'Shrinkdown' Nutritionist Discusses Her 'Concerns' With The Low-Carb Lifestyle

My blog post from last Friday about the nutritionist who wrote the educational materials for the South Carolina "Shrinkdown" event where literally thousands of people in my home state are seeking to lose weight and get healthy caused quite a stir, primarily among the family members of the author of the nutritional information being distributed to the participants.

A nutritionist from Furman University in Greenville, SC named Kelly Frazier unfortunately took my criticisms of her anti-low-carb viewpoints as exhibiting "hostility" towards her and she believed all I did was "bash" her personally. Of course, that's not true since my comments were directed at the substance of the "Healthy Living Guide" worksheets she authored as dietary truth about carbohydrates. None of my comments were about her as a person.

It also led her two sisters--Paula and Julie Anne--to post similar comments that I should not "bash" Kelly and explaining how everyone knows just how unhealthy livin' la vida low-carb is. Yadda yadda yadda! We've heard that so many times before while refuting it point-by-point here at my blog ad nauseam.

Even still, I'm willing to defend what I believe even when the tough questions are asked of me by people like Kelly who wonder how I can support such a paradoxical nutritional approach that is in the minority of support among the so-called health establishment these days. Just because we don't conform doesn't mean we're wrong!

Nevertheless, although Kelly originally expressed to me the "pain" she felt from my original post, she was very open and willing to share her genuine questions about the low-carb lifestyle and was interested in hearing my responses back to each of them. This post today will serve to offer those answers and provide Kelly with feedback to help her understand where we are coming from as low-carb advocates.

I applaud Kelly's willingness to exchange ideas about this subject and I am proud of her for having the courage to do it when so many other nutritionists and dietitians would simply ignore whatever a low-carb supporter would have to say. That says a lot about her character and I'm honored she would at least listen to what I have to say. THANK YOU, Kelly!

I'd like to give a special thanks to my low-carb blogging friend Regina Wilshire from the "Weight Of The Evidence" blog for assisting me with answering some of these questions from Kelly. I will add links to previous posts I have written that are relevant to each question as well to give context to my answers.

Here's what Kelly wrote to me in an e-mail and my responses:

Hi Jimmy,

I am going to try to explain some of my concerns about low-carbohydrate diets below (get ready for the longest email of your life). As I mentioned during my last email, I realize that some people can achieve long term weight loss on low-carb diets.

However, our sponsors (including major universities, hospital systems, and YMCAs statewide) have decided to stick with the guidelines of worldwide nutrition authorities. I welcome your reactions to the comments below. I am glad that we can have a peaceful discussion about our differences.

Yes, I'm glad we can discuss this openly so that everyone can benefit from the curiosity of your questions since these are some of the most oft-repeated "concerns" that continue to get spread about livin' la vida low-carb. I'm anxious to set the record straight for people who believe these are actually true.

1) Nutritional deficiencies

The perception of a low-carb diet varies from person to person and diet to diet. Let's make sure that we are talking about the same thing. The traditional Atkins style low-carb diet consists of large amounts of meat, bacon, pork rinds, butter, etc.

Just as I will acknowledge that an all vegetable diet is not balanced, I hope that we can agree that an all meat diet is also unbalanced. A nutritional analysis of the meal plans recommended during the early stages of Atkins suggests that there are many nutrient deficiencies with this style of eating. We have computer programs that will analyze foods and tell you the overall vitamin and mineral content of the diet. Researchers have also done this and published the findings on Medline.

Anyone who has taken the time to actually read Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution or Atkins For Life books, they will very likely be shocked to learn that this diet, even during the misunderstood Induction phase, is very clearly NOT an all meat, bacon, pork rinds and butter nutritional approach. Some people do try to go on a zero-carb diet, but that's not the way recommended by Dr. Robert C. Atkins.

In fact, Dr. Atkins WARNED people about eating too much cured and processed meats since they are not as good for your body as whole meats are. The truth of the matter is that green leafy and other non-starchy vegetables are ENCOURAGED even during the most restrictive Induction phase of Atkins which only lasts for two weeks. The same goes for the widely accepted South Beach Diet, too.

Following those 14 days of Induction, even more healthy carbohydrates from such healthy foods as spinach, green beans, cauliflower, blueberries, strawberries, and melons are introduced to the menu of the typical low-carb dieter. This recent survey of active low-carbers found that vegetable consumption actually DOUBLES for people who begin the low-carb lifestyle while their meat and egg consumption remained the same as before or even decreased!

By all accounts, the low-carb plan is the most nutrient-dense way to eat on the planet. Compare low-carb eating with other so-called "balanced" diets and there's no comparison.

In this poster presentation at the NMS scientific sessions that took place in Brooklyn, New York in January 2006, four popular government "endorsed" dietary plans (AHA No-Fad, ADA, DASH and Food Pyramid) were found to be deficient in a number of essential nutrients at 2,000 calories as published for the public to follow. Men's Health magazine featured the ADA diet deficiency in its November 2006 issue and the ADA response was basically that 2,000 calories isn't enough calories to meet RDA's for all essential nutrients.

