I read the review about the new Denise Austin book on the home page and wanted to read it to see what I thought. I'm sort of a diet book junkie. I make a joke, that I've read so many diet books, I could open my own weight loss center. Although, what they say about this being a well layed out plan with an easy to follow meal plan, and a reasonable exercise plan is true, the book is FULL of misinformation that actually made me downright angry as I was reading it.

First of all, a disclaimer. I am a physician. I am board certified in Internal Medicine and Psychiatry so I know a thing or two about nutrition, biochemistry, and the psychology of weight loss. I am also a low carber and have a bias in that direction but what I have to say is scientific fact and I would be saying it even if I was on weight watchers (which I have done before and think is a fine program)

She begins the book by admitting that she ony tried a low carb diet for ONE DAY! How does she expect anyone to take her seriously? What would she say to someone who tried her program for one day and said they felt awful on it? She would say that they hadn't given it a fair chance, and she would be absolutely right! She didn't give low carbing a fair chance either. She also doesn't say which low carb plan she tried (although I can guess from other things in the book) but what she knows about low carbing you could put in a thimble!

She says time and time again in the book that WE NEED CARBS! Carbs are necessary for life. This is just plain false! Carbs are actually the only nutrient group that are NOT required for life. There are diseases of protein deficiency, and diseases of fat deficiency, but there are NO diseases of carbohydrate deficiency. There have been experiments done on people eating 0 Carb diets with no ill effects and the Inuit Eskimos survive several months each year on just protein and fat with no ill effects to their health. I would NEVER recommend a zero carb diet to anyone. It would be unbelievably boring and you would have to take a lot of supplements.

She also says that the brain requires glucose for fuel. This also isn't true! The brain may PREFER glucose as an energy source but it can run just fine on ketones.

She says that people on low carb diets don't get enough fiber and put themselves at risk for cancer and heart disease. I don't know what low carb diet books she has been reading but my low carb diet plan recommends I eat 25 grams of fiber a day (very similar to her plan). Many low carb plans recommend high fiber intake. She also mentions that low carbers don't eat leafy greens and I am really lost there because leafy greens are a staple of every low carb diet plan, including Atkins!

On the subject of carb addiction she is also a bit out of touch. There is compelling scientific evidence that refined sugar is an addictive substance just like cocaine, alcohol, or heroin. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed an animal model of sugar addiction. They have rats who will selectively self administer sugar in exactly the same way you have heard about rats who will give themselves cocaine or alcohol over and over again. The exact same changes in the brain occur as occur with any other addictive process, including withdrawal symptoms. Although it may not be possible to be a "food addict" it is certainly possible to be a refined sugar addict. I believe the answer, at least for now, for this addiction, is the same as it is for all addictions--total abstinence. You do not NEED refined sugar to live. I think suggesting to a refined sugar addict that they can have an occasional cookie, or piece of cake, is like suggesting to an alcoholic that they can have an occasional beer. It can't be done! I, myself, am a refined sugar addict and have to say that having none has been far easier for me than trying to have controlled amounts and I imagine there are numerous other people on this board who can attest to the same thing. For us, a high quality low carb diet may be our best long term option.

Lastly, IMHO Denise Austin like many others, seems to equate low carb diets with the Atkins Diet. While the Atkins Diet is certainly a scientifically sound diet and if done with some common sense can be a good life style for some people, I believe it focuses too much on weight loss and not enough on good nutrition. There are numerous other low carb diets out there that put a much higher focus on good nutrition but have not shared the same popularity (perhaps because the weight loss may be a little slower). I would suggest to the 3 Hens a book by Jonny Bowden, a registered dietician, called Living the Low Carb Life. It is an inexpensive paperback, readily available at bookstores. In it he reviews the science behind low carb diets, all of the popular low carb plans, the role of supplements, on line resources, including a favorable review of your own site. You may never look at low carbing the same way again. It might be a nice review for the home page one month.

