Quoted for truth.

I suppose it could also be possible that Mr. Atkins was heavily supported by such interest groups as the beef and dairy councils to the point of being paid by such partisan groups for his research.

Anything is quite possible.

I'm reading some great literature right now on a man who started out doing his research on behalf of dairy farmers, but really got to the bottom of politics and animal protein, almost unintentionally (the book is called the China Study, if you are interested). I bet going from obese to a normal weight has positive implications on someone's health. The folks over here in the vegetarian section aren't attempting to discount that. It's the long term effects of a diet rich in animal fats and proteins that is being discussed.

I don't believe there's a low carb conspiracy, because it would have to involve everyone from lab technicians to manufacturers of medical equipment to the government, considering that all of the above have been involved in studies that have shown negative aspects of certain low carb diets. I can't imagine any doctor on the planet that could have that sort of influence, especially based on jealousy. When you consider the details of each of the major diets, there's nothing to be jealous of. Each of the major popular diets has it's own strengths and weaknesses. There will never be a "one size fits all" diet, and any reputable diet doctor will know that.

I do believe that there's some pretty shifty things going on that affect the information we are given, particularly when it involves lobbyists.

It doesn't just happen here. In Australia, there was a lot of hoopla over a diet plan created by the Commonwealth Scientific Research Organization (CSIRO) in Australia. The diet sounded pretty good, even though it was low carb and high protein However, it turns out that it was funded by the livestock association so it was high protein on purpose. It actually required red meat. Overall, if someone were to come to me and say they HAVE to go low carb, which diet should they try - I would suggest the Australian diet over Atkins or other low carb diets, but would suggest seafood over red meat. It's called the Total Wellbeing Diet. There's a new version out that's more lenient on protein sources, so it's possible to avoid or strictly limit saturated fats.

There are other reasons to avoid diets like this, even if the impact of sat fats on our long term health isn't enough to convince the public. What about the impact of industrialized livestock farming on the environment? Some experts have said that we could solve global warming if everyone would just go vegetarian. Livestock production is extremely destructive to the planet, and 100% unnecessary.

Do you know how much of a relief it is to see someone (not just any "someone" but one of the "Big Cheeses" ) acknowledge this, here, on this board?

Great points, Suzanne. I don't think folks realize just how influential these groups are over how the government tells us what's "good for us". It's kind of scary when you really think about it.

The "Farm Bill" pays dairy and animal farmers to feed poor children substandard products. The government subsidizes less than healthy options.

Here's information on a healthy bill that activists are trying to pass!

http://www.pcrm.org/news/legislative_issues

Aww, thanks But honestly, this is a topic near and dear to my heart. Sister Jennifer feels the same way. We're considering becoming activists

Sugar production is also of serious concern. From http://www.panda.org/news_facts/news...?uNewsID=16618
The report, Sugar and the Environment, shows that sugar may be responsible for more biodiversity loss than any other crop due to habitat loss, intensive use of water for irrigation, heavy use of agro-chemicals, as well as discharge and runoff of polluted effluent associated with the industry.

An estimated 5–6 million hectares of cropland are lost per year throughout the world due to severe erosion and degradation caused by intensive sugar production. Three million tonnes of soil are lost per year from beet farms in the EU and 1.2 million tonnes are lost per year in Turkey alone.


I believe that if we carefully chose our foods and adapted our lifestyles based on what was good for the planet, we would automatically do what was best for our health and our weight. Choose organic. Strictly limit sugar consumption, preferably choosing agave nectar as a more planet-friendly alternative. Choose a plant based diet. Eat local foods. Choose food in it's natural form and learn to cook, lol, and avoid excessive and/or non-recyclable packaging.

You just outlined the core of my philosophy as well.

Also, I agree that agave nectar is a delicious, healthier and more sustainable option.

I have been reading this book and it has been eye opening to say the least. I agree with Dean Ornish when I read an interview with him and he said that if all you are concerned with is wieght loss then a low carb diet will get you there. But if you are looking at over all health, its not the way to go.

I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. But that book The China Study, does make me think I mean it is written by a well respected researcher, the references in the back is from peer reviewed journals.

I think sugar is just as bad, IMO...

I personally think added sugar is bad but natural sugars in food really aren't bad unless that is all you are eating. A varied diet is really key to health.

If you liked the China Study, I would definitely recommend reading Eat to Live. It talks about what a healthy diet is and what it can do for you, not only helping prevent heart disease and cancer but helping you lose weight as well.

I'm with you, Nelie, I don't mind naturally occurring sugars either. It's added sugar that is the problem in my opinion. The World Health Organization recommends no more than 10% added sugars to our diet. When the sugar and soft drink industries heard this they had a fit. They wanted 25% added sugars and demanded Congress deny funding to WHO unless they changed their recommendations. 25% as a standard?

Wow, I didn't know this. 25%...that is crazy...

I never had an issue with natural sugars either and could never understand what the problem was. I think one thing that hurts us as a society (food wise) is the fact we try to isolate so many things down to one componet. Meaning, if green tea is good for us, then they isolate down the one ingrediant in green tea and slap it in a pill. I was watching a CNN special the other day and they are trying to do that with a compound in broccolli. Why not just eat the real thing and be done with it?

I have not finished reading The China Study, I own the Eat To Live book, but never read it...can you imagine? LOL

I definitely think this is an issue. And we don't always know how well those compounds actually WORK in isolation! In fact, I've been seeing research suggesting that vitamins don't provide as much benefits as you would think (given all the "goodness"), and for some groups taking vitamins may even be worse than not taking vitamins.

We might not know about isolating the components, but time and again we learn of the benefits of eating foods in their natural form .Why not eat the broccoli indeed!