It is incumbent upon anyone promoting any diet to publish at least seven days of menus that are nutritionally complete for essential nutrients (vitamins, minerals, trace elements), essential fatty acids and essential amino acids at the normal calorie level being promoted. Can we see such a menu from you, Kelly, because it would certainly allow us the opportunity to see what you believe is healthy?

If the "Shrinkdown" recommendations are sound and nutritionally complete, then such a request should be simple to fulfill and will benefit everyone participating in this weight loss program since such materials provide a real-world example of what is expected for consumption in the real world. Are you open to providing a seven-day menu to verifiably prove that the guidelines you've helped develop are nutritionally complete and not setting up nutritional deficiencies? We'll be waiting to see such a menu.

2) Cancer

I am also concerned about the link between excessive meat consumption and increased risk of cancer. High red meat consumption has been associated with higher rates of breast, prostate, colon, pancreatic, and kidney cancer.

Population and lab studies suggest this link. For example, higher intakes of meat generally correlate with higher incidences of these cancers. Researchers have suggested several possible mechanisms for this link.

One is that certain carcinogens may be formed during the cooking process. Chargrilling, frying, and smoking animal fat and protein can create substances such as heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Some of these substances are known carcinogens. This means that they may cause and accelerate the cancer process.

A high-fat diet has also been associated with cancer. This may be due to excess calories and obesity, but that doesn't seem to explain the whole picture. For example, when fat reaches the small intestine, the gallbladder squirts a little bile into the small intestine to help emulsify the fat (sort of like how Dawn detergent emulsifies grease when you do the dishes). Bile can be converted into secondary bile acids which are also carcinogens that seem to irritate the linings of the intestines and may accelerate the cancer process. Some evidence suggests that a high saturated fat intake increases the conversion of bile to secondary bile acids which compounds this effect.

Researchers have also suggested that excess heme iron in the diet may act as a pro-oxidant and be involved in the cancer process. Since red meat is a high source of bioavailable heme iron, this is another mechanism that may be at work.

Of course, there is an abundance of data suggesting that phytonutrients in plant foods (whole grains, fruits, vegetables, beans, olives, nuts, etc.) reduce the incidence of cancer. Diets that restrict these foods may not provide optimal nutrient intake.

What are your definitions for "high" and "excessive" within the context of this discussion, Kelly? These are merely arbitrary without real numbers attached. We cannot adequately discuss this until these parameters are understood.

The fact that you cite one or two studies to declare proof that the low-carb diet is harmful is a bit ridiculous, especially when you are talking about cancer. I have studies showing that a low-fat, high-carb diet as promoted by you has actually been found to lead to cancer in the pancreas as well as in the esophagus. Can we conclude that these high-carb diets that you promote are highly carcinogenic based on these studies? It certainly appears to be that way according to the latest research!

Kelly is most certainly correct when she notes there is a study that shows what she says it does, but there are other studies that suggest it is the processes involved in oxidative damage that are the culprit. The following was recently published in Medical Hypothesis:

"Oxidative biochemical damage is widespread in diseases. It is apparent that decreasing the amount of dietary red meat will limit the level of oxidative catalysts in the tissues of the body. Increasing consumption of vegetables and fruits elevates the levels of antioxidative components, for example, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin C, lycopene, cysteine-glutathione and various phytochemicals. These detrimental processes of heme catalysis of oxidative damage hypothesized here are not well recognized."

Oxidative damage is harmful to our cells, but it again comes down to what constitutes a nutritionally complete diet. For example, the sulphur amino acids require B6 to be metabolized to antioxidants rather than oxidants (free radicals); deficiencies within the trans-sulfuration pathway induces the generation of reactive species of oxygen and halogens, homocysteine accumulation, and the synthesis of proinflammatory molecules by macrophages, thus contributing to pathologies like atherosclerosis and tumor development.

For example, methionine is a powerful antioxidant to clear free radicals, but can cause oxidative stress if you're not consuming adequate vitamin B-6. Inadequate supply of B6 would produce an oxidative environment in the body. Other cofactors are that are critical in the process too are B12, B-complex, choline, folic acid, and magnesium. So while it's easy to point to the potential of heme iron from meat, there are other equally important factors to consider before jumping the gun and suggesting individuals eliminate meat from an otherwise healthy and nutritionally complete diet!

3) Saturated fats

You mentioned that they were very healthy. I am interested to hear the logic behind that statement. I understand that during active weight loss, all bets are off. Saturated fats do not appear to increase LDL in some people while they are losing weight.

Since weight loss also tends to decrease LDL, the effect of saturated fats on LDL seems to be diminished in some people while they are losing weight. However, if you do a quick search of literature on Medline (what researchers use to evaluate published literature, www.pubmed.org), you will find thousands of articles describing the negative effects of saturated fats on raising LDL, risk for certain cancers, and other ailments.

It appears that the liver has a hard time clearing cholesterol when excess saturated fats are consumed. It may start to package more cholesterol as low-density lipoproteins. LDL, as you probably know, is involved in the process of atherosclerosis. It appears that when oxidized, LDL damages the delicate endothelial cells that line the arteries and starts the process of plaque build-up. LDL may also contribute to atherosclerosis by joining the plaque build-up itself (LDL acts kind of like spackle on walls).

