All you need to know about Atkins . . . UPDATED 12-3

[RaynorWolfcastle]

FWIW, I think that Atkins is a great way of changing your eating habits, but I wouldn't go on "Atkins for life" personally, (I like breads too much). I think that Atkins is excellent for reducing your carb dependence because it's so strict at first. Once I get to my target weight I hope to resume eating all the foods I like, but being much more moderate about it (eg, eat bread once or occasionally twice a day, white bread no more than once every 3-4 days, etc).

 

[Entity]

It appears the PCRM has also advocated against other lifestyles that I am a fan of (namely BFL), so I'm a bit perplexed. They seem to be advocating diet suggestions that are primarily vegetarian, though I haven't read through everything on their website. Anyone know much about the organization?

Rob

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

The committee advocates a strict vegetarian diet...

Ummm, hello! They are a bunch of vegetarians. Of course they don't like the low carb plans.

You do know that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, right?

And I used to eat meat all the time, just because I am a vegetarian, doesn't mean it is the reason I dislike low-carb plans. I dislike it because the only people who are known to eat that much meat, or mostly meat are the inuits, and they suffer from many health problems related to that over ingestion of protein.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: apoppin
It's your heart attack . . . I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.

So, do you follow their recommendation of a "strict vegetarian diet"?

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: apoppin
Today's news linked the Atkins diet to two DEATHS.

Continue at your own risk.

True, but the institution who is blaming Atkins' diet for those deaths (PCRM) has campaigned against Atkins' diet before, so their heavily anecdotal evidence in those two cases is likely biased.

Rob

It's your heart attack . . . I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.



Personally, I think it is horribly UNsound for the long-term.

If you've read through anything I've posted in similar threads before, I would NEVER do the Atkins plan. I'm a type-1 diabetic, so my primary concern is lowering high-GI foods, which generally has me on a higher-protein, lower carbohydrate plan. I eat around 100-150g of carbs per day, so I'm nowhere near the Atkins threshold.

So, just FYI, it ain't "my" heart attack. Vegetarianism (which I experimented with for 6 years) is great for some, but has a tendency to make proper protein intakes difficult (I quit being a vegetarian due to the necessities of eating meat over the course of a 2700mile hike).

Simply put, I don't rag on people for their choices, especially when there is little more than anecdotal evidence for or against their particular diet. The all-twinkie diet, on the other hand...

Rob

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Wingznut

The committee advocates a strict vegetarian diet...

Ummm, hello! They are a bunch of vegetarians. Of course they don't like the low carb plans.

You do know that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, right?

And I used to eat meat all the time, just because I am a vegetarian, doesn't mean it is the reason I dislike low-carb plans. I dislike it because the only people who are known to eat that much meat, or mostly meat are the inuits, and they suffer from many health problems related to that over ingestion of protein.

Aren't a lot of the intuit health problems related to their intake of fish and other marine animals, which are now unfortunately saturated with various heavy metals, etc.?

I could be wrong on this, but recall reading it in a journal somewhere.

Here's a link: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/profiles/hilites/2001/inuit.htm

It supports your argument to some extent (that vegetarianism can be more healthy), but not the link(s) you can draw between yourself and the inuit. The situations aren't necessarily applicable unless you are basing a majority of your intake on PCB-laden marine foods.

Rob

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: apoppin
Today's news linked the Atkins diet to two DEATHS.

Continue at your own risk.

True, but the institution who is blaming Atkins' diet for those deaths (PCRM) has campaigned against Atkins' diet before, so their heavily anecdotal evidence in those two cases is likely biased.

Rob

It's your heart attack . . . I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.



Personally, I think it is horribly UNsound for the long-term.

If you've read through anything I've posted in similar threads before, I would NEVER do the Atkins plan. I'm a type-1 diabetic, so my primary concern is lowering high-GI foods, which generally has me on a higher-protein, lower carbohydrate plan. I eat around 100-150g of carbs per day, so I'm nowhere near the Atkins threshold.

So, just FYI, it ain't "my" heart attack. Vegetarianism (which I experimented with for 6 years) is great for some, but has a tendency to make proper protein intakes difficult (I quit being a vegetarian due to the necessities of eating meat over the course of a 2700mile hike).

Simply put, I don't rag on people for their choices, especially when there is little more than anecdotal evidence for or against their particular diet. The all-twinkie diet, on the other hand...

