[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

This is not so new and not so controversial. There are many cardiologist who maintain that excess sugar in one's diet is more responsible than excess fat. By sugar we are talking about food, especially carbohydrates, that are converted into sugar by your body. Excess sugar that cannot be used immediately for energy is gathered up by insulin, brought to cells where it is converted into fat and stored under the skin and in the liver. This excess fat produces cholesterol.

Then there are cardiologists who say that eliminating most fats from your diet will cure your cholesterol problems. The problem is that many people who have adopted a vegan lifestyle still gain weight and have high cholesterol. This, according to other cardiologist is due to the the high consumption of carbohydrates in a vegan diet.

Whole grain are supposed to be absorbed into the body more slowly than processed grains so that your blood sugar doesn't spike, but we still see people who eat a lot of whole grains suffering from obesity and high cholesterol.

Each side of this debate points to people who have subsisted primarily on certain types of foods over long periods of time and are healthy. The vegans look at Asian peoples who have lived primarily on rice. Is this conclusive proof that a rice based diet is best? I don't know, but the fact that rice contains no gluten is now brought into the discussion. Gluten is a protein found in many grains and may be absorbed and converted to fat. I haven't seen much research on this so I don't know what to think.

The low/no carb proponents will point to the mediterranean diet and and hold that up for proof that you can live healthily while eating fats.

The other issue that that the animal rights people have influenced this debate and advocate for the plant based lifestyle. If you read vegan literature you will see things that tell you that you will be much more serene guilt free knowing that you have not caused the death of another sentient being.

Some people just feel that it seems logical that if you eat only plants you will be healthier. Many people, including world renown cardiologist disagree.

So what are we to believe? I wish I had the answer.

I do know this. Many years ago I followed a diet by famed sports nutritionist, Dr. Robert Haas. Haas was one of the first proponents, along with Dr Pritikin of the carb based diets. I didn't feel any better. I gained weight by eating tons of pasta, bread, oatmeal and other whole grains.

I tried the Atkins diet for about a year. Atkins wants you to eliminate as much carbohydrate in your diet as possible. I lost weight and my cholesterol dropped but on by a very small amount. My HDL did rise a bit however.

Then I found the South Beach diet which is a modified version of the Atkins model. Not only does Dr Agatson advocate minimizing carbs but he also wants you to eat very low fat proteins. I had about the same results as the Atkins diet.

Many people have had success with both of these philosophies so I can come to no conclusions. But, I am beginning wonder if one way of eating works better for some people based on their particular chemistry make up and the other works better for others. And, possibly something in between works for another segment of the population.

I'm sure that this is not helpful to many people in trying to make these kinds of decisions, but I did want to at least frame the debate and let you know that this is not really anything new.

What all sides seem to agree on is that exercising and eliminating stress are valuable.