Studies conducted before 2000 categorize trans fatty acids as saturated fats which merely serves to confuse the data. We must keep the proper context when discussing issues like this because it plays an important role in understanding what it all means.

We know from reviewing the literature that insulin is atherogenic and a high intake of carbohydrates stimulates both higher blood sugars and, thus, higher levels of insulin in the blood. This is why a low-carb diet was found in this study to actually LOWER the existence of saturated fat in the body compared with those on a low-fat diet. Hmmm, ironic, isn't it?

We also know, from decades of research that LDL cholesterol is most certainly NOT the whole story--HDL, triglycerides and the levels of the harmful vLDL are critically important to overall health and well-being. A low-carb diet not only has the potential to increase LDL (specifically the large "fluffy" benign type), but it raises HDL levels while significantly lowering triglycerides to below 100--considered VERY healthy! In fact, my HDL is around 72 and my triglycerides are at 43. Will anyone argue with me that this is unhealthy?

It is all too easy to adopt a viewpoint based on findings that are in agreement with your personal views. But a closer look at the actual literature that has been coming out in recent years and continues to pour out in 2007 very clear does not support the lipid hypothesis that so many health "experts" believe and often point to a different direction to consider when it comes to healthy cholesterol levels. Especially for people who are livin' la vida low-carb, the cholesterol concerns are a moot point.

Kelly, if you want to read more scientific data on this subject of cholesterol, then you may want to pick up a copy of the book The Great Cholesterol Con by independent researcher Anthony Colpo from Australia for more information. It's available on Amazon.com.

4) Bone health is my next concern. Meat contains high amounts of protein, especially sulfur containing amino acids. High protein intakes, especially of sulfur containing amino acids, appear to accelerate calcium excretion in the urine. This may contribute to a higher risk of osteoporosis. High protein diets have been associated with a higher rate of bone fracture (e.g., Harvard's Nurses Health study).

Again, I must ask, what is the definition of the word "high" in this context, Kelly? That's such an arbitray term--do you have any hard numbers you can assign to it?

But to directly address your point, I can point you to this study released in December 2006 that found low-CALORIE diets put bones at risk for degeneration, NOT low-carb ones. This was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, a highly respected medical journal. What is your response to that?

The sad thing is you hear critics blame low-carb diets on osteoporosis while the research continues to suggest strong bone health results from this way of eating and that low-carb bone loss is a myth.

There are many more studies that specifically say protein intake is NOT correlated with bone health, calcium loss leading to fractures, and that nutritional density of the diet is important to properly understand bone health.

5) Kidney and liver health are my next concerns.

Protein differs from fat and carbohydrate in several ways. While carb and fat are made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, protein also has nitrogen. This means that for protein to be metabolized (including for gluconeogenesis), your body must excrete the extra nitrogen. To do this, it kicks of the protein's amine group and excretes it as urea.

High amounts of urea may cause or worsen kidney complications. According to the American Liver Foundation "Certain proteins are converted into ammonia, a toxic metabolic product, by bacteria in the intestine or during the breakdown of body protein. The ammonia must be broken down by the liver and made into urea which is then excreted by the kidneys." They also add "good nutrition - a balanced diet with adequate calories, proteins, fats, and carbohydrates - can actually help the damaged liver to regenerate new liver cells."

In individuals with mild kidney disease, high protein diets can be life threatening (Please see proteinuria) The National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse adds "In people with diabetes, excessive consumption of protein may be harmful. Experts recommend that people with kidney disease of diabetes consume the recommended dietary allowance for protein, but avoid high-protein diets. For people with greatly reduced kidney function, a diet containing reduced amounts of protein may help delay the onset of kidney failure. Anyone following a reduced-protein diet should work with a dietitian to ensure adequate nutrition."

To sum all of that up, carbohydrates are clean burning fuel. They do not create excess metabolic waste products like urea that can damage the kidneys. When fats are metabolized without the presence of glucose, ketone bodies are formed. Since fats cannot be used by the brain and nervous system directly, ketones are formed to help the body survive during periods of starvation. Ketones can cause the blood pH to drop to deadly levels (also known as a diabetic coma).

The science behind this is very clear here. Anyone who has normal kidney function is NOT at any higher risk for kidney disease eating a low-carb diet. The issue of protein is a red herring and does not address the critical importance of nutrient-density as I have noted previously about this nutritional approach.

It is advised, across the board, by every medical professional who uses a low-carb nutritional approach on patients that those with advanced kidney disease should NOT follow this diet unless they are under strict medical supervision. Anyone with kidney disease should consult their physician before beginning a low-carb program. Those with normal kidney function are not going to get kidney disease just because they restrict their carbohydrates and eat foods like meat or eggs.

One final observation: Studies in real people with diabetes have found improvement in kidney function in those who follow a low-carb diet as well as a stabilization of their blood sugar levels. How about that?

