An Open Letter to Victorian Health Minister Bronwyn Pike

Ms Pike, get off the anti-low-carb bandwagon!

By Anthony Colpo, March 29, 2004.

Dear Ms Pike,

Recently, you announced a new campaign, to be conducted by your government at taxpayer expense, that would endeavor to alert Victorian residents to the alleged "dangers" of low-carbohydrate diets. To the best of my knowledge, this action is unprecedented in Australian political history, for no state government has ever taken it up on themselves to issue warnings against a specific diet, despite the fact that certain dietary regimens have indeed been directly linked to ill-health and death. Such potentially dangerous nutritional regimes include vegan diets, which have claimed the lives of numerous infants around the world, and resulted in legal proceedings against the misguided parents of these youngsters.(1) Along with their potentially fatal effects on infants, vegan diets have also demonstrated the ability to harm children, adolescents, and even adults. So far, while you have had much to say about low-carb nutrition, you have not uttered a word about vegan diets. Before I discuss just why you are so wrong on low-carb diets, lets take a closer look at vegan regimens.

Vegan Diets - Fast Track To Ill-Health

Among their many nutritional shortcomings, vegetarian diets supply sub-optimal amounts of vitamin B12 and essential long-chain omega-3 fatty acids such as DHA and EPA. B12 is essential for optimal cognitive function, while DHA is a major component of brain tissue. Not surprisingly, analyses of blood samples from vegetarians consistently show lower dietary and lower blood levels of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. (2-7) These fatty acids can be formed in the body from plant-based omega-3 fats, but numerous studies show that the conversion rate is very low.(8,9) Because of their complete abstinence from animal foods, deficiencies of these and other nutrients are much more pronounced in vegans than in lacto-ovo vegetarians. Below are observations, published in peer-reviewed journals, of the harm that can befall those following these truly unbalanced diets:

• In 1986, Dutch researchers observed that vegan infants had markedly lower B12 levels and impaired psychomotor functioning when compared to control infants.(10,11) On the basis of these findings, the researchers made dietary recommendations to the families of the infants, who subsequently began switching their youngsters to lacto-vegetarian, lacto-ovovegetarian, or even omnivorous diets. On average, the children were six years old when the dietary change took place. In 2000, researchers reported on follow-up examinations of these same subjects, who were now aged between 10 to 16. Two-thirds of the formerly vegan adolescents still suffered from B12 deficiency, whereas all of the subjects in a similarly aged omnivorous control group had normal B12 levels. When given a series of cognitive tests, the ex-vegan group achieved poorer results than the lifetime-omnivore group. A significant association was found between low B12 status and poorer performance on tests measuring fluid intelligence, spatial ability, and short-term memory. Because fluid intelligence involves reasoning, the capacity to solve complex problems, abstract thinking ability, and the ability to learn, the authors pointed out that: "Any defect in this area may have far-reaching consequences for individual functioning." (12).
  
  * British researchers found that, compared to omnivores and lacto-ovovegetarians, vegans suffered a higher frequency of abnormal electroencephalogram (EEG) readings, a test designed to detect abnormalities in the electrical activity of the brain (13). In one of their studies, B12 supplementation improved EEG scores in most of those registering abnormalities, but three of the vegans failed to respond to heavy supplementation with either oral or injected B12.
  
  * In 2000, French researchers reported the case of a 33-year-old patient who lost most of his eyesight after following a strict vegan diet since the age of 20. Ironically, the man had adopted the diet for "improved health", and did not use any supplements. Blood samples showed that his levels of vitamin B1, B12, A, C, D, E, zinc, and selenium were all measurably below normal. Vitamin B12, in particular, is vitally important for maintaining the health of the optic nerve that transmits signals from the eye to the brain. Administration of intramuscular and oral multivitamins normalized blood levels of the aforementioned nutrients, but his eyesight did not recover. They concluded that the nutritional deficiencies in the patient's vegan diet - particularly the insufficient amount of vitamin B12 he had been absorbing - were the most likely cause for the optic nerve deterioration that had resulted in irreversible blindness. (14)

In a recent newspaper article, you stated that: "When we know something is bad for people, like smoking, then we let people know what the health risks are". I eagerly await to see if your department issues any warnings against vegan diets, for unlike low-carb diets, these posess a demonstrated poor safety record.

And what about low-carb diets?

In response to criticisms of your sadly misguided campaign against low-carbohydrate diets, you also stated in the aforementioned article: "Some people might come out and say, 'This is a nanny state - now they are telling us what to eat' ... But while I don't think it is the role of the politician to dictate individual preference and behaviour, it is my role to point out when something can actually harm you."

Seeing as you are taking it upon yourself to become a taxpayer-funded dietary commentator, it behooves you to learn as much as possible about the dietary regimens you intend to comment on. The statements you have made so far in regards to low-carbohydrate diets clearly show that you have not done this.

You claim that low-carbohydrate diets raise the risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, and even depression. From what peer-reviewed literature did you obtain such information?

Heart Disease

The claim that low-carbohydrate diets raise the risk of heart disease strains all boundaries of logic. Low-carbohydrate diets, via a reduction in cereal grain intake and an increase in meat and fruit and vegetable intake, increase the ingestion of many key heart-healthy nutrients. These include vitamin C, bioflavonoids, magnesium, carnitine, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid.

Bioflavonoids and vitamin C are important for the formation and maintenance of the collagen inside our arteries. Vitamins B6, B12 and folic acid lower blood levels of homocysteine and C-reactive protein (the former is believed to be directly atherogenic, the latter is an accurate measure of inflammatory activity in the body and a far superior predictor of future CHD risk than LDL cholesterol).(15-17) Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, meanwhile, have demonstrated an ability to reduce CHD and overall mortality in randomized clinical trials, not just in the wishful-thinking minds of health bureaucrats. Magnesium and carnitine are essential for muscular contraction and energy production; both have been shown to lower mortality from CHD and heart failure in overseas trials.(18-20) When researchers compared a low-carbohydrate diet with a high-carb diet, they found that the former increased carnitine absorption, despite the equal carnitine contents of the two diets.(21)

Allegedly "healthy" cereal grains (whole or otherwise) contain no vitamin C, no B12, contain only omega-6 fatty acids but no omega-3 fats, contain phytates that impair the absorption of magnesium, and contain a substance known as pyridoxine glucoside, which has been shown to reduce the availability of vitamin B6 by 75-80%.(22) The only dietary intervention trial to compare the effects of increased whole-grain intake on CHD outcomes was the DART trial; in this study, men assigned to eat more brown bread and wheat fiber actually suffered a slight increase in CHD mortality (in the same study, men who were instructed to eat a low-saturated fat diet experienced no change, while men instructed to consume fish/fish oil reduced their CHD risk by almost a third).(23)

Sorry, but I don't see any reason why cereal grains should even be included in anyone's diet, let alone form the foundation of said diet. No-one "needs" cereal grains; in fact, those with gluten sensitivity and celiac disease should quite literally avoid them like the plague! Maybe you would care to include these facts in your future public awareness efforts...

Meat is by far the richest source of carnitine, vitamin B6, B12 and (in the case of organ meats), folic acid. Animal foods are also the only non-supplemental source of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (brain tissue is the richest source, followed by fatty fish).

Non-cereal plant foods (fruits, vegetables, and nuts) - the kind encouraged by virtually all of the current crop of low-carb authors - contain magnesium, folic acid, bioflavonoids, and are the richest dietary sources of vitamin C.

