NEW YORK, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- The following release was written by Robert C. Atkins, M.D., Chairman of The Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...001797678&EDATE

Over the past few months, responsible members of the scientific community and the media have entered into a healthy dialogue seeking a solution to what is arguably the worst public health crisis to ever face this country-the linked epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Most everyone agrees that there is a real possibility that the 20-year-old government nutrition policy has failed our nation. So, why, we must ask ourselves, have the National Academies issued new dietary guidelines that suggest an unhealthy mixture of inconclusive science, politics and economics?

Perhaps the most bizarre example of just how flawed these guidelines are is the recommendation that added sugar can account for up to 25 percent of daily caloric intake. Right now, today, more than 60 percent of the American population and more than 25 percent of our children are either overweight or obese. Moreover, there are 17 million Type 2 diabetics and
another 16 million people with pre-diabetes. These statistics aren't theory. They aren't debatable. Did the prestigious National Academies actually tell a nation of more than 160 million dangerously overweight adults and children that it's okay to consume candy bars, cake, ice cream and soda pop on a daily basis? Of course they didn't, because these guidelines were designed for the minority of Americans who are slim, fit and physically active adults. They don't help the majority of Americans, including children, who are facing a lifelong struggle to achieve and maintain a normal weight.

As physicians and nutritionists we need to provide a dietary regimen that will help Americans lower their weight and then maintain it throughout life. In such a plan, added sugar should be eliminated. Along with the rest of America's science-based nutrition and medical community I eagerly await the good science that defines added sugar as a nutrient so vital to good health that it can provide up to 25 percent of our daily caloric intake.

I am also extremely disappointed that the new guidelines fail to
distinguish between refined and unrefined carbohydrates, such as those found in nutrient-dense foods. Each person needs to find his or her individual carbohydrate intake level for weight maintenance and health. It may be perfectly appropriate for individuals to consume fewer grams of carbs per day than the level set in these new recommendations. The specious claim that the brain needs a minimum of 130 grams of carbs a day for normal function is at best based on research looking at carbs, fats and proteins in a high carb setting. Research focused on a controlled carb diet paints a very different picture and has long shown that every cell in the body, including the brain, is capable of using ketones as energy. (Ketones are the byproduct of fat
burning, which occurs on a low carb diet.) In fact, in a recent interview quoted in The New York Times Magazine, Dr. Richard Veech, an N.I.H. researcher and one of the world's experts on ketones, claims that the heart and the brain run 25 percent more efficiently on ketones than on blood sugar.

In a more reasoned recommendation, the National Academies have finally acknowledged that not all fat is bad and that excessively low-fat diets may actually increase the risk of heart disease. But the guidelines are based upon science that examines the role of fat in the context of a high-carbohydrate
diet. In fact, research in a controlled carb setting does not show that saturated fat has a deleterious effect on good health. I do, of course, agree that trans fats are unhealthy and I strongly discourage people from consuming them at all.

Ironically, research that supports the safety and efficacy of controlled carbohydrate nutrition is only now emerging, unfortunately not soon enough to have had an impact on government recommendations. All this despite the fact that this paradigm shift about the dangers of over consumption of
carbohydrates is at the center of national discussion on how to solve the nation's obesity and diabetes epidemics. As a result, the needs of the majority of the American populations are being ignored-increasing their risks for obesity, chronic disease-and ultimately-death.

For many years the medical establishment has criticized me for not conducting scientific research in an objective examination of my theories and practice. In response, two years ago I stablished a not-for-profit foundation for the purpose of funding and supporting independent studies expressly to provide such august bodies as the National Academies with the evidence they've
sought. This research and the results of other excellent work conducted by prestigious institutions have been published in peer-reviewed journals such as the American Journal of Cardiology. I encourage the members of the National
Academies panel to read these studies and use the information to prepare truly helpful guidelines.

It is time for all health professionals to focus on the real life health issues most citizens face. It is also time to smash the old paradigms represented by the food guide pyramid and low-fat ideologues and to come together to make dietary recommendations based on science that apply to the situation at hand. Added sugar indeed!

YIKES!! 25% of daily calories from added sugar are okay???? Based on a 2,000 calorie daily intake, that's 125 grams of sugar...DAILY!!! And this doesn't even include the natural sugars you get from fruits. And the National Academies think this is okay? Somebody give 'em a sign (you know....the one that says "I'm an idiot!").

I agree Lisa.
I honestly went through a few days of feeling complete anger when I realized that what I have been doing, and had been thinking, and had been told that taking substances into my body that break down into that much "SUGAR" was an okay thing.
HOW can anyone think that would be okay?
I remember hearing years ago when I was little in the 60's that too much sugar wasn't good for you. Then I realized that the powers that be were trying to feed us sugar in one form or another wholesale.
WE needs carbs.. good carbs.and careful amounts of them. They threw out Fats and proteins and told us that they were bad.
They MADE margerine and told us that it was better than butter!
Just like they made baby formula and told us it was better than breast feeding, or at least as good. ( Please mommy's that have to bottle feed, I AM NOT judging you as bad okay?? Its just that NOTHING man can make is going to beat what God arranged, but I DO know that breast feeding can be difficult. I did it five times :-) and there were times if I hadn't of had to because of poverty, I would have QUIT! :-) )
What we need to do obviously is figure out how the healthy ate in the past.
I am placing my bets on Fresh veggies in abundance. Lots of good protein and fats and good grains or starchy veggies for my carbs. And for treats.. yup.. a little fruit or nuts.
I was talking with co workers yesterday about my typical menu and one of them piped up and said. "you are becoming the healthiest eater I know!" I felt great about that.
:-)
Poofie

Attached Images

wf738.jpg (10.0 KB, 14 views)

It's been awhile so I can't quote precisely but I have read, in several articles, that the human body has to use vital nutrients to absorb sugar. This means sugar depletes nutrients. How can a nutrient depleter be a vital nutrient?