6) Other interesting info according to Sizer and Whitney's Concepts and
Controversies

From my nutrition course that I teach at Furman:

"Scientists have only recently uncovered other roles for sugars in living tissues. For example, sugar molecules dangle from many of the body's fat and protein molecules. Once thought to be mere hitchhikers, these sugars can often have dramatic effects. They can change the shape of a protein, for instance, by altering its function. The protein of mucus, which protects body membranes and the digestive tract with a slippery coating, depends on a sugar molecule for its functional properties. Sugars also bind to cell membranes, affecting cellular interactions that may play roles in disease processes."

Of course, the authors are using the word "sugar" to describe the fragments of carbohydrate containing foods (mono- and disaccharides) and are not suggesting that we eat large amounts of table sugar (sucrose).

Humans have five ways to create increases of glucose in their bodies, but only one to lower it. This suggests that in the evolution of the human body, high blood sugar was not a threat to our ancestors who did not have the instant access to carbohydrates that we have today. Instead, what they dealt with was low blood sugar, so their body was able to create all the glucose it needed for survival.

As we stand today in 2007, there remains NO actual requirement for carbohydrates in the human body to survive, but we do NEED both fatty acids and amino acids from the fats and proteins we consume or we will die. Yes, you heard me correctly--we can all live just fine without consuming another carbohydrate for the rest of our lives (because of that amazing little process known as gluconeogenesis!).

7) Participant adherence is my final concern

The low-carbohydrate lifestyle is very challenging to adhere to. By offering participants a moderate approach to weight management (e.g., enjoy a variety of foods in moderate amounts, include moderate physical activity regularly), we hope that participants will learn a lifestyle that they can maintain long-term. If we suggested a more drastic approach such as low-carb, low-fat, or vegan diet, they may give up when it becomes difficult to adhere to it.

With regards to blood glucose control and insulin fluctuations, the American Diabetes Association actually encourages individuals with diagnosed diabetes to follow a balanced diet of fruits and vegetables (even starchy ones), whole grains, lean meats, and healthy fats. (Please see this article)

I am not sure that I understand the theory that eating more than 100 grams of carbohydrate per day would cause "spikes in blood sugar." By eating moderate amounts of complex carbs, fat, and protein over the course of the day (3-6 evenly spaced meals), the blood sugar should remain steady and little energy will be converted and stored as fat. Complex carbohydrates must be broken down before they are absorbed so they generally do not induce a large glycemic response (with the exception being fast acting starches like those in white potatoes). If you include small portions of healthy fats and lean protein with the meal, they delay the emptying of the stomach contents and also slow the glucose response.

I recall you mentioning that the meat focus is a myth about low-carb diets. This leads me to believe that you don't recommend this style of diet. Perhaps a healthier lower-carb approach would consist of an abundance of vegetables and fruits and moderate amounts of whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats. This follows the Mayo Clinic Healthy Weight Pyramid that we recommend during Shrinkdown.

Since we cannot medically supervise our participants and do not know if they have existing health complications (e.g., kidney, bone, liver disease or susceptibility to certain cancers), we feel that it would not be prudent for us to recommend a low-carbohydrate diet when we are aware of the potential risks.

Kelly, the fact is that ALL weight loss endeavors are a challenging venture regardless of the nutritional approach implored. Any effective weight loss plan is going to restrict SOMETHING--low-carb cuts back on the carbs, low-fat lowers the fat, low-calorie reduces caloric intake, and portion control decreases the amount of food consumed.

This deprivation that exists with all weight loss diets is crucial to seeing success. There's no way I could have ever lost over 190 pounds if I didn't cut back on carbs, calories, fat, or portions. But to remain healthy while losing the weight, it is important to choose a plan that will make that happen and provide adequate nutrients for your body. Livin' la vida low-carb was that plan for me and it could very well be the plan that works for many others, too!

My problem with the "Shrinkdown" recommendation is that it is a one-size-fits-all low-fat, low-calorie dietary approach with the exact same risks you expressed about low-carb diets. The participants really have no business blindly following these nutritional guidelines provided by you and the other "Shrinkdown" literature authors without consulting their doctors first to see if it is healthy for them.

The bottom line is the dietary recommendations made in the "Shrinkdown" program seem to be nutritionally deficient and may be leaving you and the organizers of this event open to liability for endorsing a blatantly unbalanced dietary approach that is in fact nutritionally deficient and incomplete when followed.

Of course, you can prove me wrong, Kelly, by providing a week's worth of menus that either meet or exceed the recommended daily nutrient requirements. If you cannot do this, then can you live with promoting a diet that may very well lead to chronic disease and quite possibly even death for the people following such a plan?!

Do you REALLY believe in your own diet enough that you are unashamed to provide just seven days of what a healthy low-fat, low-calorie diet should actually look like? I'm willing to continue the conversation if you are willing to submit what should be an extremely easy request. Are you up to the challenge, Kelly? I'll be waiting...

SC 'Shrinkdown' Is Blatantly Anti-Low-Carb

Kelly Frazier wrote the education materials for "Shrinkdown"

I recently shared with you an initiative that is taking place in my home state of South Carolina to help people lose weight and get healthy. It's called "Shrinkdown" and is sponsored by the local YMCA chapters. In fact, I decided to join this year to see what it was all about.

