CSIRO's Total Wellbeing: Science or Hype?
May 2nd 2006 02:26
I've never been a great fan of diets, nor have I taken much notice of them. The occasional accidental exposures to gossip magazine posters; the "before" and "after" pictures of Kirsty Alley and Oprah have sufficiently extinguished any sort of curiosity that I might have developed on that subject.
This was until my flatmate frolicked into the house with glee, armed with a copy of the CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet enthusiatically recommended by friends who swear by it. Impressively, it also achieved the impossible by knocking Dan Brown off the best-seller's shelf.
What struck me however, is not her sheer determination that fueled weeks of home-cooking and calorie counting, but the miraculous result of her shedding the predicted 6 kilograms in an unpredicted short period of 5 weeks.
As a self-confessed carnivore, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the protein-based diet contained a high level of meat (with vegetarian subsitutes for herbivores) and other sweet treats which never lets you go hungry or cravin'.
Furthermore, my flatmate happily kept the weight off with their "maintainence plan", with the level of flexibility (options to subsitute certain foods with others) ensuring you never get sick of what you're eating. Even random splurges at food fests did not seem to destabilize the weight loss.
However there has been debate in the media where nutritionists (the most enthusiastic of whom being Dr Rosemary Stanton) have criticised the diet due to its high meat content. The study behind the publication was partly (only one study) funded by Meat and Livestocks Australia and Dairy Australia, which some have claimed directly resulted in the high red meat and diary content of the diet.
Some criticisms however, are not unfounded. The red meat intake level does contravenes the Australian Government's own guidelines. There have also been evidence that high consumption of red meat can increase the risk of bowel cancer. Although it must be noted that you are given the option to substitute the red meat with other foods in the diet.
The crux of Dr Stanton's argument still lies in the fact that the diet encouraged the intake of foods produced by its part sponsors. She cynically addes: "I suppose you can't be sure, but you'd have to wonder if the diet would have been popular if it hadn't gotten so much promotion from some very effective public relations people". Better public relations people than those who failed to launch her 24 books onto the best-seller's shelf.
My flatmate now satisfyingly prances about in little garments she had put away years ago. She's relatively more healthy and energetic, slimmed, trimmed, and confident. When asked about the diet, she is still praiseful of its flexibility, delicious recipes, and effectiveness.
That book is on the best-seller's list for a reason.
It works.
Nobody would have bought nor recommended it otherwise, no matter how good the PR team was.
| 87 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog















