Customer Reviews

Carbophobia: The Scary Truth About America's Low-carb Craze

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Dr. Greger is phenomenally clear in this book, which has transformed my diet. He cuts through all of the BS marketed about the apparent efficacy of high-protein, low-carb diets by putting forth REAL perspectives of the world's most respected researchers, physicians, dieticians, and nutritionists. Whether or not you have had doubts about the safety of Atkin's, you need to read this book to understand the shocking, disturbing reality of this fad diet. Furthermore, I had never before considered how human physiology is designed to process fiber and plant matter, not the massive amounts of protein. I have since adopted a healthy, moderate-protein diet and honestly have never felt better. This may be the most witty, informative book about diets, human health, and disease risks ever written. I sincerely urge you to read it, because it will only improve your well-being.

This book has 57 pages of references and citations.

This book also has a 39 page section with the Atkins Corporation's side of the story and Dr. Greger's rebuttal to their counter arguments.

This book is easy to read and well documented.

The author also has made his research on low carb diets available at:

http://atkinsexposed.org/

Anyone familiar with Dr.Greger knows he's on top of nutritional information and the most recent data available. That being said, his main focus of the book is the 'Atkins' diet though he makes it clear he is referring to all 'low carb' diets as the craze continues.

In a nutshell, a low carb diet often means eating more meat, less whole grains, fruit, and even some vegetables. The drop in fiber and nutrients coupled with the added stress to kidneys, an acidic body which robs us of calcium, and increasing (not decreasing) LDL levels, America has the wrong idea about dieting. Dr.Greger was so disturbed by all the misinformation, that he started a website [...] to debunk the lies coming from the Atkins organization. Though Dr.Atkins is now dead, his corporation continues to fight against the truth.

In the end, a full fat diet (meaning healthy fats as in avacados & nuts) along with whole grains and an array of vegetables and fruit, is the way to go. Our muscles need carbs to burn the fat! Don't cut out the good carbs! Sadly, thanks to Atkins and other 'low carb' diet promoters since Atkins, America seems to think all carbs are bad, when in fact it's the sugar and white flour and excess fat they should be cutting.

Dr.Atkins himself, who denied having high cholesterol, died of a heart attack with 30-40% arterial blockage.

Dr Greger has performed a true service with this book. Here we have an inexpensive, short, scientifically rigorous examination of low carb diets that anyone can easily access and understand when considering these diets. The Atkins brand may fade, yet as Greger observes, this terrible approach to nutrition has a way of coming back in different disguises. The beauty of Dr Greger's approach is that you can either read it in a few hours and walk away with a solid understanding of the issues with low carb, or you can use it as a springboard to future investigation on your own, as all his sources and research are documented in the huge end notes section.

Spend a couple hours with this book and you will be inoculated against future dangerous diet fads. Great book!

I love the title of Greger's book "Carbophobia: The Scary Truth About America's Low-carb Craze". However the book should have been titled "Carbophobia: The Scary Truth About Atkins" because in the book Greger's almost sole focus is on the problems with the Atkins diet. He mentions a few others very, very briefly, but for the most part this is a book about how harmful and misleading the Atkins plan can be.

The cover is cute and creative. A cartoon couple stand in their kitchen gazing in horror at a slice of bread!

Greger is a good writer. Though tackling alot of science the book is easy to follow, holds ones interest, and covers alot of ground. Greger has been very thorough in his research.

The one area I was disappointed in is that Greger points to the Ornish diet as a successful one. Though Ornish may be a healthy diet, it is not a pleasurable one as it is very plain. I think Greger could have done a better job of mentioning healthy alternatives.

The 162page softcover book really cracks down on the Atkins plan. Greger walks you through the side effects, faulty science, studies, etc. step by step. The first chapter explains how the Atkins diet is nothing more than a "modern twist on an antique food fad" Chapter two gets into the flawed science behind Atkins. Chapter three questions the effectiveness of eating the Atkins way and chapter four gets into the side effects. He also includes an addendum disputing claims made by the Atkins corporation. The end of the book has an extensive bibliography.

A book that surely has the Atkins corporation worried about their "phoney baloney!"

I have no interest in picking a fight, but in the interest of accuracy, I'm responding to Fred Hahn's review of Sept 29, '05 -- you might wish to read it before continuing.