Those who are still obsessed with "risk factors" (e.g, much of the medical establishment) should know that low-carb diets typically raise HDL cholesterol, improve the HDL:LDL ratio, and lower elevated triglyceride levels, while low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets often have the opposite effect. In clinical studies, low-carbohydrate diets have repeatedly been shown to produce significant fat loss; overweight and obesity is well-known to be associated with an increased risk of heart disease (and cancer).

Depending on one's food choices, adopting a low-carb diet will result in an increase of saturated fat intake. Despite the hysterical anti-saturated fat rantings of mainstream low-fat proponents, there exists no sound scientific evidence whatsoever to support any causative role for these fats in the pathogenesis of CHD. Consider carefully the following facts, available in the scientific literature for anyone who cares to look:

1) Four decades worth of dietary intervention trials have completely failed to produce any reduction in CHD that can be attributed to cholesterol-lowering or saturated fat restriction.(24)

2) Ironically, the only cholesterol-lowering strategy that has shown any noteworthy benefit in the reduction of CHD - the use of statin drugs - does not even work by cholesterol-lowering. These drugs operate via anti-inflammatory, artery-dilating, and antioxidant mechanisms.(25-41)

Cancer

The confident proclamations of many that meat and animal fats cause cancer are rather remarkable considering the complete lack of reliable clinical evidence to support such a notion. Even the allegedly "strong" epidemiological evidence is highly suspect. For example, if meat and saturated fat caused cancer, then vegetarians should by all rights experience lower rates of cancer. As a pooled analysis of the largest vegetarian studies shows, they don't.(42)

One of the few randomized clinical trials to examine the above topic was the Polyp Prevention Trial. In this study, over two-thousand patients who had one or more confirmed adenomatous colorectal polyps (adenomatous polyps are considered forerunners to colorectal cancer and are used as markers for colorectal cancer risk) removed within the previous 6 months were randomly assigned to follow either their usual diet, or a low fat, high fiber diet. Compared to the controls, subjects assigned to the high-fiber diet significantly increased their intake of whole-grains and legumes, and ate an average of 2.25 more servings of fruits and vegetables each day. The intervention group was also advised to reduce their consumption of red meat, which they did.

Total fat consumption in the control group averaged 34%, while those following the treatment diet reduced their fat intake to only 24%. After 4 years, colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 10 subjects from the high fiber group, and only 4 from the usual diet group eating more red meat. Even after excluding those diagnosed within the first year of the study, the results were similarly unfavorable; 4 cases in the intervention group as compared to 2 in the control group. Polyp recurrence was virtually identical between the two groups.(43)

In animal studies, the one fat that shows consistent tumor-promoting effects is the omega-6 fatty acid linoleic acid (found in so-called "heart-healthy" polyunsaturated vegetable oils).(44) While animal fat consumption in America has remained stable over the last 100 years (in terms of grams consumed per person per day), the consumption of vegetable oils and margarines has risen dramatically.(45,46) During this time, age-adjusted cancer rates have also risen in both males and females. To hold stable animal fat consumption responsible for rising cancer rates requires a complete abandonment of one's rational faculties.

Osteoporosis

Ms. Pike, the well-worn claim that high-protein diets can cause osteoporosis really is a bad joke, considering that it is a well-established fact that protein is an essential component of bones, and that epidemiological studies repeatedly show that it is low-protein intakes, not high protein intakes, that are associated with reduced bone density.(47)

It is typically claimed that high protein intakes will cause an increase in calcium excretion. Researchers recently examined this premise by performing a series of experiments in which intestinal calcium absorption was measured (using dual stable calcium isotopes) in pre- and postmenopausal women who were fed diets of varying protein content. Unlike a number of similar previous experiments, the diets of the women were tightly controlled, and the wide variations between individuals in calcium absorption were countered by using each women as her own control. Under these well-controlled conditions, the researchers found that calcium absorption was significantly lower during periods of low protein consumption (0.8g/kg and below) than during periods of high protein consumption. The researchers concluded, in a rather understated manner, that these studies "call the traditional high protein hypothesis to question". No kidding!(47)

Depression

The claim that low-carb diets cause depression has been doing the media rounds recently after Massachussetts Institute of Technology researcher Judith Wurtman and her team allegedly found an increase in depressive mood symptoms on people eating high protein diets compared to those following low-protein diets. This study has not yet been published, so there is no information on the exact diet the control and intervention groups followed, the methods used to determine mood changes, etc, etc. I contacted the MIT media department shortly after news of the study broke in the media requesting more information, and never received a reply. One should refrain from using this study as evidence until its results are peer-reviewed and published. It should be noted that Judith Wurtman has published several books promoting low-carbohydrate diets. While that in itself is no guarantee of impropriety or bias, she can hardly be considered a totally impartial voice on the subject.

And that's not all...

Ms. Pike, if you intend to be a credible and objective source of information to the Victorian public on low-carb diets, then it is incumbent upon you to point out, in addition to their alleged flaws, any health benefits they may possess. Researchers have indeed uncovered several characteristics of carbohydrate-reduced diets that could prove extremely valuable in the quest for improved public health.

• There have been over a dozen randomized dietary intervention trials published since the mid-eighties, ranging in duration from four weeks to one year, that directly compared the weight-loss efficacy of low- and high-carbohydrate diets. None of these has shown superior weight loss on the latter, apart from a highly suspect study (click here for details) conducted by Richard Fleming, the Nebraska cardiologist who obtained the late Dr. Atkins death report under highly dubious circumstances. In every study except Fleming's, low carbohydrate diets produced either markedly superior weight loss or statistically non-significant differences in weight loss.(48-65) Despite the oft-repeated claim that low-carb diets are hard to stick to, most studies reporting drop out rates have found higher rates of attrition in the low fat, high-carbohydrate diet groups.
  
  * In addition to spiraling obesity rates, we are currently experiencing an epidemic of type 2 diabetes, the prevalence of which began accelerating skywards soon after orthodoxy embraced the low-fat, high-carbohydrate paradigm. Numerous studies have compared the effects of lower- versus higher-carbohydrate diets on blood glucose control and, in virtually every instance, the carbohydrate-restricted regimens produced superior results.(66-84) Given that the United Nations has forecast over 300 million diabetics worldwide by 2025, the potentially beneficial public health implications of carbohydrate-restriction are enormous.
  
  * Low carbohydrate diets are proving themselves to be invaluable in the most surprising of circumstances. High-protein diets have been traditionally regarded as a no-go zone for individuals with kidney impairment, but in a recent issue of Diabetes, Italian researchers reported that a special low-carbohydrate, unrestricted protein diet, based on low-iron foods, produced dramatic benefits in patients with advanced kidney disease. Compared to patients following a traditional low fat, low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet, those on the low-iron, low-carbohydrate diet were 50% less likely to progress to the point where they either died or required kidney replacement.(85) Very low carbohydrate, or ketogenic, diets are also a well-established and effective treatment for childhood epilepsy.
  
