Low-carb diets unhealthy and a ripoff, experts say
22 Jun 2004 21:39:51 GMT

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - Popular low-carbohydrate diets are leading Americans to poor health and are spawning a rip-off industry of "carb-friendly" products, health experts and consumer advocates said on Tuesday.

They announced a new group, called the Partnership for Essential Nutrition, to help educate Americans about the need for healthy carbohydrates such as vegetables, fruits, beans and whole grains.

"When unproven science becomes a sales pitch, some people get rich and the rest of us get ripped off," Jeffrey Prince of the American Institute for Cancer Research told a news conference.

"Eating vegetables, fruits, whole grains and beans, which are all predominantly carbohydrate, is linked to a reduced risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and a range of other chronic diseases."

Prince said low-carb diets that advocate piling on the animal protein and fat are "increasing the risk of developing cancer, heart disease, stroke, type-2 diabetes and other chronic diseases".

The new group includes such organizations as the Alliance for Aging Research, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the AICR and the American Obesity Association.

Its Web site at http://www.essentialnutrition.org/ is especially critical of programs such as the Atkins diet that advocate throwing the body into a condition called ketosis. During this phase the body sheds water as it tries to get rid of excess protein and fat breakdown products.

"Losing weight on these extreme low-carb diets can lead to such serious health problems as kidney stress, liver disorders and gout," the group advises.

The group published a survey of 1,017 adults, done by Opinion Research Corporation, that showed 19 percent of dieters are trying to cut carbs.

The survey found that 47 percent them believed that low-carb diets can help them lose weight without cutting calories.

"They are confused. They lack an understanding of the basic science," Barbara Moore, president of Shape Up America, told the news conference.

She said a "trickle-down effect" meant other Americans were now eating fewer fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products."

The U.S. government, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute and American Diabetes Association all recommend getting at least five servings a day of fruits and vegetables. They also recommend eating plenty of whole grains.

The National Consumers League said it found dieters were spending an average of $85 a month on so-called low-carbohydrate products, although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not evaluate or regulate low-carb claims.

"Consumers are paying a premium price for a carb-friendly lifestyle," said Alison Rein of the National Consumers League.

She called for the FDA, U.S, Department of Agriculture and other agencies to issue immediate interim guidelines on such claims.

Studies show that a low-carbohydrate approach can cause people to lose weight more quickly than a low-fat diet for the first six months, but the low-fat approach catches up after a year.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22191541.htm

I would agree with them if their criticism was limited to the junk food manufacturers who are hijacking low carb and trying to distract people from eating whole foods. But their assumption that we don't eat enough fruit, vegetables, etc is pretty blatant evidence that they have no understanding of proper LCing. I don't even know if it's worth my time to fire off a clue-o-gram to them.

Since when does fat and animal protein cause T2 diabetes?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this stuff.

From the http://www.essentialnutrition.org/ Mission Statement! (my comments in bold)

Guiding Principles

* Appropriate advice concerning the intake of macronutrients must be based on the federal government's Dietary Guidelines and the Food Guide Pyramid, which incorporate the latest research findings regarding recommended levels of all nutrients.

LOL yep, the agriculture department REALLY knows it's nutrition! LOL

* Information regarding the intake of carbohydrates must conform to the findings of the Institute of Medicine's report, Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrates, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids, which recommends that Americans consume at least 130 grams a day of carbohydrates from a variety of sources.

I get all my carbs from a variety of sources....some from cheese, some from veggies, some from nuts....I hope my 100g/day defecit doesn't hurt me! LOL

* Just as consumers needed education about the role of fats during the "fat craze" of the 1990s, Americans today will benefit from balanced information about the role of carbohydrates in the diet. Oh and just WHEN did they get this education????? 2004 a little. Of special importance will be to make the public aware that carbohydrates include fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy products and whole grains, which are important for controlling body weight, proper gut function, diabetes management and the prevention of life-threatening diseases like heart disease and cancer.

Well, they have this right....they are essential for diabetes, etc....it's essential that we avoid them as much as possible!

* Appropriate advice concerning weight loss must be science-based and communicate the message that calories count. It is essential for the public to understand that consuming fewer calories -- whether the calories come from carbohydrates, protein or fat -- is what leads to weight loss.

Science based? Like the cholesterol-heart disease link? Oh please!

* A high priority must be given to health messages that extreme diets that exclude entire food groups -- fruits, vegetables, dairy, and grains -- are unhealthy because they are severely unbalanced and extremely high in fat. Such drastic diets are often accompanied by undesirable side effects and result in rapid weight gain or "snap back" because these diets cannot (and should not) be maintained.

