newlifeforhealth.com -- Concerns About Popular Diet Books/Agendas

[Home]
[About N.E.W. LIFE]
[What's an R.D.?]
[Nutrition Bites]
[The Seed (Blog)]
[Class Schedules]
[Online Classes]
[Individual Counseling]
[Food Diary Evaluations]
[Nutrition Seminars]
[Dietitian's Page]
[Resources]
[Class Resources (Login/Logout)]

N.E.W. LIFE Concerns About Popular Diet Books

Much nutrition misinformation and non-nutrition "agendas"
appear in the popular diet books.

Concerns regarding nutrition

	*The magic key.* So many of the diet book authors explain their particular metabolic theory for their unique recommendations, but most of the time the truth is they are the same old restrictions repackaged with a new explanation. Usually there is initial water loss on the low-carbohydrate diets because of the 3 concomitant water molecules that are lost with each molecule of carbohydrate. The low-carbohydrate ketosis-inducing diets also provide for an anorectic state which dulls hunger. Many of the diets are lower-in-fat then the Standard American Diet the reader is used to. And by one type or a combination of restrictions, the diets simply reduce calories. *It is not the metabolic changes in this "new" answer which holds the magic key to weight-loss, but rather the reduction in calories.*
	*Food lists.* Making lists of "good" and "bad" or "avoid" foods is a very popular trend among these self-professed nutrition "experts". The lists serve to reinforce the negative diet mentality of many eager and desperate readers, add more fuel to the prevalence of food obsessions, and contribute yet more confusion to understanding the big picture of optimal nutrition and health. *Any suggestion to limit variety goes counter to overwhelming evidence to the contrary about the benefits of increasing the variety of our diets.* Some of the more recent authors are to be congratulated for keeping their lists shorter than previously. Usually the recommendations include avoiding some fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts and/or seeds. Although a very small percentage of individuals might experience intolerances to certain foods, to broadly recommend to large groups of the population (even the whole population) to avoid certain foods is not only unnecessary but irresponsible. *There are over 900 phytochemicals and "food factors" being discovered which help to prevent disease.* For example, antioxidants like vitamin C, E, and beta carotene have been shown to be "free radical" scavangers, scouring up the harmful free radical by-products of oxygen reactions in our body, and strong evidence indicates they help prevent cancer, macular degeneration (the most common cause of blindness in the elderly), and other degenerative processes. Furthermore, by simply eating more of what is healthy it will "crowd out" the foods which do not contribute to optimal health. By eating more fruits, vegees, whole grains, beans, nuts and seeds, there is less room for excessive amounts of meat, fat, sugar, etc., and better yet, desires steadily change, which leads to lifelong optimal health. We don't have to eat healthy by depriving ourselves of the forbidden foods, but instead we begin to want to eat healthy because we feel better (and we feel bad when we eat unhealthy!)
	*Attributing benefits to the wrong thing.* For most Americans (who can afford a lot of improvement in their diet) just making some of the changes towards a more optimal diet will lead to feeling better, and even some physiological improvements. But mixed with these good results can be dangers of other dietary recommendations (such as with high-animal-protein/low-carb diets) and the belief that it is the particular diet itself which is responsible for the benefits, not the part of the diet that supports good nutrition. Many of the recommendations in these books, when followed, would make anyone who is eating the Standard American Diet (S.A.D.) feel better. Recommendations such as eating 5-6 moderately-small snack-type meals/day, incorporating more fruits and vegetables, focusing on monounsaturated fats, eliminating caffeine, etc. are all highly recommended dietary behaviors. Put them all together and you have a recipe for soon feeling better. But it doesn't mean that "typing" the diet to blood type, eating excessive amounts of animal protein and a deficiency of plant foods, or avoiding certain foods altogether is the reason for feeling better.
	*Bad advice.* Then there are the recommendations which I simply MUST disagree with: "Nuts and Seeds: . . . You certainly don't need them in your diet, and should be very selective in their use, as they are high in fat. Certainly you should avoid them if you're trying to lose weight." (Eat Right 4 Your Type, p. 61) But research shows nut eaters are thinner & better able to stick to a diet than nut shunners, perhaps because nuts help curb appetite. Furthermore, nuts are one of the healthiest foods you could possibly eat.

The benefits of the lowly nut must be extolled. It is true that there are approximately 70-80% fat calories in most nuts. In the American "fat-phobic" mindset all fat is bad, but this is simply not true. Nuts are one of the healthiest foods we can possibly eat! To eliminate them is to sabotage efforts towards optimal health:

	Nuts are an excellent source of the healthy monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Replacing saturated/trans fats with monounsaturated fat has been shown to *increase HDL-cholesterol* and *decrease triglycerides!*
	The biochemical process of fat oxidation that happens to fat that is bad for us (when oxygen reacts with fat to produce a biochemical cascade of events producing harmful "free radicals") happens extremely slowly in nuts because *they are so metabolically dense that oxygen does not have much opportunity to react*. In contrast to nuts, fat oxidation and free radical formation happens very readily in meat and dairy products.
	*Healthy cultures around the world* base 50% of their calories on whole grains, beans, *nuts and seeds.*
	There is accumulating research that shows that individuals who eat nuts seem to have *protection against heart disease and high blood pressure.*
	Nuts and seeds are a *very good source of calcium*. Almonds are the "king of nuts"!