First, I haven't read the book in question, "Carbophobia." That's full disclosure, not an admission of guilt. I've been effectively vegan since the Carter era, with maybe some butter once in a while. Nothing dead since Iran was our friend (thanks, Carter). I'm 46, and my biometrics put me an average of twenty years younger than my chronology. When I'm trained (last year) my resting heartrate is 43 bpm, and I run a 5 minute mile and a 3:20 marathon; I can squat 600 pounds, dip twice my body weight (180) ten times (that's, um, like, uh, 360 pounds or something!), and I've nearly got my one-armed chinup. My body fat is somewhere under 10%, and I have that delightful and intriguing masculine shape, complete with abs, pecs, lats, and even [pause for dramatic effect] delts. Gee, I'm terrific! So am I saying this (if it's true) because I want vicarious admiration? Yes, I want vicarious admiration. But also because I think I pretty much demonstrate the fact that meat is in every sense optional.

As to specifics, Fred (May I call you Fred? I'm Jack. Glad to meet you, Fred. Hey, Fred, can you believe I'm 46?! Don't I look so youthful?) objects, asserting that meat is not "unhealthy" -- I'm sure he means "unhealthful" -- adducing carnivores as evidence. It's been years, decades, really, since I went through all this, but I still recall that the intestinal tract of carnivores is many times shorter than that of herbivores; since we are neither c nor h, our i.t. is intermediate -- something like five times longer than comparable meat-eaters; the point being that meat doesn't sit and ferment...rot...in a cat's colon, the way it did in John Wayne's [yes, I know it's an urban legend]. Anyone can find this sort of info on the hippy-dippy veggie sites...they're not wrong, just...um...artistic. It may or may not be true that "Humans have been eating meat since time immemorial" [Anno Domini 1199?], but given the differences in GI structure between carnivores and humans, the plaintive query "If meat was so unhealthy how could carnivores ever exist?" answers itself. In any case, horses outlive lions, 28 years to 16 -- that's like, uh, twice as long or something. Upshot is, Are we carnivores? No duh. Are we dedicated herbivores? Get along with you. We *can* eat just about anything -- but what is most healthful?

I've already covered Fred's next point, by citing my own manly physiognomy (looking at Fred's profile, it seems he too must have quite a build to him). As for the inadaquacy of a vegetarian diet, we need only consider the beasts of the field -- say, Fred's bovine staple, which eat ... well, I think cows eat grass, don't they. Maybe some grasshoppers and lady bugs that don't elude the heft of a slobbery tongue, but mostly grass, right? I don't know what the incidence of osteoporosis in wild buffalo is, but I don't think it's endemic. As for protein, check out "The China Study" -- Amazon sells it, as a companion in fact to "Carbophobia". I will quote only briefly: "nutrients from animal-based foods increase tumor development while nutrients from plant-based foods decrease tumor development." The consistancy of lab findings "was stunningly impressive..." [The China Study, p. 66.]

Regarding "unhealthy," a study funded by The Atkins Center revealed that subjects on that diet for half a year suffered constipation (68%), bad breath (63%), headaches (51%) , hair loss (10%), and a 53% increase in calcium excreted in urine [cf. TCS, p. 96]. An Austrialian review of the data points out low-carb dangers of heart arrhythmias and contractile problems, impairment of physical activity, osteoporosis, lipid abnormalities, kidney damage, increased risk of cancer, and sudden death [TCS, p. 97]. Ouch. Atkins himself died weighing 258 lbs; even if this was fluid retention related to his coma, the 195 lbs claimed for him by a spokesman is concidered overweight, a BMI score of 26.4. His heart disease and high blood pressure may have been from insalubrious diet, or, as claimed, from a viral infection of the heart -- which hardly suggests a healthy immune system. All this cannot conceivably indicate a "health" diet -- at best, it could only be a weight-loss diet, apparently at the cost of being a health-loss diet.

I reluctantly have had to concede that the best source of Omega 3 is fish oil, but if you become vegetarian and use flax oil, you can absolutely thrive.

Fred asserts that "When people lose weight on high carbohydrate diets they always lose muscle and bone at the same time, sometimes as much as 40% ... from lean tissue..." Perhaps he's referring to the *Bonbons Seulement* Diet we've been hearing so much about? The Black Hole of Calcutta Diet? The Bataan Death March Diet? Just a hint: sensible diet and sensible exercise, together. Actually, for a sustainable diet, both animal and plant proteins are associated with greater weight, but "Greater plant protein intake [is] closely linked to greater *height* and body weight." [TCS, p. 103; emphasis added.] Third Worlders tend to be smaller not because plant protein is inferior, but because of insufficient dietary variety, quantity and quality, poor public hygiene, and prevalent childhood disease -- in other words, because of poverty.