I do agree we shouldn't exclude an entire food group....that's why we do eat carbs, we just eat fewer and get them from healthier sources!

* Due to the amount of public confusion in the marketplace, a high priority must be placed on advocating for effective public policy to protect consumers from misleading "low-carb" claims in food and beverage marketing.

Yes I agree! Put total carbs and fiber carbs on the labels.....ALL labels.
* More comprehensive research is needed to accurately document the optimum mix of macronutrients in the diet. Research must focus on the mix of macronutrients for the purpose of weight loss as well as for long-term optimal health.

yep, agree here.....and I'll be the research will show how unimportant carbs are in the form of sugars, grains, etc.

This web-site isn't to educate the public on proper nutrition....it's to bash LC plans......just look at their index:
Home
Mission Statement
Press Release
Opinion Survey
Executive Summary
Background on Low-Carbohydrate Diets
The Skinny on Carbohydrates
The Skinny on Low-Carb Claims
The Glycemic
IndexCharts/Slides

The Chart shows weight loss by diet....and of course, LC looses more weight and less fat than LF! LOL

I smell PCRM/PETA, although they're not on their list of "Partners".....and their list is rather lame:
Members of the Partnership for Essential Nutrition are:

* Alliance for Aging Research (WHO?)
* American Association of Diabetes Educators (not the ADA?)
* American Institute for Cancer Research (not the American Cancer Society?)
* American Obesity Association (they'll be out of buisness if LC takes hold)
* National Consumers League
* National Women's Health Resource Center
* Pennington Biomedical Research Center (WHO????? sounds like a drug company....apparently they're not, but this is their first news story: " Pennington Researchers Hope Drug Will Stop Diabetes Before It Starts")
* Shape Up America! (Dr Phil?)
* Society for Women's Health Research
* University of California at Davis Department of Nutrition (UC Davis? why not the others?)
* Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center (looks like they're similar to Pennington....but they're funded by the CDC! WOW!)

The Opinion Survey is rather comical too!

Oh well....I'm happy with this WOE

Atkins answers critics of low-carb diets

New York, NY, Jun. 22 (UPI) -- New York's Atkins Nutritionals Inc., under assault from a coalition of groups opposed to low-carb diets, blasted critics Tuesday as being financially driven.

Atkins' comments followed by just a few hours a public campaign Tuesday by the Partnership for Essential Nutrition to warn against low-carbohydrate diets as both ineffective and, sometimes, harmful.

"It is discouraging to see the media continue to report on information which disregards the most recent research available to them on controlled-carbohydrate nutritional approaches like Atkins," said Dr. Stuart Trager, medical director for Atkins Nutritionals.

"Companies like Weight Watchers and big food companies are funding this coalition while at the same time they are launching their own low-carb products."

A coalition spokeswoman confirmed Weight Watchers provided a "small initial grant to help organize the partnership."

Trager, meanwhile, cited published studies verifying the safety and efficacy of low-carb diets, including a recent article by Dr. Sylvan Weinberg in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that called for health care providers to recognize the validity of low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets like Atkins in the fight against heart disease.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-brea...24853-3210r.htm

All of these articles, posts, or whatever we call them, show the stupidity of the interviewers or editors of the programs or publications. Not ever does anyone ask for any backup numbers. I just don't read the papers or watch TV any more for this reason. Why waste my time on a bunch of lies and stupid people. Their stupidity is not even worthy of discussion here. Let them eat as they please, they will die off in a few generations. Already the fertility rates and sperm counts are dropping from our WOE.
It's hard to believe that people think our health problems are caused by heredity, radiation, depletion of the ozone layer-(hole over Antarctica closed back up by the way), fat, cholestrol, or a bunch of other non proven reasons, just because some idiot gets space in a publication or time on TV. We, as a population, need to start questioning. demanding facts, and thinking again. I sometimes wonder if the all American WOE and us being led around like a bunch of sheep is not all connected; No one can deny that many have made millions by it.
I shouldn'd reply ; I get too carried away.

I just heard that on the news. I was clued in to it's reliability by the mention of it being sponsored by WW. Another group that doesn't have a clue.


Let's see, 3 cups of salad greens, 1 medium summer squash, 1 cup of broccoli, half a tomato, some black olives. I guess I'm doing Atkins wrong if I'm eating that many veggies and fruits in a day.....

I had the same reaction as CindySue. Who are these groups? Never heard of a single one.

