ASK DR. BAUGHAN February 18, 2000
ATKINS SHMATKINS
One reason I enjoy living in the middle of the woods is that there is a little insulation from the lunacy of mass culture. But not much. For some reason beyond my comprehension, the Atkins Diet is having a resurgence. Does this mean we can expect a Disco Revival soon? The way diets are presented in print or on the tube with the fervor of televangelists or video aerobics teachers might make you suspect that nutrition is based more on faith than knowledge. I certainly find grains of knowledge hard to winnow from the chaff of greed and megalomania. Lest you think my grain analogy suggests a bias toward carbohydrates, let me state my assumptions and biases.
I BELIEVE!! (Can I have an AMEN, please?) I believe that in the next ten years we may be much better able to describe 4-10 metabolic “types” that will have genetic bases. Once we can say how your individual metabolism works, we may be better able to prescribe a diet that is appropriate for you. That may deprive the tabloids from one of their favorite topics, but they are not concerned with reality anyway. Then we may better understand why a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet works well for some people, and others do better on a higher protein, moderate fat diet. Until then, what sense can we hope for, and what nonsense must we be aware of?
First, I think we need to accept that for several generations now we are seriously estranged from our food supply. We do not respect the products of the earth, or the life spirits of the animals we eat. We expect food to entertain us (Snap! Crackle! Pop!) or reinforce our self-images (Hungry Man - me big lumberjack!). We certainly do not want to take time to prepare it with care, so it is better if someone else has processed it, seasoned it, and packaged it in eye-catching plastic or cardboard.
There is now a respectable body of knowledge that unprocessed, high fiber vegetables and fruits in quantities more than most of us eat are good for our hearts and colons. Nobody gets fat eating broccoli. There is no disagreement that we need proteins and certain fats. So there are no “bad” fruits, vegetables, or meats (from a purely nutritional perspective). The great hoopla is about proportion. How about grains and starches? Grains have been the basis of human nutrition for about ten millenia. It is hard to imagine that our bodies do not use them efficiently. However, it has only been for a couple of hundred years that we have smashed, mashed and pulverized grains to remove many of the nutrients just so that they will be softer and look unrelated to the plants they came from. Starches have been major components of human diets only in those areas where people had to work hard and food was scarce. Only when we started to slather them with fats have they become mainstream.
The Atkins diet has some value in its emphasis on “nutrient-dense, unprocessed foods.” The overview from the Atkins web site has much misleading information, though. For example: By “cutting down on your carbohydrate consumption . . .” you can expect to “to burn fat for energy.” Maybe. It depends on your total calories. “Sugar is an energy sucker: the Anti-Nutrient.” That is hogwash, and I cannot say “Amen,” brother. “Hypertension, chronic fatigue and attention-deficit-disorder are now well recognized conditions.” This is somehow supposed to relate to increased carbohydrate consumption in the past few decades.
Much of health seems to be about persistence and follow-up. Atkins claims that his diet will lead to “a significant improvement in your blood profile (including cholesterol and blood pressure levels).” Maybe, maybe not. You have to follow-up with your health provider to know. Taking off on any restrictive diet without consultation and follow-up is like picking prescription drugs off the shelf in Mexico and trying them because they have pretty colors. Any diet that “works” needs to still be working six months or six years later. Respect your food. Respect yourself. Say grace.