Responses to Taubes' NYT Article...(long)

[Guest guest]

I don't know if any of you read Dr. Stephan Byrnes' Health on the Edge,

but I found the below article quite interesting. I was especially hit

by this paragraph:

" The report also kept stating that it was REFINED carbohydrates that

were harmful but that complex carbohydrates like whole grains were OK.

Except for a few vitamins and minerals and some fibre, a carb is a carb

is a carb because they all convert in the body to glucose in the end. I

don't think meant to imply in his article that it was not OK to eat

a bowl of pasta, but perfectly alright to eat a big bowl of brown rice

instead. They even showed at the end of the piece saying, " I'm

going to continue eating a low-carb diet. "

I'm not a big grain eater from my raw vegan days, but I would have made

a difference between refined carbs and complex carbs too. Yet, he says

here all carbs act the same way on the body. It just struck me funny,

as I didn't realize this myself. Any thoughts, as I know many of you

eat complex carbs over the refined? (Article following...)

Robin

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

Dr. Byrnes' Free Ezine

HEALTH ON THE EDGE

August 1, 2002

1. Responses to Taubes' NYT Article

Predictably, Taubes' NYT article " What If Its All Been a Big Fat

Lie? " generated a hornet's nest of coverage around the world, but

particularly in the USA. Unfortunately, the essential message of the

article got quickly twisted by the Spin Doctors of Modern Medicine to

suit their own agenda.

For example, the popular American show 20/20 ran its lead story on the

article shortly after it appeared in print. The report started out

alright, detailing how the American low-fat dietary guidelines were

decided on by lawyers, not physicians or nutritionists, but then things

went sour- -FAST.

Despite the report stating that fat was now good, once again, the

" saturated animal fats " were branded as " The Bad Fats " along with the

TFAs (trans-fatty acids). The " Good Fats " were all of the

politically-correct ones: olive oil, sesame oil, flax oil, and canola

oil. Canola oil? Ai!!

The report also kept stating that it was REFINED carbohydrates that were

harmful but that complex carbohydrates like whole grains were OK. Except

for a few vitamins and minerals and some fibre, a carb is a carb is a

carb because they all convert in the body to glucose in the end. I don't

think meant to imply in his article that it was not OK to eat a

bowl of pasta, but perfectly alright to eat a big bowl of brown rice

instead. They even showed at the end of the piece saying, " I'm

going to continue eating a low-carb diet. "

For the grand finale, after the piece was over, the show had Barbara

Walters and her co-host discussing the recent Duke University study on

the Atkins Diet and how the subjects lost weight and had improved blood

lipid profiles. It, of course, is common knowledge that the Atkins Diet

is heavy on animal fats, the supposed " bad " ones fingered by the show,

but this was not mentioned by the hosts.

Other responses to 's article include this very good one by MSNBC

correspondent Josh Mankiewicz:

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/exports/ct_email.asp?/news/780727.asp

The low-fat camp was, of course, horrified at the attention 's

article got and responded in kind. For Dr. Dean Ornish's response, go

here: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/13/o....html?tntemail0

For the Pritikin Center's response, go here:

http://biz./prnews/020711/flth013_1.html

If you read the responses, keep in mind a few things:

A. Both letters, like the 20/20 report, try to finger refined carbs (and

not complex carbs) as the villains due to their deleterious effects on

insulin levels. For example, the Pritikin Center says that:

" There is, however, another far healthier alternative: a low-fat diet

that is rich, not in sugary, REFINED carbs, but in carbs of a different

color -- fiber-filled, nutrient-packed, straight-from-the- earth carbs

like fruits, vegetables, beans, and whole grains such as oats, brown

rice, and corn. These high-fiber carbs, known as unrefined carbs, cause

no insulin overreaction. "

But any Glycemic Index Food Table will quickly show this to be a lie.

The Glycemic Index is a measure of how fast blood sugar responds two

hours after a certain food is ingested in comparison to the way it

responds two hours after an equal amount of glucose is ingested. The

higher the Glycemic Index, the faster the spike in blood sugar and

insulin. Consider the following chart comparing the Glycemic Index of

some refined carbs with some complex carbs:

Glycemic Index of White Rice: Between 70 and 79 Glycemic Index of

Potatoes, Millet, and Whole Grain Bread: Between 70 and 79

Glycemic Index of White Bread and Mars Bars: Between 60 and 69 Glycemic

Index of Brown Rice and Bananas: Between 60 and 69

(Source: Avery's Sport's Nutrition Almanac (Avery Publishing Co.; 1999),

page 10.)