After the intial weigh-in and a check of the key health statistics a couple of weeks back, participants in the "Shrinkdown" program were given a "Healthy Living Guide" three-ring binder to bring with them to their weekly Friday weigh-ins. Additional materials have been distributed each week and will continue to for the remaining weeks in the program.

But imagine my horror today when I got my new materials and saw on page 3:21 a section entitled "Why Do I Need Carbohydrates?" What the heck is this crappy health information all about and why is it in a packet about "healthy living"?!

When I looked closer for the source of this page, I saw it was from a woman named Kelly Frazier from the Department of Health & Exercise Science at the nearby Furman University in Greenville, SC. She is a member of the American College for Sports Medicine (ACSM) and lectures regularly on diet, health, nutrition, and fitness.

I couldn't help but notice she has a link to more information about the "Vegetarian Lifestyle" on her web site. Hmmm, if she's being fair and balanced, then why not have a resource link to a site about the low-carb lifestyle, Ms. Frazier? You could easily link to blogs by Regina Wilshire, Dr. Michael Eades, and so many more I could go on for days listing.

Nevertheless, in her article about carbohydrates, Frazier wrote that they are absolutely necessary for "energy" and for the added nutrients your body needs to "stay healthy."

She quotes the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy Of Science which recommends a MINIMUM daily carb intake of 130 grams for what they describe as "proper brain function." According to their "Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids" published in September 2002, here's what they say about the percentage of macronutrients people should be eating:

"Adults should get 45 percent to 65 percent of their calories from carbohydrates, 20 percent to 35 percent from fat, and 10 to 35 percent from protein."

Even more disturbing to me was the fact that they actually RECOMMENDED the consumption of "added sugars" for people to consume. Here's what they wrote:

"Added sugars should comprise no more than 25 percent of total calories consumed. Added sugars are those incorporated into foods and beverages during production which usually provide insignificant amounts of vitamins, minerals, or other essential nutrients. Major sources include soft drinks, fruit drinks, pastries, candy, and other sweets."

Let me get this straight. This so-called health organization, which is being quoted by Frazier in the "Shrinkdown" materials, is actually recommending as much as 65 percent of daily caloric intake comes from carbohydrates, including the consumption of junk foods containing sugar and gobs of high fructose corn syrup? Seriously?!

Plus, let's talk about this business of "proper brain function" for a moment. We've seen in studies I have highlighted here at my blog that eating too many carbs which elevates your blood sugar levels can lead to Alzheimer's disease (which incidentally is greatly IMPROVED by a low-carb diet) and poor mental health. Further research is already underway in Scotland on the effect of low-carb on brain health.

But Frazier didn't stop there. She added that "carbohydrates are the preferred fuel of the brain" and that not eating carbs will result in "fatigue, dizziness, irritability, and decreased concentration and cognitive function." This all happens, according to this self-appointed health expert, because "the brain does not have enough fuel to function properly."

This is the kind of garbage nutritional science that is being let loose on all those unsuspecting participants looking to lose weight in the "Shrinkdown" program! UGH! Let's see if we can educate Ms. Frazier and others who believe this nonsense.

First of all, your body doesn't NEED carbs. That's just nonsense and is actually proven by the basic nutritional concept known as gluconeogenesis which I have even discussed in my podcast show recently.

This amazing biological process enables the body to make its own carbs from the protein it consumes. In other words, Ms. Frazier, YOU DON'T NEED CARBS FOR FUEL as you so erroneously claim. What you need to eat to fuel you body with is FAT (even eating the much-vilified saturated fat is VERY healthy for you!) despite the common myth you are simply perpetuating with your ridiculous essay on carbohydrates.

Regarding this business about not eating carbs causing all those symptoms you listed, you have GOT to be joking, right? I've blogged about this previously and I'm beginning to wonder if Ms. Frazier has some of the same retarded beliefs about livin' la vida low-carb as this other so-called health "expert" did!

Frazier turned her attention to the subject of whether carbs will make you fat and said flat out that they will not.

"Contrary to common misconception, carbohydrates are not fattening. Your body needs carbohydrates for energy throughout the day."

Yadda yadda yadda...we've been over this before. You don't NEED carbs. But catch this caveat she included in this paragraph where she backtracks just a bit.

"However, if you eat too many carbohydrates over several days then they can be stored as fat. Excess calories from fat, protein, and alcohol can also be stored as fat."

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Now this is getting REALLY good! :) Frazier says eating "too many" carbs will be stored as fat. What is the definition of "too many?" I think 100g is WAY too many carbs for someone to be eating in one day and yet Ms. Frazier says the minimum should be 130. Could it be deduced that eating 100g carbs daily COULD result in stored fat, hmmm? That would be "too many" in my book.

She tries to save face when she makes the comment about eating too many calories from other sources will also lead to weight gain, but none are as detrimental to your weight and health as carbohydrates. The volumes of science coming out about the damaging impact of carbs on various aspects of health is indeed mindboggling. Stick around my blog a while, Ms. Frazier, and you'll see what I mean!

Frazier then moved her attention squarely on livin' la vida low-carb and how it supposedly helps people lose weight. Here's what she wrote about it:

"Low-carbohydrate diets typically result in rapid weight loss during the first few weeks. Current research suggests that this intial weight loss is due to water loss...excess protein increases urination...which results in rapid water loss."

