Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / March 2008
Food Industry Conspiracy to Make Us Fat?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Uncle Enrico - 13 Mar 2008 13:43 GMT I found this quote from Dr. Wortman's Blog about the behind-the-scenes attack on low carb diets by food manufacturers to be interesting:
http://www.drjaywortman.com/blog/wordpress/about/
"The impact of the widening popularity of low-carb dieting began to be felt among the food producers whose products were high in carbohydrate content. There were news reports of declining sales of foods like orange juice, bread, potatoes and pasta. This led to the development of direct marketing strategies to reverse this trend by many sectors of the agri-food industry. More ominous and perhaps telling of things to come, however, was an announcement by the pasta producers after they held a global meeting in Rome to discuss strategies to counter the threat of low-carb dieting. Their spokesperson said they had decided against a direct marketing campaign in favour of a plan to “work behind the scenes”. This was interesting in light of the fact that, for every report of a study that supported low-carb dieting, it seemed there would be a negative report of some kind. Whenever something appeared in the media, I would track down the source study to see what actually happened. It became apparent to me that the research supportive of low-carb tended to be solid and well executed while the studies that were negative were not well done and often contrived. In spite of this, they tended to get the same air time in the media. I sometimes found that the media reports themselves skewed things against low-carb more than did the study they were reporting on. I began to wonder if people working “behind the scenes” were having a hand in this.
The eventual decline in popularity of low-carb dieting was clearly influenced by confusing messaging directed at the public. On the one hand, the results of good studies were being reported suggesting this was a good way to lose weight and improve related conditions while, on the other hand, most authoritative sources denounced the diet as dangerous and not to be adhered to over any length of time. People were told that it was not sustainable and that weight regain would be their fate if they tried it. This was an easily self-fulfilled prophesy, of course. As I had learned, it takes an effort of will to cut out all those comfort foods and sweets to which we have become accustomed and it is easy to succumb to the fear of harm, especially when authoritative sources are telling you that you need carbs for your brain to function, that your kidneys will suffer and that you increase your risk of heart disease, osteoporosis and bad breath, something most people fear even more than death itself. I think that “behind the scenes” efforts were successful in propelling this misinformation and were ultimately successful in protecting threatened economic interests by deflating the trend toward low-carb dieting."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe an "aboriginal diet" will be met with greater public acceptance than the much maligned Atkins Diet?
Andy - 13 Mar 2008 16:40 GMT Uncle Enrico said...
> I found this quote from Dr. Wortman's Blog about the behind-the-scenes > attack on low carb diets by food manufacturers to be interesting: > > http://www.drjaywortman.com/blog/wordpress/about/ Here's a blog'd article (summarized from a book) about HFCS in foods. A quick read/grain o' salt stuff, not a research paper.
http://www.tinyurl.com/2kho8g
I'll never touch the stuff again.
I think the secret is simply eating as natural as possible.
Best,
Andy
 Signature T2 HBP Gout
:) Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 13 Mar 2008 17:42 GMT > friend Uncle Enrico said... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I think the secret is simply eating as natural as possible. The secret is simply being smarter:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthy
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Brethren of the KING of kings and LORD of lords. http://HeartMDPhD.com/ChristianBrethren
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 13 Mar 2008 16:58 GMT > I found this quote from Dr. Wortman's Blog about the behind-the-scenes > attack on low carb diets by food manufacturers to be interesting: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > is easy to succumb to the fear of harm, especially when authoritative > sources are telling you that you need carbs for your brain to function, Actually, the brain does require glucose (a carbohydrate) in order to function normally.
> that your kidneys will suffer and that you increase your risk of heart > disease, osteoporosis and bad breath, something most people fear even [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Maybe an "aboriginal diet" will be met with greater public acceptance > than the much maligned Atkins Diet? It remains smarter to simply eat less, down to the right amount:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthy
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Brethren of the KING of kings and LORD of lords. http://HeartMDPhD.com/ChristianBrethren
John - 13 Mar 2008 17:30 GMT > I found this quote from Dr. Wortman's Blog about the behind-the-scenes > attack on low carb diets by food manufacturers to be interesting: > > http://www.drjaywortman.com/blog/wordpress/about/ I found this quote interesting:
"It soon became apparent that something that had so brilliantly improved my health was viewed with intense fear and suspicion by those who are supposed to be authorities on diet and nutrition. I found I was openly attacked by dieticians when I suggested that a low-carb diet might be a valid way to lose weight and manage diabetes."
