This book may have the solution to the neverending low-carb debate
Over the past year or so, my wife Christine has been to see quite a few doctors to help her deal with chronic pain, fatigue, anxiety attacks, and other such health issues. She’s dealt with a variety of issues that require medical professionals with specific areas of expertise to assist her. So I’ve gotten to know the inside of a whole bunch of doctor’s offices very well.
In the waiting room of these physicians is generally some reading material including current and popular magazines such as Sports Illustrated, People, and Reader’s Digest. But one of these doctors Christine went to see had a book that immediately caught my eye as soon as I saw the title–Great Feuds in Science: Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever. Oh wow, what could this book be about, I wondered. And so I picked it up and began reading.
In a nutshell, the book runs chronologically through all the big scientific debates from history–is the Earth flat, evolution, how old is the Earth, did we evolve from monkeys, and others. Unlike most science-related books, this one wasn’t all stuffy and snobby. It was actually very entertaining to read, so kudos to Hal Hellman who has written a series of “great feuds” books. I noticed this science version was written way back in 1999, but there was a fantastic epilogue in the back of the book that is as timeless and applicable to the continuing debate about low-carb diets that exists to this very day as anything I’ve ever seen. Could the SOLUTION surrounding the seemingly neverending controversy about livin’ la vida low-carb that those of us in the low-carb community have been looking for actually be found at the end of this book written a decade ago?
The Epilogue page that got my wheels turning about the low-carb debate
After I read the forward-thinking Epilogue page in the back of this book, I had to take a picture of it so I could quote it here on my blog. That photo above may be difficult to read, so let me write it all out for you below with my emphasis on the pertinent parts:
The feuds included in this book showed a variety of ways in which resolution can take place. One method not included that I’d like to mention is resolution by a commission, or study group. This approach can be useful in helping resolve social issues, including such questions as the desirability of nuclear power or whether the greenhouse effect is really upon us.
Resolution of such issues is particularly important, for without it, society is hard put to make reasonable and widely acceptable decisions concerning what, if anything, to do about the problems inherent in such controversies.
One such vexing problems was solved in this way. The question was whether homosexuality is a disease. For years there appeared study after study, paper after paper, angry response after angry accusation, with no resolution. Should it, for example, be included as a disease in the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual of psychiatric disorders?
Finally, it was put to a vote among members of the association. Result: Members, by a vote of about two to one, decided it isn’t a disease.
So let’s talk about this idea of convening a low-carb nutrition commission. Obviously it can’t be modeled after the USDA’s 2010 Dietary Guidelines panel because they are simply ignoring the scientific evidence in support of low-carb diets. This commission would need to consist of researchers, practitioners, and even patients who have been impacted by low-carb in some form or fashion. No conjecture, no sensationalism, no propaganda–just pure data, research, and testimonies of how this way of eating has had an effect on weight and health. There’s plenty of evidence already out there, but the public has been thoroughly confused by all the mixed messages they read and hear about healthy living and promulgated by those who have an abject disdain for anything related to healthy low-carb dieting (i.e. the onslaught of negative comments about eating meat by groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).
People like Dr. Eric Westman, Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Stephen Phinney, Dr. Mary C. Vernon, Dr. Richard Feinman, Drs. Mike and Mary Dan Eades, Jackie Eberstein, Kent Altena, Valerie Berkowitz, and many more would be perfect for inclusion on this commission. The only downside is the big groups like the American Medical Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Diabetes Association would likely not even convene such a commission out of fear the members might actually endorse low-carb living. Can you imagine if that actually happened though? What kind of positive effect would it have on public perception of livin’ la vida low-carb?
Of course, the example cited by Hellman about whether homosexuality is a disease or not could be argued as still being unresolved in the public debate to this day. But I guess his point is that finding resolution in the scientific world first will start the ball rolling in the public’s eye. There will always be those who disagree with conclusions even after they are “settled,” but we would be well on our way if the science behind carbohydrate restriction was acknowledged by at least one if not all of the major public health organizations. It seems the ADA is the closest to doing that now in light of their subtle endorsement of low-carb diets in 2008, but getting the AMA or AHA to come on board will be a tall task indeed.
That part in Hellman’s epilogue about how society MUST deal with unresolved controversies struck home to me just how important holding such a commission on the subject of low-carb diets really is. People just don’t know what to do with low-carb these days. They’re obese, they’re diabetic, they’re sick in some form or fashion that is tied to carbohydrate consumption–and yet they’re scared to death to try a way of eating that has been so viciously demonized and propagandized against by those with interests that reach far beyond the scope of health. As long as the question about the safety and effectiveness of low-carb diets is left unanswered by leading health groups like the ADA, AHA, and AMA, the public won’t know what to do about their own personal weight and health concerns. And that’s a crying shame.
Of course, it could be argued that the information is already out there for anyone who wants to find it to see and hear and that’s true. I work diligently each and every day to provide information on my blogs, podcast shows, and YouTube videos that will help people make better decisions about their own weight and health situation and I’m a big believer in personal responsibility to educate yourself enough to make informed decisions about what to do.
But wouldn’t it be nice to hear the American Heart Association trumpeting the virtues of healthy high-fat, low-carb eating to a world of people desperately looking for answers? This positive reinforcement of the low-carb message would then trickle down to doctors, nutritionists, and ultimately to the patients who need to be transformed by it. In the end, the fat and sick are given the information they need to overcome their malady because they’ve been properly informed, educated, and endorsed by people they know and trust with their health.
What do you think about the idea of an all-inclusive commission on low-carb nutrition? Would it work to change public perception about low-carb diets? Or is this simply an exercise in futility that made for a nice mental exercise on a low-carb web site and nothing more? Tell me what you think in the comments section below!