I can accept the debate about the effectiveness of low carbing but I can scarcely believe the NIH thinks sugar belongs on any diet.

Yuck. It can be a puzzling world, eh?

Where DO you people find all this information? I'd love to know...

Hi Poofie,
This is my VERY FIRST POST here with Active Low-Carbers!

You said that (not an exact quote) that we should find out how people ate in the past. My thoughts exactly, and what really opened my eyes a bit a few years ago was the "Little House" series by Laura Ingalls Wilder. My daughter had been given the whole set as a gift, and having watched the TV program, was interested in reading the series. One of the most interesting things to me was to read about what they ate! In the winter time, it was mostly game that had been hunted, squirrel, rabbit, occasionally a deer, and whatever had been salted or smoked or in some other way preserved for the winter. They also had a milk cow, and that of course supplemented their diet. They talked of how they could hardly wait to plant in the spring in order to have vegetables in the summer. I don't recall her doing a lot of canning type preserving, but that doesn't mean that it was mentioned. But their diet was predominantly meat. The hardest winter for them was when they had almost nothing to eat except bread. It was severely cold and they had to grind their wheat into flour daily. But the main point of course is their reliance on meat for most of their diet.

Sharon

You might want to check out the Little House Cookbook, it has recipes and quotes from the books. Interestingly, when they were living away from civilization, they were able to eat a more varied and healthy diet of game and garden vegetables and fruit in season. As civilization caught up with them, their healthy game was substituted with fat white pork that was shipped in barrels; they still maintained their garden.

An avid Laura Ingalls Wilder fan.

Beth

LOL. .and being here in the Salt Lake Valley, trust me.. pioneer heritage is pretty easy to find!
However I will tell you sometimes JUST to survive..they would eat things we wouldn't really want to go into ;-)
But yes.. I have read those novels too..and would think that is how we would be eating at my great grandparents that lived in the Sanpete county area of Utah as Farmers :-)

Poofie!

Attached Images

wf738.jpg (10.0 KB, 4 views)

Along with this discussion I had what I rad the other day.


(Source: WCVB TheBostonChannel.com)

Now do any of you EVER remember having to encourage a toddler to move! Mine started running, not walking, around the age of 12-13 months....and didn't stop until they hit their teens!

I personally think we need to throw out all the books and guidelines...at least until we get some decent research behind it!

Just my 2 cent worth

My children also began running about that age, and didn't stop.
However I do think that some children are NOT getting out like they should anymore.
With Television, video games and computers there are children that just don't go physically play very much anymore.
I have a niece who loves to follow the path of least resistance :-).
She would be quite happy NOT being encouraged to go out, although when someone is around to play with her she does go out and have fun.
But.. that being said.. I think your definately right. We have people redoing "guidelines" at the shift in a breeze.
Just think.. they used to say just a 1/2 hour three days a week. Now they want everyone to do an hour a day.. .. and MORE If you need to lose weight.
"They" are starting to drive me nuts!

Poofie!

Back to the discussion about eating the way we did generations ago, and as we all agree that refined sugar is better for powering our motor vehicles than our bodies;
we still need to be aware that unless it's really well grown organic food, it's not the way it was generations ago because the soils are depleted. I believe nutrient suplementation is now essential for health and weight control as there are specific minerals we need to lower our carb cravings, which may not be in the most carefully designed LC eating plan.

[QUOTE]I believe nutrient suplementation is now essential for health and weight control as there are specific minerals we need to lower our carb cravings, which may not be in the most carefully designed LC eating plan.

What nutrients are you suggesting? Thanks.

I understand, (and I am on a large learning curve about this) that as far as minerals are concerned at least, the most digestible and most highly available form is in colloidal supplements. The one my family uses is produced in Utah, but the company does not allow puplic advertising of the name, at least in my country. I am happy to discuss it privately(!?!) at tclf~hotmail.com
I got this info mainly from an audio presentation by (I think) 1991 Nobel Prize Nominee Dr Joel D Wallach. I may have only a narrow view of the subject, but I do have faith in the values of the company which allowed me to have this info.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

I was watching a cooking show and it of course was low fat.
She has showing how if you use yogurt in place of Cream that it was more healthy as she was putting a half a cup of sugar with her fruit and to make the whole picture better, she dusted with powder sugar. It amazes me that I never notice how silly this concept is. How can a 1/2 cup of sugar be better than 2grams of fat?! How did I accept this as good nutrician?! That goodness my eyes are clear now!