Rob

Not "your" heart attack, Rob - those who stick with this fad diet.

I also did the vegetarian thing . . . now, I am moderate with ALL food groups AND regular exercise.

As to my "ragging" - it's a COUNTERbalance to the nuts here that are so gung-ho on a fad diet that have very little long term studies . . .

I'll repeat, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.



MORE

Recent studies show that one in five adults is obese and most adults in England are overweight. In a time when people in the UK are being told to combat their appetites, the Atkins? Diet is taking the country by storm as the weight-loss quick fix used by the stars. But what is it, and how does it differ from the classic dieting fads that have existed for so long?
Say ?diet? to someone ten years ago and images are conjured up of miserable individuals living on ?Slim- Fast? and waddling along to their community ?Weight Watchers? group for a communal weigh?in, only to be told that big beef steak on the weekend was a big mistake and the pounds are back on. Yet those days are gone. Within the past five years, a revolution in the image of dieting has taken place. Instead of numbercrunching over calorie counts, people are now finding a diet where ?all you can eat? is actually a possibility. It all stems from one man, Dr Robert Atkins.

Atkins graduated in 1951 from the University of Michigan, and later received his medical degree at the Cornell Medical Centre. Specialising in cardiology, it wasn?t until 1972 that his first foray into the dieting world came, with his new book Dr Atkins? Diet Revolutioncausing much controversy. His advice, to cut out carbohydrate from the diet completely, was criticised by many in the medical field. Eventually, the furore died down and the ?revolution? was forgotten.

Over 20 years later, Atkins found enough support for his theories to enable the re?release of his book, this time as Dr Atkins? New Diet Revolution. With science being somewhat more open?minded, criticism of his regimen was subdued and clinical examination of its potential undertaken. Within no time the word was out: finally an alternative to lettuce leaves and Linda McCartney. By the 21st century it was being trumpeted by the media as the fashionable way to fast, with prominent celebrities such as Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston amongst the disciples. Figures from the Atkins Centre for Complementary Medicine claim that over 20 million people around the world have tried it. Everyone?s doing it. So how does it actually work?

Initially, the user restricts carbohydrate consumption to 20 grams each day, obtaining carbohydrate primarily from salad and other nonstarchy vegetables. After several week?s period of weight loss, carbohydrate is added in the form of nutrient- dense and carbohydrate rich food, by increasing to 25 grams daily the first week, 30 grams daily the next week and so on until weight loss stops. Five grams of carbohydrate are then subtracted from the daily intake so that sustained weight loss is continued. When the desired weight loss has been achieved, carbohydrate is gradually added until the transition from weight loss to maintenance has been made. It sounds simple enough ? where?s the catch?

Maxine Power, 32, of Dulwich, London, tried the diet for 3 months. ?I was attracted by the idea of being able to eat as much as I wanted?, she says. ?Previously, I?d always been left feeling hungry by other diets, but in this one where nagging desire to snack wasn?t a problem. After 2 months I?d lost 12 pounds ? much more than I?d ever managed to keep down before.? But it wasn?t all easy, ?It was pretty tough cutting out all the carb.? However, the real test came a few weeks later. Maxine found herself tired and lethargic and eventually consulted her GP, who informed her that she was deficient T s e v e r a l key minerals. The diet would have to go.

Mineral deficiencies aren?t the only problem resulting from Atkins? Diet. One consequence of cutting out carbohydrates is that many people fill up on meat instead. Bad idea: meat tends to be higher in protein than carbohydrates of the same weight, resulting in excessive protein intake for some Atkins? devotees. The result: many people are overloading their kidneys, with potentially dangerous consequences. One 11-year U.S study showed that in female patients who already suffer from mild kidney disease, those who ate a diet high in meat proteins were at significantly greater risk of renal failure. Elizabeth Ward, of the British Kidney Patient Association (BKPA) recommended that ?people who are thinking of trying one of these diets should go to their GP for a urine test which would pick up 90% of problems?.

However, scientists are in disagreement over the dangers of the Atkins? Diet. The Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for all the Government's nutritional guidance, published a statement in September alerting the public to the health risks of low?carbohydrate diets, including the Atkins? Diet, claiming that they are linked to heart disease, cancer and even obesity. However they notably ignored the qualms over kidney damage, a snub for BKPA and a sign that not enough research has been done to allay fears and advise people over possible risks.

