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)

I don't know about this personally.  Atkins references quite a few studies
in his New Diet Revolution book, but I am unaware as to whether any of
these would qualify.

You're right about the "merry-go-round" effect, and it's easy to see how it
has gone on so long.  What I find so interesting is that from what I've
read, no one even ever thought there was anything wrong with eating meat
until Kellogg came along.

> 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

But you see what I mean?  And don't think for a moment that a pro low-carb
study funded by the NCA would even be accepted!  Because it would be made
loud and clear that the study was funded by those who stand most to profit
from it.  Well, you say, so was the wheat study.  Yes, but everyone thinks
THEY are right, so it's no big deal.

> 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.

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.

Whether it's the moral high ground, or simply the high ground of "we're
right and you're wrong", I tend to agree.  What bothers me most though, is
not this, but the fact that data is being manipulated to make the studies
that are done come out in favor of high-carbohydrate, grain-based diets.
 There is no question in my mind that these studies are either being done
in such a way as to preclude reaching the proper conclusions, or the data
is simply being manipulated.  How else can this be explained?  So why is it
happening?  Ignorance?  Accident?  Walk down the aisle in the supermarket.
 Count the number of products.  Now count the number of products labelled
"low-fat".  At least here in New England, I'll bet the ratio falls between
1/4 and 1/3 of all food products are now refined, "low-fat" foods.  And of
these, check what the differences between the regular version and the
lowfat version.  Almost invariably, the low-fat version has more salt, more
sugar, and "modified food starch".  These are three items that are produced
and sold.  Saturated fats are not.  They are part of the products they are
in (i.e., meats).  No company produces saturated fats that I can think of.
 And yet, as these processed foods make people fatter and sicker, they are
more and more strongly endorsed by the FDA, the AMA, and of course, the
food product industry.  Just watch TV, they'll tell you how healthy it is
to eat all that grain.

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.

Until the day that the people in this country wake up and realize that
trading their free will for government protection is akin to giving up our
Constitutional rights, this will continue.  All sex outside of marriage is
evil?  Did they ask the people on the panel if they'd ever done it?  Of
course they have.  Almost everyone has.  Personally, I'm likely to find
more evil in the idea of keeping information from people that they need to
make informed, intelligent decisions about how to conduct their lives.  If
being moderate makes you a liberal, then call me liberal.  But what I don't
understand is why a certain group of people thinks that they can dictate
the morality of the entire human race.  If we are truly better than
animals, why then should we be nothing more than sheep to be led?

You know why that group of people wants to keep that information from
people?  Because they believe that whoever gets those diseases deserves
them.  Which sounds like a terribly vindictive point of view for people who
generally profess to follow perhaps the most forgiving man who ever lived,
but...

You are right, though.  Diet does seem to have taken on almost religious
qualities in this country.  People preach about their low-fat, exercise
until your joints wear out regimes like they were a stairway to heaven.
 And that's another reason why we'll always be fighting an uphill battle
slowly.  A religious fervor, a fight based upon perceived moral high ground
no matter what the topic, is the most dificult to win against.  And often
the longest lived fight.

I try to tell people who ask me what I'm doing.  Most, their eyes glaze
over almost immediately, or they begin to look uncomfortable, as though I'd
suggested that their religion was wrong.  Like telling a Moonie that Rev.
Moon is insane.  Those who listen always impress me.  Those who do not, I
feel bad about, but there's little I can do.  The horrible part of it is
that I cannot convince a single member of my family.  No, I don't want to
argue with them, but I don't want to see them go on eating so terribly
either.  But I'm helpless.

John Pavao