Twelve Black Code Monkeys

Wonderful! Not that Self Magazine is a paragon of journalism, nor Jessica Simpson a paragon of nutrition, but unfortunately celebrities to have influence over a large group of people. It seems Simpson was “messed up” because she couldn’t get through the 2-week induction part of the diet and so had to cave to all the temptations around her. I’m not sure how this is getting “messed up.” I think instead it shows that Simpson has little self-discipline, or who knows, maybe she was just doing a creative version of Atkins that was 80% fake carb products, with a bunch of low-fat food thrown in? We have no idea mainly because there’s just not enough info presented. You hear rumors of various celebs doing one diet or another but few are outspoken advocates who trumpet their own experiences. I think a couple of exceptions here would be Marry Lou Henner and Suzanne Summers, but those are the only two I can think of.

Atkins has responded to the suit brought by PCRM mentioned in my last entry. It does a much better job than my own commentary at punching wholes through PCRM and its motivations. I’m glad Atkins has gotten smart and tough about defending itself. In the past, when the only one who was defending the diet was Dr. Atkins himself, who was not exactly trained in good PR, the whole issue of whether or not low-carb plans were healthy was not as well served. Although some aspects about a large company with commercial interests taking the healm of the Atkins name has concerned me and other low-carb dieters who fear that their main motivation from here on in will be to sell as many low-carb products as possible, we do have some benefits of a well-funded and well-organized company that can activate its personnel to quickly come to the defense of both feeble as well as substantial challenges. And lets face it, even feeble challenges can, when not responded to, become accepted as fact.

Well, our wacky friends at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) are at it again. I’m surprised it’s taken them this long. It seems they have finally hooked a fish from the website they have had up for many, many months that has been asking for people to submit info about how they were harmed by the Atkins diet. It was, no doubt, with this goal in mind that the website was created. Although PCRM is an organization that evangelizes veganism and condemns any and all uses of animals (for food, medicine development, testing, medical training, even seeing eye dogs for the blind), they are truly predatory when it comes to attacking anything that they see as a threat to their goals.

It doesn’t surprise me in the least, and “predatory litigators” or “ambulance chasers” is actually somewhat of a step down from the more recent enlightenment of how far PCRM is willing to go to and how radical and uncompromising they are in their approach. The whole debacle over Atkins’ medical reports showed that PCRM has no professional or ethical scrupples, let alone common dignity for a deceased person and their family. But as you read more about their ties to PETA and other animal “liberation” groups, some of which are open proponents of violence, one starts to really wonder about the sanity of these people and whether they are truly dangerous to the public - “terrorists” as some people have started to call them.

As far as this suit goes, I’m not a lawyer, and sometimes the law seems to rule against common sense, so anything’s possible. However, it seems to me ludicrous that someone can claim a diet they were on gave them high cholesterol. Generally as we age, our cholesterol goes up, even with the same diet. Also, there is still no proof that high cholesterol gives one heart disease. Yes, you heard me right! I know, it sounds like an amazing statement, but it is true! Sure, doctors have played up cholesterol as the evil that must be eliminated at any cost, but there are many medically trained skeptics out there who have very good arguments against any link between the two, other than the red herring that has helped doctors push millions of people onto risky medications to the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies bottom lines and to the benefit of the doctors who prescribe them as they are wined and dined and given other perks by these drug companies as incentives to push yet more people onto the unnecessary meds.

In fact, study after study has shown that for most people, cholesterol actually gets lowered markedly by consuming a low-carb diet! HDL, the “good” cholesterol goes up, triglycerides tend to drop quickly and precipitously, and LDL, the “bad” cholesterol may rise initially only to drop back down to below the initial value. LDL is still seen by most mainstream doctors as the main component to look at when trying to determine whether someone needs drugs. Amazingly, though, this fails to take into account the fact that LDL is actually composed of different subparticles, one group that is associated with health benefits! Those healthy LDL particles seem to increase in proportion to the unhealthy LDL particles on a low carb diet even as the total LDL remains the same, thus improving overal health indicators, but of course this is ignored by most doctors who are eager to put as many patients as possible on drugs. The reason why tests to determine these LDL subparticle groupings are not done as part of the standard cholesterol test, I am sure, is that if this were done, many people might show a more healthy cholesterol profile and would then be harder to convince to take medication.