So should we aim for Atkins or live with the lettuce? Dr Gavin Hughes, an Oxfordshire GP, recommends balance, ?The key to weight loss is moderation. Eat each food group in modest amounts without bingeing on high protein or fat products but reducing your intake of simple carbohydrates. As always, fruit and green vegetables are a safe choice. Just find the regime that suits you and balance it with exercise and a healthy lifestyle and you?ll do well?. Just what you?ve always known

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Wingznut

The committee advocates a strict vegetarian diet...

Ummm, hello! They are a bunch of vegetarians. Of course they don't like the low carb plans.

You do know that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, right?

And I used to eat meat all the time, just because I am a vegetarian, doesn't mean it is the reason I dislike low-carb plans. I dislike it because the only people who are known to eat that much meat, or mostly meat are the inuits, and they suffer from many health problems related to that over ingestion of protein.

Aren't a lot of the intuit health problems related to their intake of fish and other marine animals, which are now unfortunately saturated with various heavy metals, etc.?

I could be wrong on this, but recall reading it in a journal somewhere.

Here's a link: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/profiles/hilites/2001/inuit.htm

It supports your argument to some extent (that vegetarianism can be more healthy), but not the link(s) you can draw between yourself and the inuit. The situations aren't necessarily applicable unless you are basing a majority of your intake on PCB-laden marine foods.

Rob

Alright then, marine-foods aside. This link may help, but I don't support its claims entirely, I just found it quickly.

 

[eakers]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Don't eat bread... a food product that humans have been eating.......... since the dawn of time.

HAHA!
i was thinking about this rant too!!

 

[SuperTool]

Two people died. OMG, stop the presses. How many obese people died in the same amount of time who could have been saved if they lost weight with Atkins or otherwise?
How many people died of heart attack beacause their heart couldn't pump hard enough for their obese body.
Let's look at this so called medical group for a second
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activistcash/bio_detail.cfm?BIO_ID=455

Neal Barnard

Background
A psychiatrist by training, Neal Barnard has made a name for himself in animal-rights circles since 1985, when he founded the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an animal rights group dressed up as a medical association. In 2003, he was nominated for the ?Animal Rights Hall of Fame.?

Barnard grew up in North Dakota in a family that included two doctors and four cattle ranchers. He actually worked at a local McDonald?s during high school. According to a now-defunct publication called the Animal Rights Reporter: ?Barnard says that his involvement in animal rights results from a rescue of a lab rodent that became a pet and companion to him.?

Barnard has written several books on the subject of nutrition -- all of them condemning meat and dairy. He is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? medical advisor, and is president of the Foundation to Support Animal Protection (now doing business as ?The PETA Foundation?), a legal entity that allows PETA to funnel money to PCRM. In 1995, Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People News, wrote that Barnard and PETA president Ingrid Newkirk ?have lived together for many years? and are ?lovers.?


Quotes
"Meat consumption is just as dangerous to public health as tobacco use ? It?s time we looked into holding the meat producers and fast-food outlets legally accountable."
- PCRM press release, "Physicians Advise Feds to Go After 'Big Meat' Next" (September 23, 1999)

"If beef is your idea of ?real food for real people,? you?d better live real close to a real good hospital."
- The Buffalo News (December 1, 1995)

"To give a child animal products is a form of child abuse."
- from his book, Food For Life

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Wingznut

The committee advocates a strict vegetarian diet...

Ummm, hello! They are a bunch of vegetarians. Of course they don't like the low carb plans.

You do know that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, right?

And I used to eat meat all the time, just because I am a vegetarian, doesn't mean it is the reason I dislike low-carb plans. I dislike it because the only people who are known to eat that much meat, or mostly meat are the inuits, and they suffer from many health problems related to that over ingestion of protein.

Aren't a lot of the intuit health problems related to their intake of fish and other marine animals, which are now unfortunately saturated with various heavy metals, etc.?

I could be wrong on this, but recall reading it in a journal somewhere.

Here's a link: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/profiles/hilites/2001/inuit.htm

It supports your argument to some extent (that vegetarianism can be more healthy), but not the link(s) you can draw between yourself and the inuit. The situations aren't necessarily applicable unless you are basing a majority of your intake on PCB-laden marine foods.

Rob

Alright then, marine-foods aside. This link may help, but I don't support its claims entirely, I just found it quickly.

