>Which is why virtually every medical authority has argued against the
>otherwise obvious shift from low-fat to low-carb.

Any and all who argue against the evils of carbs would deny it and, thank
God, there ARE a few exceptions to the rule, but you're dead-on.  Few will
bite the hands that feed them.  I see nothing shy of a conspiracy of X Files
proportion.  I had trouble finding it a while back, but I'm sure I filed
away SOMEWHERE in my computer a story in reaction to initial results of the
Atkins/Ornish test funded by the NIH and headed by CU Health Science Center
researcher Jim Hill.  Initial results?  Pro-Atkins, of course.  I recognized
nearly all of the people whose reactions were cited.  They were shocked
$hitless and each and every one of them came up with a "must be" theory.
"Participants must have lied about what they really ate."  "These are
certainly only temporary benefits."  Blah blah blah.  They're nothing but
morons wrapped in idiots.  There are many published studies on the positive
ipact of a reduced-carbohydrate diet.  I learned that starch turns to sugar
in a three-room schoolhouse in the sticks!  The same people who tout baked
potatoes minus butter know and even admit that sugar's bad for you.  What,
did they all flunk math?  It's THAT SIMPLE.  But they don't even wanna hear
it.

If someone could document a meeting between US government officials, food
manufacturers and pharmaceutical giants a la "Dr. Strangelove," I wouldn't
be surprised at all.

Dori Zook
Denver, CO

_________________________________________________________________
Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here.
http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx