Hi all,

I am in Chile right now and having a wonderful time. Beautiful and interesting country.

I am still using the internet and I came across an article at nytimes.com . I am not going to post it because it is 8 pages and you do need to register to read it, but registering is free and they do not spam you with email, and its the New York Times for free you are getting, so why not register?

Here is the link once you have registered:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/ma...anted=1&8hpist

I have always been anti-Atkins and pro low fat. The article is complicated but it says there may be some truth in some of what Atkins has been claiming and some bad from eating excess carbrohydrates. However I have already been hearing that vegetables and fruits are replacing grains at the bottom of the food pyramid for many people. For me the bottom line is to eat a balanced diet healthy in fruits and vegetables, drink a lot of water, eat slowly and not too much, and exercise. There you have it, the million dollar diet in one sentence that will probably not be improved on for a thousand years. Nothing in this artilce contradicted what I thought previously except that there is some possible good to Atkins (although I think it goes too far) and some dangers to carbos, carbos, carbos. But no one says anything bad about a lot of fruit and vegetables, except fruit juices.

Anyhow if anyone reading this is serious about diet, and I assume you are being on this message board just register and read the article. I don't work for the nytimes.com but it is free for goodness sakes and it is worth it for this one article alone.

Ciao from Chile,

Larry

After reading that article, all I can say is wow. The Diabetic counseling I received while I was pregnant was right on the money...

Wow, that was a very interesting article! Thanks for pointing it out. This will be something to watch, and see what the experts say about it. I agree with you, and am not exactly pro-atkins (At least it's not a choice I would make for myself) I believe in carbs, but I also agree that the USDA pyramid places too much emphasis on the grains level. A book I'm considering buying is called "Eat, Drink, and be Healthy" by Dr. Willett from Harvard University. He states "The thing to keep in mind about the USDA Pyramid is that it comes from the Department of Agriculture, the agency responsible for promoting American agriculture, not from the agencies established to monitor and protect our health." This seems to make perfect sense.

They started a readers' thread to the article at nytimes.com and I am posting a few of the ones I found interesting, they are not written by me....

AS a medical student who started his first year at 210 lbs, (5' 10" tall, Male), I know what its like to be overweight, and 2 years into it, I wont call myself an nutritional expert, but I will say this: losing weight is a simple issue of mind over matter. I now weigh 155 lb, about 11 lb below what is termed my ideal body weight... I lost a majority of that weight in the first year of med school, while many of my colleagues were rapidly gaining weight due to the essentially sedentary lifestyle that we students live... study study study and eat. So, how does one lose wt and keep it off? Simple: Net Calorie Control. Burn mroe than you take in, eat less than you need, exercise if you can.

The elemental fast food diet that many of us are on gives us more calories net (I'm not even breaking this down into food groups etc) than we need, therefore we store it away - if you eat to excess, you get fat. 60% of America is fat because we just don't know or don't care to learn to control ourselves at the dinner table. The sooner one learns to count calories, to recognize what he/she needs and to eat only what is necessary, or less than that if he/she is trying to lose weight, the sooner he/she will be on the road to a healthier life.

Speaking of fad diets, the Atkins and others... the reason the people using those diets lose wt, at least at the beginning, is because their net caloric intake is less than their bodies need. What happens after a person loses 20 lb and comes off the diet and resumes eating a 3000+ calorie diet when he/she needs 2000 or less? Its really quite elementary, Watson.

Watch what you eat, in terms of net caloric intake. Become anal, if you will, about what you stuff into your mouth and into your body. The sooner you empower yourself, take charge of your diet and your lifestyle, the sooner you will be on the road to wellness, and to a healthier life.


#2....I was deeply gratified by the "Big Fat Lie" article. It validated what I live by: live well, be active, eat well. The true villain of the American diet is not whole wheat bread or butter or whole milk or fruits and vegetables or a good cut of meat, it's processed food. Cheap nasty food with no nutritional value (e.g. fast food and a coke) is what makes this country fat and sick...and we're exporting it to other places and then they (surprise!) get fat and sick. Mainstream food production system in the U.S. is based on convenience and scale, not quality and health. The only way to avoid the ill effects that result from habitual consumption of the sub-standard products that are the hallmark of factory farms, use of toxic chemicals as pesticides and door #3, genetic engineering (which hasn't even been tested to ensure that it's safe for us and our children) in this country is to buy organic, stick to all-natural ingredients, and keep away from meat that's been pumped up with hormones and anti-biotics.