I checked out the AOA (http://www.obesity.org/ and it's not exactly clear who they are, but you get a clue by this comment. "AOA is a non-profit tax-exempt educational and advocacy organization. We have some seven hundred members, both professional and lay. Our financial support comes principally from pharmaceutical research and development companies as well as other companies in the weight management field such as Weight Watchers Inc., Jenny Craig, Inc.and SlimFast Foods."
http://www.obesity.org/subs/advocacy/mcclellanltr.shtml

It appears that one of their agendas is to have obesity labeled a disease and have more research funding spent by someone (the government?) to research a solution to obesity. They talk a lot about drugs and surgery. Here are the "understandings" they recommend for a new "paradigm" for the Dept. of Health and Human Services: (same url as above)
1. Obesity is not a behavior; obesity is excess adipose tissue.
2. Obesity is a disease because it meets any rational definition of "disease".
3. Obesity is a fatal, chronic, relapsing disease that is at least as complicated to treat as heart disease or cancer.
4. Obesity is a problem that will largely be solved by more research.
5. Obesity prevention and treatment includes more than just diet and exercise, as the effectiveness of these treatments over the long term has been poor.
6. Obesity is a global problem arising from a combination of genetic, environmental and behavioral factors.
7. We do not know now how to prevent and effectively treat obesity over the long-term, with the exception of bariatric surgery for persons with morbid obesity.
8. If we do not drastically and quickly expand the research base of obesity and develop new treatments, the entire health care system in the United States is at risk.
9. Simplistic assertions that obesity is easily prevented or easily remedied do a disservice to persons with obesity and inhibit discovery of effective solutions.

What's funny is that they then go on to explain that "Scientific studies over three decades have shown that obesity is a complex neuroendocrine disease caused by the interactions of our genetic makeup, environmental exposure and personal behavior. Research has recently elucidated some of the mechanisms by which various peptides and hormones affect our feelings of hunger and satiety. We currently understand that dysregulation in these substances and others to be discovered greatly influences our ability to regulate eating behavior, energy metabolism, and a person’s ability to achieve long-term weight loss." Sounds reasonable. They also say some other reasonable things, but there are other hints that this group is still very pharmaceutical and surgically oriented. http://www.obesity.org/subs/advocacy/thompsonltr.shtml

Overall, they have some valid points, but it's a bit too much oriented towards "treatments" and they seem to hold on to the traditional calories in-calories out even though they also say that weight gain is complex and deals with hormones and peptides. Complex problem, simple solution? Part of their simple solution includes drug therapies. (scroll down to the Drug Therapy section)
http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfac...Treatment.shtml

So, drugs for BMI greater than 30, surgery for BMI greater than 40.

Plane Crazy, just presenting facts.

This is an old article, but since the US has recently rejected the 10% limit on sugar you'd think any health advocacy group with integrity would have something to say. It points to the phoniness of all the so-called nutrition advocacy groups like this one. LC is the exception here.

It's a wonder the sugar industry allowed The RDA quota of 130 grams of carbohydrates per day to stand. It was a joint US-Canada panel recommendation that was accepted by the National Academy of Sciences, probably before it got on the radar. That 130 grams is a lot lower than the average "balanced diet" will allow. Three 12 oz. soft drinks per day fill the 130 carb quota (about 500 calories) - that doesn't leave any more carbs to eat that day - just fat and protein. I wonder if the "balanced diet" groups have really thought this through. In order to get their 55% carbs into the diet at 130 grams RDA somethings got to give - like sugar maybe.

The 10% recommendation is one of the few times the WHO has made any sense recently. They spend money campaigning against cigarette smoking in Africa while the population is starving or dieing of AIDS.

************

Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO

Sarah Boseley, health editor
Monday April 21, 2003
The Guardian

The sugar industry in the US is threatening to bring the World Health Organisation to its knees by demanding that Congress end its funding unless the WHO scraps guidelines on healthy eating, due to be published on Wednesday.
The threat is being described by WHO insiders as tantamount to blackmail and worse than any pressure exerted by the tobacco lobby.

In a letter to Gro Harlem Brundtland, the WHO's director general, the Sugar Association says it will "exercise every avenue available to expose the dubious nature" of the WHO's report on diet and nutrition, including challenging its $406m (£260m) funding from the US.

The industry is furious at the guidelines, which say that sugar should account for no more than 10% of a healthy diet. It claims that the review by international experts which decided on the 10% limit is scientifically flawed, insisting that other evidence indicates that a quarter of our food and drink intake can safely consist of sugar.

"Taxpayers' dollars should not be used to support misguided, non-science-based reports which do not add to the health and well-being of Americans, much less the rest of the world," says the letter. "If necessary we will promote and encourage new laws which require future WHO funding to be provided only if the organisation accepts that all reports must be supported by the preponderance of science."

