Consumer Reports – Profile In Incompetence

By

Michael Applebaum, MD, JD, FCLM

After reading this rant, it is my opinion that you should seriously re-consider the trustworthiness of information provided by Consumer Reports and Consumers Union and, if it were me, I would absolutely cancel any subscription I had to their Consumer Reports onHealth newsletter until such time as they can demonstrate competence.

To me, they have displayed gross ineptitude, editorial ignorance at a remarkable level and clear incapability at performing simple analysis.

This stuff can, in my opinion, kill you.

I used to trust these folks.

But for the last three years, I have been trying to get their attention about what I consider to be some really bad evaluations of the diet and exercise industries’ recommendations/products.

I even sent them a copy of Why Diets Fail. It was never opened.

My letters went unanswered until this past week. Their reply was in apparent response to an email I sent via their website regarding their most recent misinformation campaign about diets and dieting.

My email basically reported them to themselves as a “safety issue” since their June 2007 article “New diet winners” was, IMHO, incompetently performed and its conclusions dangerous.

Likewise, I sent hard copy letters containing similar material to the following Consumer Reports (“CR”) staff and the “Editor”:

Ms. Leslie Ware
Editor at Large

Ms. Ronni Sandroff
Health Editor

Chris Hendel
Associate Director, Health and Family

Ms. Jane Healey
Manager, Research

Mr. James Guest
President

Mr. Ron Buchheim
Deputy Editor, Health and Family

Editorial
Consumer Reports

The following is a chronicle of the correspondences between me and them.

It is your choice to decide whether CR is reliable.

Here is the essential content of my letter from May 23 sent initially to CR in email and hard copy versions:

I read the June 2007 CR article “New diet winners.”

I must take exception.

As background are you aware of the following data re: daily caloric intakes intended to kill or cause suffering to mortal enemies during wartime?

The data is compiled from Keys A, Brozek J, Henschel A, Mickelsen O, Taylor HL. The Biology of Human Starvation. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press 1950:1239-1246.

It has been reported that the victims in the Warsaw Ghetto ate between 800 and 1200 Kcal per day. [i] Their fates are well-known. Many died of starvation.

At 1529 Kcal, sedentary people in the Western Netherlands were malnourished and starving. [ii]

Keys’s experiment in human starvation is the classic study to date.

To simulate starvation, Keys’s subjects, weighing an average of 153 pounds, were fed 1570 Kcal per day on average in order to lose 1.5 pounds per week. They suffered significantly, developed psychological problems and even resorted to self-mutilation. [iii] Much of this was when they were on a rehabilitation diet of many more Calories.

Fast forward to your 2007 article.

I will only deal with one of the “diet winners,” YOU: On A Diet, as an example of what causes me the need to take exception. The remainder mentioned in your article and others not mentioned can be analyzed similarly with the same conclusion. The following is a quote:

So let’s see how it works.

Say you want to weigh 150 pounds and do an average of 300 physical activity calories (sic) per day – about what you do on our plan (more on some days and fewer on others). That means:

Your basic calories (sic) used are 8 x 150 = 1,200

+ 200 = 1,400

+ 300 in activity = 1,700

So to maintain your desired weight, you’d need about 1,700 calories (sic) per day. To lose a pound a week, you’d need to decrease that by about 500 calories (sic) per day, or increase your physical activity by 500 calories (sic) a day, or a combination of the two. (From pp. 238-239)

Admittedly, I find the language a touch confusing. Are they suggesting that you first determine the amount “you want to weigh,” eat that amount of Calories and then decrease it from there or what?

To be more than fair, I will assume that they are describing intake for a 150 pound person.

Here is what they are really saying:

The 300 physical activity Calories are burned doing intentional physical activity above and beyond the activities of daily living. That leaves 1400 Calories to sustain the body and live a life. But this is merely the resting metabolic rate (RMR) needs. (p. 238)

The resting metabolic rate “accounts for about 60 to 75%” of the total daily energy expenditure. [iv] With a small “rounding error,” the RMR represents about 2/3 of the total daily energy expenditure. [v] RMR will NOT “maintain (the) desired weight.” RMR must result in weight loss.

This 150 pound person is already in approximately a 700 Calorie daily deficit. [vi]

On top of this, Mehmet and Michael suggest increasing the deficit daily by an additional 500 Calories “to lose a pound per week.” Presumably, they recommend a 1,000 Calorie daily deficit to lose two pounds per week.

Using the more conservative number for a one pound weight loss, this decreases the daily caloric intake to 900 Calories.

If you look at the chart above, you will see that 900 Calories makes Dachau appear feast-like and the Warsaw Ghetto somewhere between “not so bad” and sumptuous.

