PCRM is a group of vegan diet book authors and animal rights activists : www.pcrm.org who sell more different diet books (mostly vegan or semi-vegan) than any other group. It calls itself the Physicians Committee for "Responsible" Medicine. It acts more like Politically Correct Ridiculous Medicine.

--

Doctors rate the 15 top-selling diet books

CTV News Staff

There are countless diet books out there. There's "The Zone", "The Protein Plan," "Fit for Life" -- you name it. It seems everyone has a theory on how to lose weight. But are the diets healthy? A physicians' group in the U.S. tried to make sense of it all and ranked the 15 best-selling diet books .

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine analyzed the weight-loss books by rating each book's daily diet recommendations on five criteria critical to safe, healthy weight loss:

* a minimum of 25 grams of fiber,
* five servings of fruits and vegetables,
* no more than 50 milligrams of cholesterol,
* no more than 30 per cent of total calories from fat,
* and no more than 10 per cent saturated fat.

"We set these books up to a basic standard and only one really came out on top," reports PCRM's Brie Turner-McGrievy.

On the top of the stack: Dr. Dean Ornish’s Eat More, Weigh Less. It promotes a mostly vegetarian diet, low in fat, high in fibre. It was the only book that met all of the U.S. health requirements and the only book to received a five-star rating.

But it seems for most readers, doctors' advice doesn't matter. Readers love books that promise they can lose lots of weight fast and bookstores can't keep diet books stocked.

"No matter what it is, if it's about losing weight, it sells," says Tracy Nesdoly of Chapters-Indigo.

Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution by Robert Atkins, and Protein Power by Michael and Mary Eades, both of which espouse a high meat protein and high-fat diet, have been on best selling lists for decades. But both bottom out in health rankings.

The doctors' group says the diets are high in cholesterol and saturated fat. They received no stars at all and were deemed downright unsafe. Followers of the diets are putting their health in jeopardy, the doctors say.

"We know people have lost weight on those plans but the diet is just really high in some of the negative things that are associated with heart disease over time. So it didn't surprise me that they put it there," says registered dietitian Andrea Holwedner.

The PCRM points out that diets heavy on meat, eggs, and cheese have been linked to a higher risk of colorectal cancer, heart disease, and impaired kidney function.

Experts say at the end of the day, the best diet is common sense: Follow Canada's Food Guide, and exercise at least three times a week. And there's no need for diet books.

With a report from CTV's Jennifer Tryon
Diet Book Ratings

FIVE STARS—Outstanding

* Eat More, Weigh Less by Dean Ornish, M.D.

FOUR STARS—Good

* Get with the Program! by Bob Greene
* The pH Miracle by Robert O. Young, Ph.D., and Shelley Redford Young

THREE STARS—Marginal

* Eat Right for Your Type (Type A) by Dr. Peter D’Adamo
* 8 Minutes in the Morning by Jorge Cruise
* The Peanut Butter Diet by Holly McCord, M.A., R.D.
* The Zone by Barry Sears

TWO STARS—Unsatisfactory

* Body for Life by Bill Phillips
* Eat Right for Your Type (Type O) by Dr. Peter D’Adamo
* The Fat Flush Plan by Ann Louise Gittleman, M.S.,C.N.S.
* The Insulin Resistance Diet by Cheryle Hart, M.D., and Mary Kay Grossman, R.D.
* The Omega Diet by Artemis P. Simopoulos, M.D., and Jo Robinson
* Sugar Busters! by H. Leighton Steward; Sam S. Andrews, M.D.; Morrison C. Bethea, M.D.; Luis A. Balart, M.D.

ONE STAR—Poor

* Eat Right for Your Type (Type AB) by Dr. Peter D’Adamo
* Eat Right for Your Type (Type B) by Dr. Peter D’Adamo
* The Schwarzbein Principle II by Diana Schwarzbein, M.D.

NO STARS—Unsafe

* Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution by Robert Atkins, M.D.
* Protein Power by Michael Eades, M.D. and Mary Eades, M.D.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...hub=CTVNewsAt11

I saw that report on CTV last night. Notice how they never mention that this so called doctors group is a special interest group. Bad journalism. That's like accepting the claim that Cloneaid produced the first human clone at face value just because they said so, and reporting it as a fact.


Shame on CTV

It really amazes me with the research that's been done, and these people just keep saying the same OLD stuff!! I have a friend who's a nurse and she's obese. And sometimes I think she'd rather stay fat than admit the stand she's been taking against LC for so long was wrong.