In a word, Ms. Frazier, WRONG-O! We've heard this exact same thing before from another "expert," but it doesn't add up. A real low-carb expert who worked with the late Dr. Robert C. Atkins in his clinical practice for decades has addressed the "water weight" controversy before--click here to read what Jackie Eberstein has to say. Plus, this study from Temple University last year should put this issue to rest for good.

On the subject of long-term low-carbing, Frazier said it "may result in weight loss," but that it will only happen because of the "restriction of calories, not the restriction of carbohydrates."

Again, the science doesn't support this, including a Canadian study from the early 1990s where twelve sets of male twins were overfed 1000 calories per day purposefully over an 84-day time frame. The researchers wanted to test the theory that it's all about the calories. They should have all gained 24 pounds each, but instead the weight gain varied from 9.5-29 pounds.

But even if livin' la vida low-carb resulted in eating less calories as Frazier so smugly reports, so freakin' what?! If you ask me, I'd rather have the natural calorie-reduction that comes from eating low-carb than having to painstakingly count each and every little calorie I put in my mouth. NO THANK YOU!

Yes, calories DO count, but thank the good Lord YOU don't have to count them on low-carb! :) Only a twisted mind would see eating low-carb for reducing calories as a BAD thing.

Finally, Frazier said low-carb is not for the long-term because it's too restrictive and difficult to maintain while not giving you the proper nutrition.

"A diet high in meat, eggs, and cheese is not balanced...A healthier weight-loss plan incorporate regular physical activity and smaller portions of healthy foods, such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits, lean protein, and healthy fats."

Oh yippee, we get that favorite word of the dietary dunces--BALANCED! Guess what? Low-carb gives me all the balance I need for my health thank you very much! Ms. Frazier has fallen victim (by choice!) to the "meat, eggs, and cheese" myth about livin' la vida low-carb.

NEWSFLASH, Ms. Frazier: Low-carb living DOES incorporate exercise, vegetables, fruits, protein, and fats. You just described this incredible way of eating perfectly. Do yourself a favor, Ms. Frazier! READ THE BOOK! Any of the low-carb books would give you more education about this amazing lifestyle and you might just realize it's not as unhealthy as you think it is.

My concern is all those "Shrinkdown" participants who don't know any better and will take what Ms. Frazier has written in this literature at face value. What a crying shame!

You can e-mail Kelly Frazier about her screwy nutritional views at Kelly.Frazier@furman.edu.

1-21-07 UPDATE: Unfortunately, Kelly Frazier took great offense to my column in response to her materials written for the "Shrinkdown" program regarding carbohydrates. If you read the comments section of this post, then you will also see several interesting responses from Kelly's sisters, too. It's all very interesting, but none of it changes anything about the truth of what I wrote.

Here is Kelly's e-mail to me:

Dear Jimmy,

I must admit that I was very hurt when I read your blog. It caused me a great deal of pain and I couldn't understand why you would write these things. Then I found this post you wrote on your website:

"As anyone who is overweight or obese will tell you, being fat is quite a traumatic thing for many people because it brings on the intense ridicule and scorn of people who may or may not know just how hurtful they are being. The scars from these experiences can be very deep-rooted and cause very real pain to linger on for many years and many times drawing these people into serious depression, loneliness and even suicidal. It breaks my heart to see this happening in a society that is tolerant of virtually every group of people--EXCEPT THE OBESE!

Thankfully, God can reach down through this sea of pain and into the souls of people like this to begin the healing process from within these beautiful people so they can finally deal with their weight problem in earnest and restore the temple of the Holy Spirit, their bodies, to their proper weight and get their life back.

I honestly don't know how people who do not believe in God can deal with these kinds of struggles they face, such as being overweight and all that comes with that, without Him! Jesus Christ is the anchor of my life and I would literally be lost in this dying world and very likely would be obese today without God in my life! I wholeheartedly believe that to be true."

After reading that message, I knew that I had to respond to you. Jimmy, I am also a Christian. I try to carry myself with integrity and show the love of Jesus Christ to all kinds of people. I do not benefit financially from the South Carolina Shrinkdown program. I have prepared the materials on my own personal time over the past three years, sacrificing time from my family. I have spent all of these hours trying to help people, much like you do.

I started to cry when I read about the pain that you have experienced. I am so sorry that you have suffered so much. I realize now why you responded with such hostility and are so passionate about your way of life. My sister was obese growing up and also experienced those same feelings of depression, loneliness, and suicide. I spoke with a Shrinkdown participant last year who told me that she had prayed for God to take her life because she felt so hopeless. When she told me that, my heart broke.

I realize that we do not agree on the fundamentals of human physiology. I am sorry if you felt misled by the program. We definitely do not recommend a low-carbohydrate diet and have not marketed the program in that way.

I understand that low-carbohydrate diets can result in long-term weight loss. I understand that they can provide a solution to many people who struggle with weight loss. After reviewing the current literature and recommendations from worldwide nutrition authorities, however, our sponsors sincerely do not believe that low-carbohydrate diets are the healthiest way of life.