It does make one wonder what the Dutch were complaining about and why they got so sick and the reason Keys’s (screened) subjects went nuts.

Or it makes one wonder what is wrong at CR and how it crowns “winners.”

Assuming Mehmet’s and Michael’s RMR equation is correct, from the approximate daily caloric needs of 2100 Calories for a 150 pound person to maintain (his or her?) stable weight, 900 Calories represents a ~57.15% reduction.

Daily energy deficits of 15 –20% cause substantial hardship and negative personality changes. [vii] People grumble and grouse. They do not like it.

Diets succeed when one can sustain fewer Calories in, than Calories out over a sufficient length of time to lose the desired amount of weight.

Diets fail when one cannot sustain fewer Calories in, than Calories out over a sufficient length of time to lose the desired amount of weight.

Expert diets fail for a very simple reason – they are all starvation diets. In fact, expert diet advice is the number one cause of diet failure.

  Few people will follow the Dachau Diet long enough to lose the weight. Real people, not forcibly incarcerated, give up. And rightly so.

Dieters are starved into failure.

Keys and others amply demonstrated that failed dieters, especially those who were on starvation diets, overeat when they go off the diet.

Failed dieters gain weight, their BMIs go up, they become less “healthy,” increase their chances of developing illnesses and raise their likelihood of dying.

Failed dieting, the result of expert diet advice, kills.

In your round-up, the consumers are the losers, as is the credibility of CR, in my opinion.

As a warning, your analysis of fitness equipment/programs suffers, too.

Thank you.  

CR’s first email response:

Dear Dr. Michael Applebaum:


Thanks for taking the time to contact Consumer Reports®.  It is always a

pleasure to hear from our readers!

We appreciate your taking the time to write to us regarding our June 2007

report on Dieting.  Your correspondence has provided us with invaluable

feedback on how we're doing.  Please be assured that our readers' comments

and thoughts help shape the work we do.  I will, of course, forward your

correspondence to the appropriate department(s) for their review and

consideration for our future reports.

Thanks again for taking the time to write.  Your interest in our work is

greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Peter D. Harzewski
Senior Customer Relations Representative
1000375

CR’s second email response:

Dear Dr. Applebaum:

After reviewing your correspondence, our Editors asked me to share the following information with you:

I t would appear that you have misunderstood both the recommendations in

“YOU on a Diet,” and the famous Minnesota Starvation Experiment conducted

during World War II by Ancel Keys. (typo in the original)

“YOU on a Diet” does NOT recommend a reduction of 500 calories below your

resting metabolic rate. Like virtually all mainstream weight loss diets, it

recommends consuming 500 fewer calories a day than you expend in total,

both in the form of your resting metabolic rate and from physical activity.

For the typical middle-aged female dieter who is moderately active, an

effective weight loss diet will contain around 1,500 calories a day, not

the 900 posited by the reader. And indeed the sample week's menu we

analyzed from “YOU on a Diet” contained an average of 1,520 calories a day.

The Minnesota Starvation Experiment was in no way, shape, or form the

equivalent of a contemporary weight loss diet. During the “starvation” part

of the experiment, participants consumed about 1,800 calories a day of an

extremely nutrient-poor diet that consisted almost entirely of potatoes,

other root vegetables, dark bread, and macaroni. As young men, they

probably needed to consume around 2,700 calories a day to maintain their

starting weight. In addition they were obliged to burn around 430 calories

a day in

exercise (mainly walking), for a total energy expenditure of perhaps 3,100

calories a day. So their calorie deficit was about 1,300 a day -- a deficit

that no responsible weight loss diet would ever recommend. In addition,

these men were not overweight when they started the experiment. They had no

fat stores to cushion them against the deleterious effects of calorie and

nutrient deprivation. They were starved until they had lost 25 percent of

their starting weight, at which point they were truly emaciated. By

contrast, the typical dieter, even after losing 10 or 20 pounds, remains

somewhat overweight.

I hope this information is helpful. Thanks again for taking the time to

write.  Your interest in our work is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,


Peter D. Harzewski
Senior Customer Relations Representative
1000375

My reply to CR’s second email response, sent the next day:

Dear Mr. Harzewski,

Thank you for your response of yesterday.

Here is my reply. Your original text is in italics.

Dear Dr. Applebaum:

After reviewing your correspondence, our Editors asked me to share the following information with you:

So far so good.

I t would appear that you have misunderstood both the recommendations in “YOU on a Diet,” and the famous Minnesota Starvation Experiment conducted during World War II by Ancel Keys. (Typo in the original.)