Beyond the individual claims of Dr. Paavo Airola, I'm not sure that it really addresses the question of how much protein we "really" need. I can say, without any uncertainty, that I feel better as a meat-eater than I did as a vegetarian, all other things being reasonably equal. Eating more protein, but the same quantity of vegetables, has allowed me to eat less carbohydrates, which I admit, as a diabetic, is valuable. The same can be said for my g/f, who has been much happier on BFL than she was as a vegetarian.

To each his own, though, and I'm glad vegatarianism has been working for you. Six years of tofurkey was enough for me.

Rob

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Wingznut

The committee advocates a strict vegetarian diet...

Ummm, hello! They are a bunch of vegetarians. Of course they don't like the low carb plans.

You do know that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, right?

And I used to eat meat all the time, just because I am a vegetarian, doesn't mean it is the reason I dislike low-carb plans. I dislike it because the only people who are known to eat that much meat, or mostly meat are the inuits, and they suffer from many health problems related to that over ingestion of protein.

Aren't a lot of the intuit health problems related to their intake of fish and other marine animals, which are now unfortunately saturated with various heavy metals, etc.?

I could be wrong on this, but recall reading it in a journal somewhere.

Here's a link: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/profiles/hilites/2001/inuit.htm

It supports your argument to some extent (that vegetarianism can be more healthy), but not the link(s) you can draw between yourself and the inuit. The situations aren't necessarily applicable unless you are basing a majority of your intake on PCB-laden marine foods.

Rob

Alright then, marine-foods aside. This link may help, but I don't support its claims entirely, I just found it quickly.

Beyond the individual claims of Dr. Paavo Airola, I'm not sure that it really addresses the question of how much protein we "really" need. I can say, without any uncertainty, that I feel better as a meat-eater than I did as a vegetarian, all other things being reasonably equal. Eating more protein, but the same quantity of vegetables, has allowed me to eat less carbohydrates, which I admit, as a diabetic, is valuable. The same can be said for my g/f, who has been much happier on BFL than she was as a vegetarian.

To each his own, though, and I'm glad vegatarianism has been working for you. Six years of tofurkey was enough for me.

Rob

True, I guess it is hard to know exactly how much we need, but in countries such as China where most of the protein they consume comes from plants/vegetables, their cancer and heat disease rates are much lower than ours. The fascination with meat started back when the more you had the better off you were, and now that we can buy it at the store nicely prepackaged, we think nothing of consuming as much as we want.

Good link.
another one.
One more.

 

[RossMAN]

I wouldn't last a month with no bread/pasta

 

[Legendary]

Originally posted by: RossMAN
I wouldn't last a month with no bread/pasta

Me neither RossMAN.
I would, however, gladly adhere to the meat aspect of Atkins.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: SammySon

Quote

Originally posted by: X-Man
Of course if I had sued McDonald's for making me fat, you guys would be blasting me. So I get on a diet and lose weight and get blasted too. I love the way this works.

The reaction these threads always get just blow me away. When I get my cholesterol tests back I'll be sure to post the before and after.
I posted my before and (much improved) after results... It didn't matter.

The fact of the matter is that many people around here are rather immature and like to knock people who enjoy success, no matter what the context is. Just look at many of the threads in OT... Many carry the same theme.

I have yet to run into a single person in my real life who has knocked what I've accomplished using the Atkins method.

I'm personally not blasting him at all. In fact, I hope it helps him get to his target weight so then a normal health lifestyle can take over from there.
I know quite a few people who use the Atkin's diet off and on.
It works great for them and for what they need. I'm sure it does the same for x-man, and he has every right to it.

Though, the people I know do not subscribe to the fallacy that the atkin's diet is a permanent solution. I'm not assuming X-man is either, but It could be implied from this post, and previous.
Once atkin's get's you to where you want to be, you should then set into a normal balanced diet, with exercise.

Not to be condescending, or rude or anything but, if the atkin's users would have maintained a healthy diet and exercised the whole way through they would not have to rely on a new fad quick fixing diet to bring them back to normal.

Bolded for emphasis, because Congratulations! You just basically described the Maintenance phase of the Atkins diet! Nobody bothers to look past the Induction or Ongoing Weight Loss phases. All they hear is, "Pounds of meat a day!" and they think you do that for life.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: SammySon

Quote

Originally posted by: X-Man
Of course if I had sued McDonald's for making me fat, you guys would be blasting me. So I get on a diet and lose weight and get blasted too. I love the way this works.

