People Don't Know What to Eat Anymore: What a Great Marketing Opportunity

Here's an op-ed I wrote that we're running in our 10/22 issue. Enjoy responsibly:

Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he requested something called “wheat germ, organic honey and tiger’s milk.”
Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or . . . hot
fudge?
Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy . . . precisely the opposite
of what we now know to be true.
Dr. Melik: Incredible.
—Woody Allen’s Sleeper, 1973

Though Gary Taubes stops short of advocating cream pies or hot fudge, his new book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, is chock full of Sleeperesque moments. We learn, for instance, that no one has effectively proved that cholesterol causes heart attacks, that salt causes hypertension, that fiber does anything to prevent colon cancer or that exercising keeps you thin.
Mostly, however, we find out that there’s enough data out there to support the hypothesis that what’s really making Americans fatter is not fat, but rather carbohydrates in the form of pasta, bread, sugar and all those other goodies long ago deemed “fattening.” The book also makes the case that most of the conventional wisdom about diet and nutrition is based on half-truths, political correctness and, above all, junk science.
Who is Gary Taubes and why should you care? Taubes wrote a cover story in The New York Times Magazine in July 2002 that for the first time seemed to give scientific weight to what he calls the “Carbohydrate Hypothesis.” That is, the belief that an overdose of carbohydrates causes insulin levels to rise and impede the body’s ability to burn fat.
I would wager to say that Taubes’ story was one of the Times Magazine’s best read in years. It was certainly the most talked-about. After a convincing case was made to the Times’ bourgeoisie readers, it only took a few months before low-carb products began to hit shelves en masse.
That trend seems to have burned itself out for now, but people remain more confused than ever about what they should be eating. I think this is a great marketing opportunity. Here’s why: For about 30 years, makers of high-carbohydrate products have benefited from the prevailing wisdom that a diet low in fat will shed pounds and reduce the risk of heart attacks. The upshot is that if you’re in a supermarket these days, you’re likely to see the “heart healthy” label on carb-heavy products like cereal and oatmeal, rather than on, say, beef, which believe it or not may actually do a better job of keeping you out of the coronary unit.
But will eating a bowl of oatmeal really make you less likely to drop dead of a myocardial infarction? Those who answer in the affirmative base their claim on 19 pre-1992 studies that found, on average, eating 3 grams or more of soluble oat fiber a day (the equivalent of 2/3 of a cup of hot oatmeal) led to a 2-3% drop in cholesterol levels. Great. But say you faithfully eat your oatmeal every day. And your cholesterol does drop 2-3%. The big question is still there: Have you actually lessened your chances of getting a heart attack?
In the early 1970s, the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT) looked at the cholesterol levels of 362,000 middle-aged American men. Of those, 12,000 were singled out for having dangerously high cholesterol levels (over 390 mg/ml). Those 12,000 were divided into two groups: One control group was told to address the problem as they saw fit. The other group was treatment-oriented, and went on a low-cholesterol/low fat diet, took medication for their blood pressure and (when applicable) quit smoking.
When the study concluded in 1982, the treatment group had a slightly higher incidence of heart attacks.
The MRFIT data also found that, for every 1,000 men with a cholesterol reading between 240 and 250, 20 to 23 would likely die of any cause over the next six years. For those whose cholesterol hovered around 220, between 19 and 21 were likely to die. “In other words,” as Taubes noted, “19 or 20 of these men can expect to die whether they diet or not. For the remaining 98%, they will live regardless of their choice. Moreover, lowering cholesterol further would not help. The death rate for men whose cholesterol is below 200 appears little different from that of men between 200 and 250.”
So you do the math: Is a 2-3% drop in cholesterol levels worth radical changes to your lifestyle and giving up foods you like? Of course, I’m taking up just one example here, and Taubes’ book is by no means the final word on the subject. But if consumers are genuinely concerned about what they put in their mouths, they would benefit from reading this book, which will probably leave them feeling skeptical about diet and health claims.
And that’s just how they should feel; the jury is still out on what is and is not healthy to eat. No studies have shown a conclusive link—such as the one that showed smokers are 30 times more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers—between eating a low-fat diet and improved health. In fact, it seems that the data supporting the adoption of a low-fat diet are so sketchy that makers of, say, beef, pork and egg products would be wise to use the book to make the case that their charmed substances may be a healthier choice than a slice of bread. They might even be serving the public health by doing so.

Comments

[buy viagra]

Is a 2-3% drop in cholesterol levels worth radical changes to your lifestyle and giving up foods you like? Of course, I’m taking up just one example here, and Taubes’ book is by no means the final word on the subject. is very true this information I really enjoyed!

[generic propecia]

For the remaining 98%, they will live regardless of their choice. Moreover, lowering cholesterol further would not help. The death rate for men whose cholesterol is below 200 appears little different from that of men between 200 and 250.”

[generic viagra]

The death rate for men whose cholesterol is below 200 appears little different from that of men between 200 and 250.

[viagra prescription]

But if consumers are genuinely concerned about what they put in their mouths, they would benefit from reading this book, which will probably leave them feeling skeptical about diet and health claims.