#3...The problem with Gary Taubes' article is that he leaves out facts that conflict with his theory. For example, he states grains like white rice cause a big rise in blood sugar and trigger the release of a lot of insulin. True. However, research has shown that increased insulin in the blood leads to satiety not increased hunger as he claims. If eating a lot of rice makes people overeat and become obese then why is obesity so uncommon in Japan? That is an adverse fact that conflicts with Mr. Taubes' simplistic notion that high-carbohydrate foods promote obesity. Even when Taubes discusses research he selects only the data that supports his theory. Sorry that is not the way science works. A theory should explain all the facts. For example, Taubes discusses a study on the Atkins diet published back in 1980. He states correctly that those who adopted the Atkins diet lost an average of 17lbs in a few weeks. True. However, he omitted another important finding from this same study. Namely that despite eating far fewer calories and lossing a lot of weight these subjects in still experienced a significant rise in their serum cholesterol level! Increased serum cholesterol level is the most important risk factor for atherosclerosis and heart attacks. Heart attacks are the number one killer of Americans. Mortality from heart disease has declined as Ameicans have reduced their intake of saturated fat and cholesterol in the past 30-odd years because this has caused the average serum cholesterol level of adult Americans to drop from close to 230 back in the 1970s to about 205 today (still too high). I am familiar with Gary Taubes' distortion of the scientific evidence because he published an editorial piece for the journal Science claiming salt had little to do with causing high blood pressure. That is a big fat lie. For overwhelming proof that I am right and Gary Taubes should be called a science fiction writer rather than a science correspondent check out my well-referenced article on Salt Toxicity at foodandhealth.com. Just click on CPE (stands for continuing professional education) and you can read my article for free. Mr. Taubes is quoted as an example of the shoddy journalism that has kept most Americans in the dark about how excess salt (what nearly every American consumes daily) promotes high blood pressure.

Suzanne - I'd never thought about the USDA connection before.

Diamond - The first message board response you posted was interested. I would NEVER want that person as my doctor - can we say "Close-minded" and "one size fits all". You would think that as a doctor he would know that just because something worked for him doesn't mean it will work for everyone else. I'm curious if anyone is commenting on the commenters and not just the article. And the part about the Japanese and the rice - it's probably because they aren't eating FAT with the rice and therefore, not storing it when their insulin levels are high.

Okay - off my soap box now.

Thanks for the info.

Having lived in Japan many years I've observed some things as to why Japanese are not fat (well, they're heading there thanks to Mister Donut, KFC, McDonalds, Haagen Daaz, mptorized bicycles etc.)

Women usually only eat about 1/2 cup of rice per meal (their rice bowls are littler and cute - they use smaller chopsticks too), and men a full cup. They do not prefer it fried, just plain.

Japanese will not drink beer and eat rice at the same time - too much carbs maybe??

The adult diet is VERY low in saturated fat and HIGH in fish oil - that accounts for the low rates of heart disease and certain cancers like prostate. They (me too) prefer fishy fish like salmon, mackeral, saury, tuna belly, and not the crap fish we have here (orange roughy, whiting, tilapia) that Americans like because they taste more like paper than fish.

Japanese eat too many pickles = high rates of stomach cancer

Men smoke a TON of cigarettes, but also drink a lot of green tea which possibly counters the bad effects.

EVERYONE walks and bikes everywhere - this is how they probably burn off their beer and rice.

Sumo wrestlers drink A LOT of beer and this rice stew goop to get fat. They work out hard, but take lots of naps. For a recipe to gain fat, search for chanko nabe (I've never had it).

They eat beef and pork and chicken, but in very small amounts - it's expensive.

Every summer we have groups from Japanese high schools come to our campus for English camp. Maybe 1 out of 20 is fat (usually a girl, girls tend to like sweets). When they start college here though (American South) most of them put on 20 pounds or more. Hmmmmm.