  * Low-carbohydrate diets may eventually prove themselves to have life-extending properties. In animal research, the only consistent intervention that produces increases in life span is calorie-restriction. Whether the same applies to humans has not yet been established, but we do know that cutting calorie intake often produces marked improvements in important health parameters, such as blood glucose control. Unfortunately, telling people to voluntarily limit their calorie intake on a long-term basis tends to be a very poorly-received piece of advice. Low carbohydrate diets, however, may render such unpopular admonitions redundant. Dietary intervention studies have revealed a rather unique phenomenon; subjects following low carbohydrate diets, despite being told to limit only carbohydrate intake and to eat unrestricted amounts of protein and fat, often inadvertently reduce their total calorie intake to levels similar to those seen in subjects who have been explicitly instructed to lower their total calorie intake.
  
  * The possible life-extending effects of low carbohydrate diets have not escaped the attention of longevity researchers at Baltimore's National Institute of Aging. In a recent journal article they stated: "The Atkins Diet is ketogenic resulting in reduced appetite and therefore a reduced calorie intake; individuals who can comply with the diet may therefore exhibit some physiological changes observed in rodents and monkeys subjected to caloric restriction including reduced body weight, and decreased insulin and glucose levels."(86)

Do Your Homework.

Ms. Pike, it is unfortunate that you did not sit down and review the evidence before embarking on your misguided crusade to save Victorians from the supposed harm that awaits them if they adopt low-carbohydrate nutrition. Scandalous media reports arising from misleading press releases by vested interests do not constitute reasonable grounds for commencing a campaign that has the potential to affect public health, for better or worse.

Much of the recent media commotion over low-carbohydrate diets can be traced back to an American vegan organization known as the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. If you are not familiar with this group, whose behavior so far has been anything but responsible, then I suggest you click here. This "Committee" in fact serves as a front-group for the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a radical animal rights and vegan activist group that has given documented financial aid to green terrorist groups.

Perhaps your heroic streak was triggered into action after Australia's most popular current affairs show featured footage of a Melbourne nutritionist claiming that "medically-supervised low-carbohydrate diets" had caused sixty deaths. You should know that this individual was referring to deaths that occurrred over twenty years ago among individuals following liquid protein diets, a crucial fact that was conveniently ommitted (click here to see for yourself). These deaths did not occur among people following the current crop of popular low-carbohydrate diets, people eating real food - you know, meats, eggs, dairy, fruits, nuts, and vegetables! Needless to say, several hundred calories per day derived solely from protein-based powder and water does not constitute a healthy diet, regardless of whether it accompanies a low or high carbohydrate intake.

It should also be mentioned that the individual who appeared on A Current Affair issuing these misleading claims also has authored a number of low-fat diet books. You may like to read a detailed critique of this author's work, and his subsequent reply to this critique, at the following links:

Just How Low Will the Anti-Low-Carb Crowd Go?

A Reply to Bilsborough

Ms. Pike, Your Actions Have Consequences - Bad Ones!

Several days ago, I received an e-mail from a business owner in NSW who, a little while back, started an innovative low-carb meal delivery service in response to the growing popularity of low-carb diets. The ready-made meals delivered by her business include lean meats and vegetables, and, to avert the stigma associated with saturated fats (no matter how misguided this sentiment may be), derive their fat content mainly from monounsaturated sources. Until recently, this individual was doing a roaring trade, having established a franchise chain of 15 outlets delivering delicious low-carb meals around the country. This entrepreneurial mother-of-three saw a niche and filled it, via honest and productive effort (something that more of our politicans should try to emulate), and started reaping the rewards that were rightly hers.

That is, until some misguided politician appeared on national TV and in the nation's newspapers announcing her latest novel waste of money - an anti-low-carbohydrate crusade!

"Since the negative PR has appeared in the recent news, my company is really suffering", said our understandably disheartened low-carb entrepreneur. "Here in Sydney it was as if someone has 'turned off the tap', that's how quiet our phones have been. It is a devastating blow to our businesses from which we hope to recover, but there are no guarantees."

Did customers stop ringing because they had subsequently died from heart disease and cancer, or because they were hospitalized with broken osteoporotic bones and/or depression, or because they had fallen prey to some other alleged adverse effect of low-carb diets?

Nope.

Customers stopped ringing because, not being familiar with the scientific literature, they relied on the media to deliver their diet and health information. So when a bunch of radical vegan activists from North America tried to infer that the death of the late Dr. Atkins was a result of his own dietary prescriptions, and the media lapped it up, they became worried. When some axe-grinding nutritionist from Melbourne appeared on A Current Affair and told the nation that low-carb diets had killed sixty people, they got scared. And when a Victorian politician announced that low-carbohydrate diets were such a threat to public health that her government was going to actively warn people away from them, people ran for the doors. Not being familiar with the scientific literature, which actually indicates that low-carb diets possess an array of favorable qualities and are definitely worthy of increasing research attention, these folks evidently believed what they were hearing on TV and in the newspapers.

Despite the volumes I read and hear about how people supposedly distrust politicians and how they distrust what they read in the papers and see on TV, a significant portion of the population in this country appears to have been suckered beautifully by yet another fallacious government and media beat-up!

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought the notion of someone getting off their butt and "having a go" was supposed to be admired here in Australia. I don't know about others, but I think it is extremely unfair for someone who was making an honest, productive living to now be faced with the prospect of going out of business simply because of misleading, sensationalist bullshit.

I also think it is extremely unfair for some politician to take my tax money, and use it to tell me how I should abandon the very diet that has personally brought me nothing but benefits! Puhleez!

Perhaps most unfair of all is that thousands of people are being scared away from diets that have clearly been shown to benefit a number of common conditions - diabetes and obesity, for example - and hold great promise for treating many other ailments.

Conclusion

Ms. Pike, I know you have already travelled a fair way down your proposed path, and it might make you look rather silly if you abandon your sadly-misguided anti-low-carb campaign after creating such a commotion in the media. Nonetheless, I urge you to study the scientific evidence thoroughly, and then carefully reconsider your current stance. There are far better ways to spend taxpayer funds than on discouraging people from trying diets that may just benefit their health, and from sending flourishing businesses down the tube. I know such a change in stance will not impress the flour and baking industry, who are lobbying hard to try and avoid the same fate that is currently befalling their counterparts in the US, where low-carb diets have undergone phenomenal growth, but I think your primary concern should be public health, not the financial well-being of vested industries.

Sincerely,

Anthony Colpo.

To tell Bronwyn Pike that taxpayer funds should be used in a more responsible manner, e-mail: bronwyn.pike@parliament.vic.gov.au

References

1. For examples, see:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51494,00.html
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiheral...cal/6033947.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1542293.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51813,00.html
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_de...145-1-7,00.html

2. Sanders TAB, Reddy S. The influence of a vegetarian diet on the fatty acid composition of human milk and the essential fatty acid status of the infant. Journal of Pediatrics, 1992; 120: S71-S77.

3. Sanders TAB, et al. Studies of vegans: the fatty acid composition of plasma choline phosphoglycerides, erythrocytes, adipose tissue and breast milk, and some indicators of susceptibility to ischemic heart disease in vegans and omnivore controls. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1978; 31: 805-813.

4. Li D, et al. The association of diet and thrombotic risk factors in healthy male vegetarians and meat-eaters. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1999; 53: 612-619.

5. Francois CA, et al. Supplementing lactating women with flaxseed oil does not increase docosahexaenoic acid in their milk. American Journal Clinical Nutrition, 2003 Jan;77(1):226-33.

6. Mezzano D, et al. Vegetarians and cardiovascular risk factors: hemostasis, inflammatory markers and plasma homocysteine. Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 1999; 81 (6): 913-917.

