Shots Across The Bow

Fumento Returns

I just got an interesting comment from Mr. Fumento. You remember him, the guy who said SARS was no big deal, and Atkins doesn't work?

Apparently, he wants me to admit I was wrong on both counts. He's in for a big disappointment.

Here is his comment:

"Fumento Is Wrong!" That's what you wrote about me and my SARS writing. As you now know, Fumento Was Right; Indeed, He Was Essentially the ONLY Journalist Who Was Right!"

http://www.fumento.com/disease/sarsimpact.html

Are you too little of a man to admit that YOU were wrong, and terribly so? It seems that if you were going to, you would have gotten around to it by now. And by the way, Fumento Was Right! about Atkins, too.

http://www.fumento.com/fat/nroatkins.html

I've been writing on epidemiology for 16 years. If you lock horns with me, you're going to be wrong. But it seems you should at least have the guts to admit it. Or is that why your shots go across the bow, instead of actually striking the target?

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Michael,

There are many times in the past when I have been wrong, and I have admitted so candidly. This, however, is not one of them.

Here is what I said on SARS:
"If a SARS breakout isn't promptly controlled, it could be disastrous, as we are seeing in China."

It was controlled and contained; that doesn't mean it didn't represent a serious threat. By your numbers, SARS had an overall mortality rate of approximately 10%. Since other respiratory ailments generally run at significantly less than 1%, even in the elderly, that one factor alone warrants considerable concern. Your piece goes on to state that the mortality rate is irrelevant since the incidence was so low. Comparing the spread in China with the rest of the world clearly demonstrates that without the actions of the WHO, the incidence would have been significantly higher, negating your argument.

Your argument only appears legitimate because it rests on the success of the very actions you claim were unneeded.

However, continue to glory in your isolated position of "Essentially the ONLY Journalist Who Was Right!" I'll continue to rely on those who actually practice epidemiology, rather than write about it.

As for your new article on Atkins, you've just rehashed old points without answering any of my questions from earlier posts:

1. If the Atkins plan merely "gives people a framework to eat fewer calories, since most of the choices in this culture are carbohydrate driven," how is that a problem? Don't you go on to say that dietary moderation is key to long term weight loss? If the Atkins Plan gives dieters the ability to reduce calories with minimal pain, where's the problem?

2. In your article, you say,
   

   "In addition to its something-for-nothing weight-loss promise, Atkins also insisted his diet relieves 'fatigue, irritability, depression, trouble concentrating, headaches, insomnia, dizziness, joint and muscle aches, heartburn, colitis, premenstrual syndrome, and water retention and bloating'."

   
   All of these symptoms are associated with health problems related to obesity. If you lose weight on the Atkins Plan, it stands to reason that weight-related problems will be minimized. How then is connecting the two invalid?

   Interestingly, you choose to utilize a similar connection in your own article when you quote Robert Eckel,
   

   "Eckel, who coauthored an accompanying commentary in the NEJM, says one probable reason for improved blood readings in the Atkins cohorts is that they did have greater weight loss, at least part of the time, in both studies. "Generally when people lose weight, both triglycerides and HDL improve," he told me."

   Both Atkins and Eckel are claiming benefits related to weight loss, yet you critique Atkins while giving Eckel a pass.

3. You close with:
   

   "How peculiar when the most you can say for the best-selling fad-diet book of all time is that it probably doesn't kill people."

   The summary of the Seeley study states:
   

   "These results indicate that for short periods of time, a low carbohydrate, ketogenic diet is efficacious in causing weight loss and has no deleterious effects on cardiovascular risk factors."

   Your bias is showing. Based on the studies you quote, the worst that can be said is that the Atkins diet works at least as well as the AHA diet, with none of the health risks you took great delight in pointing out in your Reason article.

Another theme you return to in this article is Gary Taubes, and how he distorts the record to make his point. A careful reading reveals some similar issues you might want to resolve.

This passage for instance:

One, conducted at the Philadelphia Veterans Administration Hospital, lasted six months, comprised subjects with an initial average weight of about 215 pounds. The other was conducted at three different centers, lasted 12 months, and comprised subjects with an initial average weight of about 290 pounds.

The six-month study found that Atkins dieters lost weight at about twice the rate as the higher-carb group — for two months. Thereafter neither group lost much weight. By the end of six months, the Atkins dieters, however, had still managed to keep off about twice as much weight as the higher-carb group — for what it was worth. The average loss was a mere 13 pounds from that original 290.

Hmmm. According to the first paragraph, the average weight for the 6-month study was 216 pounds, not 290, which was the average for the 1 year study.

Honest mistake? Maybe.

Then there's this passage:

Worse, Taubes ignored a mass of published and peer-reviewed studies showing low-carbohydrate diets to be ineffective for long-term weight loss, such as a review in the April 2001 Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) of "all studies identified" that looked at diet nutrient composition and weight loss.

It claimed to have found over 200, with "no studies of the health and nutrition effects of popular diets in the published literature" excluded. In some, subjects were put on "ad libitum" diets, meaning they were allowed to eat as much as they wanted as long as they consumed fat, protein, and carbohydrates in the directed proportions. In others, subjects were put on controlled-calorie diets that also had directed nutrient proportions. The conclusion: Those who ate the least fat carried the least fat.

Sounds pretty impressive unless you realize that the Atkins Diet is not an 'ad libitum' diet. Eating a proportional diet does not mean low carb, only that carbs may represent a smaller proportion of calories consumed. Atkins places an absolute limit on carbs, regardless of how much fat and protein you eat. Funny that you fail to mention the difference. An oversight, perhaps?

Or this passage:

But two of those are the ones discussed here. Somehow, "The differences were not significant at the end of one year" doesn't seem to support "lost twice the weight."

'Twice the weight' comes from the 6 month study. 'No significant differences' came from the year long study. Another honest mistake?

Or this passage:

A fourth, according to chief author Eric Westman at Duke University, does back Atkins. But then again, Atkins backs him. The Atkins Center has an open-ended commitment to fully support Westman's work.

Ahhhh. Attack by innuendo. Are there any problems with the study? Any irregularities? If so, point them out. Or you could point out that Westman's intent was to debunk the diet, not support it. Or that Westman approached Atkins, not the other way around. But that wouldn't tend to support your thesis, would it?

Or this tossed off comment:

Nevertheless, at least there seemed no evidence that all that saturated fat in the Atkins diet increases the risk of heart disease.

Isn't this in itself a remarkable finding? If a diet that's high in fat doesn't lead to increased risk of heart disease, doesn't that put into question the entire fat consumption-heart disease connection? One of the central tenets of the Atkins Diet is that the increase in heart disease has paralleled the increase in consumption of refined carbs like white sugar and processed wheat. It would seem that the findings of these studies bear this out, or at the very least, exonerate fats. Funny that you fail to follow up on this obvious consequence.

Finally, there's this picture caption:

All-you-can-eat so long as it's low-carb" is a license to gluttony, not a successful method of weight loss.

Find anything in the Atkins books which endorses "all you can eat." Repeatedly when speaking about the Plan, Atkins says to "eat to satiety," and to avoid over eating. Your "all you can eat" characterization is a misrepresentation of the diet.

I think we may have a pot/kettle thing going on here.

To return to the Naval lingo:

He's hulled amidships and taking on water, Captain!

UPDATE I just went back on the Atkins Plan last week. After 7 days on the plan, with no exercise other than routine daily activities, I've lost 5 pounds. Here's the capper: My average caloric intake for the week was 2081 calories per day. Carb intake was 13.5 grams per day.

Posted by Rich at August 10, 2003 11:18 PM | TrackBack