I fail to see where there is any misunderstanding on my part of the recommendations in You or Keys’s experiment as follows:

“YOU on a Diet” does NOT recommend a reduction of 500 calories below your resting metabolic rate. Like virtually all mainstream weight loss diets, it recommends consuming 500 fewer calories a day than you expend in total, both in the form of your resting metabolic rate and from physical activity. For the typical middle-aged female dieter who is moderately active, an effective weight loss diet will contain around 1,500 calories a day, not the 900 posited by the reader. And indeed the sample week's menu we analyzed from “YOU on a Diet” contained an average of 1,520 calories a day.

The following is quoted (verbatim) from the You book:

So let’s see how it works.

Say you want to weigh 150 pounds and do an average of 300 physical activity calories (sic) per day – about what you do on our plan (more on some days and fewer on others). That means:

Your basic calories (sic) used are 8 x 150 = 1,200
+ 200 = 1,400
+ 300 in activity = 1,700

So to maintain your desired weight, you’d need about 1,700 calories (sic) per day. To lose a pound a week, you’d need to decrease that by about 500 calories (sic) per day, or increase your physical activity by 500 calories (sic) a day, or a combination of the two. (From pp. 238-239)

The following is the same quote as above with paragraph numbering for reference purposes to assist your Editors:

1. So let’s see how it works.

2. Say you want to weigh 150 pounds and do an average of 300 physical activity calories (sic) per day – about what you do on our plan (more on some days and fewer on others). That means:

3. Your basic calories (sic) used are 8 x 150 = 1,200
4. + 200 = 1,400
5. + 300 in activity = 1,700

6. So to maintain your desired weight, you’d need about 1,700 calories (sic) per day. To lose a pound a week, you’d need to decrease that by about 500 calories (sic) per day, or increase your physical activity by 500 calories (sic) a day, or a combination of the two. (From pp. 238-239)

1.            Admittedly, I find the language a touch confusing. Are they suggesting that you first determine the amount “you want to weigh,” eat that amount of Calories and then decrease it from there or what?

To be more than fair, I will assume that they are describing intake for a 150 pound person.

6.         “To maintain (the) desired weight (of 150 pounds), you’d need about 1,700 calories (sic) per day.” Thus, 1700 Calories, including 300 for “an average of 300 physical activity calories (sic) per day” (from 2, above), are needed.

Since those 300 Calories are burned performing intentional physical activity, the maintenance number of Calories for the body of a 150 pound person (male or female apparently) is 1400, which is the resting metabolic rate (see two paragraphs, below).

6.         “To lose a pound a week, you’d need to decrease that by about 500 calories (sic) per day, or increase your physical activity by 500 calories (sic) a day, or a combination of the two.” If one possesses an understanding of conventional English and paragraph construction, “that” can only refer to the 1700 Calories in the preceding sentence of the same paragraph.

3, 4.     This is a quote (verbatim) from page 238:

An easy way to estimate your resting metabolic rate is to multiply your desired weight in pounds by 8 and add 200…

This formula is exactly the one in paragraphs 3 and 4. It is clearly for the “resting metabolic rate” and again, it is for the uncertain “desired weight” calculation. Still, in more than fairness, I have chosen to interpret it to mean one’s actual weight.

It should be clear, given the plan meaning of the words, that Mehmet and Michael are absolutely recommending “a reduction of 500 calories (paragraph 6) below your resting metabolic rate” (paragraphs 3 and 4.).

In this example of theirs, the total number of Calories must be 900 per day.

I request an alternative explanation from your Editors consistent with their posture.

Further, from page 238:

“We’ve designed this diet and its serving sizes based on a person with a metabolic rate of 1.700 calories (sic).”

If the Editors found that the “the sample week's menu we analyzed from “YOU on a Diet” contained an average of 1,520 calories a day,” that is already a 10.58% caloric reduction from the stated diet design.

In any event, analysis and conclusion of caloric intake on this program, including the Editors’, are practically impossible:

“Because we all have higher or lower caloric needs (depending on genes, metabolic rates, activity levels, and other factors), we do not dictate serving sized here. Your goal is to eat the amount that makes you satisfied-that’s a level three of four in out satiety scale (see page 179)…For some people, portions may be a little more than at traditional serving size.”

But even assuming the intake of 1520 Calories per day is both determinable and correct, your Editors have failed to state if this is BEFORE or AFTER “exercise.” Nor have they reconciled the “To lose a pound a week, you’d need to decrease that by about 500 calories (sic) per day, or increase your physical activity by 500 calories (sic) a day, or a combination of the two.”

