Fad Chance
Reading probably the 500th or so article on low carb recently, I saw that word again. “Fad.” This is the word that critics have used to describe low-carb for some time now, and it has been picked up by the media. Here’s how Dictionary.com defines the word:
“A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.”
Not all that helpful, but the basic meaning seems to be something that is popular for a “brief” time. So, with that in mind, let’s examine whether this label is being used accurately.
Popularity: are low carb plans popular right now? Anyone not living in a cave would have to agree they are. A recent survey indicates that 11% of Americans are currently on a low-carb diet and an additional 20% are reportedly likely to go on one in the next two years.
“Brief period”: how exactly do you define a “brief period”? It’s hard to say, really, right? It depends on what you are comparing it with. But the first condition, I would think, is that it must have a beginning and an end, by which to actually measure the period. Since the popularity of low carb plans has only been growing, there is no end point with which to measure its current popularity. Therefore, how can we label it as a fad? The answer seems to be that those labeling it are basically predicting that its popularity will end within a “brief period” so that it can then be proven as a “fad.” But by definition it can’t really be called this until its period of popularity is over.
Was the low-fat movement labeled a fad? Perhaps it was by some of its critics in the low-carb group when referring to the push by the food industry to deliver almost every conceivable product in a low-fat form. However, no nutritionist, dietician, or medical authority (many of them are still recommending such diets when asked what their preference is) has labeled low-fat as a “fad” and neither has the media picked up on such a label. So let’s look at some history.
Although this is fairly well known in some circles of low-carb advocates, what is rarely reported in the press or admitted by critics is that Dr. Atkins did not invent the low-carb diet, although he is certainly rightly credited as its modern day champion. First off, if one looks at the anthropological record, it is evident that our ancient ancestors probably ate a low-carb diet consisting primarily of animals with a few wild plants mixed in. This is of course, pre-agricultural. In more recent times, the first mention on record of a specifically low-carb regime was apparently in a booklet called “Letter on Corpulence.” This was penned in 1860 by a famous undertaker William Banting who used himself as a guinea pig and found the most effective method of losing weight to be cutting starches and sweets. Banting, incidentally, lived to be 82, which is well beyond the average life expectancy of the time. This piece on Banting and the subsequent work done after his Letter show that such plans were not at all new.
Anecdotally, I should say, I have learned that before the 1980’s, when many people wished to diet, it was not the fat or protein that they would give up, but rather the starches. My own mother, who became an avid-low-fatter in the 80’s still had the habit of removing the buns from her hamburger in an effort to maintain her weight, such was the popular understanding of things that had conditioned her from before the more recent era of low-fat dieting.
Some will criticize Banting or others and say that the more recent our information is, the more accurate, given the progress of science. To these people I have two responses. Firstly, I am not trying to prove or disprove here anything about the efficacy of low-carb dieting, I am simply trying to show that “fad” is a misleading, loaded, and simply INCORRECT word to describe low-carb diets. Secondly, science often has to reassess things that it previously assumed to be true. The most recent glaring and relevant example would be that of trans fats. In the early 1900’s, the process of hydrogenating oils was created and margarine’s and shortening became extremely popular as a substitute for natural oils and fats. Even into the 1990’s (and perhaps into the current century by those hopelessly behind the times) medical authorities and dieticians and nutritionists were still recommending that people use the trans-fat-filled margarines because they were lower in fat than natural oils like olive oil. However more and more studies have been coming out showing a direct and undeniable link between trans fat consumption and heart disease risk, one that is much more evident even than the one between heart disease risk and saturated fat, the type of fat that has been the major scapegoad of most of the medical/nutritionist community, at least until very recently. The FDA finally last year adopted the recommendation that NO level of trans fats was safe and will finally be mandating trans fat conent inclusion on nutritional labels, although not until 2006. As recent studies have indicated, the notion that low-carb diets are “dangerous” as has been the party line of most dieticians, nutritionists, and medical authorities over the last 30 years since Atkins more recently popularized low-carb dieting, is being eroded, and there is now evidence that it is at least as beneficial but probably a lot more effective in terms of both health and weight loss than its low-fat competition.
So, why is “fad” still used when the much more accurate less loaded phrase of “recently popular” is available? Perhaps it is used because “fad” is more colorful and better for use as hyperbole in rhetoric. Perhaps this is what critics and those who could care less about accuracy and facts have resorted to in a battle that has been increasingly been won by their low-carb nemesis.