People should be encouraged to incorporate more nuts into their diet.
Healthy amounts estimate a small handful of nuts at least 5 days/week
(not a whole jar of peanuts in front of the football game on T.V.)

(Bad advice continued)

" . . . a vegetarian diet is as far as you can get from [his diet] . . . one step farther than if you ate nothing but Snickers bars." The Zone

I actually had to read this one twice--this is bold!

Fact: "Populations that eat vegetarian diets have lower rates of heart disease, cancer, and stroke. They also tend to be leaner, not fatter, than other groups."--Frank Sacks of Harvard Medical School, who has studied vegetarian diets for 20 years. Many other studies have found that vegetarians are at much lower risk for osteoporosis. In contrast, Barry Sears hasn't published a single diet study.

	*BIG claims.* Sometimes there are BIG claims without the evidence to back them up!: Although Dr. Sears writes convincingly, readers should realize that, as he says here, he is convinced, but has not yet provided sufficient evidence to convince others. It seems that the good doctor, who holds a Ph.D. in (not nutrition), is excited about the initial improvements in his small-scale trials, but this has not yet borne out as long-term benefits. The real question is whether the extremely high-protein, low-carbohydrate recommendations will indeed be able to produce long-term adherence in individuals, and whether these recommendations will truly produce the monumental improvements in health which the author claims. Dr. Sears himself tells us in the Preface (p. xv) that his book and recommendations are the result of "almost six years of developing this dietary program and testing it on human beings", hardly the amount of time which can be considered evidence of preventing heart disease or cancer. Sears is definitely not the only author who does this--*many of the popular diet book authors rely upon unproven claims based on case histories, testimonials, and uncontrolled studies not published in peer-reviewed journals.*
	*The ASSUMPTION that weight-loss means better health.* Almost all of the diet book authors seem to be ignorant of (or just ignore) the reams of evidence that we are supposed to gain weight as we age.
	*Removing food from its rightful place.* The rightful place of food is nutriture and nurture. Many of the popular diet books remove food from this place in our lives. One author suggests that we must treat food as if it were a drug. "You must eat food in a controlled fashion and in the proper proportions--as if it were an intravenous drip." The Zone, p. 3. The N.E.W. LIFE goal is freedom around food. Drugs are drugs, and food is food.
	*Incorrect interpretations of the facts.* Misinformation abounds in these books. Even the "facts" presented can be wrong, such as in the following example: According to the National Center for Health Statistics the average American ate 81.4 grams of fat/day in the late 1970's and 82 grams/day in the late 1980's. The lower percent of fat and cholesterol is still higher in absolute fat when the total amount of calories continues to rise. *The conclusion which Dr. Sears makes, which he uses as another basis for his argument for the Zone diet, is based on an incorrect interpretation of the facts!* Later he writes: The simpler, more likely explanation for the rise in obesity is that we are eating 100 to 300 more calories (and exercising less) than we were in the late 1970's.

"I'm now convinced that reaching the Zone and staying in it can help prevent heart disease. It should even help reverse heart disease when it does occur. Staying in the Zone is your best defense to ward off cancer, and has a positive impact on a host of other diseases, including diabetes, arthritis, 'mental' diseases like depression and alcoholism, even chronic fatigue." The Zone, p. xvi.

"Researchers at the National Institutes of Health recently revealed that during the last seven years, while the dietary intake of saturated fats and cholesterol was decreasing, the average weight of young adult Americans has actually increased by ten pounds! . . . If we're eating supposedly 'healthy' diets that supply less fat and less cholesterol, why in the world are we gaining weight? That straightforward question has a straight answer: we're getting fatter because many of our dietary 'laws' are wrong." The Zone, p. 10.

"The greater problem is the terrible paradox: people are eating less fat and getting fatter!" The Zone, p. 11.