Jimmy, I wish you the best on your weight loss journey and your mission to help others. I apologize for my sisters clogging up your forum. As you can see, we have a very close family.

Best wishes,

Kelly

This was my response to Kelly's e-mail:

Hey Kelly,

THANK YOU so much for your very kind comments in response to my blog post about your beliefs. Let me begin by saying that I definitely meant no harm to you personally in my column. If you and your sisters will go back and read it again closer, then you will see I only addressed the substance of your materials and did not "bash" you personally at any point.

I can appreciate the sacrifice you made to present those materials to the "Shrinkdown" program with no pay. But that doesn't give you the right to share information that is just not true. What about gluconeogenesis? What about the spikes in blood sugar that come from eating over 100g carbs daily? How about those concepts in your materials? There was no mention of them.

One of the biggest challenges I see in the United States today as it relates to helping people overcome their obesity is the inconsistent message they keep receiving from advocates of only one way to lose weight. While you acknowledge livin' la vida low-carb will work for weight loss over the long-term for some people (myself included), why can't we teach that alongside the low-fat, low-calorie, moderation diet that your sisters were preaching to me?

I apologize that you experienced pain from my column, but that was definitely not my intention. I am passionate about what I write about because I've weighed over 400 pounds and want people to know the truth. Won't you join me in the effort to promote not just your way, but many ways to weight loss? Isn't doing something, even if you believe it's not for you, better than having people remain obese? That's why I do what I do.

The overwhelming evidence that is coming out of the scientific community about just how healthy low-carb is for people is difficult to ignore. I am in the best shape of my entire life right now because of this amazing lifestyle that God has helped me stick with for three years now. I could very well have been dead right now if I chose to heed the warnings of people like yourself regarding low-carb.

When I interviewed Dr. Dean Ornish a few months ago, he said that low-carb and low fat advocates need to try to come to a consensus about what is healthy and stop the bickering. That's my point exactly, which is why I have to defend this way of eating whenever it is so blatantly challenged and ridiculed in any public forum.

We do want to help people not just with their physical needs, but also their spiritual ones because they are hurting. That breaks my heart to see people continue to wallow in their hurt and shame of being fat because I KNOW they can overcome it quite possibly through low-carb living. That's my only goal is to help those tens of thousands of people who visit my blog each and every month looking for hope and inspiration. And I plan to give it to them.

Again, I meant no harm to you or your family. I appreciate your willingness to share from your heart and hope you understand why I had to do what I did. God bless you and your family as you continue to shine for Jesus in all that you do. Take care and please don't hesistate to contact me anytime if you have any questions or concerns.

Jimmy

I don't think I exhibited any "hostility" at any point and was nothing but cordial to both Kelly and her sisters. Sometimes in my zest for challenging those who oppose this amazingly healthy low-carb life, my passion overflows and people mistake my authoritative style as being overly brash. I can't help it and don't plan to change. If we are going to make a difference, then truth needs to be spoken loud and clear.

THANK YOU, Kelly, for writing to me about this. I appreciate your words and hope that you understand why I was concerned about the materials you submitted to the "Shrinkdown" program. I encourage you to click on some of those links I provided to see exactly where I am coming from because it's not just my opinion. The facts are what they are and I lay them out there for everyone to see.

Like I said, what's the harm in promoting VARIOUS ways to getting healthy, hmmmm?

I Joined The Spartanburg 'Shrinkdown'

Let me share with you the ambitious thing I did on Monday. I joined something I first blogged about last year called "Shrinkdown" sponsored by my local YMCA in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Last week I blogged about a man who lost 128 pounds in 2006 after beginning his weight loss journey with the "Shrinkdown" challenge, an effort taking place all across the state of South Carolina over the next eight weeks.

It took a little more than an hour to get through the process of registering for this weight loss event. As I was waiting to have my health markers checked, I started flipping through the materials they handed out. It should come as NO surprise to anyone that this plan is focused on increasing physical activity (a VERY good thing since exercise goes hand-in-hand with low-carb living) and good nutrition. What does that mean? You know--low-fat, low-calorie, portion control! UGH!

Why can't organized weight loss programs like "Shrinkdown" EVER acknowledge the low-carb lifestyle as an equally healthy and beneficial plan for losing weight and keeping it off forever, hmmm? Who died and made the low-fat diet the ONLY way to lose weight and improve health?

It broke my heart to think how many people at that "Shrinkdown" sign-up yesterday will lose a few pounds in the next couple of months eating foods like the apples, fruit bars, and water they provided at this event only to get frustrated by the disgusting choice of foods and from being hungry so much eating this way. That was my experience on a low-fat diet in 1999 and it wasn't pretty.

Click here to read more about my experience signing up for the "Shrinkdown" program and why livin' la vida low-carb could save a lot of the participants on this low-fat, low-calorie, portion-controlled diet a lot of disappointment.

SC Man Experiences 128-Pound Weight Loss Watching Calories, Carbs

Jimmy Dorsett lost 128 pounds watching his calories and carbs

One year ago, I blogged about an exciting weight loss initative taking place in my own backyard here in South Carolina called Shrinkdown. Thousands of overweight and obese people stopped by their local YMCAs all across the Palmetto state to say enough is enough with their weight and health problems. One man that did that locally in my hometown of Spartanburg, SC was 41-year old Jimmy Dorsett.