The Minnesota Starvation Experiment was in no way, shape, or form the equivalent of a contemporary weight loss diet. During the “starvation” part of the experiment, participants consumed about 1,800 calories a day of an extremely nutrient-poor diet that consisted almost entirely of potatoes, other root vegetables, dark bread, and macaroni. As young men, they probably needed to consume around 2,700 calories a day to maintain their starting weight. In addition they were obliged to burn around 430 calories a day in exercise (mainly walking), for a total energy expenditure of perhaps 3,100 calories a day. So their calorie deficit was about 1,300 a day -- a deficit that no responsible weight loss diet would ever recommend. In addition, these men were not overweight when they started the experiment. They had no fat stores to cushion them against the deleterious effects of calorie and nutrient deprivation. They were starved until they had lost 25 percent of their starting weight, at which point they were truly emaciated. By contrast, the typical dieter, even after losing 10 or 20 pounds, remains somewhat overweight.

Your Editors appear to be mistaken.

In Keys’s experiment, the average subject was fed 1569.5 Kcal/day during semi-starvation and 3492.5 Kcal/day at the end of the control period. On average, each weighed 152.6 pounds at the end of the control period.

Their statement that the diet was “extremely nutrient-poor” is of interest.

I request an explanation.

There are precisely 7 nutrients: alcohol, water, minerals, vitamins, fat, carbohydrate and protein. Disregarding alcohol, we are left with six. Of these, water, minerals and vitamins are acaloric. The remaining, fat, carbohydrate and protein contain Calories.

Weight loss is determined by the difference between Calories in and Calories out. Please explain how the first group, the acaloric group, makes/made a substantial difference. Further, please cite the incidence of relevant hypo-vitaminoses and hypo-mineraloses experienced by the subjects.

Also, as to macronutrient ratios, please cite how this significantly affects/affected weight loss generally and in particular the experience of the experimental subjects.

It would appear that using the catch phrase “nutrient-poor” is a patent attempt to employ meaningless techno-babble to bolster another indefensible statement. With the possible exceptions of additives, such as preservatives, food appears to be all nutrients. Although the ratios among the nutrients may differ from food to food and there may be some proportions that are preferred for particular purposes, food appears to be virtually “all nutrients” and incapable of being “nutrient-poor.”

Please explain what you mean by “extremely nutrient-poor.”

But even if your Editors are correct in some of their analysis, let us look at what they are saying.

Mehmet and Michael suggested that 150 pound persons (gender notwithstanding) consume 1700 Calories per day, including 300 for activity. Again forgetting the additional 500 Calories matter, your Editors state that ~150 pound men “probably needed to consume around 2,700 calories a day to maintain their starting weight. In addition they were obliged to burn around 430 calories a day in exercise (mainly walking), for a total energy expenditure of perhaps 3,100 calories a day.”

Then your Editors state, “So their calorie deficit was about 1,300 a day -- a deficit
that no responsible weight loss diet would ever recommend.”

Using your Editors’ numbers (though I would view this differently) the result is a caloric deficit of 1,300 Calories per day as recommended by Mehmet, Michael and CR:

1700 Calories Intake
Kcal needed to maintain weight: 2700 (your number) + 300 (Mehmet’s and Michael’s number) = 3,000 Kcal
Deficit = 1300 Kcal (3000 – 1700)

The only close to correct point your Editors have made is that, “no responsible weight loss diet would ever recommend” a Caloric deficit of 1300 Kcal/day.

Yet this is what you more than recommend, you laud it. And this type of caloric reduction is seen in “virtually all mainstream weight loss diets.”

Diets fail because dieters are starved into failure. Your response has done nothing to refute this contention. It has bolstered it.

Another point you might choose to consider, and an explanation would be appreciated, is how are these dieters supposed to gain muscle while in a negative caloric balance? (See Chapter 7) In the real world this is a physical impossibility.

For further information, visit www.DrApplebaum.com, www.FitnessMed.com, www.FitToParent.com and www.FitnessWatch.org.

Though your response is further flawed, I cannot devote more time to replying. You are welcome to arrange with my office a visit by your Editors where, for the sake of the general good, I will teach them how to evaluate diets and fitness programs.

Until such time as you can find persons of adequate literacy and numeracy to evaluate diets and fitness programs without being a safety hazard to your readership and the public at large, it might be better if you confined your work to evaluating the results of gorilla-smashed suitcases, toilets flushing and similar investigations.

I do expect a reply to the matters mentioned above.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

My follow-up to my reply  to CR’s second email response, also sent the next day:

Dear Mr. Harzewski,


Earlier this morning I sent you an email.

Please advise if the integrity of the formatting elements I used for

readability, such as indentations and italics, was maintained.