I have to defend Denise in this instance, because I too, tried low carb dieting in the past (not just Atkins, but Protein Power, and a couple of other plans as well.) and I was only able to last 2-3 days each time maximum. What I think is important for everyone to realize, is that no diet is for everyone. Low carb dieting just isn't for me-period.
I get headaches and feel awful on low carb.
What makes a successful weight loss plan? When it is something the individual can do for the rest of their life. A low carb diet does nothing for someone who cannot stick to it, just like a vegetarian or vegan diet plan does nothing for someone who loves meat and dairy products. One plan does not fit all.
It isn't that I don't give low carbing a fair chance...it is that I feel like I am being tortured when I try to stick to one!
Denise put out this book during the high popularity of several lower cab diet plans, as a plan for those who want to lose weight, without losing their carbs.

When she is stating that people on low carb diets don't get enough fiber, I don't think she is meaning that EVERYONE on low carb doesn't get enough fiber, or don't get enough vegetables in their diet.
For every person out there who is doing low carb in a healthy way, taking advantage of eating their allowed vegetables, eating lower carb fruits, and leaner meats like fish and chicken breast, there are a equal amount of low carbers eating bacon, lots of fat, and using their carb allowances on Atkins Endulge bars and other low carb "sweets". I know people in my personal life that do low carb dieting both of these ways.

I am a refined sugar addict as well, and what I have found that works best for me is not a low carb diet, but a diet that cuts out refined carbs like white bread and sugar. There is definitely a difference. I eat plenty of lean proteins such as chicken, fish, and soy, but I also eat "better' carbs such as fruit, veggies, oatmeal, brown rice, and so forth. I don't think that carbs themselves are the problem, and I don't feel well mentally or physically when I have tried to low carb diet.

I have found that this works best for me, and keeps me sane. I am also free to gain all of the nutritional benefits from eating many fruits and vegetables, things that I think SOME low carbers do not get enough of that are on extremely low carbohydrate regimes.

Thanks for sharing your opinion Dieting is a very personal issue and we all have to do what is best for us as individuals, based on personal experience, lifestyles, and our health concerns. Low carb isn't suitable for a lot of people, and less than 2% of Americans are following a low carb diet right now. The diet in her book considers overall nutrition and looks easy to follow, and we think it is an option that some dieters may want to consider. All diets work, if you stick with them. Some people may find that a plan like this is easier for them to stick to. I personally have my own plan that I follow which is not in any book, nor is it carb restricted. I do what works best for me. You are doing what works best for you. We appreciate your input as well as the opinions of others. It helps us all take a closer look at what is important to us, as individuals.

I would like to point out that Denise did not come up with this plan on her own, she created it with the help of a registered dietitian, Amy Campbell, M.S., R.D., C.D.E., who Denise refers to as one of the top nutritionists in the country, and she is also a nutrition educator at Harvard-affiliated Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston. There isn't really anything revolutionary about this plan, it's very similar to a lot of popular, balanced diets. The plan is 50% carbs, 25% protein, and 25% fat. It focuses on "good carbs" and "good fats", but isn't as restrictive as some other plans. She also emphasizes the importance of regular exercise. It is Denise's explanation and clear information that sets this book apart, and why I particularly liked it over many other diet books.

Thanks

I appreciate the feedback but I think you missed my point. I'm not trying to convince anyone that one kind of diet is better than another. In fact, her plan appears to be a very reasonable, low cal, moderate fat diet. I totally agree that the best diet is the one you can stick to for life, whatever that turns out to be. What bothers me is that she has information in there she is stating as scientific fact that is downright false! I didn't even get to all of it either! Did you notice that when she mentions a scientific study, the details are really sketchy? You can't tell how the study was done, so you have no idea whether or not it was a good study and she doesn't give a reference so you can check the original article. I almost get the impression she doesn't want people to check up on her science.

I haven't read the Denise Austin book, but I for one would be interested to see proof for your contention that carbohydrates are NOT an essential nutrient.

If, like many other low-carb dieters I know, you are simply using the word "carbs" or "carbohydrates" to mean JUST simple sugars or processed foods, then IMO you should clarify that in your post, lest our forum members just assume that you are correct merely due to your vocation.