I’m hoping someone decides to sue PCRM for promoting a vegan diet, which can certainly be abused as much as a low-carb diet to where it becomes unhealthy. That is part of the issue, too, I think. Any diet can be abused. People who don’t understand basic nutrition can take Weight Watchers, Dean Ornish, Atkins, or anyone else’s plan, and creatively mutate it to the point where one is still theoretically “following” the diet, but not eating in a very optimal way. I suppose, though, in this litigious society we have, unless people are told exactly what to eat at every meal in exact quantities, diet books potentially open themselves up to suit when someone who’s followed them for all of a few weeks develops some probably completely unrelated health condition. PCRM of course, has a whole other agenda. Their single-mindedness marks them as not to be trusted in any kind of debate to get at the truth of what is healthy and what is harmful. Their tactics are sensationalistic and in no way represent the scientific sounding name they use which should indicate a body that endeavors to search objectively for the truth, not being dogmatic, aiding frivolous lawsuits, or publicizing private medical records.

I just read an article by Anthony Calpo of theOmnivore.com(site no longer available), where he discusses the Atkins coroner’s report debacle, which I’ve talked about earlier. This is one of the best pieces I’ve so far read about it not just because it is very coherent and convincing, but it is extremely thorough! Calpo not only talks about the PCRM and their links to PETA which many by now are familiar, but also talks about the Nebraska doctor Richard Fleming you got the report from the NY Medical examiner in the first place and then passed it onto the PCRM. I had read he was a low-fat advocate, and thus likely critic of low-carb, and that he had written at least one book. What I did not know, but what Calpo discusses at length, concerns a study that Fleming handled that was unique in showing a benefit of low-fat to low-carb in terms of both weight loss and cholesterol number improvement. Unfortunately there seem to be serious questions with how exactly Fleming conducted the study. Many of the conventions of peer-reviewed studies were simply not included in it, including a citing of nurses and technicians who helped conduct the study, in addition to who funded the study. The claim was that one hundred people participated in the study, which would make it the biggest of its kind. Such studies are extremely expensive to conduct and so must have had major money backing it, if it indeed is even real. Apparently Gary Taubes even suggested that Flemming might have faked the study entirely! Taubes is the science writer that got the ball rolling when he penned “What if it’s all been a Big Fat Lie” about how low-carb diets had gotten a bum rap and how there was actually good science behind them. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I won’t convict Fleming myself, but I hardly find it surprising that a doctor closely tied with the PCRM is being accused of deception.

The notorious Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), who leaked the private medical records of diet guru Dr. Robert C. Atkins, finally released a statement about the recent criticism from many camps regarding their actions, and talk of lawsuits and criminal investigations.

The statement is an example of the slipperiness to which those familiar with PCRM have become accustomed. Somehow becauce these were not autopsy reports per se but rather “brief notes from an external inspection,” it somehow makes it perfectly ok to disseminate these private records?

Because Atkins publicized his own good health while he was alive to validate his diet, but then opted (or rather his wife opted) not to release further records, this somehow gives PCRM the right to make these records public? Somehow I don’t believe a court will see it that way.

I’m especially amazed by this segway:

“Recently, a physician sent PCRM a copy of some medical examiner’s notes related to Dr. Atkins’ death…Reporters picked up on the story; they wondered whether the Atkins organization had distorted Atkins’ health profile in order to make the diet appear safe…Although PCRM had not requested or received the report from the medical examiner, we became the principal media contact about it.”

Media Contact? You’ve got to be kidding me! Did the media just come to the conclusion that PCRM had this information out of the blue? The media, PCRM seems to be saying, is psychic. No, PCRM gave these records to the media. Of course they can’t seem to come out and say this because they are by nature a deceptive organization. From this press release PCRM makes out as if they played little role in the whole matter. They were simply acting as an innocent, even passive “contact.”

At least they finally come clean at the end of the piece when they say:

“If the new revelations about Dr. Atkins’ cardiac problems end the charade that fatty, high-cholesterol foods can give us an “extraordinarily healthy cardiovascular system” and have no health consequences—and if the emergence of the truth can prevent further deaths and illnesses—then the public health may have been served at last.”

