A complete imaginary (I think) interview
Apr. 2nd, 2004 09:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnpalmerAfter seeing one too many diet advisors bash any notion of low carb dieting, I (having found one that's quite comfortable, and seems sensible) ended up writing this. I'm putting it behind a cut-tag so anyone who might want to skip it, can do so.
Please note that I'm trying not to be a fanatic about this... this mock interview is pure parody, but it does mirror some of the feelings I've had when reading critiques of controlled carb (I prefer that to "low carb") dieting.
Ann Ouncer: Today, we have a special treat. We've invited Dr. Ian M. Phatt in to join us, to tell us how stupid and horrible low carbohydrate dies are.
Dr. Phatt: Hello Ann; yes, this is an important issue, because there are a lot of people who find low carbohydrate diets to be relatively comfortable methods of losing weight, and we don't want people to get away with not suffering as much as the rest of us.
A: What would you say is the worst myth that low carbohydrate dieters believe in?
P: The absolute worst is the notion that fat is not some horrible, evil, disgusting substance whose only purpose is to make us obese and unhealthy. Now, it's true that the body's muscles can burn fat, but let me emphasize this: the brain can only run on glucose. Simple logic should tell you that, without a large supply of glucose, or blood sugar, both the brain and muscles will starve.
A: What about the notion that fat is stored by the body for protection against famine?
P: I think one only needs to look at one of those advertisments for charities trying to help famine-stricken countries. If fat's purpose was to protect against famine, we'd expect all of those people to be fat, wouldn't we? But they're not! This shows that there is no relationship between fat and starvation. No... fat is simply a toxin. A toxin that, I must admit, sometimes carries vital nutrients, but it's still a toxin.
A: How else are low-carb dieters painfully stupid, compared to those of us who know that white bread, high-fructose corn syrup, high glycemic index mashed potatos, and other valuable carbohydrates are much better than fats?
P: I'm glad you asked that question. All kinds of foods are filled with carbohydrates, and since we know - despite the protestations of the authors of low-carb dieting books - that "low carb" means "near total elimination of every single nasty carbohydrate that can be found", that means that there are all kinds of foods completely forbidden for all time to low carb dieters, no matter what quantity they are eaten in.
A: So, rumors that low carb dieters eat measured quantities of carbohydrates, while trying not to blast their blood sugar by large quantities of sugar are just that: rumors?
P: Absolutely. Can you imagine a low carb dieter eating nutrient dense vegetables and fruits, keeping their overall carbohydrates low, and still getting all their vital nutrients? It's absolutely ridiculous, and we both know why: because soi disant experts like us might look bad if that were to happen. No, low carb dieting means you're supposed to live on steaks, hamburgers (without the bun, mind you!), eggs, and other foods high in saturated fats. Since there are no sources of protein that aren't bad for you (besides several types of nuts, chicken and turkey breast, soy proteins, etc), this is guaranteed to be bad for one's health.
A: What else should make one suspicious about low carb dieting?
P: Well, there's one idea from Atkins that just about makes my blood boil. Can you believe this *crap*? In his book, he suggested that if you're hungry, you should *eat*. His book says that if a diet leaves you hungry and unsatisfied, you're not going to stick to it. Now, we all know that any level of excess body fat means a person was a horrible lazy slob, and deserves to be punished, so this very notion of eating just because you're hungry... well, I just shouldn't talk about it... you can see how much it upsets me. If you're not hungry on a diet, can you even be said to be *dieting*?
A: Yes, I heard he thought that variations in blood sugar can lead to hunger and food cravings, and he has some ludicrous idea that, once your body is primarily burning fat, you won't have as much variation in your blood sugar. That's as stupid as the suggestion that it might not be a good idea to drink lots of fruit juices, which are essentially sugar-water with some nutrients added in.
P: You've got that right, Ann. Fruit juices don't have fat, and well *all* know that fat is the only thing that makes a food bad for you. Sure, fats might help satiate a person, probably due to their toxicity, but that's temporary... you *will* get hungry again, two, three, maybe four hours later. No, this notion that almost no sugar, and fewer carbs overall, could be healthy or lead to weight loss, is completely ridiculous, and I'm glad you've given me the chance to speak on it.
