Proteins vs. Carbohydrates

Not in the saying, but the doing

Knowing that I would be out of town for part of this week, I asked HSI Panelist Allan Spreen, M.D., if he would sit in for me today and he kindly agreed. We both thought this would be a perfect opportunity for him to elaborate on a comment of his that I quoted in a recent e-Alert (“The New Big Oil” 8/20/02).

I received a number of e-mails asking for more information on this quote, and as you’ll see, Dr. Spreen’s response reveals another controversial wrinkle in the ongoing nutritional debate about proteins vs. carbohydrates.

So without further ado

Way outside the box

In a recent e-Alert we suggested how different facets of the medical establishment might have motives somewhat at odds with simply the achievement of optimum health. Though we weren’t discussing heart disease (and without having the actual quote at hand at the time) I had remarked that: “the director of the Framingham study stated the exact opposite of what we’ve been told was the result of that study, specifically that the more saturated fat used, the better heart health people seemed to have.”

In response to that remark, a frustrated HSI member named Margaret wrote in with the following comments: “I am absolutely astonished by this statement! If this is TRUE, why has a clarification not been made public long before this? The premise that saturated fat was BAD for the heart was what started this whole LOW-FAT nonsense going on today. I am APPALLED to hear that we have been told the opposite of what was true. How could the director of the study be misquoted and for it to go ON for over FIFTY YEARS?”

Margaret makes a very good point. Wouldn’t it be frustrating if the director of the Framingham Study (probably the longest, most expensive, largest sample-size heart disease study in history) actually said something exactly opposite of what we’ve been told about heart disease and Framingham Study results? What would that say about motives, and what would that say about control of what’s supposed to be ‘unbiased’ scientific journalism?

When, where & who

Figures lie, and liars figure. Of course, it’s always possible that a significant comment by someone of status might be made someplace where nobody of significance would hear it. You can’t be faulted for that. It’s also possible that significant information can come to light too late to avoid the damage of poor research or poor reporting.

Yep, all that’s possible. So we’re going to let you be the judge. Read carefully the following quote; and then read, very carefully, who said it. Then, with even more care, notice where the quote first appeared. And then, if you’re not thoroughly disgusted, notice when the medical world at large was blessed with the information.

Here’s what was said: “At Framingham, we found that the people who ate the most saturated fat, the most cholesterol and the most calories weighed the least, were more physically active and had the lowest serum cholesterol levels.” (Pleaseread that again.)

Now, here’s who said it: William Castelli, M.D., Director of the Framingham Study.

Here’s where it first appeared in public: The Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 152, pages 1371-72.

And here’s when: July, 1992.

Some mistakes don’t “just happen”

After all the polyunsaturated fat hype and hoopla, and all the saturated fat fear and loathing for the last 10 years, that quote is a shocking eye-opener. If nothing else, you at least know not to blindly accept everything modern medicine has to tell you. That alone just gave you a huge chance to improve your health the next time you’re given the latest wonder-drug and told not to worry, “it’s FDA approved.”

Even more important than that, however, should be the realization that things are not as they should be. The mistake above shouldn’t have been made by intelligent professionals (or by anyone else, for that matter), so there’s a very real possibility that it wasn’t a mistake. That removal of the rose-colored glasses from the eyes of a trusting public’s vision can do more for the health of this nation than any other single thing I can think of.

Good Health,

Allan N. Spreen, MD

The lows and the highs

In a recent correspondence, Dr. Spreen made some comments which will help illustrate his specific position in this dietary debate. Dr. Spreen said:

“The purpose of the low-fat fad of the 90’s was to sell cholesterol-lowering drugs (which it did wonderfully). You’re seeing the effects of that propaganda two ways: 1) We are FAR fatter than we ever were in 1990 (on far less fat intake), and 2) Dr. Atkins (the low-carb guru) is getting more and more press, as the truth just can’t be held down forever. My best results in my practice, far and away, were achieved using low carb diets. Remember: low fat by definition is high carbohydrate.”

If Dr. Spreen’s opinions strike you as not exactly mainstream, you won’t be surprised to find out that the title of Dr. Spreen’s book is “Nutritionally Incorrect: Why the American Diet is Dangerous and How to Defend Yourself” (Woodland Publishing). I highly recommend you grab a copy.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson
Health Sciences Institute