In other words, the bottom line is that to them the end (discrediting the Atkins diet) justifies any means. The Atkins diet after all promotes the consumption of animal products, which the PCRM by definition is against in any way whatsoever. Their position is that every one of us should be eating vegan diet where no meat, dairy, eggs, or fish are consumed. It doesn’t even matter to them if these things are obtained in a humane way. To them, simply the act of using animals as food is inhumane. This “ends justify the means” mindset is the same one that extremists the world over have adopted in their crusades. Veronica Atkins, Dr. Atkins’ widow, recently called PCRM the “vegetarian Taliban.” Although this is very loaded and over the top, somehow I’m starting to see links in that they are both extremist groups where the end always justify whatever means necessary. Top-ranking officers of PCRM have likened those who kill animals for food to Nazis killing people in concentration camps, so somehow the retort by Atkins’ widow does not seem altogether out of place…

Well, despite ridiculously biased commentators like Fumento trying to take advantage of the illegally obtained coroner’s report of the late Dr. Robert Atkins (Fumento calls Atkins fat and completely leaves out the very plausible explanation of fluid retention and the fact that hospital records actually show his weight upon admittance as 60 some lbs less), it seems that most news media are giving PCRM more scrutiny. They are rightly calling into question this somewhat serious lapse in the privacy rights of an individual in order to promote an organizations agenda. This recent article in the Miami Herald digs a bit deaper and reports on the doctor who apparently got the report in the first place and then handed it off to PCRM. Dr. Richard Fleming is actually a member of the PCRM, yet the two are now squabbling in a he said/she said battle of whether Fleming was somehow pressured by PCRM to give them the report, or whether he rather contacted them and gave it to them without asking. What is the truth? Does it matter? To me, not much. In either case, PCRM is still liable. Whether they pressured Fleming or got it gratis, they were the ones that published it, not Fleming. PCRM, in other words, is still guilty of gross violations of privacy. Fleming may or may not share blame, but PCRM, somehow believes they can take some of the heat off themselves by making Fleming a scapegoat.

Unfortunately much of the damage is done, and I think that’s all PCRM cares about. Millions of people probably saw short clips on the evening news over the last few nights, or saw a headline saying “Atkins was fat, had heart disease” and without looking much further for the details, this permanently pushed doubt into their minds about the healthfulness of the diet. Of course we have all been so conditioned to believe that fat is bad over the last 30+ years, that it takes a great deal to rid oneself of that bias.

PCRM have long been known in some circles as being extremists with an agenda. With this flap, their reputation still cannot get much worse; it can only get more widely disseminated. My only hope is that they are hit hard by the Justice Department and perhaps Atkins’ Widow both financially and legally for what they have done.

By now, those who follow these things have assuredly heard about the current imbroglio surrounding the release of the corornor’s reports of Dr. Robert Atkins, the famous doctor who popularized the modern low-carb movement which is now steamrolling over most other diet plans in many countries.

The diet wars have gotten increasingly dirty in recent years, but Dr. Atkins had been under attack from the time he published his

Atkins New Diet Revolution back in 1972. Even then, medical authorities had started leaning toward lower fat, in particular saturated fat, and increasing amounts of grains and other carbs to compensate. Atkins’ somewhat humorless defensiveness and disregard initially for trying to prove his claims via scientific studies undoubtedly hurt his cause. Although regarding studies, his explanations do seem plausible. Basically, studies are funded by sources that would potentially benefit them, like food groups, drug companies, etc. These entities give monies to universities that carry out the research. But who would fund a study that might prove the efficacy of a diet that shows it’s better NOT to eat a large number of foods that are being produced, and one that would potentially mean people would have to take FEWER drugs rather than more? Atkins, his critics cried, could have funded such studies himself with the profits from his best-selling books. He eventually did do this. Why did it take so long? His defense was that he was afraid people would question the objectivity of a study funded by someone who hoped for a specific result! With the double-standards that exist today, I don’t doubt this was a real concern. When looking at studies, one should always look at who funded them, but often when one sees a study that simply confirms the “common wisdom” people don’t look deeper because the study gives an expected result. However, any study that does refute something that was previously accepted as fact gets incredible scrutiny. What’s more, many studies that come to the opposite conclusion of what their designers expected are either given the categorization of “anomaly” and the word “paradox” is added to them, or the authors choose to concentrate on an ancillary issue that doesn’t highlight the glaring main point their study has somehow gotten “wrong.”

