The Apex of Lazy Marketing
I have no issues with my gym, despite a lot of people saying they could never work out at such a “gay gym” in the middle of the Castro. I believe these people are telling the truth, though. If you go into a situation expecting negativity, you will get what you asked for, or at least believe it happened.
No, my main problem with 24 Hour Fitness is they send me e-mail. A lot of it is seemingly written by Apex, whose energy bars and drinks are sold there. A lot of the e-mail is questionable in motivation on top of being factually inaccurate.
Under the heading “fad diets reviewed,” they recently offered their take on Dr. Dean Ornish’s “Eat More, Weigh Less” plan. Now, I follow low-fat diets in the news and in my life and I’d be hard-pressed to consider Ornish to be a fad. In the pantheon of the Atkins and South Beach Diets of the world, I don’t think Ornish ever had the same popularity and acceptance. So, they’re already losing me at the headline, since they are debunking what was never amazingly popular in the first place.
Here’s a line from the overview: “The basic premise is that calories from fat cause one to become fat; however, the author does concede that calories consumed above maintenance levels contribute to weight gain.”
I am just curious that Ornish concedes that calories consumed above maintenance levels contribute to weight gain. Seems to be a rather odd word choice, as that as a pretty non-controversial statement. The definition of concede is “to acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true.” But, why would that be a concession? If anything, a low-fat, plant-based diet would help you lower your caloric intake while achieving satiety, no concession required.
Under Advantages, it reads: “The benefit to this diet is that a small percentage of the population would feel good with very low fat and high carbohydrates.” Says who? Ornish wrote several books on this topic and has thousands of case studies. McDougall has been on a similar path for decades with amazing results. So, where is the citation for only a small population feeling good with this diet? Again, this seems a huge point for such a glossed-over review. Also, high carbohydrates is true but misleading if you don’t mention that they aren’t refined carbohydrates, which is a big point on these diets. And, this is not only the questionable sentence in the section of Advantages. It is the ONLY sentence in the section. Where is all the text reviewing this fad diet? Oh, wait, I found them…
“Disadvantages” is more than twice as long. And, for disadvantages we even get citations! It reads:
“Studies by the National Weight Control Registry indicate that the majority of those who have lost weight and kept it off were successful with a diet comprised of 55 percent carbohydrate, 20 percent protein and 25 percent fat. This diet encourages minimal fat and protein intake.”
Sounds interesting. Of course, the NWCR website itself summarizes its findings that most of its members have kept their weight off by “continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.” I can’t imagine NWCR considers 25 percent fat to constitute low fat.
Finally, the long and final section on Long-Term Success is another odd grab bag of facts. Let’s start at the very beginning: “Dietary fat is important to success for a number of reasons including the transportation of vitamins, satiety (feelings of fullness) and the simple pleasure of consuming food with some fat content.”
I agree that there are certain vitamins that require fat to be effective, there are specific fat-soluble and water-soluble vitamins for this very reason. But, since it is impossible to have a no-fat diet, wouldn’t a McDougall or Ornish diet contain enough fat to transport these vitamins? Of course.
On the second point, I’ve never heard any claim that fat makes you feel full or has any contribution to satiety. Fiber, sure, but not fat.
The third point is, of course, the silliest for a gym newsletter written by a supplement manufacturer. The simple pleasure of consuming food with some fat content? Once again, no one I’ve ever heard of advocates a no-fat diet. There is natural fat in the most basic vegan food, so it would be impossible.
The article then goes into the basic idea of weight loss of gain being the sum of calories out versus calories in, but misses the picture that a low fat Ornish-like diet steers people toward lower calorie food that also increases satiety through its higher fiber content. Obviously, if you want to take in 4,500 calories a day, but are diligent enough to burn off 5,000 a day at the gym, good luck to you. If, however, you can enjoy a meal of whole, plant-based foods that fill you up faster and have less of a caloric hit, then wouldn’t it naturally follow that you would be full and have less calories in, controlling one important half of the law of thermodynamics?
Then, the makers of drink mixes, cookies, and meal replacement bars that all seem to include dairy in its worst forms (not that any are good) such as Reduced Fat Milk, Milk Protein Concentrates, Whey Protein Concentrates, and Calcium Caseinate, in just one workout shake go on to lecture about the diet and fitness industry and fad diets, ending with a pitch for its own products. Anyone who read The China Study would certainly question the goal of achieving weight loss and health by giving your body such efficient cancer promotion fuel as dairy.
They end with the curious line: “Offering you the choices and guidance you need, our program is based on science, not marketing hype.” This is an article seemingly rattled off specifically to market its own products? (And, trust me, I know. I’ve been a paid shill often enough, but much better than this at it). Against a program that seemingly has more science and results on its side, seeing that Ornish first published the results of a randomized controlled trial backing up his findings way back in 1990. That is one hell of a long fad they are finally getting around to debunking, no?
So, yeah, I love 24 Hour Fitness, but this kind of nonsense needs to go. Either that, or put a little more effort into this newsletter to make it not so poorly-written and provide information for members to determine what sort of diet might work best for them rather than its marketing partners.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
1000 of case studies is still a small percentage of the population! If you are talking about the population in the Castro district it would represent a larger percentage! Not everyone can eat a very low fat diet like yourself and one size does not fit all.
From Michael Dansinger, JAMA 2005 Apr 54 (4): 306 about Ornish:
50% of the pParticipants of the Ornish plan could not stick with it for greater than one year! I would hardly call that a successful diet and too extreme to maintain.
You know what they say about opinions (which this is) they are like assholes, everyone has one!
March 11th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
My blog is just my opinion? I never said otherwise.
Case studies is not the same as success stories. I think every Star McDougaller profiled by McDougall represents hundreds of other people not profiled, so by no means saying only thousands have been helped.
Although, 50 percent sounds like an amazing retention rate for any diet after one year, especially one that is so opposite the standard American diet. Would also be interesting to factor in what their diet was after they stopped doing Ornish, as far as whether it was as unhealthy as before, etc.