On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, John C. Pavao wrote:
> I find it impossible to believe that pharmaceutical companies are ignorant
> enough of the workings of the human body to still think that low-fat is
> correct.  Doctors, perhaps; mostly they probably just read the studies

Maybe; but remember that there are few/no studies of the long-term effects
of low-carb/high-protein diets, simply because it contradicts the accepted
wisdom so much that nobody thinks there's a point in doing such a study!
It's a sort of merry-go-round: there isn't any data supporting low-carb
diets because there isn't any data because... (you get the idea)

> funded by the groups who stand to profit from maintaining the status quo,
> to use Troy's term.  Drug companies, no way.  But there is no profit in
> low-carb.  And after some of the stories I've heard in recent years about
> lobbyists and government, I have no trouble at all picturing a scenario
> that just 8 months ago (before I heard of low-carb and paleolithic
> nutrition) would have sounded like a nutty conspiracy theory to me.  (A few
> months ago, the FDA recommended adding another serving of grains to the
> daily intake.  The study upon which they based this decision was funded by
> the Denver Wheat Growers' Council.)

That, in itself, I find rather disgusting.
Maybe we need to get the National Cattlemen's Association to fund a study
on low-carb :D

> If you think that it's nuts that a pharmaceutical company would be involved
> in such things, think about the tobacco companies.  How long have they
> known they were killing Americans?  (and everyone else they could get, for
> that matter?)  How long has the government known they were killing people?
>  Why did it continue unabated for so long.  Pressure and re-election
> campaign money from tobacco company lobbyists.  I truly believe that in 5,
> 10, or 20 years, there will be a similar debacle with the government, the
> AMA, and the pharmaceutical companies all being involved in lawsuits, etc.,
> because of holding back on this information.
>
> Take care,
> John Pavao

I still say the whole anti-meat thing has religious overtones.  Not eating
meat is now seen as a 'virtuous' thing, and if you contradict someone who
believes that eating meat is bad (because it is bad for the animals, or
makes us sick, etc.) you are seen as less-virtuous.  They have the
so-called moral high ground, which makes arguing against them rather hard
in this age of Neo-Puritanism.

I was listening to a radio show today on the issue of teaching sex-ed in
the schools.  Apparently there's a bill working its way through to fund
programs that solely teach abstinence -- no information about what STDs
are out there, how to avoid them if you do happen to be in such a
situation, etc.  It was very hard for the people holding the middle ground
not to sound very 'out there' and libertine compared with the conservative
guest, who was on the 'all sex outside marriage is evil' side of things.
But actually, all they were advocating was giving _all_ the information to
the kids, and letting them decide for themselves which path they were
going to take.

The same applies in dietary arguments; if the opposite side has claimed
the moral high ground, it's hard to win the argument without seeming like
a 'bad guy' oneself.

Sigh...  the ugly head of our dualistic heritage rises again...

Corbie