Low carb diets are producing incredible economic repercussions right now for those companies or industries (new and old) which are trying to cater to this lifestyle, but also for food groups that refuse to accept the handwriting on the wall and wish to fight against it tooth and nail with pro-carb campaigns and even lawsuits, instead of trying to adapt. Or they are industries that simply can’t adapt due to the nature of their product. The bread, potato, pasta, and orange juice industries so far have been the first to try to take on the current trend.

Add to this the mainstream nutritionist and dietician who continue to malign anything called “low carb” as terribly unhealthy despite the many studies that are starting to unravel all this criticism. Instead of trying to work with the low-carb movement and creating varieties of low-carb plans that emphasize fruits and veggies rather than chemical-laden processed low-carb imitation foods, these “old guard” feel threatened as their previous dogma of “anything is good as long as it’s low in fat” is discredited. They are on the defensive now that their advise is being ignored despite their outcries and misinformation about low-carb being just about eating meat, and the non-arguments that going of such a plan means gaining the weight back (as if somehow being on any diet for a limited period gives one permanent imperviousness to ever gaining weight back). Like a cornered animal they can only lash out when what they should be doing is building bridges so that people who are not very educated in nutrition can eat a low carb diet that is also a nutritious and healthy one. Simply being “low-carb” does not make something healthy, but because of the polarization in this debate, the finer points of what should be in a healthy low carb diet are often lost. Nutritionists yell that anything “low carb” is bad, and some Atkins followers who don’t so much read the books as get little snippets of misinformation in the press that it’s an “all-meat” and “NO-carb” diet counter by doing an extreme version that then in a somewhat circular manner gives the diet a bad name. Of course those that take the time to read the books learn that it’s more than simply limiting ones carbs, but again, a finer point like this is too subtle for a 30-second spot on the local news.

Then we finally have those motivated by political/spiritual/moral thinking. These groups don’t base their criticisms on science, but rather the fact that low-carb is portrayed as all-meat-all-the-time. They are generally politically liberal, pro-environment, and pro-animal rights. I don’t think any of these are bad, and in fact I would categorize myself in these ways, although activists espousing animal rights would undoubtedly scoff because I eat meat. I do think there are some points about meat production that need to be addressed. The factory farm practices and how they affect the health of the animals and environment is a very important issue of concern, but instead of vilifying all meat because of the practice of the bad apples, I would much rather promote the smaller organic farms that raise animals humainly, not in small pens, not being injected by hormones, antibiotics, etc. In other words, the way it was done for thousands of years until the industrial age. For these groups, though, it’s a black and white issue, all or nothing. There are no gray areas for them. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an example of such a group. They began as an organization trying to prevent cruelty to animals, using them for testing of cosmetics, etc., but they have widened their philosophy to exclude animals for testing of anything including drugs, and for using animals for food. It doesn’t matter whether an animal is treated humanely on a farm in their eyes, the mere fact that we are eating them, or even a product of theirs like eggs or cheese is “exploitation” and thus wrong. To push their views on others, they resort to highly provocative and offensive add campaigns that are also just plain deceptive. Since simply making their extremist case has not met with any success amongst the vast majority of meat eaters in the

PCRM has been promoting a vegan (that means no dairy or eggs in addition to no meat) diet for some time now. It makes grandiose health claims, but when one examines the studies that ostensibly prove their points, they don’t actually hold water. Of course, since low carb is seen as the antithesis to vegan diets (I will just mention here that I happen to know some people who successfully combine a vegetarian diet and low carb), they have relentlessly attacked Atkins not just with the old unproven theories and misconceptions but also with actual disinformation. They have a very obvious agenda, and there is no way that anyone can see them as objective scientists, despite the word “Physicians” in their title.

One of PCRM board members is one of the most vocal critics of low carb, Dr. Dean Ornish, who is a diet doctor himself. Ornish’s own prescribed extremely low-fat vegetarian diet was recently called into question in a head-to-head trial of four different diets by the American Heart Association, including Atkins. The results indicated that although Ornish’s diet decreased LDL, it did not increase HDL whereas all the others did, and it was also ranked low in terms of weight-loss. Ornish countered this by rewriting the standard consensus that HDL is actually good for you and higher levels of it protect against heart disease risk! Ornish credits his start in vegetarianism to a swami from

Their latest ploy has been to illicitly obtain the coronor’s report of their nemesis, Dr. Robert C. Atkins, and to make it public. Not only is this irresponsible, for the “Committee on Responsible Medicine,” but it is in horrible taste morally and ethically, and possibly illegal. It is at the very least a probable breach of the medical privacy statutes under the department of Health and Human Services Civil Rights department. For those who feel strongly about this issue, you can file a complaint about this matter on HHS’s site.

According to the autopsy report, and the headlines in the press, Atkins was “obese” and had heart disease. In his defense, his wife (who recently had to defend her husband against tasteless remarks by New York City Mayor Bloomberg) and the chairman of the Atkins Center, Stuart Trager, have issued statements (and here (no longer availabel)) which explain that the increased weight was due to the fluids pumped into a comatose Atkins after he fell and hit his head on an icy sidewalk last year. More recently admission records were provided by Atkins’ widow that actually prove this was the case and that Atkins was not “obese” as initial reporst suggested. The heart disease, they contend, was not due to diet, but rather an infection. This had actually caused a cardiac arrest a couple of years back, but when Atkins was revived and his arteries were examined they were apparently relatively clean.

Even if Atkins had heart disease, how would this disprove the efficacy of low-carb? Undoubtedly PCRM and other critics of low-carb hope that casting aspersions on the founder of a diet would implicate the diet as unhealthy, in the same way that Dr. Pritikin’s developing leukemia and his subsequent suicide implicated very low-fat diets among some in being ultimately of questionable healthfulness. But in both these cases, one man does not a study make. Even if it were 20 men, this would not prove or disprove anything. There are so many variables that go into such things, that without very strict clinical guidelines, it’s really impossible to “prove” anything. But one can cast aspersions, and for many non-scientists this is all the “evidence” needed. We simply don’t know everything about how Atkins ate. Did he follow his diet on the initial phase, or did he, as he should have, follow a “maintenance level” that allowed for many more carbs? He certainly exercised, but did he eat a diet that other than being low-carb was healthy? Did he opt for organic fruits and veggies, wild, grass-fed, free-range meats, raw dairy products, etc., or did he opt for a diet that had lots of chemical-filled processed low carb products? Did his genes predispose him towards heart disease? Did the diet he ate during the first 35 years of his life build up enough plaque to account for what his critics claim is due to the diet of his last 35? These are all valid questions but because PCRM has shown they are in a religious war against low-carb rather than a battle to seek scientific truth, they parade this report around as if it is proof that low carb itself is unhealthy. Not only is this sensationalistic and unprofessional, but it shows very simply their prejudice, lack of ethics, and overall bad taste.

My prediction is that, unfortunately, this is by far the last attack we have seen against Atkins or low-carb. The interests that are threatened by its newfound popularity and grudging acceptance in parts of the medical and scientific community are feeling the heat. Their longstanding cries of criticism are starting to be invalidated or their financial future is starting to look down, and this means the gloves have to come off and we will see increasingly dirty smear campaigns like this which don’t appeal to science at all, or only as a thin front for the true motives which have nothing to do with science.

It’s been a good 11 or 12 years since I actually called New York City “home” so I haven’t followed Bloomberg as a mayor. A recent piece by the 24-hour local news station NY1, however, just came to my attention. In the article, Bloomberg, who is noted as an avid jogger and someone who eschews high-calorie foods, ridicules the infamous Dr. Robert C. Atkins, going so far as to call into question the actual cause of his death. Stuart Trager, currently the media frontman for the Atkins Diet, wondered if it were a joke. I wonder too. This is something I might have expected from Howard Stern, but from the mayor of a metropolis? Ok, perhaps Marion Barry, former mayor of my current home town, has said much more outlandish things, but Bloomberg is not a drug addict, at least as far as we know.