If it was not and the email was difficult to read kindly let me know and

advise if I can send the content as an attachment in MSWord or PDF format.

BTW, I expect a reply.


Thank you.

On June 08, I sent my response via their website and included a brief history of what transpired.  

On June 11, I sent CR the following email:

Hello.

On 5-23-07, I sent hard copy letters to various staff at CR re: your June 2007 diet cover article.

I also sent the info from the letter in an email.

A Mr. Harzewski responded (to the email, I believe).

Unfortunately, the response was, in my opinion, nonsense.

I sent him a reply requesting clarification.

To date, I have not received one.

Kindly respond.

If it would be helpful to you to review the history of the communications, it can be found at:

www.FitnessWatch.org and http://www.drapplebaum.com/Fitness%20Rants/Consumer%20Reports%20-%20Profile%20In%20Incompetence.htm

Thank you.

Michael Applebaum, MD, JD, FCLM

They finally responded to this one. Here is the response:

Dear Dr. Applebaum:

Thank you for your recent e-mail.  We appreciate your taking the time to
write.

We have received your reply and forwarded it to our Editorial Staff for
further review and reply.  As of this date I have not been advised that the
formatting was of any concern.  Rest assured that I will contact you should
we require an alternate version. 

At present, our staff remains focused on production of our upcoming issue,
but will return t your correspondence as soon as time permits.  We
appreciate your patience in this matter.

Thanks again for your interest in ConsumerReports.org®!

Sincerely,

Peter D. Harzewski
Senior Customer Relations Representative
1005434

Still no word, so on July 05, I sent the following email to Mr. Harzewski:

Dear Mr. Harzewski,

From: http://fitnesswatch.blogspot.com/

Consumer Reports - Profile In Incompetence (Update)

Today is July 05, 2007. No response from CR since June 11, 2007.

Here is a chronicle of my communications with Consumer Reports re: their June 2007 cover story on "Rating the Diets."

The quality of their work is, IMHO, shamefully shoddy and their analytical skills fatally flawed - just like diet programs.

Of particular interest is CR's response, via a Mr. Harzewski speaking for the Editors.

Read it all.

Then, you decide.

To me, these folks are dangerously incompetent.

Caveat subscriber.

To access all the Fitness Rants, click here.

Hope your Fourth was enjoyable.

Regards,

Michael Applebaum, MD

On July 25, I was sent the following from Mr. Harzewski:

Dear Dr. Michael Applebaum:

Thanks for your recent communication.

In as much as the information requested will come through me from our
Editors, I can only continue to remind them of the time that has elapsed
since your previous request.  My manager is aware of this situation,
including your referencing our communications on your website and blog, and
is attempting to have some follow-up available for you from our Editors.

Once again, I can only stress that the detailed response required is
outside the time normally budgeted by our staff for the research &
production of a monthly magazine. I apologize on their behalf, and ask for
your patience.  

Thanks again for taking the time to write.  Your interest in our work is
greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Peter D. Harzewski
Senior Customer Relations Representative
1022485

For the record at FitnessWatch.org, I will not consider this a "response" to my earlier emails. This is more appropriately considered a non-responsive delaying tactic since it appears as if only the Editors can address the issues.

Of particular note, is the remarkable lack of concern CR has for its readers and others who may have been ill-advised: "I can only stress that the detailed response required is outside the time normally budgeted by our staff for the research & production of a monthly magazine."

It is clear to me that the staff failed to "budget" enough time to learn how to evaluate diet (and fitness) information properly and their failure can foreseeably result in harm to the public.

Rather than "stress" damage control and protection of the public, CR is too busy to mitigate the harm they, IMHO, cause.

This is to their shame.

Here is my response to CR:

Dear Mr. Harzewski,

Thank you for your email.

I appreciate your follow-up.

The lack of follow-up by CR's Editors is something I cannot appreciate favorably.

The matters I raised, which I believe to be legitimate, are of consequence to your readers and the public exposed to CR's evaluations through other media.

Arguably, a disservice done in the domains of diet and fitness (which CR appears to imply extend into health) by one from the bully pulpit can have far-reaching and devastating effects.

CR has the bully pulpit. CR is in a position to do a lot of damage.

My "patience" is not the issue. Harm to others is.

I await a response from your Editors and repeat my invitation to educate them on how to evaluate diet and fitness programs.

I will continue to occasionally communicate through you, demonstrating my commitment to taking this conversation seriously and my caring enough about others to be in action.

This is distinguished from your Editors who demonstrate inaction.

Thank you.

Regards,

Michael Applebaum, MD, JD FCLM

I'll post updates as they occur.

Caveat subscriber.