How the media disses low-carb diets I
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the media in general dislike low-carb diets. They use a number of tricks to denigrate carbohydrate-restricted diets at every opportunity. I’m going to start a series of posts showing the different methods used by our friends in the press to downplay the efficacy of the diets that millions of people have found so effective.
One of the most common methods the media uses to disparage low-carb diets is to give any study that makes these diets look bad, no matter how suspect such a study might be, full coverage. We saw this in the mega coverage a few weeks ago of a poster presentation (not even an article in a peer-reviewed journal) allegedly showing that the Atkins diet causes vascular damage. I dissected this ‘study’ and the media coverage of it in a previous post. This method isn’t particularly subtle, so we’ll leave it because I want to deal with the sort of crafty, underhanded ways that the media work to bring about their ends.
Another way the media disses low-carb diets is to simply downplay them. Or even fail to mention them at all. In June 2001
Woman’s World did a cover story about Kathleen Hays the (at that time) CNBC financial commentator who is also a friend of mine. She worked out at Fred Hahn’s facility in New York and did Slow Burn strength training. She also followed the Protein Power diet. When approached by Woman’s World to do the story she told them that she had been following a low-carb diet along with her strength training. They told her they weren’t interested in her diet – they wanted to do an article on her method of exercise. And so they did. You can read the story by clicking the Woman’s World picture on Fred’s website. Not a mention of a low-carb diet. Anywhere. The implication is that she lost her 28 pounds by simply doing strength training.
Sometimes the media slips in the fact that a low-carb diet was part of an overall weight-loss plan, but then totally focuses on some other aspect of the regimen.
A reader this blog sent me a classic example of this method. He sent a link to a CNN story about a man who had ‘walked off’ a huge amount of weight, or at least that’s what the article wanted readers to believe. The headline in big bold print stated
WEIGHING NEARLY 400 POUNDS, MAN WALKS OFF HALF HIS WEIGHT
The article then goes on to describe the epiphany that Mr. Novak (the subject of this article) experienced. He was at a football game and went for refreshments. Upon returning to his seat, Mr. Novak
started getting winded. “I didn’t feel right, I started sweating. I didn’t think I would make it back up. My heart [was] beating a million times a minute; I thought I was having a heart attack.”
Novak stood against a cold wall for 20 minutes to catch his breath. Fortunately, he wasn’t having a heart attack but he was so frightened that thoughts of his family began to race through his mind.
“A lot of things went through my head, about saying goodbye to my kids,” says Novak choking back his tears. “I told my friend, ‘This is it, I’m not going to live like this no more.’ “
Like many people who undergo similar experiences, Mr. Novak decided to do something about his condition. He came up with his own game plan and got started.
He began simply by walking — one mile a day and eating a low-carbohydrate diet of 15-30 grams a day.
There it is. The only mention of a low-carb diet in the entire article. The rest of the piece discusses Mr. Novak’s walking regimen.
“I walked off my first 100 pounds,” he says. “Walked it off, an hour a day. I lost 100 pounds in seven months.”
Now, it is admirable that Mr. Novak was able to continue his regimen, but it’s a little disingenuous to imply that he ‘walked’ off a 100 pounds in seven months. In fact, it’s not only disingenuous, it’s impossible. If we simply do the math, we find that the number of calories expended in walking an hour times 30 days per month times seven months gives us (and this is generous) about 42,000 kcal. If we divide the 42,000 kcal by the 3,500 kcal it takes to lose a pound of fat, we get 12 pounds. So, at best, Mr. Kovak’s walking an hour a day got rid of 12 pounds. What happened to the other 88 pounds? Could it be that the low-carb diet was responsible for that? I would think so. But did the low-carb diet get any credit? Nope. None.
Before you blame Mr. Novak for telling porkies, remember the story above about Kathleen Hays. She tried to tell them that she attributed most of her weight loss to the Protein Power diet, but they didn’t want to hear that. We don’t know what Mr. Novak said versus what the press reported.
In the video that accompanies the print article, the low-carb diet is mentioned exactly once, and is mentioned quickly. All the video is about his exercise regimen. Every shot almost shows some sort of exercise device or a clip of Mr. Novak exercising. Again, the media is in charge of editing the video footage. We haven’t a clue what Mr. Novak really told them.
When the great unwashed masses read this article or watch the accompanying video, they will finish with the idea firmly implanted that if they go out and walk an hour a day, they will lose 100 pounds in seven months. Nothing could be further from the truth. Maybe if they incorporate a 15-30 gram per day low-carb diet along with their walking, but not just by walking alone.
This is but one way the media have of downplaying low-carb diets. In posts to come, I’ll show some even more subtle ways that the folks in the press flim flam their audience. Just beware of what’s going on and don’t be taken in.
If you find ways in which the press is playing fast and loose with the facts on low-carb dieting, send them my way. I can always use bad examples.
(Hat tip to John for this one.)
I am new to this whole discussion of proper nutrition as well as blogging for that matter.