Some of you out there who have similar proclivities to Bloomberg’s may actually be applauding his forthrightness. Perhaps he is brave to speak his mind, but I think there is a fair degree of stupidity mixed in with this. Millions of Americans (and New Yorkers) are on the Atkins diet or on similar low-carb regimes. By insulting their patron saint, he has immediately alienated all these people! That’s not very smart politicking! It’s one thing if Bloomberg has actual concerns about the health issues surrounding low-carb, but his comments don’t make him sound very educated about the subject, they actually make him sound like someone who has a personal aversion to fat in food, a low-fat fanatic who entertains conspiracy theories because the fact that eating fat might actually be healthy for you doesn’t jive with his view of the world.

Of course I am coming at it from a biased point of view, but even so, with the current popularity of such plans, how can any politician rail against their modern-day popularizer and expect not to get damaged by this in some way? For Pete’s sake, they guy is dead. Maybe he had flaws (don’t we all?), and maybe you personally disagree with the guy, but he help a lot of people lose weight, was a tireless advocate for his cause, and was headquartered in New York. Bloomberg should be keeping such comments to himself, lest he be labeled as an insensitive boor. But perhaps he’s already labeled that way - I haven’t been following his mayoral career, so I don’t know…

Is the owner of Atkins Nutritionals undoing 30 years of progress forged by the outspoken doctor has tried to make in the popular mindset of what is and what isn’t healthy to eat?

For those who haven’t heard yet, a big mess has just blown up in the world of low-carb dieting. Collette Heimowitz, the director of research and education for Atkins Nutritionals, put her foot in her mouth by recommending no more than 20% of calories on the diet come from saturated fat. She was quoted in the Sunday New York Times article titled “Make That Steak A Bit Smaller, Atkins Advises Today’s Dieters.” The media jumped on this as Atkins finally backtracking and telling people to eat less saturated fat and fat in general.

Where did this 20% come from? Who knows! Atkins never specified any ratio in any of his books, but did recommend eating a variety of protein sources, some which had high amounts of saturated fat, some low. The reason that was given for this new concern for an actual limit on saturated fat was “we want physicians to feel comfortable with this diet, and we want people who are going to their physicians with this diet to feel comfortable.” In other words, let’s make the diet more politically correct so that we get less flack from critics.

Many long-time low-carbers (whether followers of the specific approach Atkins outlined or not) were outraged. They called it a sell-out to the mainstream. Especially considering all the information out there that actually supports saturated fat as a healthy component of the diet, with much of this posted on own Atkins’ site, the sudden caving to the majority despite 30 years of outspokenness came as a betrayal to what Atkins followers believed Atkins himself fought for for so many years.

It seems to me almost ridiculous that now that low-carb and Atkins in particular has become so enormously popular, and an incredible marketing force, that they would choose this moment to cave. If anything, this newfound influence and money should cause them to be even bolder in their proclamations!

Soon after this story ran, of course, all the critics who have been to a large extent silenced in recent months due to the incredible new popularity of the diet, suddenly have become emboldened and pounced on the apparent backtracking: A BBC article titled “Atkins Diet Boss: ‘Eat Less Fat’” now gives the impression that an entire foundation of “fat is ok” has now gone out the window. Another article on itv.com is subtitled “Followers of the controversial Atkins diet are being warned to cut back on some of the diet’s staple foods amid health fears.” Just wait until we see comments from the die-hard critics of Atkins like Dr. Dean Ornish, the PCRM, PETA, etc.

After the media took the ball and ran with it, Atkins Nutritionals has been trying to do damage control. They’ve put out a press release that claims the media got it all wrong, that there’s nothing wrong with eating red meat or saturated fat, and the Atkins plan is the same as it’s always been. The one thing this article doesn’t address, however, is the supposed comments of Collette Heimowitz. Was she a lone gun that the news media decided to either misquote or quote and then attribute her views to Atkins Nutritionals as opposed to personal recommendations? Who knows! Some conspiracy theorists go so far as to suggest critics of Atkins high up in the news media decided to fabricate the story completely.