Sandy

It would force them to look at what they did to the minds of people for the last 20 years.
Its hard to change minds on this.. and I have no idea why.
We are getting fatter.. that is a fact. but they just won't look at the ease which they have made refined and processed carbs available.
Nedra

Since they are vegan vegetarians, I assume they are philosophically opposed to using animals for food, so they can't be objective about low carb. If carbs are really to be severely restricted, people will have to eat meat,and that's just totally unacceptable. It's like expecting Jerry Falwell to be objective about Islam. Nyah Levi

Let's look at the folks behind the 'top' diet and the 'worst' diet. Has anyone seen Dr. Ornish on tv recently? The poor man looks rather grey and drawn. His skin just hangs on his face. Now look at Dr. Atkins. Look at his smile and his skin. They both have been eating their own way for years. Now, medical tests aside, who looks better and whom whould you like to look like?

I just sent this email to them, I hope they take action

From: "webmaster" <webmaster at lowcarber.org>
To: "news at ctv.ca"

Subject: Your erroneous endorsement of PCRM views on diets as a legitimate organization

Date: January 10, 2003 5:43 PM

In your article "Doctors rate the 15 top-selling diet books", televised and published on your website on Jan 9th, 2003 at:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...hub=CTVNewsAt11

I was very disappointed that you did not investigate what the PCRM really stands for.

First, the evaluation gives one diet the five stars, that of Dr. Ornish who is an advisory board member of the PCRM. How objective is it for an organization to publish a comparison between their diet and that of other doctors? Why not allow independent, objective doctors do such evaluation?

Second, the PCRM is a group of vegan diet book authors and radical animal rights activists : www.pcrm.org who sell more different diet books (mostly vegan or semi-vegan) than any other group. It calls itself the Physicians Committee for "Responsible" Medicine while it acts more like a body of Politically Correct Ridiculous Medicine. They have been exposed by various consumer organizations, and they are motivated by religious, political and personal beliefs in promoting a vegan lifestyle, rather than on medical studies.

See more detailes on the PCRM from Consumer Freedom:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/acti...l.cfm?ORG_ID=23

Please allow your viewers to know about these "doctors", before presenting the material as an objective review by an objective body of doctors.Also, please allow them to know that Dr. Cornish is a senior member of PCRM, and the PCRM has a conflict of interest in endorsing him alone as "five star", for an extreme, unhealthy diet.

If not, at least allow the opposite opinion to present it's view. There are many professional medical organizations who speak out of objective scientific facts and medical studies, without allowing religious or personal beliefs to cloud their judgement. One such groups would be THINCS, (THe International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics) at:
http://www.thincs.org/

Thank you,

Wa'il
Ottawa
http://www.lowcarb.ca

They bash Atkins for funding the Duke study and insinuate that the study is invalid for that reason, but then only give the diet book written by their own doctor on their advisory board 5 stars? How much nerve is that? Can we say two-faced? At the very least, it's hardly an objective review.

well, gee, with criteria like that, it's no wonder these wonks got it all wrong!!

Now, if you apply the kind of criteria that really matters to someone interested in successfully losing weight, you know, something like the following maybe:

1. Allows you to lose weight without hunger
2. Objective studies clearly prove that the diet does improve cholestoral and tryglyceride numbers
3. Allows you to eat a wide variety of foods that taste really good


you would get an entirely different result!

Criteria number 1 all by itself would eliminate virtually every diet I've ever heard of except those in the low-carb camp, heh heh.

Well, let's see...
My own personal study (more than 10 years of actively pursuing weight loss through low-fat & Ornish-type diets) tells me this...
While starving myself on plain baked potatoes & other carb loaded foods, I actually gained weight. Now I am a Type II diabetic.
At my internal specialists urging, I began Atkins, immediately started losing weight and have recently been able to cut the dosage for my diabetes medication in half.
The unexpected bonus - I no longer suffer from insomnia or migraines.
I wonder how many of PCRM's "safe, healthy" diets yield the same results.

Unscientific though this may be, I have often remarked on this myself. (This is largely what has kept me from ever giving any serious consideration to Andrew Weil’s medical ramblings-cum-sermons too! )

I am still glad for this forum, because a friend sent me this article and asked me what was up with it.
I was glad to be able to tell him who was behind it....and that politics, not science was at foot.
Nedra

Do remember when someone claims the Duke study was biased because the Atkins Center funded it, that it was a doctor at Duke who asked them to do it. He was concerned about the diet because he knew so many people who were trying it. He wanted to find out for himself whether or not the Atkins diet would do as it claimed. If only others in the medical field would do the same! Instead they just bash it without getting scientifc evidence to back them up.