Concerns regarding non-nutrition philosophical agendas

	*The method--using "logic" to convince the reader.* Dr. D'Adamo makes the predictable subtle "argument" for his theory. First he presents the theory which he bases his argument on as fact, and then leads us to "understand" that the whole premise of his dietary recommendations are indeed fact while they are still theory! Do you see how subtle it is? "Now that we have heard the dramatic story of the evolution of blood type"--where did we "hear" this from, his first chapter? Are his own statements about things supposed to convince us that it is now fact upon which we should believe his entire recommendation? If the foundation is wrong, then the recommendations will likely be wrong. It is important to understand where an "expert" is coming from--it cannot logically be overlooked! This good doctor subtly glides us along to our "own" next conclusion-- "You are beginning to understand that blood type has always been the driving force behind human survival . . ."--but I "understand" no such thing based on the theories presented thus far!! I would need a LOT more evidence from a LOT more sources to "understand" this unproven claim. But again, this is not to single out D'Adamo--I have seen this subtle tactic often in the "nutrition" literature available to the public.
	*Evolution. Just accept the theory.* Some examples: I do not believe that the essential "truths" that live in every cell of my body link me to my evolutionary history. It seems this author would say that to deny evolution is to deny my essential truth. Many authors use the evolutionary theory as one of the foundational arguments for their whole approach. As surely-stated as they make it, one would be led to believe that evolution is no longer a theory! Claims made in the early stages of their books that evolution is proof for their claims about what the human body prefers is intriguing at best, but certainly open to question. For one thing, these authors exclude about 1/2 of the readership by making the assumption that everyone ascribes to the theory of evolution. Furthermore, even if we take evolution as a "given" (and certainly in our society we are taught of its merits throughout our education, so I am not surprised that the authors make this assumption), they sound as if they "know" how things developed 500,000 years ago, millions of years ago, etc. The statements are most often presented as fact, but should rightfully be presented as *theory*. One example (they are too numerous to present!): The numerous "explanations" in many of these popular books about our evolutionary history and adaptations (or lack of them) are too numerous to comment on. Suffice it to say that the authors are obviously convinced of the theory, and have plugged in some of their own explanations about insulin, glucogon, eicosonoids, blood type and mankind in general. Many of the authors take a LOT of liberty to explain their observations and recommendations so surely on the evidence from the past 500 million years, and I believe, should be questioned.
	*And the "logical conclusion" of many who ascribe to the theory of evolution . . . No accountability beyond ourselves.* Examples: The writer jumps from the hope of understanding a master plan to finding it "within ourselves". The master plan is anything but our own doing from within!!! It is particularly concerning to me that this "authority" supports this idea and directs the reader to solutions "within ourselves" because we live in a culture which is drifting further and further away from being accountable to anyone greater than ourselves, rather liking to be accountable to our own "truths" within ourselves instead. *Are these philosophical agendas really appropriate in "nutrition" books?* We have the freedom to read (and write) whatever we choose, and that is wonderful, but finding these "philosophies" in nutrition books is close to sticking rat poison in the good food--just a little bit will kill a rat, but he won't know it's bad because it's "hidden" as part of the package. At the very least, these diet book authors have no ill motives, are simply misinformed (or deceived) themselves, and sharing passionately for others to follow. The final responsibility lies with the reader, and that is why I am writing this article. Use discernment when you reach for something to "believe" in, and ask if anything doesn't ring true "between the lines" as you search for answers to your nutrition questions. By the way, I believe that we authors hold responsibility too. But don't count on everyone taking their responsibility to keep you safe and well-informed. Do take your own responsibility (being discerning) seriously. I do hope Dr. D'Adamo does not mean what it sounds like he means--no right or wrong lifestyle? These philosophical opinions are "slipped in" so often and so subtly.

"Most people think of blood type as an inert factor, something that comes into play only when there is a hospital emergency. But now that you have heard the dramatic story of the evolution of blood type, you are beginning to understand that blood type has always been the driving force behind human survival, changing and adapting to new conditions, environments, and food supplies." (Eat Right 4 Your Type, p. 17).

". . .they [Blood Type diets] are a way to fully support your most basic identity--to lead you back to the essential truths that live in every cell of your body and link you to your historical, evolutionary ancestry." Eat Right 4 Your Type, p. 32

"The key to the significance of blood type can be found in the story of human evolution . . . This evolutionary story relates directly to the dietary needs of each blood type today." Eat Right 4 Your Type, p. xvii.

"The appearance of our Cro-Magnon ancestors in around 40,000 B.C. propelled the human species to the top of the food chain, making them the most dangerous predators on earth. They began to hunt in organized packs; in a short time, they were able to make weapons and use tools. These major advances gave them strength and superiority beyond their natural physical abilities. Skillful and formidable hunters, the Cro-Magnons soon had little to fear from any of their animal rivals. With no natural predators other than themselves, the population exploded. Protein--meat--was their fuel, and it was at this point that the digestive attributes of Blood Type O reached their fullest expression . . . " Eat Right 4 Your Type, pp. 6-7.

"Perhaps in the next century we will finally be able to examine some master plan; a map that will show us how to get from here to there within ourselves." (Eat Right 4 Your Type, p. 48)

"There is no right or wrong lifestyle or diet; there are only right or wrong choices to be made based on our individual genetic codes." (Eat Right 4 Your Type, p. xiv)

One diet book author even makes personality predictions based on groupings of people, reminiscent of the Chinese and astrological horoscopes.

And this is how it goes, many variations, many times over!

Top of Page

Home

Print Page

Search newlifeforhealth.com

[Home] [About N.E.W. LIFE] [What's an R.D.?] [Nutrition Bites] [The Seed (Blog)] [Class Schedules] [Individual Counseling]

[Food Diary Evaluations] [Nutrition Seminars] [Dietitian's Page] [Resources]