When Fred objects to Greger's references to meat and insulin, he concludes by stating that the "generalities and statements Dr. Greger tosses about in his book ... are irresponsible and ridiculous." Seems to me that Greger is pretty specific on his atkinsexposed dot org website (citations 71 to 76) dealing with exactly this issue.

I shall refrain from a descent into the minutia of high-carb v high-protein. But honestly, does either extreme sound sensible? How about *adequate*, or *optimal* carbs, amino acids and EFAs? It's not a "boys are better than girls" argument, after all; both are sorta necessary. (Well, one bit of minutia: this B-12 thing is a canard. You may not want to eat yeast as your source, but it is there. An adaquate source could theoretically be found in un-scrubbed fruits and herbs -- the way tribal peoples eat them -- in the beneficial bacteria that "contaminate" plant surfaces ... if you want to eat unscrubbed veggies, that is (and with all the hype about the Paleolithic or the Troglodyte or the Austalopithecine Diet, some folks may not object). In any case, bacteria in the human colon synthesize B12; there is controversy as to whether it is absorbable, but it is there. The upshot is, your body is extremely efficient at recycling B12, and stores a three-year supply -- nobody ever perished from B12 deficiency "in a matter of weeks" after they stopped eating animal products.

As for the assertion that meat-eaters and vegans have "exactly" the same mortality from the killer diseases ... oh, so very, very much to say ... but I won't. Let's make the issue one of definitions, which returns us to the "boys are better than girls" argument, of high-this or high-that. If we're talking about what I call "muffin vegetarians", then the issue isn't about health at all, and those people may be dropping like bloated blow-flies. Pretty much like the meat-and-no-potatoes folks. If it's only about weight (and merciful heavens, I hope it isn't), then amputation is a quick solution. But if it's about health, well didn't your grandmother ever teach you? Finish your vegetables, and don't play with dead things. If you insist on eating meat, doesn't moderation sound like a noble virtue?

In any case, and kidding aside, there's scarcely anything more emotional than food. It's our first comfort, when we come out of the womb. It's the melancholy, nostalgic feasts of childhood. It's courtship and conviviality. Great Scott, it gets a whole sense to itself! But when you concider the steep decadal rise in obesity and diabetes -- diabesity? -- and the failing fight against heart disease and cancer and the like, you know something is wrong. What's different? Is it oil prices? Is it ebola? Is it the Illuminati? Or is it what we're eating. The solution is certainly not fad diets, high-this and low-that. The word "diet" comes eventually from the Latin, meaning "a way of life," or "lifestyle." Hmm. Why, that's another hint! We should eat in a manner that we can sustain, and that can sustain us, for the rest of our lives.

The muffin vegetarians think their ethical purity will protect them. The cavemen think protein should be used as energy more than as building blocks. I suggest that we stop thinking of food in terms of a diet, and instead think of it as nutrition. It's not about how fat your hips or big your belly. It's about how healthy you can be. And like grandma used to say, "Moderation in most things."

So. Anytime, I'll put my 27 years up against Fred's 3 (that's like, uh, twice as long or something). He sounds like he's quite a powerful man, so maybe he's stronger than me, but I bet I'm faster -- and I'm sure I look younger ... and that's what really matters. Um, right?

What you said Jack Holiday, except that I'm all for flax over fish oil. Dr. Greger is extremely qualified and well researched in his literary works--not to mention entertaining.

I caught Michael Gregor on a talk show on the internet and was appalled by the misinformation he was spreading, aided by an ignorant host. But what both of them have in common is that they are vegans.


And it is basically vegans who sing the praise of this totally misleading book. That is the same crowd that is equally uncritical of the China Study which is shown on the same page on this website. (Look for a truly informative critique on the discussion forum for this book further down in the listing)

Michael Greger claims that most of the research on Atkins is faulty and that most of Atkin's claims are unsubstantiated. That is an outright lie. On July 7, 2002 the New York Times published a major piece on the Atkins Diet in its Sunday Magazine, flatly stating that, grudgingly and reluctantly, a lot of reputable people in the field have come around to Atkin's point of view.

If you are interested, go to nytimes.com, seach for Atkins, then click on 'Magazine' and you will find 'What if It's all Been a Big Fat Lie?' written by Gary Taubs.

