|
|
[Definitie:] "An ergogenic aid is any substance or phenomenon that enhances performance."
(Wilmore and Costill) 
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
0 8 - 0 1 - 2 0 0 6 A recipe for trouble
Editorial A prestigious research agency should have thought twice before attaching its name to a diet book. Going on a diet is a popular new year’s resolution. This year, a diet book penned by researchers in Australia is set to turn up in many Christmas stockings. But its runaway success could damage the reputation of Australia’s foremost research institution
The diet book in question is by no means ground-breaking. Its high-protein message is not that different from others that have drifted into fashion in the past few years. But this one bears the badge of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). In some parts of the world, it might seem odd that splashing the name of a scientific institution on the cover would shift copies of a book to the public. But CSIRO — which runs Australia’s main network of government laboratories — has an unusually good public reputation. It is widely perceived as a trusted national institution. Its history, including its pivotal role in the development of agriculture and mining in Australia, has left a strong impression that it knows how to put science to good use. But the commercial success of the book, which knocked Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code off the national bestseller perch, is irritating some scientists, and for good reason. The benefits of a high-protein diet remain a hot topic of debate among nutritionists. But even some of those who approve of such a diet question whether it should rely as heavily on meat as this one does, given the health risks associated with high meat consumption. But what really rankles with the book’s critics is the way it is being marketed. There’s something decidedly unsavoury about using the phrase “scientifically proven” to sell anything to a trusting public, yet this is writ large on the book’s front cover. The diet is also being promoted as being beneficial for everyone, whereas the published research indicates that it is superior to a high-carbohydrate diet only for a subpopulation of overweight women with symptoms of metabolic dysfunction. Furthermore, the research behind the book was largely funded by the meat and dairy industries, whose products feature prominently in the diet. Detractors say that this aspect should have been more explicitly recognized, instead of being buried in the book’s acknowledgements. The authors insist that the sponsors had no influence on the book’s content, but the impression remains of a conflict of interest. To be fair, the book was not the idea of the researchers or even CSIRO’s management. It came from a wily commercial publisher who spotted an opportunity. CSIRO, which has its own publishing arm, only reaps a small percentage of the profits in the form of royalties to its nutritional-research division. Defenders of the book will argue that its success illustrates how to translate research into an accessible and popular format that puts science into practice. But that argument doesn’t justify CSIRO giving permission for its name to be used in a way that could ultimately taint its hard-earned reputation. Diet book attacked for its high-protein advice
Carina Dennis SYDNEY A diet book developed by researchers at Australia’s largest government laboratory network has already made the organization more than A$1.5 million (US$1.1 million) in royalties. But its success is feeding a growing body of critics who say that its high-protein message is not supported by the evidence. They also question the influence of the meat industry, which sponsored it. “It’s far more successful than we ever anticipated,” says Manny Noakes of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Adelaide, who wrote The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet with her colleague Peter Clifton. The book has become a national bestseller, having sold nearly half a million copies since its launch in May. It went on sale in Britain in September, with release in further countries, including the United States, planned for 2006. Its recommendations even feature on the menu at Australia’s Parliament House. But critics have spoken out about the possible influence of the Australian meat and livestock industry, which funded a large portion of the research behind the highprotein diet. “There is a bias towards the sponsor’s product which is not justified by the results of their research,” says Rosemary Stanton, a nutritionist and visiting fellow at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. The diet advocates a much higher protein intake than that recommended by most national guidelines. People on a typical Western diet obtain about 15% of their energy intake as protein, but the CSIRO diet recommends doubling that to 30–35% while reducing carbohydrate intake. To achieve this, Noakes and Clifton suggest eating more meat and fish at lunch and dinner. “You have to ask why they didn’t promote more plant-based proteins,” says Stanton. “Did their choice of protein come about because of the sponsor?” The authors insist that the industrial sponsors were kept at arm’s length. “They didn’t have any impact on the design of the study and how we interpreted the results,” says Clifton. Nonetheless, Meat and Livestock Australia, which represents the nation’s livestock industry, has been a keen publicist: it distributed a booklet on the diet in a women’s magazine. This was noticed by the publisher Penguin, which then commissioned the book. Royalties go to CSIRO nutrition research. Other scientists are concerned that the evidence behind the diet is weak, and that by putting its name to the book the CSIRO is giving the diet unwarranted credibility. “The CSIRO name unquestionably sells more copies,” says Jim Mann, a nutrition expert at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. “But the hype goes beyond what the research proves.” “The main trial showed no difference in weight loss compared with a conventional diet,” points out Patrick Holford, founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition based near London, UK. He believes that sticking to such a diet could elevate the risks of breast and prostate cancer, stress the kidneys and adversely affect bone mass. “I think it is dangerous long-term,” he says. The authors based the diet on several studies, the largest being their own trial of 100 overweight women over 12 weeks (M. Noakes et al. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 81, 1298–1306; 2005). Half the women were given a high-protein diet and the other half a highcarbohydrate diet. Both diets contained the same number of calories, and both groups of women lost the same amount of weight. But the authors say their recommendations are valid because women with high triglyceride levels — a marker of insulin resistance — shed significantly more weight on the highprotein diet. Participants were also more likely to stick with the high-protein diet. The CSIRO stands by its decision to commercialize the research. “The CSIRO has always published books on its scientific work and put its name to publications, and this is no exception,” says a spokeswoman. “The decision to publish was in response to many consumers asking for further details of the diet.” |
|
|