The association, together with six other big food industry groups, has also written to the US health secretary, Tommy Thompson, asking him to use his influence to get the WHO report withdrawn. The coalition includes the US Council for International Business, comprising more than 300 companies, including Coca-Cola and Pepsico.

The sugar lobby's strong-arm tactics are nothing new, according to Professor Phillip James, the British chairman of the International Obesity Taskforce who wrote the WHO's previous report on diet and nutrition in 1990. The day after his expert committee had decided on a 10% limit, the World Sugar Organisation "went into overdrive", he said. "Forty ambassadors wrote to the WHO insisting our report should be removed, on the grounds that it would do irreparable damage to countries in the developing world."

Prof James was called in by the American embassy in Geneva "to explain to them why they were suddenly getting an enormous amount of pressure from the state department to have our report retracted". The sugar industry, he discovered, had hired one of Washington's top lobbying companies.

The sugar lobby was unsuccessful that time, but now, he says, "we are getting a replay, but much more powerfully based, because the food industry seems to have a much greater influence on the Bush government".

Since his 1990 report, the International Life Sciences Institute, founded by Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, General Foods, Kraft and Procter and Gamble, has also gained accreditation to the WHO and the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation.

At one point, says Prof James, "I was asked not to send any more emails about any of the dietary aspects of health that related to sugar. I was told that within 24 hours of my sending a note, the food industry would be telephoning and arranging dinners."

Aubrey Sheiham, professor of dental public health at University College, London, Medical School, said he also encountered the strength of the sugar lobby when he was one of the experts involved in putting together an EC guideline called Eurodiet.

"I wrote the sugar part of that," he said. "When we met in Crete [in June 2000], the sugar people said if the 10% [limit] was in, the whole report would be blocked. I remember we went into a huddle with various people and some of the diplomats, and we were meeting in people's bedrooms and saying, how can we work around this?"

In the end, he said, they worked out that a recommendation that nobody should eat sugar more than four times a day was equivalent to a 10% limit. But he considered the committee had been bullied.

The Sugar Association objects to the new report having been published in draft on the WHO's website for consultation purposes, without what it considers "a broad external peer-review process". It wants a full economic analysis of the impact of the recommendations on all 192 member countries. In the letter to Dr Brundtland, it demands that Wednesday's joint launch with the Food and Agriculture Organisation be cancelled.

The report, Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases, has already been heavily criticised by the soft drinks industry, whose members sell virtually everywhere in the world, including developing countries where malnutrition is beginning to coexist with the obesity common in affluent countries.

The industry does not accept the WHO report's conclusion that sweetened soft drinks contribute to the obesity pandemic. The Washington-based National Soft Drink Association said the report's "recommendation on added sugars is too restrictive". The association backs a 25% limit.

The WHO strongly rejects the sugar lobby's criticisms. An official said a team of 30 independent experts had considered the scientific evidence and its conclusions were in line with the findings of 23 national reports which have, on average, set targets of 10% for added sugars.

In the letter to Mr Thompson, the sugar lobby relies heavily on a recent report from the Institute of Medicine for its claim that a 25% sugar intake is acceptable. But last week, Harvey Fineberg, president of the institute, wrote to Mr Thompson to warn that the report was being misinterpreted. He says it does not make a recommendation on sugar intake.

Okay, okay. It's the same tripe and clucking we've heard seven thousand times before. Backed by big money.

But at least, at LEAST, they have STOPPED saying to load up on BREAD and PASTA and RICE and POTATOES.

I think even THEY can't bring themselves to say that anymore.

I must of been carrying a lot of water as I have gone from a size 18(uk sizing) to a size 12 and if I loose the other 2 stone that I need to (currently 11/25 and want to get down to 9 /12) I will probably be a size 10.

Shape up America is Dr. Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General.

I am sorry to hear the opinion of the Partnership for Essential Nutrition, however, my body is in agreement with Atkins and not them. I have Type II Diabetes and High Blood Pressure and the diet I was following from the American Diabetes Association took me up to 310 lbs and over 600 in my BS. Since I was literally dying, I started Atkins as my last resort one year ago. Today I have lost 80 lbs, and no longer take Insulin or any Diabetes medications.

So, whatever these people say, mean nothing to me because I KNOW they are totally wrong.

I totally agree with SadLady, while following the goverment recommened low-fat regime, I ended up heavier, on two cholesterol drugs and one insulin sensitivity improvement drug. After my doctor saw the light and switched me over to Atkins, I lost 45 lbs, and quit taking all the drugs and have better blood sugar and cholesterol levels. I also feel much better with more energy.

Bleg - could Tamarian or some of our more internet-adept folks check the registration of that website? I'd love to trace who is really behind all this.