I writing to you to comment on the story aired on June 16th about the Sugar Busters diet. I feel that Dateline missed an opportunity to really identify and discuss with the authors of the diet, the underlining cause of obesity - low blood sugar. The seriousness of the effects of hyperinsulinism and its cause - the modern American diet - cannot be overly stressed. Dateline's report seemed to more impressed with the fact that the diet encourages the consumption red meats, cheeses and other food normally eschewed by the low-fat / high carbohydrate proponents. While I'm sure such an emphasis dropped the jaw and raised the eyebrow of many a viewer, it completely missed the important issues of dieting that is stressed in the book.

My roommate, who has an amazing gift for the vernacular, described the story a huge piece of "fluff". I personally hate to criticize and I think that Dateline is a great program, so please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are proffered; that of concern for a public health issue I feel is important and not treated seriously by the mainstream media. At no time in the report was the word insulin uttered. The word carbohydrate was spoken only twice. Most people understand the Dateline is not Frontline; NBC is not trying to steal viewers from the PBS crowd, but the problem of obesity is a complex problem caused by abnormal blood sugar levels. It is appropriate to use "big words" like hypoglycemia and pancreas when reporting, as a journalist, on the issue of obesity and other serious health problems facing America today.

There is no argument that the diet proposed in the Sugar Buster diet is controversial. The mainstream media advice for healthier living has been ñeat a low-fat balanced diet and exerciseî. ThatÍs it. The prescription for better living in a quick sound bite. This not only a gross over simplification, itÍs unjust to your viewers. When Dateline asked an orthodox nutritionist of her opinion of the Sugar Buster diet , she basically said she had ña problem with itî. There was no attempt to explore why she had a problem with it. How many viewers would seize their remotes to hurriedly vanquish Dateline from their televisions if she had started stating why, in technical terms, she is opposed to a carbohydrate restricted diet regimen? Controversy demands discussion.

The story also seemed to imply that diet proposed by the authors is NEW and RADICAL. This is WRONG on both accounts. The diet is old and conservative. The variants of the diet the authors propose include: The Atkins Diet, The Carlton Fredricks Carbohydrate Restricted Diet and (my personal favorite) The Drinking Man's Diet. The principle of the diets are all the same; eat in such a way that your pancreas does not over produce insulin that will lower the level of blood sugar too much. More processed sugar we consume, the more insulin we produce to flush it out of system, and THAT is the cause of myriad of medical and psychological woes being experienced millions upon millions of Americans. The issue is INSULIN, not fat. Carbohydrate, not calorie. This is a concept that even a big dumb Homer Simpson look-a-like like me can easily grasp. Let's not get hung up of the seeming suicidal foods the regimen allows or the seeming healthy food it restricts or else the point of the diet regimen will completely lost. In Dateline's case the point was never found.. Dateline chose not to discuss the theory of the diet in any depth at all except to say that sugar make your body store fat. If I were not already informed lay person about the process of ketosis/liposis, the story would have meant nothing to me. I would have dismissed the four authors as just the latest contingent of snake-oil salesmen to appear on the scene. The fact is, not withstanding theyÍre dressing up in ñghostbusterî garb for publicity photography, these guys know what theyÍre talking about.

The authors of the book have taken a well established, albeit controversial, medical concept and mark eted it to the Seinfeld viewers of the world. Their discussion of the history of sugar is the same as discussed by the late Dr. Fredricks (ref. C) thirty years ago. Their 14 day meal plan is similar too, and has the same purpose of, the Atkins Induction diet (ref. B.). The effort these guys are making, by ñsellingî an important nutritional concept Madison Avenue style to people who would be turned off by techno-speak used in reference B and C, is laudable. DatelineÍs poor attempt to broker information about the concept was not.

Dateline could have done so much more with a controversial school of nutritional thinking that is obviously picking up momentum with the advent of Sugar Busters. Especially because the diet contridicts the popular low fat diets schemes It chose rather to say basically ñhey look at this a crazy diet that lets you have eggs and cheeseburgers and New Orleans fare.

I respectfully suggest that for a future story, the medical arguments of carbohydrate-restricted diet schemes be featured. Feature it technically but in laymenÍs terms as the authors of Sugar Busters attempted to do in the book. I donÍt presume to know anything about the television ratings business, the demography of your viewers or be qualified to preach Fred Friendly journalism standards,but IÍll wager you (and your corporate sponsors) might be surprised to find that by treating your viewers as grown-ups able to think and comprehend, they will not be as so tuned out as you may believe. I believe the more people understand how their bodies function, the more people will assume stewardship for their health. In the next century sugar, despite the considerable efforts of the food processing corporations, will slowly but surely go the way of tobacco; it will, God willing, become regarded as the unhealthy non-food that it is. What would it take? It will take the dissemination of accurate information. As you already know, the media (most especially television) has awesome power in that area.

I received a copy of your letter to NBC News Daltelin and I must tell you that I agree 100% with your perceptive. We spent nearly three hours of time interviews, first all of us togeter and then I, myself, one on one with a reporter. During that time we tried, and I think did a good job, of explaining the basics of this concept and answered any controversial issues which were brought up by the reporter or any we ourselves may have raised. Unfortunately, as you observed, none of this ended up in the final of version of this program and that is very regretful because I agree with you that the the information is the important piece here. When we wrote SugarBusters!our main goal was to bring this information to the public in a way the public would understnad it and each individual could apply it to his or her own needs. I think we acheived this, largly through the efforts of our one non-physician in the group, H. Leighton Stewart, who kept us honest as to the use of understandable English. You probably agree that we were close to this goal. Our goal now is to bring this information to as m any people in this country as we can and we think this book will do so, but hopefully the concept will not clouded in the negatative terms that are usually used by those who refuse to think of different ways to do things....