The reaction these threads always get just blow me away. When I get my cholesterol tests back I'll be sure to post the before and after.
I posted my before and (much improved) after results... It didn't matter.

The fact of the matter is that many people around here are rather immature and like to knock people who enjoy success, no matter what the context is. Just look at many of the threads in OT... Many carry the same theme.

I have yet to run into a single person in my real life who has knocked what I've accomplished using the Atkins method.

I'm personally not blasting him at all. In fact, I hope it helps him get to his target weight so then a normal health lifestyle can take over from there.
I know quite a few people who use the Atkin's diet off and on.
It works great for them and for what they need. I'm sure it does the same for x-man, and he has every right to it.

Though, the people I know do not subscribe to the fallacy that the atkin's diet is a permanent solution. I'm not assuming X-man is either, but It could be implied from this post, and previous.
Once atkin's get's you to where you want to be, you should then set into a normal balanced diet, with exercise.

Not to be condescending, or rude or anything but, if the atkin's users would have maintained a healthy diet and exercised the whole way through they would not have to rely on a new fad quick fixing diet to bring them back to normal.

Bolded for emphasis, because Congratulations! You just basically described the Maintenance phase of the Atkins diet! Nobody bothers to look past the Induction or Ongoing Weight Loss phases. All they hear is, "Pounds of meat a day!" and they think you do that for life.

But my point is..there is no need to do it. You don't need a phase per'se. Start a diet that you can do for a long, I mean long, period of time. A change in your lifestyle, and begin exercising. If you can't lose weight that way, you either have a glandular problem, lack willpower, or there is no hope for you.

 

[Triumph]

Why do it at all? Because it's easier to lose weight and easier to stay on it. Losing weight quickly motivates you to stay on the plan, and it is very goal oriented, with specific milestones to shoot for. I've found it to be much easier to avoid certain foods, because I used to have the, "Oh, one little piece isn't going to hurt" mentality. Now, realizing that all those little divulgements are what hurt you, and having clear goals to shoot for, I'm finding it much easier to stick with it.

I guess you could argue about willpower, and I think I'd be inclined to agree with you. We all have our weaknesses, though. Lots of people are alcoholics, but I seem to be naturally averse to alcoholism. I have no attraction to getting drunk all the time, or even once in a great while. But man, do I love to eat. I love breads, pasta, donuts, sandwiches, bagels, you name it. That's my weakness, and I have to deal with it.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Wingznut

The committee advocates a strict vegetarian diet...

Ummm, hello! They are a bunch of vegetarians. Of course they don't like the low carb plans.

You do know that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, right?

And I used to eat meat all the time, just because I am a vegetarian, doesn't mean it is the reason I dislike low-carb plans. I dislike it because the only people who are known to eat that much meat, or mostly meat are the inuits, and they suffer from many health problems related to that over ingestion of protein.

Aren't a lot of the intuit health problems related to their intake of fish and other marine animals, which are now unfortunately saturated with various heavy metals, etc.?

I could be wrong on this, but recall reading it in a journal somewhere.

Here's a link: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/profiles/hilites/2001/inuit.htm

It supports your argument to some extent (that vegetarianism can be more healthy), but not the link(s) you can draw between yourself and the inuit. The situations aren't necessarily applicable unless you are basing a majority of your intake on PCB-laden marine foods.

Rob

Alright then, marine-foods aside. This link may help, but I don't support its claims entirely, I just found it quickly.

Beyond the individual claims of Dr. Paavo Airola, I'm not sure that it really addresses the question of how much protein we "really" need. I can say, without any uncertainty, that I feel better as a meat-eater than I did as a vegetarian, all other things being reasonably equal. Eating more protein, but the same quantity of vegetables, has allowed me to eat less carbohydrates, which I admit, as a diabetic, is valuable. The same can be said for my g/f, who has been much happier on BFL than she was as a vegetarian.

To each his own, though, and I'm glad vegatarianism has been working for you. Six years of tofurkey was enough for me.

Rob

True, I guess it is hard to know exactly how much we need, but in countries such as China where most of the protein they consume comes from plants/vegetables, their cancer and heat disease rates are much lower than ours. The fascination with meat started back when the more you had the better off you were, and now that we can buy it at the store nicely prepackaged, we think nothing of consuming as much as we want.

