Food Industry Counts on Carbs
So, I have decided, at least for the moment, to try to post whatever articles I find in the media concerning low-carb and, if warrented, comment on them. Here's the first one, an article from the Minneapolis-St.Paul Start Tribune titled "Food industry counts on carbs":
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4324443.html
When I first looked at this story, I had no problems, but going back, it told me I needed to register first. I'm not sure if this is due to some policy where stories that are recent are openly accessible but once they reach a certain number of hours or days in age they become restricted, or whether they are giving you a cookie and then if you return, it sees you've already been there so it then requests registration. If someone goes there and has no problems viewing it, let me know (I don't feel like deleting my cookies right now). Otherwise, you will have to register with them, which took me all of a couple of minutes.
Ok, as far as the article itself, I thought overall it was good as a medium-length synopsis of low-carb trends in both the restaurant and packaged food industries. Quotes from TGI Fridays, Prego, a dietician, an FDA spokesperson, a nutrition academician, and a random consumer, give it somewhat of a balance, as much as you can have in a short piece like this. I love dietician's quotes on low-carb plans because they always show how ignorant they are of the details of the plans. It's as if because they are taught to be against such plans they cannot even stand to read the books, and so end up believing in the false stereotypes that they help to propogate.
Sue Moores, a registered dietician in St. Paul and a spokeswoman for the organization, said her concern with low-carb dieting is that "people innately like to eat carbs."
"That's the trouble you find with this diet," she said. "People don't want to give up noodles and they don't want to give up their favorite comfort foods, which are carb-heavy.
I found giving up my favorite carb-heavy foods, like popcorn, pizza, and baked potatoes, not all that hard, especially when that meant not having to worry about fat or calories, enabling me to eat all the chicken, fish, beef, lamb, pork, nuts, avacados, etc. that I care to. I don't consider what I do a "diet" as I've been eating this way for almost three and a half years, however, ALL diets seem to restrict something. Low-fat is just as restrictive since you simply cannot eat certain foods because they are too high in fat. Even the current mantra of "balance" restricts eating meats that are too fatty, or sugar-filled/refined-carb laden deserts. Certainly if chocolate and ice-cream was not counterindicated, I might eat those several times a day! But part of committing to a healthy eating plan, and one that will potentially help you lose weight as well, is giving up a few of the foods that you might really enjoy. It doesn't mean you can never have these foods again, but you just can't have them every day let alone several times a day, and in large quantities. Sorry, but this is NOT a convincing argument for me against low-carb...
"The trick is to give up some of the bad carbohydrate foods but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. To give up all carbohydrates is truly a disservice to your body."
Here is where Moores displays, as most dieticians do, their ignorance of low-carb plans. Or perhaps it's intentional disinformation. NO low-carb plan out there forces one to give up ALL carbs. Atkins and South Beach have the strictest initial phases, but even so these phases last only two weeks and allow around 20 grams of carbs (at least for Atkins) per day, which is enough for several servings of high-fiber veggies, especially considering the aspect of these plans that no dietician will complement: fiber content is not counted. What this means is that a very high-fiber food, like brocolli for example, counts for even fewer carbs than you would think because of the fiber.
"Moores and others suggest that dieters avoid the simple carbohydrates in such foods as processed sugar, snacks and white bread, but not forgo the complex carbohydrates found in such foods as fruit, potatoes and whole grains."
Simple vs. Complex carbohydrates is an old distinction that no longer carries any scientific significance. The more recent distinctions discussed by the scientific community are glycemic index and glycemic load. This again, shows how so many dieticians are simply parroting their training which for the most part deals with a very narrow set of nutritional ideas from decades ago. Schools of nutrition in general are not bastions of open discussion and different viewpoints. They are schools where one is taught a dogma and other points of view are vilified. Of course there are probably exceptions to this - Harvard's School of Public Health's Nutrition Department , run by Walter Willett, is probably much more open about this stuff, given Willett's own predisposition.
One thing I have never understood was the criticism that low-carb plans don't include whole grains, which supposedly have tons of nutrients and fiber. Well, they may have these, but there are so many vegetables out there that both have tons of nutrients and fiber AND are MUCH lower in carbs than whole grains. So why MUST we have whole grains instead of these other nutrient sources? I cannot fathom it! I content that one can have one's cake and eat it too (no pun intended). Dieticians make a good show of being very pro-vegetable, but by emphasizing so much consumption of grains, potatoes, and other starches (the USDA food pyramid, which many dieticians worship as the quintessential symbol of their profession, puts at its base grain products, recommending more servings from this group than all others), they are, IN EFFECT, saying we should not have as many veggies as we might otherwise. Perhaps I am biased, but I simply have not heard any explanation that makes sense of this stance. It's fine to want people to get lots of nutrients, but grains (even whole grains) cannot be said to be the only (or even best) dense form of food that provides these. So why do so many dieticians consider them indespensible???