I experienced the same thing from the dietician when I attended a Diabetes class.
My endo says she'd like to bottle whatever I'm doing and give it to her other patients. I think I'll email her this article.
John C.
Trinkwasser - 14 Mar 2008 21:27 GMT >> I found this quote from Dr. Wortman's Blog about the behind-the-scenes >> attack on low carb diets by food manufacturers to be interesting: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >My endo says she'd like to bottle whatever I'm doing and give it to >her other patients. I think I'll email her this article. Go for it!
My GP has told me she is not permitted to recommend other than the Low Fat High Carb Diet but she's very impressed by the rapid improvement in my numbers. What a depressing dilemma . . .
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 14 Mar 2008 21:44 GMT > >> I found this quote from Dr. Wortman's Blog about the behind-the-scenes > >> attack on low carb diets by food manufacturers to be interesting: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Fat High Carb Diet but she's very impressed by the rapid improvement > in my numbers. Glycemic numbers are not a substitute for outcomes as was seen in the premature termination of part of ACCORD and also the following:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes/msg/9adfbd7071222b21?
> What a depressing dilemma . . . May reading the following help promote understanding if you are wise and discerning:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Parable
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthy
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Brethren of the KING of kings and LORD of lords. http://HeartMDPhD.com/ChristianBrethren
bj - 15 Mar 2008 04:04 GMT > My GP has told me she is not permitted to recommend other than the Low > Fat High Carb Diet but she's very impressed by the rapid improvement > in my numbers. What a depressing dilemma . . . Not permitted by whom? And how would anyone know, unless of course you go around telling us all?!?
:-) bj
Trinkwasser - 15 Mar 2008 16:32 GMT >> My GP has told me she is not permitted to recommend other than the Low >> Fat High Carb Diet but she's very impressed by the rapid improvement [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >And how would anyone know, unless of course you go around telling us all?!? >:-) The PCT, which is kind of the local national financial authority over the doctors and hospitals, think a government-owned HMO.
When the local PCT was set up (this area was divided off from two adjacent areas) they "discovered" they were something like £9 million *further* in debt than they were expecting, hence the financial clampdowns.
It's entirely possible that "pseudopatients" may call to check whether doctors are prescribing and diagnosing "correctly". I know when mother still had a NHS dentist she was dragged off to spend an afternoon sitting in a portakabin until someone checked all her teeth, to ensure the dentist wasn't using illegal treatments (most modern stuff, ie. everything except mercury amalgam and extraction, was disallowed under the NHS).
Have you guys got anything like ISO 9000/9001, used to be BS5750, theoretically this has to do with quality control, basically it dictates that for certification a company must have written procedures for everything which staff must follow. Whether or not the procedures are best practice is irrelevant.
The management of the health service seems to be following the same model.
There have been cases of doctors losing their jobs due to prescribing more or more expensive drugs than are permitted, and for referring too many patients to specialists.
(one of the nurses also whispered that many patients found the GI was a useful resource - I agreed with her but pointed out that only by doing enough testing could you guarantee how well *anything* worked in your particular case)
bj - 15 Mar 2008 18:09 GMT >>Not permitted by whom? >>And how would anyone know, unless of course you go around telling us [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > for everything which staff must follow. Whether or not the procedures > are best practice is irrelevant. Oh, I see -- "the party line". Not sure about those #s you mention, but there are quality control standards, hospital accreditation, etc. There's more activity nowadays to promote "best practices", "outcome evaluations" & so on -- as a way to not only (hopefully) improve healthcare/outcomes but reduce costs.
But that doesn't restrict the doctor from recommending what s/he thinks best for the patient. Freedom of speech & all that. And yes, I suppose there could be "mystery shoppers" looking at doctors, just as they do at retailers & restaurants.
There was a big hullabaloo a few years ago because of the restrictions placed on doctors getting certain federal funding (which covers a *lot* of clinics) -- they couldn't mention a certain word starting with abor, not even its very existence as a legal option, for fear of losing funding. (I don't know what the status of that is now, but since W is still around I wouldn't be surprised if there are still a lot of restrictions....)