Another old trick of the anti low-crab crowd is that they continue to accuse any proponent of low carb diets of trashing fruits and vegetables in favor of cheeseburgers, steaks and animal fats.

Their M.O. is to attack the Atkin's diet from 30 years ago and to ignore everything that all of us, including Atkins, have learned in the meantime.

Go to any bookstore and take a look at chapter 3 of ATKINS FOR LIFE. It is titled 'Yes, You can eat carbs', and it lists tons of fruits and vegeables that are recommended on his diet.

Also, we now have a much better understanding of a phenomenon called Syndrom X or Metabolic Syndrom, a cluster of symptoms that is primarily associated with a diet high in refined carbohydrates and hydroginated fats, which leads to insulin resitence.

So now here is Greger bemoaning carbophobia at a time when diabetis assumes almost epidemic proportions in this country and obesity has been recognized as a major health threat.That is the result of a diet heavy in refined carbohydrates, not in protein.

This is simply hyperbole delivered by vegans trying to rationalize their moral choice not to eat meat.

I have no issue with you if you choose not to kill and eat animals for food. Just don't try to convince anyone that its a healthier way to eat with junk science and innuendo.

4 million years of evolution and a million years as hunter-gatherers evolved our bodies to eat animal protein and fat as our primary nutrients, supplemented with some berries, nuts, and leafy green vegetables. NO grains of any kind until the advent of agriculture within the last several thousand years. And anthropologists can identify "civilized" peoples as those where the "diseases of civilization", tooth decay, obesity, osteoparosis, etc., begin to show up in the fossil records. Its the carbohydrate sources: grains (whole grain and otherwise), starchy vegetables, and other sugars that are the culprits in our 'western' diet.

For real information read Gary Taubes book Good Calories, Bad Calories, or Michael Pollan's book In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto. Better yet, read both.

I haven't read this book either (as another reviewer said) and I would like to. Besides, I have serious doubts that others who have bashed the book have either! I am a nutrition student and I couldn't believe the total falseness of one reviewer who said,

"Additionally, vegetarians and meat eaters suffer from the exact same degree of heart disease, heart attacks, cancer rates and other all cause mortaility issues. Vegetarians do not live longer or better than meat eaters. This is a complete falsehood."

This is so untrue it's not even funny. Where is he getting this totally fabricated information? I'm sure as most of you already know, there have been numerous, seemingly endless reports from highly reputable sources of vegetarians who (if eating with common sense) live longer and have reduced incidences of heart disease and cancer.

Most of these reports come from peer-reviewed medical journals. Gee wiz, even the public statements by the American Dietetic Assocation and American Heart Association say that not only can vegetarian diets be very healthy, they can be used to treat and prevent disease! (You can even see them on their websites.)Therefore, I think Gregor (sp?) deserves a few more stars to balance some of these reviewers' false statements.

While I have heard of some famous people who have had cancer and were vegetarian, I have never heard of anyone, famous or in my circles, who was a vegan, or even vegetarian, for that matter, who died of a heart attack or had major heart problems.

This writer was totally giving you false information when he wrote that. I believe his name was Fred Hahn.

Now of course you'll have your occasional fad vegetarian who eats a diet mostly of potato chips and Ding Dongs who isn't the healthiest person around. But a vegetarian who is even moderately educated does have a good chance at being much healthier. Do the research yourself and you'll see.

Also, I urge everyone out there just to use common sense as well. Refined carbs in the way of breads and cereals, etc. aren't a totally natural health food form (meaning they had to be processed in some way to be attractive to consumers) and therefore are probably not that good for you in large quantities.

However, carbs are a good energy source for energetic people and if used in moderation, barring any allergies, should not be something to be totally scared of either. It depends on each person, their health status and genetics, and what their bodies respond best to.

Being a spiritual person, I believe everything is somehow connected in our universe and that our actions do impact everything else. So I'd also like to ask people: Is your decision to eat meat one that is there to help your tongue/taste desires or your health? What proof do you have that shows your body really need lots of meat? Are there lives being lost unnecessarily because of what is merely tradition and personal taste? From what I've observed in the past 20 years of watching this issue, most people can do fine, if not better, by eating little to no meat. Dairy products and fortified foods (like Total Raisin Bran for example, among many other store-bought products) contain B12.

Some of the longest-lived people on the planet eat vegetarian or mostly vegetarian diets. I'm sure y'all have heard of the centenarians (100 year old folks) on the Mediterranean and Okinawan diets, both of which include very little meat.