7. Fokkema MR, et al. Short-term supplementation of low-dose gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), or GLA plus ALA does not augment LCP omega 3 status of Dutch vegans to an appreciable extent. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids, 2000; 63 (5): 287-92.

8. Emken EA, et al. Dietary linoleic acid influences desaturation and acylation of deuterium-labeled linoleic and linolenic acids in young adult males. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta, 1994; 1213: 277-288.

9. Pawlosky RJ, et al. Physiological compartmental analysis of alpha-linolenic acid metabolism in adult humans. Journal of Lipid Research. 2001; 42: 1257-1265.

10. Dagnelie PC, et al. Increased risk of vitamin B-12 and iron deficiency in infants on macrobiotic diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1989; 50: 818-824.

11. Dagnelie PC, et al. Macrobiotic nutrition and child health: results of a population-based, mixed-longitudinal cohort study in The Netherlands. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1994; 59 (Suppl.): 1187S-1196S.

12. Louwman MWJ, et al. Signs of impaired cognitive function in adolescents with marginal cobalamin status. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2000; 72: 762-769.

13. West ED, Ellis FR. The electroencephalogram in veganism, vegetarianism, vitamin B12 deficiency, and in controls. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 1966; 29: 391-397.

14. Milea D, et al. Blindness in a Strict Vegan. New England Journal of Medicine, 2000; 342: 897-898, Mar. 23, 2000.

15. Singh RB. Effect of dietary magnesium supplementation in the prevention of coronary heart disease and sudden cardiac death. Magnesium and Trace Elements, 1990; 9 (3): 143-151.

16. Rizos I. Three-year survival of patients with heart failure caused by dilated cardiomyopathy and L-carnitine administration. American Heart Journal, Feb, 2000; 139 (2, Pt 3): S120-123.

17. Singh RB, et al. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of L-carnitine in suspected acute myocardial infarction. Postgraduate Medical Journal, Jan. 199; 72 (843): 45-50.

18. Cederblad G. Effect of diet on plasma carnitine levels and urinary carnitine excretion in humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1987; 45: 725-729.

19. Cordain L. Cereal Grains: Humanity's double-edged sword. In; Simopoulos AP (editor). Evolutionary Aspects of Nutrition and Health. Diet, Exercise, Genetics and Chronic Disease. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics, 1999; 84: 19-73.

20. Burr ML, et al. Effects of changes in fat, fish, and fibre intakes on death and myocardial reinfarction: diet and reinfarction trial (DART). Lancet, 1989; 2: 757-761.

21. Corr LA, Oliver MF. The low fat/low cholesterol diet is ineffective. European Heart Journal, 1997; 18: 18-22.

22. Laufs U, et al. Upregulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase by HMG CoA reductase inhibitors. Circulation, 1998; 97: 1129-1135.

23. Dimmeler S, Zeiher AM. Nitric oxide-an endothelial cell survival factor. Cell Death and Differentiation, Oct, 1999; 6 (10): 964-968.

24. Laufs U, Liao JK. Post-transcriptional regulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase mRNA stability by Rho GTPase. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1998; 273: 24266-24271.

25. Sparrow CP et al. Simvastatin Has Anti-Inflammatory and Antiatherosclerotic Activities Independent of Plasma Cholesterol Lowering. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 2001; 21: 115

26. Kano H, et al. A HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor improved regression of atherosclerosis in the rabbit aorta without affecting serum lipid levels: possible relevance of up-regulation of endothelial NO synthase mRNA. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 1999; 259: 414-419.

27. Soma MR, et al. HMG CoA reductase inhibitors. In vivo effects on carotid intimal thickening in normocholesterolemic rabbits. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, Apr, 1993; 13 (4): 571-578.

28. O'Driscoll G et al. Simvastatin, an HMG-Coenzyme A Reductase Inhibitor, Improves Endothelial Function Within 1 Month. Circulation, 1997; 95: 1126-1131.

29. Tsunekawa T et al. Cerivastatin, a Hydroxymethylglutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase Inhibitor, Improves Endothelial Function in Elderly Diabetic Patients Within 3 Days. Circulation, 2001; 104: 376.

30. Schror K. Platelet reactivity and arachidonic acid metabolism in type II hyperlipoproteinaemia and its modification by cholesterol-lowering agents. Eicosanoids, 1990; 3 (2): 67-73.

31. Statins have been shown to inhibit the migration of smooth muscle cells Yasunari K, et al. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors prevent migration of human coronary smooth muscle cells through suppression of increase in oxidative stress. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, Jun, 2001; 21 (6):937-942.

32. Hidaka Y, et al. Inhibition of cultured vascular smooth muscle cell migration by simvastatin (MK-733). Atherosclerosis, Jul, 1992; 95 (1): 87-94.

33. Heeschen C, et al, on behalf of the Platelet Receptor Inhibition in Ischemic Syndrome Management (PRISM) Investigators. Circulation, Mar. 26, 2002; Vol. 105; No. 12: 1446-1452.

34. Brown BG, et al. Lipid-lowering and plaque regression. New insights into prevention of plaque disruption and clinical events in coronary disease. Circulation, Jun 1993; 87: 1781-1791.

35. Jialal I, et al. Effect of Hydroxymethyl Glutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase Inhibitor Therapy on High Sensitive C-Reactive Protein Levels. Circulation, Apr 2001; 103: 1933 - 1935.

36. Ridker PM, et al. C-reactive protein and other markers of inflammation in the prediction of cardiovascular disease in women. New England Journal of Medicine, March 23, 2000; 342 (12): 836-843.

37. Sone H, et al. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor decreases small dense low-density lipoprotein and remnant-like particle cholesterol in patients with type-2 diabetes. Life Sci. 2002 Oct 4; 71 (20): 2403-2412.

38. Lariviere M, et al. Effects of atorvastatin on electrophoretic characteristics of LDL particles among subjects with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Atherosclerosis, Mar, 2003; 167 (1): 97-104.

39. Key TJ, et al. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, September 1, 1999; 70(3): 516S - 524S.

40. Schatzkin A, et al. Lack of effect of a low-fat, high-fiber diet on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. New England Journal of Medicine, Apr. 20, 2000; 342 (16): 1149-1155.

41. Rose DP. Effects of dietary fatty acids on breast and prostate cancers: evidence from in vitro experiments and animal studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Dec 1997; 66 (6 Suppl): 1513S-1522S.

42. Gortner WA. Nutrition in the United States, 1900 to 1974. Cancer Research, Nov 1975; 35 (11 Pt. 2): 3246-3253.

43. Enig MG, et al. Dietary fat and cancer trends - a critique. Federation Proceedings, 1978. Vol. 37: 2215-2220.

44. Kerstetter, et al. Low protein intake: The impact on calcium and bone homeostasis in humans. Journal of Nutrition, 2003; 133: 855S-861S.

45. Rabast U, et al. Loss of weight, sodium and water in obese persons consuming a high or low carbohydrate diet. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 1981; 25: 341-349.

46. Baron JA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of low carbohydrate and low fat/high fiber diets for weight loss. American Journal of Public Health, 1986; 76 (11): 1293-1296.

47. Wadden TA. Treatment of obesity by moderate and severe caloric restriction. Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1993; 119 (7, Pt. 2): 688-693.