On the low end of the glycemic index are some legumes like lentils and

(gasp!) ice cream and whole milk! If you follow the advice of Ornish and

the Pritikin Center, its actually better to eat ice cream than it is to

eat brown rice!

B. Pritikin, the developer of the Pritikin Diet Plan, committed

suicide at the age of 60 because he was dying of leukemia. This is not

exactly a stellar endorsement of the healthfulness of his dietary

theories.

C. Dr. Ornish's claims about the effectiveness of his program are

questionable. He implies that the benefits of his program are from his

low-fat, high-complex carb diet, but it is a fact that his program

combined lifestyle changes like smoking cessation, weight loss,

exercise, and meditation along with the diet. The diet was never studied

on its own by Dr. Ornish's team. So the million dollar question is this:

How do you know which factor (or combination of factors) produced the

benefits in Dr. Ornish's patients? The same things can be said of the

Pritikin Plan: The diet was never studied in isolation of the other

components of the program.

D. When the Pritikin and Ornish diets were studied by other groups,

however, very different results were obtained as a medical doctor

colleague of mine explained. I've bolded the pertinent parts.

" Until Knopp and his associates did so (JAMA 1997), the Pritikin diet

was not studied alone and without exercise, stress reduction, and other

components of a comprehensive approach such as Pritikin's and Ornish's.

Knopp's study clearly demonstrated that, despite the assistance of

spousal education and support, the lowest fat group could not tolerate

such a low fat diet. They found that as percentage of fat was lowered

below 30%, traditional lipid profile risk factors clearly worsened in

direct relation to the degree of lowering of percentage of dietary fat.

The weight loss registry is not really a trial, and it shows that, yes,

a very small percentage of folks can keep weight off with a low fat diet

if they also exercise vigorously for about 90 minutes per day. What

kinds of folks do you think sign up for a weight registry? I'm guessing

not predominantly the dismal failures. Is this supposed to be scientific

evidence?

" Why do the Pritikin folks not cite the numerous studies suggesting

glycemic load's association with elevated CRP [C-Reactive Protein] and

other risk factors for diabetes and CHD? The jury is still out re

insoluble fiber's usefulness and it would seem that soluble fiber's

general usefulness is likely due to its slowing of carbohydrate

absorption and glycemic index of meals. This is probably not as

important in a diet that is low-carb to begin with. So, according to the

Pritikin folks, I am to conclude that large amounts of insulin are bad,

that highly refined carbs elicit large spikes, but large amounts of less

refined carbs, which also yield a net large amount of insulin, are OK.

Could someone please explain how that works? " Even more stinging is this

analysis of the Pritikin Center's study by another colleague:

" This article cites the following study from the National Control

Registry that shows that a low-fat diet works. Oh yeah! It works, but

why and how? It works when women eat an average of 1,300 calories per

day for the entire five years in order to " maintain " their weight. Yes I

said, " Maintenance " was 1,300 calories a day PLUS vigorous exercise .

How much exercise? Enough to burn 400 calories per day . But ooooh

nooooo, it's not the low calories and huge amounts of exercise that are

keeping these people thin. We are supposed to believe that it is the

heaven-sent, decreed by almighty God himself, low-fat diet! So how much

could men eat to maintain weight? Men averaged 1,600 calories per day on

this high carbohydrate low fat diet. They also exercised off 400

calories per day. Does anyone see any hypocrisy here? " Study cited:

http://www.uchsc.edu/nutrition/nwcr.htm

E. The Pritikin Center in its press release concludes by claiming that:

" A huge body of research has confirmed that saturated fats, cholesterol,

and trans fatty acids block arteries. They're the primary culprits of

our country's #1 killer: heart disease. Foods sizzling with saturated

fat do clog arteries. "

Well, readers of this newsletter should know that this " huge body of

research " is not so huge and that naturally saturated fats do not clog

arteries. For more on this, see my book Diet & Heart Disease: Its NOT

What You Think (http://www.powerhealth.net/books.htm) or Uffe Ravnskov's

book The Cholesterol Myths (http://www.newtrendpublishing.com).

Also, if any of you would like to put your two cents in on this issue,

you can. In a letter department called " Health News Talk " belonging to

the Washington Post, a discussion is going on concerning 's recent

article. Go to:

http://forums.washingtonpost.com/wphealth/messages/?msg=328.1 & fpi=yes

's paper is commented upon also on National Post, a part of a large

Canadian Internet network. Go to:

http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id={BD491BBD-B317-4CE3-B9AA\

-

4D73C9746EB5}   2. Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Firing Line This

fine piece was sent to me by Ms. Vicki Poulter of Sydney, Australia.

Apparently, Taubes' article has pricked up some ears Down Under.