Good link.
another one.
One more.

In the first link, I fail to see the direct causal link between meat consumption and the diseases mentioned; it seems more likely to me to be correlative at best. Again, the research was done by the PCRM, so I have to take that with a grain of salt.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12868158&dopt=Abstract

In the latest Dutch national food consumption survey (1998) just over 1% of subjects (about 150,000 persons) claimed to be vegetarians; however, a much larger group (6% or approximately 1 million persons) ate meat < or = once a week. Vegetarianism can be subdivided into lacto-vegetarianism (a diet without meat and fish) and veganism (a diet without any animal foods whatsoever, including dairy products and eggs). A recent meta-analysis showed that vegetarians had a lower mortality from ischaemic heart disease than omniovorous subjects; however, cancer mortality and total mortality did not differ.

Controlling for confounding variables in such studies, I would think, would be rather difficult. As the same study shows:

In other words, a prudent, omnivorous diet with moderate amounts of animal products, in which red meat is partly replaced by white meat and fish (especially fatty fish), together with the consumption of ample amounts of unrefined vegetable products, is thought to be just as protective as a vegetarian diet.

Anyway, I think that anything (besides cyanide, perhaps), in moderation, can be OK. You don't seem to be militant, so I won't beleaguer the point, but I've seen little evidence that would sway me one way or another. In the end, I like the taste of steak (and eat it rarely, usually accompanied by exercise), so I'm ok.

Rob

 

[jeremy806]

Ummm... weight loss simply means that you burn more calories than you consume. Since most people consume a lot of carbohydrates, Atkins causes most people to lose weight.

Jeremy806

 

[Geekbabe]

That is a lot of weight to lose you should be proud of yourself Dan

 

[lvl3]

Exactly jeremy.

I'm getting so tired of hearing people praise the atkins diet when the same people don't understand anything about nutrition or how the human body works. Secondly, if you refer to the atkins diet as "I went on the atkins diet"... then your mindset simply implies that you intend to go off the atkins diet... and since you don't understand nutrition or your body, you will just gain the weight right back.

You are better off to simply realize what a schmuck you are... stop buying crappy food, eat proper porportions, AND YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT. If you think that is bs, then you need a nobel prize for figuring out how the human body can sustain or increase weight without neutral or excessive fuel.

I'm not saying that people aren't losing weight on the atkins diet. I'm sure people are. But it's because of a decreased calorie intake... and nothing else. The same can be achieved on any type of food selection. You could eat nothing but ice cream all day and lose weight as long as your calorie intake was low enough.

 

[jobberd]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Don't eat bread... a food product that humans have been eating.......... since the dawn of time.

<scratches head>

Hunter-gathering cavemen ate bread?

Let me get this straight.. you are arguing with me that bread isn't a centuries old food that has miles of supporting evidence that it was baked by early man to defend your fad diet that might work but is one of the most unhealthy life choices that you can do to yourself. Cut out fruits, veggies, and bread in place of................a huge hunk of charred flesh. Dieting should be a life change, not a fad diet that millions of people blindly follow because it yields results. I can cut my arm off to solve the fact that it has cancer on it, but it doesn't make sense does it. If you want to be healthy, diet, exercise, and eat natural foods.


Edit: I am happy for your accomplishments, it's great that you're on your way, but you really should consider doing something else with your diet, because it's honestly not healthy to cut out those foods in place of fatty foods. I am also not really wanting to get into a giant Atkins debate, because it's a tired old argument that has no winners.

Hahahahah what a moron that was definitely one of the more stupid posts ive read recently

 

[cheesewhiz]

I'd be extremely wary of a doctor that prescribed atkins. All the doctors I know speak against it like the plague every chance they get.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Wingznut

The committee advocates a strict vegetarian diet...

Ummm, hello! They are a bunch of vegetarians. Of course they don't like the low carb plans.

You do know that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, right?

And I used to eat meat all the time, just because I am a vegetarian, doesn't mean it is the reason I dislike low-carb plans. I dislike it because the only people who are known to eat that much meat, or mostly meat are the inuits, and they suffer from many health problems related to that over ingestion of protein.

Aren't a lot of the intuit health problems related to their intake of fish and other marine animals, which are now unfortunately saturated with various heavy metals, etc.?