I don't know what restrictions there are on HMO's as far as what the doctors *say*, although what will be *paid for* (& their job security) is another matter. I've had sorta the same thing under regular private insurance -- doctor recommends a procedure, insurance says I don't need it, I get it anyway -- and insurance ends up paying after all since "they found something" (so it's a good thing I thought it was worth spending $ to get screened instead of letting a previously unsuspected symptomless pre-cancer condition keep brewing until I *did* have "the right symptoms"...& a lot more problems....) But nobody complained or penalized the doctors for recommending it in the first place -- and they did have good reasons for doing so. (& now we see ads all over the place about having this screening at the age I was then! just because of age, not anything else!) bj
Trinkwasser - 17 Mar 2008 22:26 GMT >>>Not permitted by whom? >>>And how would anyone know, unless of course you go around telling us [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >evaluations" & so on -- as a way to not only (hopefully) improve >healthcare/outcomes but reduce costs. Here there's a whole population of people with academic qualifications from A levels to degrees who are totally incapable of actually *doing* anything, and who require far higher salaries and perks than those folks who actually do stuff. The reduced costs are in order to pay for ever more of these parasites.
I've known company directors I wouldn't trust to direct a stream of piss into a bucket, and managers I wouldn't expect to manage a bowel movement without a steering committee - yet they get paid as much as the thoroughly competent ones I've also met <sigh>
The NHS long passed the point of having more managers than nurses, and more clerical than medical staff. This is where so much of the money goes, it's the nearest thing in a "nationalised" system to the profits your Insurance Companies take and distribute to their shareholders.
>But that doesn't restrict the doctor from recommending what s/he thinks best >for the patient. Freedom of speech & all that. And yes, I suppose there >could be "mystery shoppers" looking at doctors, just as they do at retailers >& restaurants. Also of course our records are only "secure" from certain people, they can be accessed by all kinds of folks you wouldn't expect to have access (I believe school dinner ladies and firemen were on one list but have now been taken off) no doubt many Civil Servants are ploughing through the databases even as we speak.
>There was a big hullabaloo a few years ago because of the restrictions >placed on doctors getting certain federal funding (which covers a *lot* of >clinics) -- they couldn't mention a certain word starting with abor, not >even its very existence as a legal option, for fear of losing funding. (I >don't know what the status of that is now, but since W is still around I >wouldn't be surprised if there are still a lot of restrictions....) Hey if he permitted abortion where else would he get enough cannon fodder?
>I don't know what restrictions there are on HMO's as far as what the doctors >*say*, although what will be *paid for* (& their job security) is another [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >doing so. (& now we see ads all over the place about having this screening >at the age I was then! just because of age, not anything else!) Yes we can get screening procedures if we pay privately, and a damn good idea too. I've heard no end of similar stories, pateints being fobbed off until it;s too late - then needing far more money spending than if the condition had been caught in timely fashion. People go to France, Eastern Europe and even Thailand to get stuff done sometimes, because even when something *is* found it can routinely take months to get an appointment with a specialist and even more months to schedule an operation. Under the NHS rules some screening may be carried out and in fact the doctors get extra payments for demonstrating that they do it - but they don't get paid any extra for dealing with the consequences
<sigh>
still fuming over mother's left eye which went from "not bad enough to be treated" to "too bad to be treated" because they didn;t schedule an appointment when they should have. I guess someone got a new BMW out of the deal . . .
Nicky - 15 Mar 2008 17:57 GMT >> My GP has told me she is not permitted to recommend other than the Low >> Fat High Carb Diet but she's very impressed by the rapid improvement >> in my numbers. What a depressing dilemma . . . > >Not permitted by whom? >And how would anyone know, unless of course you go around telling us all?!? By the practice guidelines - mine has the same problem - if they buck them, they risk being chucked out.
GPs HAVE to be the most conservative group in medicine, because they're at the bottom of the guideline feeding chain...
Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 100ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25
Blattus Slafaly £ ¥ ‰ :) - 15 Mar 2008 02:18 GMT > I found this quote from Dr. Wortman's Blog about the behind-the-scenes > attack on low carb diets by food manufacturers to be interesting: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Maybe an "aboriginal diet" will be met with greater public acceptance > than the much maligned Atkins Diet? They put drugs in food to make you more hungry.
 Signature Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8
|
|
|