48. Foreyt JP, Goodrick GK. Evidence for success of behavior modification in weight loss and control. Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1993; 119 (7, Pt. 2): 698-701.

49. Alford BB, et al. The effects of variations in carbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the diet upon weight loss, blood values, and nutrient intake of adult obese women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1990; 90: 534-540.

50. Golay A, et al. Weight-Loss With Low or High Carbohydrate Diet? International Journal of Obesity, 1996; 20 (12): 1067-1072.

51. Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1996; 63: 174-178.

52. Lean ME, et al. Weight loss with high and low carbohydrate 1200 kcal diets in free living women. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Apr. 1997; 51 (4): 243-248.

53. Torbay N, et al. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet in treatment of obese normoinsulinemic and hyperinsulinemic subjects. Nutrition Research, May 2002; 22 (5): 587-598.

54. Layman DK, et al. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. Journal of Nutrition, 2003; 133: 411-417.

55. Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors in overweight adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics, March 2003; 142: 253-258.

56. Volek JS, et al. Body composition and hormonal responses to a carbohydrate-restricted diet. Metabolism, July 2002; 51 (7): 864-870.

57. Fleming RM. The Effect of High-, Moderate-, and Low-Fat Diets on Weight Loss and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors. Preventive Cardiology, 2002; 5 (3): 110-118.

58. Brehm, et al. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003; 88 (4): 1617-1623.

59. Foster GD, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, May 22, 2003; 348: 2082-2090.

60. Samaha FF, et al. A low-carbohydrate diet as compared with a low fat diet in severe obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, May 22, 2003; 348: 2074-2081.

61. Wien MA, et al. Almonds vs complex carbohydrates in a weight reduction program. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, Nov 2003; 27 (11): 1365-1372.

62. LaRosa JC, et al. effects of high-protein, low-carbohydrate dieting on plasma lipoproteins and body weight. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Sept, 1980; 77: 264-270.

63. Gutierrez M, et al. Utility of a Short-Term 25% Carbohydrate Diet on Improving Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 1998; 17 (6): 595-600.

64. Coulston AM, et al. Deleterious metabolic effects of high-carbohydrate, sucrose-containing diets in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. American Journal of Medicine, 1987 Feb; 82 (2): 213-20.

65. Garg A, et al. Effects of varying carbohydrate content of diet in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1994; 271: 1421-1428.

66. Sestoft L, et al. High-carbohydrate, low-fat diet: effect on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism, GIP and insulin secretion in diabetics. Danish Medical Bulletin. 1985 Mar; 32 (1): 64-69.

67. Gannon MC, et al. An increase in dietary protein improves the blood glucose response in persons with type 2 diabetes. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003; 78: 734-741.

68. Bisschop PH, et al. Dietary fat content alters insulin-mediated glucose metabolism in healthy men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2001; 73: 554-559.

69. Baba NH, et al. High Protein vs High Carbohydrate Hypoenergetic Diet for the Treatment of Obese Hyperinsulinemic Subjects. International Journal of Obesity, 1999; 11: 1202-1206.

70. Brehm BJ, et al., A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003; 88 (4): 1617-1623.

71. Lewis SB, et al. Effect of Diet Composition on Metabolic Adaptations to Hypocaloric Nutrition: Comparison of High Carbohydrate and High Fat Isocaloric Diets. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1977; 30 (2): 160-170.

72. Volek JS, et al. Body Composition and Hormonal responses to a Carbohydrate Restricted Diet. Metabolism, 51(7), 2002, pages 864-870.

73. Layman DK, et al. Increased Dietary Protein Modifies Glucose and Insulin Homeostasis in Adult Women during Weight Loss. The Journal of Nutrition, 2003; 133 (2): 405-410.

74. Farnsworth E, et al. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, July 2003; 78: 31-39.

75. Heilbronn LK, et al. Effect of Energy Restriction, Weight Loss, and Diet Composition on Plasma Lipids and Glucose in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care, 1999; 22 (6): 889-895.

76. Jeppesen J, et al. Effects of low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease in postmenopausal women. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1997; 65 : 1027-1033.

77. B Gumbiner, et al. Effects of diet composition and ketosis on glycemia during very-low- energy-diet therapy in obese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1996; 63: 110-115.

78. Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1996; 63: 174-178.

79. Piatti PM, et al. Hypocaloric high protein diet improves glucose oxidation and spares lean body mass. Comparison to hypocaloric high-CHO diet. Metabolism, Dec. 1994; 43 (12): 1481-1487.

80. Rabast U, et al. Dietetic treatment of obesity with low and high carbohydrate diets: Comparitive studies and clinical results. International Journal of Obesity, 3 (3), 1979, pages 201-211.

81. Fujita Y, et al. Basal and postprotein insulin and glucagon levels during a high and low carbohydrate intake and their relationships to plasma triglycerides. Diabetes, 1975; 24 (6): 552-558.

82. Facchini FS, Saylor KL. A Low-Iron-Available, Polyphenol-Enriched, Carbohydrate-Restricted Diet to Slow Progression of Diabetic Nephropathy. Diabetes, 52 (5), 2003: 1204-1209.

83. Mattson MP, et al. Meal size and frequency affect neuronal plasticity and vulnerability to disease: cellular and molecular mechanisms. Journal of Neurochemistry, Feb, 2003; 84 (3): 417-431.

Anthony Colpo is an independent researcher and certified fitness consultant with 20 years' experience in the physical conditioning arena. To contact: contact@theomnivore.com

Disclaimer: This article is presented for information purposes only and is not intended as medical advice. Persons with medical conditions should institute dietary changes whilst being monitored by a competent medical practitioner.

© Anthony Colpo 2004. Copyright information:

Any articles on this website authored by Anthony Colpo may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only, providing full credit is given to the author, and that the website name www.theomnivore.com is cited. A hyperlink would also be greatly appreciated. Those wishing to reproduce articles for commercial purposes should e-mail: contact@theomnivore.com

PRCM [Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine]

"The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. PCRM is a fanatical animal rights group that seeks to remove eggs, milk, and meat from the American diet, and to eliminate the use of animals in scientific research. Despite its close ties to violent animal-rights zealots and “above ground” animal activist groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), PCRM has successfully duped the media and much of the general public into believing that it represents the medical community."

Source: activistcash.com

PCRM: At It Again

"Once again the press has been duped by those animal-rights nuts in lab coats, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). This time around they're criticizing high-protein diets -- armed with "complaints" from visitors to a PCRM website. Although the site has been up since August 2002, PCRM reported fewer than 200 complaints. To call this attack on meat consumption unscientific would be gross understatement. But neither their vegan agenda nor their admittedly shoddy evidence prevented the CBS "Early Show" from hosting PCRM president Neal Barnard for an interview, without mentioning his animal-rights credentials even once... "

Full article: consumerfreedom.com

Activists’ Funding Remains Strong

Two prominent animal activists set up a foundation in 1993 to undertake fundraising on their organizations’ behalf. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) founder Neal Barnard and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) President Ingrid Newkirk comprise a controlling interest of the board of the Foundation for the Support of Animal Protection (FSAP).

The existence of this foundation was one of the most striking revelations in the 12th annual “Who Gets the Money?” feature published in Animal People in November 2001. Using information from IRS financial disclosure statements of the three organizations, Animal People concluded “the major purpose of [FSAP] appears to be to enable PETA and PCRM to evade public recognition of their relationship and the real extent of their direct mail expenditures.”