I apologize if this is not the appropriate place to post this, but I noticed a post further up that referenced that there is a simple principle going on here about marketing and other comments about big money/media suppressing the truth about good nutrition.
I have recently become very interested in proper nutrition after suffering some devastating side effects from statin use which caused muscle degeneration among a vast array other debilitating effects.
Before I was one of those “happy” go lucky 20 lb excess weight guys that basically ate what tasted good, made me feel good and figured that I would probably get hit & killed by a bus before anything I was eating would kill me. I could spell diet but that was about the extent of my interest in the process. I have genetic longevity in my ancestry, all existing on typical southern diets of all the big no-no’s (red meat, chicken & pork [most meals having several meats], fat [everything fried, lard and real butter of course], wild game, fresh water fish (fried), plenty of fresh vegetables (but cooked with salt pork, bacon or ham hock), salt and pepper on everything, ice cream, cakes, pies or pastries usually once a week, beer, whiskey and tobacco of one form or another.
Then I got hit by a proverbial bus called statins (to correct triglycerides of 287, although total cholesterol 149 & glucose 89) only it didn’t kill me it just ran over me and mangled my body and brain.
Now, due to the desire to rebuild my body and the wake up call of what a little innocent looking peach colored pill that everyone seemed to endorse as the latest miracle could do to me, I have set out to educate myself on the stuff that goes into my body. I must say that this has become one of the most difficult mazes that I have ever attempted to navigate, given all of the controversy, self serving interests, incomplete data (usually intentional), etc., etc. etc.
This brings me to the focus of my post. In all of my reading of hundreds of blogs, comments, commentaries and editorials on the why’s of the truth of proper nutrition being quashed, I have concluded that the major consensus comprises:
Big Pharma – BIG BUCKS
Media – ad money mainly from big “pharma”& news by controversy.
Doctors/Hospitals– incentives, no time to research, and bias in medical teaching (back to big pharma)
Science – difficulty in bucking trends (grants usually from big pharma and ego of existing community)
Government – just plain lazy, lack of controls, politics (big pharma again) and bureaucratic inefficiency
Food companies – big bucks
I see a lot of frustration by the minority (those that truly want to establish a trustworthy standard for proper nutrition and responsible medical application) in the hopelessness of succeeding in bucking up against such big guns.
As an analyst and designer who constantly deals with equalizing opposing forces, it becomes apparent to me that one fights big guns with big guns. The object would be to find such an entity that would selfishly benefit from what you are trying to accomplish. One of the biggest guns of all that would surely be self served in big bucks from the cause of making people healthier is obviously missing from the above list.
-THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY-
Dr. Eades, you made a reply comment earlier that if a demand is created a supply will follow; well the insurance industry has one of the biggest sticks in making demands in the market place, especially health care.
I normally detest insurance companies, but I truly believe that this is one situation where they could really do some good while filling their greedy pockets. If one truly looks at it we the consumer only carry a minority burden of the costs (through premiums, deductibles and co-pays) placed on health care by the unhealthy state of our nation and reckless medicating. The insurance companies carry the majority of it and if they could be convinced that something could increase their profits by reducing those costs you can bet they will jump on it.
So, if there is going to be a change in the way things are done in the medical, scientific, collegiate and nutritional (and even media) arenas then those that want the change will have to inundate the insurance companies with the true facts and furthermore push them to seek valid research. Don’t write your congressman; write your insurance company.
Hi Doug–
Welcome to the blog. You can see how easily you could have lowered your triglycerides by reading today’s post (2/4/08). I’m sorry you had the disastrous experience you had with the statin.
I’ve thought about the money issue myself and have considered the insurance industry as a pressure point for change. But as it stands now, insurance companies are much like builders who build on a cost-plus basis. These builders never try to talk you out of higher-priced choices for door hardware, appliances, wall coverings, windows, etc. because they simply make their 15 percent on a higher base number when you make these choices. The insurance industry works the same way. They simply figure what their costs are going to be then add their profit percentage, divide by the number of insureds, and set their premiums. Your premiums go up because everyone goes on statins, and the insurance companies profits go up as well because they’re setting them on a higher base number. If somehow insurance premiums were fixed, you can bet that many things would change in a hurry.
Cheers–
MRE
“In fact, it’s not only disingenuous, it’s impossible. If we simply do the math, we find that the number of calories expended in walking an hour times 30 days per month times seven months gives us (and this is generous) about 42,000 kcal. If we divide the 42,000 kcal by the 3,500 kcal it takes to lose a pound of fat, we get 12 pounds.”
Actually Mike, the calories burned would be even less (roughly half) since you have to subtract the amount of calories Mr. Novak would have burned in the same hour doing something else! So it’s more like 24,000 EXTRA calories only!
Good point, Fred. I was doing as so many do and taking the total calories burned per hour.
Well, Dr. Mike, I’ve been hitting this theme about the bias in the media about low-carb diets for nearly three years. It’s totally disgusting which is why I often highlight low-carb weight loss success stories at “Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb”.