I'm not a physician myself, but I did find the medical definition of "carbohydrate":

I've done some very light googling, and found a reference to a study on Inuit Eskimos done in 1928 - it appears that the Inuits remained healthy (i.e. lack of scurvy) because of the fact that they ate much of their meat raw or minimally cooked:

However, I seriously doubt that you'd be able to take an American, or a native of rural China (the traditional Chinese diet - not to mention most Asian diets - are primarily high-carbohydrate diets with relatively small amounts of animal protein), transport them to the Arctic, and expect them to survive for very long - because the Inuits have lived there for generations and their genetic systems have evolved to their conditions, IMO.

I shudder to think how my gastro-intestinal system would be if I shunned all carbohydrates - without the fiber from fruits and veggies and whole grains to move things along to their ultimate destination.

The American Dietetic Association recommends adding foods such as whole grain breads, dried beans, and fresh fruits and vegetables to your diet to prevent colon cancer. But wait a second...all of those foods are those unnecessary, fattening, evil carbohydrates...

A massive study done in China by Cornell and Oxford Universities found that the nutrients present in plant based foods (i.e. carbohydrates) assist in warding off "...the occurrence of chronic degenerative diseases".

I'm not trying to diss the low-carb segment - because I know that while low-carb dieting has lost a lot of steam in the past year or so, it still has its adherents. I know for a lot of folks, talking about different diets is right up there with discussing religion and politics. Personally, I feel that the term "low-carb" should be changed to "low-sugar" or "avoidance of simple carb diet"...because painting all carbohydrates (or ANY one of the essential nutrients) with the same brush is NOT a good thing.

I really didn't get that impression at all. She mentions a variety of studies and where they were held, and the results, but she probably didn't give the fine details because this is a book written for the end consumer that wants to know how to do the diet plan and would probably be bored by those kind of details. When most dieters start a plan, they are interested in what they will eat, are there any limitations they need to keep in mind, and what are the exercise recommendations. This isn't a text book or a book for researchers. The target audience just wants the basics of the plan, written in an easy to read format, and that's what she delivers. I don't see anything wrong with that, and it seems in line with most of the popular diet books today.

I have found that most diet books are "light on science." Both the Three Hour Diet and the South Beach Diet books have what you might classify as "light on science" information. They will vaguely refer to a study or say that something has been "scientifically proven." I don't feel that this is an attempt to "trick" the consumer but rather I think this is a common thing to see in diet books because the average consumer doesn't care who did what kind of study with what kind of methodology. While I definitely support those who are doing the low carb diet and do believe different bodies respond to different kinds of diets, I don't believe that one entire major food group is the root of all weight loss woes. (Which I don't think is what you're saying either.) Most diseases related to protein and fat are related to protein or fat synthesis, not related to consumption of either as a nutrient. I think that statement you made related to carbs being the only nutrient not necessary to life and the only one without a deficiency related disease could be a little misleading to people without medical knowledge. Technically, carbs or "sugars" are necessary to life, though your body can form it's own. If your glucose is 0, you are not alive. It's a lot easier to make that statement about proteins and fats because they are such building blocks of so many vital parts of the body. For example, cholesterol is technically a fat and is necessary for the cell wall, hemoglobin is technically a protein and is necessary to transport oxygen. I know you know all of this and am just writing it for people's benefit who may not. Hope it makes since, cause I am exhausted. Anyway, I support your right to lose weight however you want and wouldn't knock your way of eating, but I thought her book was less offensive than you did. I thought it presented a lot of valid info in an easy to understand way for the average individual trying to lose weight. Just my 2 cents...

Suzanne - too bad I didn't see your post before I replied, I could have saved myself some time and just seconded you and Mrs. Jim!

Wow, I created way more controversy than I intended. My point is simply that she didn't have to lie to write the book! Maybe her dietician deserves more of the blame for letting that stuff get in there but it's in there.

We thrive on controversy! It keeps life interesting