North Texas Skeptic - Vol 07 No 11 - 1993

Magazine Overview

The November 1993 issue of The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics, titled "The Skeptic," features a cover story on "Healthy Skepticism" with a review of Susan Powter's "Stop the Insanity" program. The issue also includes articles on "Laws of Nature and The Law," "The third eye," and a review of Steve Allen's book "On The Bible, Religion and Morality."

Healthy Skepticism: Review Of Susan Powter's "Stop The Insanity" Program

This extensive review by Neva H. Cochran, M.S., R.D., L.D., a registered dietitian and nutrition consultant, critically evaluates Susan Powter's popular diet and exercise regimen. Cochran acknowledges that the program has positive aspects, such as encouraging regular exercise and promoting a low-fat eating plan without severe caloric restriction. Powter's "I've been there, I've done it and you can too" style is noted as potentially motivational. However, the review raises significant concerns about Powter's interpretation of dietary guidelines.

Cochran points out that while leading health authorities recommend fat intake be no more than 30% of total calories, Powter's program aims for no more than 20%. More critically, Powter's method of calculating fat percentage by applying it to individual foods, rather than the diet as a whole, leads to the discouragement of many low-fat foods like turkey luncheon meat and low-fat cheese because they exceed 20% of their own calories from fat. Conversely, her approach allows for foods high in calories but low in fat percentage, such as fruit chews, caramel candies, Boston cream pie, chocolate syrup, gumdrops, jellybeans, cola, wine cooler, and beer. This misapplication of the fat formula results in a diet that is unnecessarily low in fat and potentially high in calories from other sources.

The review highlights that while a low-fat diet can be effective for weight loss, calories still count. It debunks Powter's claim that 1/2 a roasted chicken breast is equivalent in fat to large quantities of pasta, potatoes, beans, or vegetables, providing factual calorie and fat content for these foods. Cochran warns that it's easy to consume excess calories if one eats unlimited amounts of fat-free foods.

Furthermore, the review criticizes Powter's "Veggie-Fest" approach, noting that while she provides technical information about fat, she offers little guidance on what to actually eat, potentially leading individuals to consume only beans, grains, and vegetables. The program also tends to negatively portray meat and milk groups, which are valuable sources of nutrients like calcium, iron, protein, and vitamins. Cochran suggests that Powter, being a vegetarian, seems to encourage this lifestyle, but fails to provide adequate advice for planning a nutritionally complete vegetarian diet, particularly regarding protein, vitamin A, and mineral intake.

Another concern is Powter's "Polysyllabic Phobia," her excessive focus on avoiding foods with ingredients that have long, technical names. Cochran explains that these are simply scientific names for common chemicals and nutrients, and preservatives are tested and approved. This focus distracts from the more important issues of lowering fat, eating healthy, and losing weight.

In conclusion, Cochran reiterates that body weight is a matter of arithmetic: consuming more calories than the body needs leads to weight gain, and fewer calories lead to weight loss. She emphasizes that true success in weight control comes from permanent lifestyle changes, including regular exercise and a varied, low-fat diet, rather than short-term programs. Neva Cochran is identified as a registered dietitian and private nutritional consultant and Secretary of the D/FW Area Council Against Health Fraud.

Laws of Nature and The Law

This section features a note from John Blanton, referencing a computer bulletin board post by physicist and skeptic Vic Stenger. Stenger shares an anecdote from "Physics and Society" about Arthur Damask, a physicist who testified in an accident case. The opposing lawyer argued that "the laws of physics are obeyed in the laboratory, but not in rural New Jersey," leading to Damask's side losing the case despite his convincing testimony.

The third eye

Written by Pat Reeder, this column typically covers bizarre news items. However, for this issue, Reeder dedicates the space to responding to a letter from Deborah Boak concerning the line between legitimate skeptical inquiry and attacks on personal beliefs, particularly regarding religion and the "political correctness" movement. Reeder states his personal rule of thumb is not to attack anyone's personal religious faith, but he will question religious beliefs when they venture into the realms of science, medicine, or natural history. He uses examples like questioning claims of prayer curing appendicitis without medical treatment or demanding scientific proof for creationism taught in science class. He also allows for good-natured joking about religious subjects.

Reeder then addresses "political correctness," which he views as a greater threat to free inquiry than the "religious right." He argues that the "religious left" is defining the political and social agenda, particularly in universities, and aims to make it illegal to ask certain questions. He describes extreme forms of political correctness as having an "I'm Okay-You Must Die!" attitude. He applies this critique to radical environmentalist groups, suggesting their confrontational tactics and scare scenarios undermine legitimate environmental efforts, and that for some adherents, environmentalism is a religion, not science. He also criticizes the "Western linear masculinism" critique by some feminist leaders and instances of hostility toward free inquiry on university campuses, such as the treatment of a male student in a feminist studies class and the disregard for facts in "Afro-Centrist" history.

Reeder concludes that while it's difficult to question certain claims due to fear of being labeled, the free marketplace of ideas requires scrutiny. He notes signs of hope, including critical coverage in The New York Times and The New Yorker, and the ridicule of the movement through books like "The Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook."

Steve Allen on The Bible, Religion and Morality

Reviewed by Charles L. Caperton, this section discusses Steve Allen's book, which tackles the Bible, religion, and morality. Allen's book, published posthumously due to its controversial content, aims to address the common ignorance about the Bible and its use as an "irrational weapon" by religious fundamentalists. Allen presents his ideas through alphabetically arranged essays, critiquing the Bible's inconsistencies and contradictions, and arguing that fundamentalist religious views lack factual basis. Caperton notes that Allen's examination highlights errors and variances with Western morality but also finds meaningful passages, aiming to encourage reasonable thought about Scripture. The review mentions the book's price and availability, and Caperton's background as a trial lawyer and his upcoming presentation on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Up a tree

This section contains a skeptical cartoon by Laura Ainsworth. The cartoon depicts two birds discussing global warming. One bird states, "I believe in global warming, it's politically correct!" but admits, "But there's no actual proof." The other bird then suggests, "We need a reason to save the rainforest!" and offhand, thinks of "at least two..." implying that political correctness or other non-scientific reasons are sufficient justification.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The newsletter consistently promotes a skeptical and critical approach to claims, particularly those presented in popular culture, diet, and religion. The editorial stance is one of advocating for evidence-based reasoning, questioning authority, and defending free inquiry against what it perceives as the stifling effects of "political correctness" and uncritical acceptance of dogma, whether religious or ideological. The publication encourages its readers to be critical thinkers and to challenge unsubstantiated claims, emphasizing the importance of scientific literacy and rational discourse.