A: Thank you for coming by, Dr. Phatt. Now, listeners, please join me next week when I discuss how the notion labelling hyperactive children as having this "A.D.H.D." fad is much, much worse for their self esteem than calling them disobedient and stupid.
Please note that I'm trying not to be a fanatic about this... this mock interview is pure parody, but it does mirror some of the feelings I've had when reading critiques of controlled carb (I prefer that to "low carb") dieting.
Ann Ouncer: Today, we have a special treat. We've invited Dr. Ian M. Phatt in to join us, to tell us how stupid and horrible low carbohydrate dies are.
Dr. Phatt: Hello Ann; yes, this is an important issue, because there are a lot of people who find low carbohydrate diets to be relatively comfortable methods of losing weight, and we don't want people to get away with not suffering as much as the rest of us.
A: What would you say is the worst myth that low carbohydrate dieters believe in?
P: The absolute worst is the notion that fat is not some horrible, evil, disgusting substance whose only purpose is to make us obese and unhealthy. Now, it's true that the body's muscles can burn fat, but let me emphasize this: the brain can only run on glucose. Simple logic should tell you that, without a large supply of glucose, or blood sugar, both the brain and muscles will starve.
A: What about the notion that fat is stored by the body for protection against famine?
P: I think one only needs to look at one of those advertisments for charities trying to help famine-stricken countries. If fat's purpose was to protect against famine, we'd expect all of those people to be fat, wouldn't we? But they're not! This shows that there is no relationship between fat and starvation. No... fat is simply a toxin. A toxin that, I must admit, sometimes carries vital nutrients, but it's still a toxin.
A: How else are low-carb dieters painfully stupid, compared to those of us who know that white bread, high-fructose corn syrup, high glycemic index mashed potatos, and other valuable carbohydrates are much better than fats?
P: I'm glad you asked that question. All kinds of foods are filled with carbohydrates, and since we know - despite the protestations of the authors of low-carb dieting books - that "low carb" means "near total elimination of every single nasty carbohydrate that can be found", that means that there are all kinds of foods completely forbidden for all time to low carb dieters, no matter what quantity they are eaten in.
A: So, rumors that low carb dieters eat measured quantities of carbohydrates, while trying not to blast their blood sugar by large quantities of sugar are just that: rumors?
P: Absolutely. Can you imagine a low carb dieter eating nutrient dense vegetables and fruits, keeping their overall carbohydrates low, and still getting all their vital nutrients? It's absolutely ridiculous, and we both know why: because soi disant experts like us might look bad if that were to happen. No, low carb dieting means you're supposed to live on steaks, hamburgers (without the bun, mind you!), eggs, and other foods high in saturated fats. Since there are no sources of protein that aren't bad for you (besides several types of nuts, chicken and turkey breast, soy proteins, etc), this is guaranteed to be bad for one's health.
A: What else should make one suspicious about low carb dieting?
P: Well, there's one idea from Atkins that just about makes my blood boil. Can you believe this *crap*? In his book, he suggested that if you're hungry, you should *eat*. His book says that if a diet leaves you hungry and unsatisfied, you're not going to stick to it. Now, we all know that any level of excess body fat means a person was a horrible lazy slob, and deserves to be punished, so this very notion of eating just because you're hungry... well, I just shouldn't talk about it... you can see how much it upsets me. If you're not hungry on a diet, can you even be said to be *dieting*?
A: Yes, I heard he thought that variations in blood sugar can lead to hunger and food cravings, and he has some ludicrous idea that, once your body is primarily burning fat, you won't have as much variation in your blood sugar. That's as stupid as the suggestion that it might not be a good idea to drink lots of fruit juices, which are essentially sugar-water with some nutrients added in.
P: You've got that right, Ann. Fruit juices don't have fat, and well *all* know that fat is the only thing that makes a food bad for you. Sure, fats might help satiate a person, probably due to their toxicity, but that's temporary... you *will* get hungry again, two, three, maybe four hours later. No, this notion that almost no sugar, and fewer carbs overall, could be healthy or lead to weight loss, is completely ridiculous, and I'm glad you've given me the chance to speak on it.
A: Thank you for coming by, Dr. Phatt. Now, listeners, please join me next week when I discuss how the notion labelling hyperactive children as having this "A.D.H.D." fad is much, much worse for their self esteem than calling them disobedient and stupid.