I could be wrong on this, but recall reading it in a journal somewhere.

Here's a link: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/profiles/hilites/2001/inuit.htm

It supports your argument to some extent (that vegetarianism can be more healthy), but not the link(s) you can draw between yourself and the inuit. The situations aren't necessarily applicable unless you are basing a majority of your intake on PCB-laden marine foods.

Rob

Alright then, marine-foods aside. This link may help, but I don't support its claims entirely, I just found it quickly.

Beyond the individual claims of Dr. Paavo Airola, I'm not sure that it really addresses the question of how much protein we "really" need. I can say, without any uncertainty, that I feel better as a meat-eater than I did as a vegetarian, all other things being reasonably equal. Eating more protein, but the same quantity of vegetables, has allowed me to eat less carbohydrates, which I admit, as a diabetic, is valuable. The same can be said for my g/f, who has been much happier on BFL than she was as a vegetarian.

To each his own, though, and I'm glad vegatarianism has been working for you. Six years of tofurkey was enough for me.

Rob

True, I guess it is hard to know exactly how much we need, but in countries such as China where most of the protein they consume comes from plants/vegetables, their cancer and heat disease rates are much lower than ours. The fascination with meat started back when the more you had the better off you were, and now that we can buy it at the store nicely prepackaged, we think nothing of consuming as much as we want.

Good link.
another one.
One more.

In the first link, I fail to see the direct causal link between meat consumption and the diseases mentioned; it seems more likely to me to be correlative at best. Again, the research was done by the PCRM, so I have to take that with a grain of salt.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12868158&dopt=Abstract

In the latest Dutch national food consumption survey (1998) just over 1% of subjects (about 150,000 persons) claimed to be vegetarians; however, a much larger group (6% or approximately 1 million persons) ate meat < or = once a week. Vegetarianism can be subdivided into lacto-vegetarianism (a diet without meat and fish) and veganism (a diet without any animal foods whatsoever, including dairy products and eggs). A recent meta-analysis showed that vegetarians had a lower mortality from ischaemic heart disease than omniovorous subjects; however, cancer mortality and total mortality did not differ.

Controlling for confounding variables in such studies, I would think, would be rather difficult. As the same study shows:

In other words, a prudent, omnivorous diet with moderate amounts of animal products, in which red meat is partly replaced by white meat and fish (especially fatty fish), together with the consumption of ample amounts of unrefined vegetable products, is thought to be just as protective as a vegetarian diet.

Anyway, I think that anything (besides cyanide, perhaps), in moderation, can be OK. You don't seem to be militant, so I won't beleaguer the point, but I've seen little evidence that would sway me one way or another. In the end, I like the taste of steak (and eat it rarely, usually accompanied by exercise), so I'm ok.

Rob

Nah, I am by no means militant. Everyone who knows me would consider me a pacifist.
Here is another link you may want to check out.

Well, it may be hard for some to find, but I am certain there is a link between the cancer rates of countries and their meat consumption. Many sources support my claim.

The China Project
Diet and cancer report.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Triumph
Why do it at all? Because it's easier to lose weight and easier to stay on it. Losing weight quickly motivates you to stay on the plan, and it is very goal oriented, with specific milestones to shoot for. I've found it to be much easier to avoid certain foods, because I used to have the, "Oh, one little piece isn't going to hurt" mentality. Now, realizing that all those little divulgements are what hurt you, and having clear goals to shoot for, I'm finding it much easier to stick with it.

I guess you could argue about willpower, and I think I'd be inclined to agree with you. We all have our weaknesses, though. Lots of people are alcoholics, but I seem to be naturally averse to alcoholism. I have no attraction to getting drunk all the time, or even once in a great while. But man, do I love to eat. I love breads, pasta, donuts, sandwiches, bagels, you name it. That's my weakness, and I have to deal with it.

Yeah, but that is why it seems like such a cheat. "Ill drop 40lbs real fast! WOOO" Then they realize they can't stay on the diet for the rest of their life...etc..but I know Wingznut or someone else is gonna tell me that I don't understand the diet, and that there are phases. Still though...If you find a diet, or way of life, that you can stick with but is also healthy and allows for you to lose weight with regular exercise, then why not do it? Studies have shown, the slower you lose weight, the longer you keep it off. Most know that. There is a reason many are yo-yo dieters, because they don't change their lifestyle for good.