Twelve Black Code Monkeys

A local TV station in Miami did a piece recently about how many vegetarians have flocked to low-carb plans like the South Beach Diet. Their reaction is basically shock. They can’t believe that what has been painted as a meat and butter diet by their own kind can actually be done by someone who doesn’t eat meat.

Many vegetarians out there have the same opinion of low-carb plans, as they are characterized as plans about meat and nothing else, but they aren’t. That is one of the stereotypes that will forever haunt low-carbers. Until, of course, enough vegetarians decide to try the diet and find that it is doable without meat. Sure it’s harder because things that are lower in carbs and higher in protein and fat are generally animal based, but not always. Soy products are a good example. The stricter a vegetarian is in terms of what he or she will eat will also make a difference. If eggs and dairy are eaten, they provide more choices. Fish and shellfish provide even more, although some wouldn’t call those who eats fish and shellfish true vegetarians.

Vegans, on the other hand, are another matter. Vegans eat no animal products whatsoever. Basically, they would have to eat primarily soy products for their diet, because practically anything else they eat is mostly carbohydrate. Although the whole issue of whether soy is healthy for you is becoming more controversial, it’s probably a safe bet that eating 90% of your calories from soy is probably not going to be the greatest thing.

In any case, I have this wish that one day vegetarians will not see the low-carb movement or low-carbers as their nemesis, and likewise low-carbers will welcome vegetarians into an eating plan that so many people have found to be beneficial. Many vegetarians, of course, give up meat for religious or spiritual reasons, and that’s fine, that is a personal choice and I will not begrudge anyone of this. However, I would just in kind not like to be judged for what is a personal choice to eat meat. If meat eaters can manage not to make fun of (ethical) vegetarians for liking animals to much to eat them, and (ethical) vegetarians can manage not to condemn meat eaters their personal choice to do something humans (and animals) have been doing since we existed on this planet, then maybe, just maybe, we can obtain world peace.

WebMD has an article about a recent study that supposedly pits two potential ways of eating low carb, one which has more fat, one that has less. The problem is that the study conducted was NOT on low-carb. According to the study, both groups, the high-fat and the more “balanced” group both consumed the same number of carbs, 37% of total calories! Perhaps this is lower carb than the typical American diet, but only slightly.

Let’s figure out what how many carbs these people were consuming. Let’s estimate about 2,000 calories. 37% of that is 740 calories of carbs. 1 gram of carbohydrate is 4 calories, so 740/4 = 167 grams of carbohydrates! Even a pretty calorically-restricted diet of 1500 calories would still mean over 125 grams. For those unfamiliar with low-carb plans, generally speaking, the initial part of the diet which would last 2 weeks, or sometimes longer if the dieter chooses, restricts one to somewhere between 20 and 40 grams of carbs. A second phase differs between plans, but is probably going to be anywhere between 25g and 60g. The third and final phase, which is usually called “maintenance” because you go on it once you’ve reached your goal and now need only to maintain your weight, also varies not just on the plan but on the individual based on what level of carbs they can consume while not gaining. Let’s just say that this would probably be somewhere between 50g and 120g. For a few people it might be lower, and for a few higher, but probably most people would fit somewhere within this wide range. Now, even at 125g, you are exceeding what the vast majority of low-carb dieters consume in carbs even on the phase they reach once they’ve already lost all their weight. At 167g, you are consuming probably three to four times the amount of carbs that the average low-carber (all phases here) is.

The study, which was only for 12 weeks and looking at all of 19 dieters did find that there was no difference in either weight or health factors. But again, these folks were NOT on a low-carb diet.

What I found beyond ridiculous were the obligatory comments of the “expert” dietician, Althea Zanecosky.

“In a high-fat diet, you end up leaving out a majority of fruits and vegetables that have been very much applauded for positive effects on long-term health and weight,” says Zanecosky. “For 25 years I’ve been a dietitian, and I’ve always advised fruits and vegetables. They are very pleasant foods to eat. To not have a banana on my cereal or strawberries over my yogurt would be awful!”

My first comment is: who determines what is “high”? A low-fat dieter might consider a tablespoon of fat a significant amount, but high is a relative term. Secondly, just because your diet is high in fat doesn’t mean that you can’t eat pleanty of vegetables and fruit. I do, and millions of others who eat low-carb plans do as well. Perhaps we don’t have 5 pieces of fruit a day, but who’s to say that eating all that fruit isn’t excessive? Sure, according to Zanecosky, it’s been “very much applauded” but I do not see studies backing up eating a diet of primarily fruits and vegetables. This is not what we were evolved to eat. Our ancestors way before the recent advent of agriculture did not have easily obtainable fruits and vegetables, and those that were found in the wild were much less edible, not having been bred and crossbred by farmers over multiple generations to yield the highly nutritive species we have today.

Basically what Zanecosky is saying here is this: “I have always recommended this, so it must be right, and I could never actually admit to being wrong, and furthermore these foods are pleasant, so they must be good for you in any quantity, and finally, it would just be awful to have to give up something that I’m used to eating.” Well, gee, althea, that convinced me!

The problem is that these so-called “experts” are simply toting this party line that has been honed over the last 25 or 30 years. Following their advice has gotten this country fatter and less healthy than ever before. “But you’re not following our advice” the dieticians cry. Well, certainly not everyone is, and especially not now that the success and popularity of low-carb has thrown cold-water on their movement. But plenty of people did try to follow the low-fat/high-carb regime that these dieticians evangelized for years and it simply did not work or could not be followed over the long haul.

The dieticians mantra and message has failed, and yet they are still given credence, still looked at by the press as the oracles of health. Why? This makes no sense to me. I don’t care if they studied about nutrition for 2 years or 6 years, the problem is that the schools of nutrition have a very official stance on what should and shouldn’t be eaten for good health and weight loss. There is simply no debate. Or at least there hasn’t been. It would be interesting to find out whether the current surge of low-carb plans out there has actually started an internal debate within nutrition schools or whether this has simply made them all the more defensive and uncompromising in all of their students holding the party line.