Full article: the-aps.org

Vitamin B-12 status, particularly holotranscobalamin II and methylmalonic acid concentrations, and hyperhomocysteinemia in vegetarians

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 1, 131-136, July 2003
© 2003 American Society for Clinical Nutrition

Wolfgang Herrmann, Heike Schorr, Rima Obeid and Jürgen Geisel

1 From the Central Laboratory, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany.

Background
Vegetarians have a lower intake of vitamin B-12 than do omnivores. Early and reliable diagnosis of vitamin B-12 deficiency is very important.

Objective
The objective was to investigate vitamin B-12 status in vegetarians and nonvegetarians.

Design
The study cohort included 66 lactovegetarians or lactoovovegetarians (LV-LOV group), 29 vegans, and 79 omnivores. Total vitamin B-12, methylmalonic acid, holotranscobalamin II, and total homocysteine concentrations were assayed in serum.

Results
Of the 3 groups, the vegans had the lowest vitamin B-12 status. In subjects who did not consume vitamins, low holotranscobalamin II (< 35 pmol/L) was found in 11% of the omnivores, 77% of the LV-LOV group, and 92% of the vegans. Elevated methylmalonic acid (> 271 nmol/L) was found in 5% of the omnivores, 68% of the LV-LOV group, and 83% of the vegans. Hyperhomocysteinemia (> 12 µmol/L) was present in 16% of the omnivores, 38% of the LV-LOV group, and 67% of the vegans. The correlation between holotranscobalamin II and vitamin B-12 was weak in the low serum vitamin B-12 range (r = 0.403) and strong in the high serum vitamin B-12 range (r = 0.769). Holotranscobalamin II concentration was the main determinant of total homocysteine concentration in the vegetarians (ß = -0.237, P < 0.001). Vitamin B-12 deficiency led to hyperhomocysteinemia that was not probable in the upper folate range (> 42.0 nmol/L).

Conclusions
Vegan subjects and, to a lesser degree, subjects in the LV-LOV group had metabolic features indicating vitamin B-12 deficiency that led to a substantial increase in total homocysteine concentrations. Vitamin B-12 status should be monitored in vegetarians. Health aspects of vegetarianism should be considered in the light of possible damaging effects arising from vitamin B-12 deficiency and hyperhomocysteinemia.

Source: AJCN

The design of our digestive organs and digestive enzymes today

In The Naive Vegetarian, I talked about Man's evolution and the sorts of food which the fossil record suggests we should eat and what modern primitives, untouched by civilisation eat. This all points to our being a carnivorous species. The third aspect of the evidence confirms this hypothesis by looking at our digestive system and comparing it with those of animals whose diet is known beyond doubt.

Full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

The Naive Vegetarian

There is at present a growing trend towards vegetarianism. One of the results of the 'healthy' diet's recommendation to eat less red meat has been an increasing numbers of people who are becoming vegetarians. Polls carried out in 1988 and 1989 indicated that some three percent of British subjects called themselves vegetarian or vegan -- a slight increase on figures obtained during the previous four years -- but a number that has grown still further since. Motivations given included disapproval of intensive animal farming methods, rejection of animal slaughter, dislike of the taste or texture of meat, and about half of those polled mentioned health concerns.

This paper looks at our evolution using data from archaeological and anthropological studies of bones and fossils spanning some four million years to show that there is no doubt that, as a species, we have evolved to eat a mainly carnivorous diet.

Full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

Myths and Truth about Vegetarianism

THE MYTHS OF VEGETARIANISM

by Stephen Byrnes, PhD, RNCP

Originally published in the Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, July 2000.
This paper is posted at Power Health

Revised January 2002

"Though it appears that some people do well on little or no meat and remain healthy as lacto-vegetarians or lacto-ovo-vegetarians, the reason for this is because these diets are healthier for those people, not because they're healthier in general. However, a total absence of animal products, whether meat, fish, insects, eggs, butter or dairy, is to be avoided. Though it may take years, problems will eventually ensue under such dietary regimes and they will certainly show in future generations. Dr. Price's seminal research unequivocally demonstrated this. The reason for this is simple evolution: humanity evolved eating animal foods and fats as part of its diet, and our bodies are suited and accustomed to them. One cannot change evolution in a few years."

Full article: Weston A. Price

Critique of PCRM

Physician's Committee For Responsible Medicine (PCRM)
William T. Jarvis, Ph.D.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a nonprofit association that claims to promote "optimal diet for prevention of disease," says there is evidence that humans don't have a specific requirement for protein, and teaches that "too much dietary protein from animal sources is detrimental to health." [1] PCRM's reference to "animal sources" is key to understanding its true purpose. Its leader, Neal Barnard, MD, has been identified as medical adviser to the radical animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and PCRM may be substantially funded by it. Animal activists are highly successful fundraisers. The combined budgets for 15 of the leading animal protection organizations exceeded $115 million in 1994 (PETA took in $12 million) [2]. In NCAHF's view, PCRM is a propaganda machine whose press conferences are charades for disguising its ideology as news events.

Vegetarian Super Sell. Barnard extols the virtues of strict vegetarian (vegan) diets. He claims that when it comes to life span "It's not genetics or fate that gives people long, healthy lives and cuts other people short; for those who want to take care of themselves, it all comes down to diet." [3] Seventh-day Adventist's (SDA) health has been studied by Loma Linda University's School of Public Health for many years. They have found that vegetarian diet provides some protection from heart disease for men, but not women. Cancer incidence is lower among SDAs that the general population, but not better than meat-eating Mormons [4]. Both Mormons and SDAs abstain from tobacco, which probably accounts for most of the health benefits both enjoy. There is no indication from studies done among long-lived people that diet is much of a factor. Interviews of 1127 centenarians by the U.S. Social Security Administration from 1963-72 found that only four of them were vegetarians. Without knowing the proportion of vegetarians in the general population it is not possible to know whether this number is statistically significant, but the preponderance of nonvegetarians says something by itself [5]. Barnard's idea that it is not genetics that gives people long healthy lives is refuted by a study of 100 (50 men and 50 women) in their tenth decade of life. When questioned about their lifestyles in their earlier years, the researchers concluded that "in many respects the coronary risk profile of these apparently healthy nonagenarians represents the mirror image of that of the contemporary coronary-prone middle-aged adult." It appears that genetics protected these people from their lifestyles. Barnard speaks as if he had never heard of familial hypercholesterolemia, iron-overload genes, and other genetic factors in heart disease.

Neal Barnard compares animal husbandry and dairying to tobacco raising. He claims that the USDA's food group model is based upon industry influence and is tantamount to government support for tobacco. There is a big difference. Tobacco farmers receive support, but the government does not recommend smoking. Since 1964 the Surgeon General has condemned smoking, and the government has required a warning label on cigarettes. The USDA, and other nutrition and health science groups, have allowed for meatless eating in the protein group. Barnard's appeal to cynicism is demagogic, and typical of ideologists who are on a mission to convert others to their way of thinking.

PCRM Invents Its Own Food Group Plan.
In April 1991, PCRM asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to abandon its scientifically derived four food group model and substitute instead its own plant food based four food group plan. The PCRM four food group plan was below the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowances in protein, calcium, iron, zinc, preformed vitamin A, riboflavin, and vitamin B12. [7] PCRM's four food group plan was discredited by the American Dietetic Association [8] and the American Medical Association which refers to PCRM as a "pseudo-physicians group" [9] because less than 0.5% of physicians are members. In reference to PCRM's four food group plan, the AMA said:

The AMA finds the recommendations of PCRM irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the health and welfare of Americans. The AMA charges that PCRM is "blatantly misleading Americans on a health matter and concealing its true purpose as an animal 'rights' organization.