According to this Spartanburg Herald-journal column, Dorsett was more than just a little apprehensive about trying yet again to lose weight for the bazillionth time and the large crowds of people waiting to join the Shrinkdown efforts didn't calm his fears any. But the reality was he weighed nearly 400 pounds and NEEDED to be there although he once thought he would "always be big."

Yet, his fateful decision to stay which led to his eventual weight loss success was due to the prodding of his loving wife Lisa.

"There were so many people, and he asked, 'How are we going to do this?' and I said, 'One day at a time,'" she recalled.

Today, Jimmy Dorsett is still taking it day-by-day and is so glad his wife convinced him to stay. One year later, he has now lost an incredible 128 pounds and dropped 14 total pants sizes. WOWsers! What an amazing accomplishment that almost didn't happen because of his pride.

But the big payoff is what this weight loss has meant to him not just physically, but also emotionally.

"I really feel healthier, and I have more energy and my spirit is higher," Dorsett explained.

While the actual duration of the Shrinkdown program was only a couple of months (which resulted in a 35-pound weight loss over that time for Dorsett), the real challenge was whether he would maintain those new habits he had learned.

So, you might be wondering, how did he do it?

Dorsett began eating more fruits and vegetables and incorporated regular walking into his life. But what about his actual diet? I was pleased to see he pays close attention not just to his calories, but also his carbohydrates. In other words, he's livin' la vida low-carb--and he's committed to doing it for a lifetime!

"I learned this wasn't a diet," Dorsett said. "It was a life change."

WOO HOO! That is exactly what I talk about here often at my blog. Regardless of which plan you choose as your method for losing weight, just do it with all of your might and for the rest of your life. Nobody will debate me on this idea because only the individual can know what works for them. Jimmy Dorsett found his plan and now he's sticking to it!

When I read this story in my local newspaper, I decided to look up Dorsett's telephone number in the phone book to congratulate him on his phenomenal weight loss success. His wife Lisa answered the phone and I told her how proud I was of her husband Jimmy for getting his weight and health under control. I shared with her about my 180-pound weight loss in 2004 on low-carb and encouraged her to continue providing her husband with positive feedback so he can keep the weight off.

Lisa admitted to me that Jimmy had allowed himself to indulge over the Christmas holidays, but that he gotten right back on his low-carb diet and exercise routine at the first of the new year. She said the determination that Jimmy has displayed has astounded her and she is so happy to see her husband taking his weight and health more seriously now.

Interestingly, Lisa said the newspaper article left out an important part of Jimmy's weight loss--God's role in it. I told Lisa that the Spartanburg Herald Journal wrote a story on my weight loss too and omitted my mention of my faith and its impact on my success. I explained to her that kind of thing just comes with the territory when you talk with the media nowadays.

I previously explained in this blog post about how having faith in God can indeed help you in your weight loss efforts, so I won't bother repeating that here. Suffice it to say, Lisa and Jimmy believe in their heart of hearts that this would NOT have happened without the Lord's help. Amen because I couldn't agree more!!

One of the neat things about Jimmy's outstanding weight loss success is that fact that his wife Lisa and teenaged son Jimmy Ray both went on this diet with Jimmy to support his efforts. Lisa lost 32 pounds and Jimmy Ray shed nearly 20 pounds. Lisa told me they have gained back some of the weight, so they need to get back on it again. Ironically, she said her husband is now being the example for THEM!

I had to share with Lisa about how Christine weighed 95 pounds on our wedding day while I was around 350 pounds. This more than 250-pound weight gap has now been whittled down to less than 75 pounds in 2007! HA! Christine really HATES it when I tell this story which is why I keep telling it. LOL! Hey, I've gotta whip that girl into shape, ya know? Oh the irony of just a few years that have passed.

The real "it" moment for Jimmy when it all sunk in and he realized his life had dramatically changed was when he went to fasten the seatbelt buckle on the rides at the local country fair a few months back during the Fall.

"Tears got in my eyes and I said, 'Last year, I could not do this,'" Dorsett stated.

Man, that brings back memories for me, too. Sitting in a movie theater seat, realizing your gut is no longer touching the steering wheel of your car, walking down a narrow hallway easily, rings falling off my fingers and so much more. These are little changes that happen to you when you lose weight, but every single one of them are confidence boosters that propel you to want to keep the weight off forever.

For all intents and purposes, Jimmy Dorsett got his life back in 2006 and extended it for many years to come. His blood pressure is stable, he feels better and younger than he ever has in his entire life, and he can now wear his own wedding ring again for the first time in a very long time.

"I'm just so proud of him," Lisa said. "He's a new man. I told him he's sexy, and he likes to hear that. He's my hunk now."

Sounds like we know WHY Jimmy was so successful now, don't we? Lisa reminds me a lot of Christine who encouraged me all the way through my weight loss and she still does to this day. I couldn't have done it without her and neither could Jimmy Dorsett do it without Lisa. It's yet another low-carb weight loss success story with a happy ending.