about the implications of this study. He explained that no one is yet exactly sure why having the syndrome increases heart disease and stroke risk.

Dr. Sacco feels, however, that this research may hold the key to future treatment. Although a person with the syndrome has lower individual measures for disease, having them clustered in a group like this might warrant more aggressive treatment, starting earlier.

For the moment, Dr. Sacco points out that it is never too late for people to focus on prevention by eating a healthy diet, exercising and keeping their weight in the correct range. If that doesn't prevent metabolic syndrome, he says, talk to your doctor about possible medications that will help keep the measures down.

I'm pretty sure my mom has at least three of those! Isn't there a book out on Syndrome X aka metabolic syndrome? I remember seeing it years ago and looking at the recommended diet. It looked a lot like the way I eat now.

Mom right now is focussing on eating less carbs, and higher quality carbs.

Fluorided Water:

There is a growing chorus of voices against fluridated water. Last month Hawaii was the first state to ban it, joining many cities and municipalites across North America (e.g., Montreal and Vancouver in Canada). In Canada, Dr. Harvey Limeback, Head Preventative Dentistry at U of T and former Director of Canadian Association for Dental Research is on record against it (see site http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm.) I'd say fluoridated water has 10 more years in North America before it is gone. It's gone in most of Europe already.

Yeah, the whole idea that drugs should be forced on the public is deplorable. What kind of morons are our medical schools awarding degrees to?