In June 1990, the AMA formally requested PCRM to terminate the inappropriate and unethical tactics used to manipulate public opinion against the use of animals in biomedical research. The AMA's James S. Todd, MD, urged PCRM to immediately change its tactics and join the medical and scientific communities in efforts to protect and preserve human welfare [10].

Victor Herbert, MD, JD, who has done landmark research in human nutrition, served on the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences, and presented papers at international conferences on vegetarianism, points out that, although developed by the USDA, the Basic Four Food Group system is actually based on traditions rooted in the Old Testament. Kosher dietary law scholars Regenstein and Regenstein of Cornell note that the Biblical (and Moslem) four food groups are:

MEAT. (Yiddish: fleishig); Without meat in the diet iron deficiency becomes widespread (animal iron is 5 times as absorbable as plant iron).

DAIRY. (Yiddish: milchig); Eliminating dairy foods increases risk of osteoporosis. Even non-physician Colin Campbell confirmed this from his work in China 3 weeks after his service as a spokesman for PCRM at their "let's eat only plant foods" news conference.

NEUTRAL (mainly plant). (Hebrew: parve or pareve.) In 1956 the USDA divided the plant group into two: grains and fruits-vegetables. PCRM goes extreme by dividing the Biblical plant group into four, and telling people to forget about the meat and dairy groups. Their 4-food group model not only increases the risk of anemia and osteoporosis, it guarantees severe blood and nervous system damage because nothing that grows out of the ground contains vitamin B12.

UNACCEPTABLE. (Yiddish: traif); included pork, shellfish, blood, etc.

PCRM Attacks Diary Products
On September 29, 1992, PCRM called a press conference and announced that milk was bad for babies because of its low iron content, possible allergic reactions to its protein, possible traces of antibiotics, digestive problems (lactose intolerance), and a possible link to juvenile diabetes. The media would likely have paid less attention if Dr. Benjamin Spock had not lent his name to the news conference. There was nothing at all newsworthy about the PCRM news conference. No pediatric nutritionist recommends milk as a primary food for infants; both cow's and mother's milk are too low in iron for growing babies. Babies have high iron stores at birth due to having had to rely upon umbilical-supplied oxygen in utero; these iron stores last until solid food is introduced in the second half of their first year. Some babies do react to milk protein and others have lactose intolerance, but this is very old information. The diabetes link is interesting since the disease does seem to be caused by a virus that attacks the pancreas, and milk could be one route of transmission. However, PCRM had done no new work in this area, and the milk-connection could be a random finding. The American Diabetes Association says that more research is needed on any possible milk-diabetes link [11], and a 1996 study designed to answer this question found no association [12].

On the matter of residues, the FDA stated that data from 46 regulatory agencies showed .08% of raw milk and .02% of pasteurized milk samples contained drug residues, while PCRM claimed that about a third (33%) contained residues -- a huge exaggeration. From all appearances, PCRM was simply staging a "food terrorist's" media event to propagate its vegan ideology. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the California Dietetic Association, the University of California at Davis Department of Nutrition, and the California State Department of Health Services, all issued press releases refuting PCRM's anti-milk message. The American Council on Science and Health published an article, "much ado about milk," (Priorities, Spring, 1993) that refuted PCRM's anti-milk propaganda. T. Colin Campbell, PhD, Associate Professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University also appeared at the press conference. Campbell had done a survey of Chinese dietary intakes. He did not do a medical study. In his report he linked the Chinese people's high intake of vegetables with their comparatively low rates of heart disease without pointing out that the more important statistic of life expectancy in China is only 66 years compared to the USA's 75 years [13]. Campbell's pictures showing throngs of Chinese walking everywhere, and others with a small truckload of goods on the bicycles they were peddling, betrayed his emphasis on diet as the factor mostly responsible for lower heart disease rates. Obviously exercise and low body weights play a significant role.

PCRM Attacks Medical Uses of Animal Organs.
Animal-rights ideologists consider animals to be on a par with humans. When a Loma Linda University medical team transplanted a baboon's heart into infant Baby Fae, animal rights activists picketed the medical center. To some it was paradoxical that animal righters should come into conflict with an SDA institution with its tradition of vegetarianism. It shows that not all vegetarians share all of the underlying ideologies. SDAs have no difficulty placing the value of human life above that of animals. In October, 1992, following the transplantation of a pig's liver in a 30-year-old woman who needed the organ to survive for a few days while a human liver was located, a representative of PCRM engaged in a televised debate with one of the physicians who did the transplant lamenting that the pig's consent was not obtained. When the surgeon argued that pigs were killed daily for meat, including their livers, the PCRM doctor retorted that it was the eating of saturated animal fat that was responsible for most deaths in modern society. He cited Colin Campbell's China study as evidence.

PCRM Attacks School Lunch Programs.

In October, 1996, PCRM rated school lunch programs and judged them to be unhealthful. This wasn't based upon the health of the students who ate them, but the ideological criteria of veganism. Nevertheless, the media reported the claims as though they were newsworthy. Some reports included mention that the group doing the judging favored an offbeat point of view on diet.

Diet: Survival, Longevity, and Quality of Life.
NCAHF recognizes that humans can survive on many different kinds of diets, and individual's diets are rooted more in culture and personal preference than science. Hindus are largely vegetarians. Eskimos and Canada's Inuits subsist exclusively on raw meat. Australian aborigines eat lizards and insects. Coastal Indians eat seafood. Nomads eat grazing animals that move with them in their ceaseless journeys. Many religions have dietary restrictions. Despite such wide variations, they all survive. However, survival does not equate with longevity. Natural selection only requires that people live long enough to propagate and rear their young. Epidemiologists, who must quantify "health" so differing groups can be compared, have determined that the gauge of the health of a society is life expectancy. Life expectancy in primitive settings is only 22-29 years [14]. Non-experts focus too much upon causes of death without realizing that a higher rate of heart disease, cancer, and stroke reflects a population that has lived long enough to develop such diseases. Longevity is a consistent feature of a modern technological society. Besides survival and longevity, public health experts also take into account quality of life. If longevity means just more time spent in boredom, the prospects for an a meaningful life are bleak indeed. Underdeveloped nations are usually deprived of many of the things that make people's lives more enjoyable, including festive foods. The diets of the poor nations are largely vegetarian. As societies become more prosperous, they also eat more meat and animal products.

NCAHF wonders if the vegetarian ideologist is merely today's ascetic who revels in self-denial and wars against pleasure. Animal rights devotees reflect the Taoist worldview. On April 24, 1996, PETA's Ingrid Newkirk appeared on the television show Day & Date opposing sport fishing. Her arguments began by eliciting sympathy for fish as living creatures who suffocate when taken out of the water. She then said that fish were unhealthful food because they contain mercury and other environmental contaminants. Her ultimate solution was for people to "go vegetarian." Her opponent, a television talk-show hostess pressed her into acknowledging the PETA creed. She recalled an on-air encounter with a PETA representative where a scenario was presented in which her daughter needed a vital organ of a beloved household pet to survive. The ethical question centered around placing a value on the life of a child versus a household pet. The PETA representative held that the child has no more value than the pet, reflecting the Taoist view that all life is equally sacred. An individual is free to choose such a belief if they wish, but should neither force such a value on others by law or by using mind control techniques.

