No one knows. The whole country is being scammed. Even those who should know, don't know. So, the older woman, in one sitting, eats 2,400 calories, likely more than she needs for the whole day, and 276 grams of carbs instead of the 24 that she thought she was consuming. Topping off the gas tank like this should now push the current obesity epidemic of about 60% of all Americans as overweight to about 90% as the low-carb craze continues to grow -- unless we put an end to the nonsense. That's what I'm going to do because I'm the new and improved, more complete, Atkins.

I think I know how this whole new mess, simply ignoring all kinds of carbs, came about. It's an extension of the "spike" idea: the notion that, if a food causes less of a "spike" than another food, then its carbs simply don't count -- not at all. Not just less, but not at all. Since the sugar alcohols provide carbs, but no significant "spike," the new mantra concludes, "Well, if blood sugar rises only by 50%, instead of 75%, then many of its carbs don't count either." But, I really think this idea never crosses any of the marketer's minds because I know that they have no clue about any of this; they're just jumping on the low-carb bandwagon to grab their piece of the action. Low-carb food sales are expected to top $30 billion in 2004.

But, sound justification isn't needed because it's all about marketing. The food industry says that more than 30 million Americans are doing Atkins or some version of a low-carb diet. I believe that this is a gross underestimate and that a better estimate is 50 million, or more, with another 50 million skirting around the edges and doing some low-carb eating.

In the nutritional new world-order, a high-carb diet can now be "defined" as a low-carb diet. Nothing counts anymore. Nothing matters. The nutritional "expert" of the moment can say whatever he wants to say, making it up as he goes along.

I asked the food bar salesman at a recent trade show what this Net Carb stuff was all about. He "explained" that you can eliminate counting the sugar alcohols because they don't "spike" glucose and insulin. I asked what that had to do with anything. Of course, he couldn't answer the question. Are we surprised? I don't think so.

Then I asked what the FDA had to say; he assured me that they required a listing of all the carbs in the Nutrition Facts Box. I asked if his new Net Carb "seal of approval" was confusing to people and what the FDA had to say about it because they are dogged in trying to make nutrition information clear to people. He assured me that the FDA said the Net Carb "seal of approval" was OK. Of course, I didn't buy this at all.

About an hour later, I called my FDA attorney to get the scoop. She told me that the FDA wasn't approving any low-carb claims of any kind. Companies must get FDA authorization, first, before placing any low-carb claim on any food product, and, at this time, they have not approved one claim. She told me, specifically, that the Net Carb seal was unapproved and was illegal branding of the food product.

This is really big business, and the consumer is being scammed at every turn by some really big players. If you thought low-fat was a mess, the Net Carb Scam makes that look like child's play.

My attorney doesn't think that the FDA will resolve this anytime soon, most likely because it's also confused about what it all means. The whole basis of the scam, it seems to me, is the idea that "spikes" in glucose and insulin somehow lead to metabolic disturbances in the body. Since it's unlikely that FDA personnel have the requisite background to resolve what's really going on in bodies eating carbs, they'll remain confused and the marketers will have a field day with the American public's wallet.

Pay no attention to the Net Carb Scam.

Look for my new book on this subject, The Net Carb Scam and Other Diet Nonsense, available, soon, here at http://www.netcarbscam.com/