Incidentally, I called Phill Novak from that CNN story today and will be conducting a podcast interview with him that will air on Thursday in Episode 110. His wife Norma was extremely excited to talk about their low-carb weight loss routine (no specific plan like Atkins or Protein Power, but general low-carb eating) and she said Phill looked forward to speaking with me about it. One way or another, we’ll get the message out there.
THANKS for all you’re doing to champion this cause, Dr. Mike! By the way, will you and MD be at the Nutrition and Metabolism scientific seminar on saturated fat coming to Phoenix, AZ on April 12-13? Gary Taubes is expected to be one of the speakers and my wife Christine and I will be there covering the event for my blog and podcast show. Would LOVE to do an audio podcast interview with you if you are. SEE YA!
Hey Jimmie–
Yep, we plan on being there. Will be happy to do the podcast.
Cheers–
Mike
yeah…the media can say alot of things that arent true…they are very biased..
Hello Dr, my first post/comment on your bog. Fantastic site by the way!
Coincidentally, as I was reading this post I had the TV on in the background showing a programme called ‘Supersize vs Superskinny’ (It’s a channel 4 show, here in the UK), where somebody who is incredibly skinny and eats very little swaps diets with someone who is the complete opposite.
The overriding message you’d get from the programme is that the superskinny girl is killing herself because she won’t eat pasta/rice/potatoes etc. She only eats fish/meat and vegetables. So far her decision to not eat pasta/rice has been described as her “making disastrous choices in the food she eats” and “killing herself slowly”.
She clearly has a problem because she seems to eat so little (the amount of protein she consumes in each meal is very small) and she does an insane amount of cardio – which incidentally is being held up as proof of how ‘fit’ she is. And to add real authenticity to the claims of how damaging a diet low in carbs is, they have a doctor who keeps popping up periodically to tell the girl why she MUST start eating nutritious carbs such as the aforementioned pasta/rice/potatoes in order to stop her body from consuming itself.
Sounds like a dreadful show.
“I have always thought the meat packing industry and the cattle raising industry had very powerful political ties.”
The packing industry and livestock-promotion organizations like the Beef Council are very small potatoes (pardon the pun) compared to the huge corporations that process, package, and market grain and sugar. There’s also far more profit in the latter; which means more that can be spent buying politicians, associations like the ADA, and favorable media coverage.
I believe the reason for the continuing media bunk is rooted in human psychology. We are an amiable species and, on the whole, prefer not to alienate associates and abandon commonly held views, even in the face of raw evidence and repeatable scientific method. Skepticism is not in our nature. This point is made on the first page of the first chapter of Protein Power. Despite contrary evidence, yellow fever’s cause wass not, as thought two hundred years ago, related to the effects of putrified animal and vegetable matter. It took one skeptical, scientifically-oriented mind to start the revolution on that matter. Find a doctor today who believes yellow fever is not vectored by the mosquito and I’ll give you a nickel. But it took decades for that to change. Today’s media positions wont matter in fifty years. I fully expect it will take that long for the tide to turn.
Whether or not we get mad at the folly of it all or give up on our collective and individual psychology, the evolutionary imperative will win out. “Protein Power” offered scientific reasons for its readers to understand why a restricted carb diet works and why low fat, high carb diets don’t…reasons Dr. Atkins did not explain in his book. Facts matter in the long run.
Dave (190 and on the way to 155)
I think that, for many people, low-fat has become a religious belief, tied together with their assumptions about progress and their faith in authority. Print out some of the proofs about low-carb and the fat/cholesterol lies and start handing it out to your friends, and you’ll get the same look they give when they see someone coming to the door with a religious pamphlet. They don’t want to hear it; it’s too much of a violation of their beliefs. If they were taught wrong about that, how many other things they believe are wrong? It’s scary.
I agree with Dave; it could easily take 50 years. I just hope to live long enough to see the pioneers get the credit they deserve.
Hey Dr. Mike,
As I promised, here’s my podcast interview with that guy from the CNN story Phill Novak who told me all about his low-carb diet. He was obviously upset they ignored that aspect of his weight loss. Although, after hearing about how many hours a day he exercises, I can only imagine how well he would do from implementing some “slow burn” techniques into his schedule. Listen to the enthusiasm this guy has about low-carb living in my interview:
http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/interview-cnns-fit-nation-weight-loss-poster-boy-phil-novak-episode-111
Thanks for the link, Jimmy.
I posted on your podcast today (2/11/08). Great job in tracking Phill down and bagging the interview. I wish I had thought of it. And I wish I had a podcast.
Cheers–
MRE
It was VERY easy for me, Dr. Mike–Phill’s a BIG FAN of my blog and GLADLY accepted my invitation. You DO need a podcast and I’d be happy to tell you about my producer if you are genuinely interested in doing one. Maybe you can be a guest on my show sometime soon.
I’ll be happy to be a guest anytime. I thought we were planning on doing it at the Nutrition& Metabolism meeting. And I would love to get any information you have. Thanks.
Cheers–
MRE
HEY DOC
WHEN YOU POD LOOK ME UP ILL BE GLAD TO ALSO BE ON
PHILL NOVAK