For the record, I follow a similar eating plan to Atkins, but it has a different in certain areas. Protein Power, developed by a married couple of doctors who treated patients at a private practice for many years using this eating plan, similarly restricts carbohydrates, but emphasized eating lots of high-fiber/low-carb veggies and fruits, grass-fed, wild, or free-range animal products, and base much of their plan off a great many medical and anthropological studies and basic physiology and metabolic science. They do not contend (like A…. auth of the South Beach Diet, Sears, Willett, and most of the nutrition/medical mainstream) that eating saturated fat is bad. They, the Atkins site, and others like Dr. Uffe Ravnskov’s Cholesterol Myths and the Weston A. Price Foundation have brought forth supporting evidence that suggests there is no proof of any harm from eating saturated fat or red meat. There could very well be a link when one COMBINES it with excessive highly refined carbohydrates, sugar, and the like, but when eaten as part of a diet low in these things, there is absolutely no case against it, and a lot of evidence that it is actually beneficial in a lot of way.

Whether or not this latest scuffle is the media’s fault, or Atkins Nutritionals, unfortunately, I believe there is at least a little blame shared by Dr. Atkins himself. Dr. Robert Atkins died last year and so cannot speak for himself - his books have to speak for him. He gave interviews of course, but his books are what sold millions upon millions of copies and is where his message could said to be most fully described. When I first read Doctor Atkins New Diet Revolution back in 2000, the overall impression I got was that of “hey, eat whatever your heart desires as long as it’s low in carbs.” Whether or not the book actually said this or not, as someone completely new to low-carbing at the time, that is the impression I got. Atkins went on and on about how you could eat this wonderful fatty thing or that. Unfortunately, critics picked up on this to mean that this is what the diet was all about. In other words, Atkins boldness in telling people “hey you can eat this stuff that everyone is saying is bad for you but is actually fine” came to mean to the press that it was only about eating these “forbidden” foods. Some misguided Atkins followers, for sure, only picked up on these highlights and actually did exactly that! The hype in most of the books Atkins put out perhaps up until his last, Atkins for Life, and his combative and defensive style, did not make him any friends in the medical community and simply caused this hype to be highlighted and distorted in the mainstream media.

The problem I see is not that this kind of eating is inherently unhealthy, but that within the context of our modern food sources, it is not the best choice. In other words, the diet that we evolved to eat and that many hunter-gatherer tribes still eat is one that is primarily of animal origin. There are exceptions of course, but in any case, the eating of primarily animal-based foods even to the exclusion of non-animal based ones can be perfectly healthy, as many anthropological studies have born out, but only when you take into consideration the other facets of what exactly is being eaten: first of all, the animals that are eaten are either wild or are grazing on their natural diets. They are not stuffed in pens, force-fed grains, and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones. Because of this the nutritive value of their meat is much higher than what we get at the grocery. The meats and dairy have a great deal more Omega-3 as well as CLA. The other aspect is that these people eat the entire animal. Every part that is edible is consumed, and the different organs provide much of the nutrients that one could get from plant sources. Most of us in the “civilized” world only eat the muscle meat of animals and so don’t have access to these nutrients and must get them through another source. We can take vitamins, but most vitamins are not nearly as effective as eating the plants that contain them because vitamins have all kinds of cofactors that regulate their inclusion or exclusion into the body.

So, the point is that there’s nothing wrong with eating lots of meat and saturated fat, but that common sense needs to be applied so that you don’t eat this to the exclusion of everything else, including some vegetables and fruit. That is not what low-carbing is about, despite the fact that much of the media paints it as an all-meat, zero-vegetable diet. It seems that the fact that one can eat only meat and still observe the central guideline of Atkins of restriction of carbohydrates means that some of the uninformed will actually do this, but also that the media then feels that such an extreme variety of the diet is the diet itself. I guess the main lesson I can garner from this episode, if nothing else, is not to trust the media to ever get the story correct. Instead trust them to get it wrong, to distort to the truth either out of ignorance or out of the arrogant assumption that the public at large cannot handle anything more complex than X is good and Y is bad, period, end of story, and then to misreport things that will cause huge firestorms so that they will have more to write about and be able to sell more papers or more ads or commercials.