NCAHF supports efforts to prevent cruelty to animals. It deplores the public torture and maiming of animals in cultural rituals such as bull fighting, cock fighting, dog fighting, animal beheading on horseback, and so forth. NCAHF deplores the poaching of endangered species for the purpose of obtaining their body parts for medicinal purposes based upon superstition. NCAHF deplores the plunder of sharks for the purpose of supplying the quack remedy shark cartilage. NCAHF endorses the responsible use of animals in medical research. NCAHF considers vegetarianism, particularly veganism, a hygienic religion that meets deep emotional needs of its followers. Adherents cannot be trusted to be objective, reliable sources of information on anything that bears upon its fundamental paradigm. PCRM pretends to speak for physicians who are functioning as medical experts. In reality, it is speaking for a handful of ideologists who happen to be physicians, but who are functioning as vege-evangelists.

The essence of sound nutrition is in three guiding words; four basic food groups, and the seven Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The three guiding words are: variety, moderation, and balance. Food groups help balance the variety from which diets may be selected. All food is "health food" in moderation; any food is "junk food" in excess -- there are no inherently "good" or "bad" foods, just good and bad total diets. More than anything else in food, it is excessive calories producing too much body fat (rather than dietary fat per se) that is associated with our high frequency of high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Exercise, which also should be done in moderation with variety and balance, is inseparable from diet for good health. NCAHF highly recommends Total Nutrition by Victor Herbert as a comprehensive guide to sound nutrition information (see attached book list).

Henry Heimlich, MD.
Henry Heimlich, best known for the anti-choking maneuver that bears his name, is pushing the idea to give AIDS patients malaria as a way to mobilize their biological defenses and cure their disease. Los Angeles Times reporter Pamela Warrick described a meeting of Hollywood celebrities in the Spring of 1993 at which Heimlich stated that he intended to end the AIDS scourge by 1994. Warrick's 10/30/94 article describes how Heimlich's audacious personality has caused conflict with his peers in the past. He wants to move boldly and they want to observe the age-old ethical principle Primum non nocere "above all, do no harm." Heimlich revels in the fact that he has been proved right in the past, and wants people to presume that he will always be right in the future. Heimlich's impatience is shared by patients who do not have time to wait for the slow-pace of responsible research. Heimlich is philosophically opposed to using animals in research, preferring human "guinea pigs." Warrick recounts Heimlich's malaria cure for Lyme disease that is administered in Mexico (where he doesn't have to observe inconvenient patient-protection standards). Two patients experienced temporary remission only to see their diseases return. One strongly advises against using Heimlich's remedy and complains that he cites her case as a success, but she is not cured and has told him to stop misrepresenting that she is. Heimlich boasted of another cured case but refuses to identify the patient citing doctor-patient confidentiality. A group of scientists and physicians have petitioned U.S. regulatory agencies (FDA, FBI, NIH, IRS) to investigate Heimlich's activities. Heimlich construes this as trying to gain fame by attacking a famous person in the same way an assassin gains fame by killing a celebrity. The Heimlich saga contains all of the issues to be found in the classical conflict between patient protection standards observed by responsible science (and punished by malpractice attorneys when violated), and impatient innovators who want to move full speed ahead. Heimlich appears to be more a crank than a charlatan, but all quacks claim to be Galileos ahead of their times. The old saying "they laughed at Columbus" must be balanced by the fact that they also laughed at Bozo the Clown, and there have been many more Bozos than Columbuses. Heimlich's antagonism against his medical colleagues appears to run in the family. His wife, Jane, wrote an antimedicine book What Your Doctor Won't Tell You, and is Associate Editor of Dr. Julian Whitaker's doctor-bashing tabloid Health & Healing.

References
Capital Research Center. "Responsible or irresponsible medicine?" Organizational Trends, September, 1991, p.5.
Zimmerman D. "Animal activists are rolling in $$$," Probe, February, 1996, p.5.
Lipovenko D. "How to live longer and better," Toronto Globe & Mail, June 21, 1993.
Lyon JL, Klauber MR, Gardner JW, Smart CR. "Cancer incidence in Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah, 1966-70," New Engl J Med 294;129-133 (p.132).
Segerberg O. Living To Be 100. Chas Scribner & Sons, 1982.
Danner SA, De Beaumont M-J, Dunning AJ. "Cardiovascular health in the tenth decade," British Medical Journal, Sept 2, 1978, p. 663.
Editorial viewpoint, "Dietary guideline fiascos," Nutrition Today, May/June, 1991, p.6.
American Dietetic Association, "Diet without meat and diary products is not best for most American's dietitians say," News Release, April 8, 1991.
Strickland D. "'New' food groups: data or dogma?" Medical World News, circa May, June, 1991.
"AMA refutes the validity of 'physician's group' report," AMA News Release. April 10, 1991.
Rehrmann L. "Milk and Children," Associated Press, Baltimore, September 29, 1992.
Norris JM, et al. "Lack of association between early exposure to cow's milk protein and beta-cell autoimmunity," JAMA, 1996;276:609.
Population Reference Bureau, 1988.
Weiss KM. "Demographic models for anthropology," Amer Antiquity 1973;39 (2, part 2); in Gardner RW, Schmitt RC. "Ninety-seven years of mortality in Hawaii," Hawaii Med J 1978;37:297.
Other Source Materials

Much ado about milk (Meister) Priorities, Spring, 1993.
Dietary Guidance Fiascos (Editorial Viewpoint) Nutrition Today, May/June, 1991.
An interview with T Collin Campbell, PhD; eat more plant foods, less animal products, say nutrition expert Environmental Nutrition 1989;12(5):1-2. (Campbell says here that 80% of protein should come from non-animal sources; 10% from fish and 10% from other sources. It seems clear from this interview that Campbell, at least, is not an animal rights zealot.)
AMA blasts animal rights group on milk panic (Press release) American Medical Association 9/29/92.
A new AAP recommendation on whole cow's milk (AAP Committee on Nutrition) Pediatrics 1992;89:1105 6. Children and milk consumption (Zidenberg-Cherr) Nutrition News Hotline October, 1992.
State say milk is healthful California Dept of Health Services News, October 7, 1992
AMA refutes validity of "physician's group" report American Medical Association News Release 4/10/91
AAP responds to PCRM statement on milk consumption American Academy of Pediatrics Media Alert 9/29/92.
Why I am not a vegetarian (Jarvis) Priorities, 1997;9(2):32-42
Recommended Books

Barrett & Herbert. The Vitamin Pushers. Prometheus, 1994.
Butler K. A Consumer's Guide to "Alternative Medicine." Prometheus, 1992.
Herbert V. Total Nutrition: The Only Guide You'll Ever Need. St. Martin's Press, 1995.
Consumer's Reports Books Editors (Barrett) Health Schemes, Scams, and Frauds. Consumer's Union, 1990.
Zwicky, Hafner, Barrett, Jarvis. Reader's Guide to "Alternative" Health Methods. American Medical Assoc., 1993.
Copyright Notice
© 1996, National Council Against Health Fraud.
With proper citation, this article may be reproduced for noncommercial purposes

Source: ncahf.org