# Debunking Atkins **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2002, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302 "2002-12-08T14:25:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/61 "2002-12-10T22:33:14Z")
Would any Atkins bashers like to join [Susie Orbach](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149409)’s campaign? ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/62 "2002-12-10T22:40:55Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\* > You got a cite for the politically motivated “eggs will kill you” debacle? I don’t recall any such._\* > > Of course, I’m not Lib, but I will say that a variation of the ‘eggs will kill you’ conventional wisdom holds that saccharin is a horrific carcinogen, despite the fact that studies have long since debunked that notion…yet the warnings remain on the products that use saccharin. Politics? Bad science? I’m not sure. > > \*\*The issues are 1. Why does the diet work _(answer: lowered caloric intake and initial water loss)_ \*\* > > As noted before, the intial weight loss of practically any new dieting attempt is going to be ‘water weight.’ That shouldn’t even make a difference here, should it? The real question is more like, "is weight loss (beyond ‘water weight’) _primarily_ the result of calorie restriction, or because of a metabolic change as described by Atkins? Certainly I feel that I am consuming less food while on the Atkins program, and thus usually less calories, but the reason is because I feel satisfied with less food than I did on a low fat diet. " I think in order to ‘debunk’ Atkins, you would need to do a study with at least two groups of people, one using the Atkins diet, the other a traditional low fat diet; ensure that the daily caloric intake and exercise levels are practically identical in the two groups, and measure weight loss over the course of, say, three years. Keep testing the lipids of the test subjects during this time, and compare the results. > > \*_2. Is the diet safe? (answer: not sure. There is reason to thinkg that is potentially harmful though, i.e. the ADAs warning, and the dangers of ketosis)_ > > “Not sure”…but we _are_ sure of the short-term results, right? it works to take weight off, correct? Meanwhile, the ADAs approach to nutrition has not had any kind of spectacular success in combating obesity, has it? > > What are the long term effects of obesity compared to the potential long term effects of a diet high in protein, moderate in fat, and low in carbohydrates? I can tell you that expecially in the morbidly obese, the potential benefits of spending even a few years at a significantly lower weight will be tremendous, whereas staying morbidly obese is far riskier than what _might_ become a problem 30 years down the road as a result of the diet. > > **3. Is the diet the best way to lose weight _(answer: Not a fucking chance in hell)_** > > I think it may be the best way to lose weight \*for some people. A low fat diet may be the best way to lose weight for others. \* See, you’ve got to deal with many variables when it comes to individuals; some people, for whatever reason, cannot stay on a low fat diet. They just can’t. If they can stay on a low carb diet for a longer period of time, they have a better chance of losing weight, weight that they might never have lost if they kept struggling with a low fat diet. And I would go out on a limb here and say that the benefits of getting the weight off are going to be tremendous. Exercise becomes easier, and that alone will open the door for better weight maintenence. I have yet to hear of anyone reporting serious problems after following a low carb diet; I’ve heard stories of success, and a few stories from people who just couldn’t make it work for one reason or another. > > You seem almost angry or bitter about the commercial success of the Atkins diet. Is there a particular reason for this, or am I reading too much into what you’ve been saying? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/63 "2002-12-10T22:48:26Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* **Okay, so I’m a dishonest, stupid, and uninteresting liar.[/quote[** Yeah. So? ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/64 "2002-12-10T22:50:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Would any Atkins bashers like to join [Susie Orbach](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149409)’s campaign? \*\* Do tell, what exactly are you trying to say here? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/65 "2002-12-10T23:19:10Z")
That the whole idea for this thread was Neanderthal in its conception. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/66 "2002-12-11T01:17:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*That the whole idea for this thread was Neanderthal in its conception. \*\* I may just be a humble unfrozen caveman lawyer confused and frightened by your modern world, but that’s hardly any reason to throw ethnic slanders at me. If you wish to hide your head in the sand and live in the pretend world, go right ahead. My purpose here is not to belittle attempts at weight loss. Rather it is the same as the person debunking the fraudulent faith healer. The Atkins diet is not doing what you think it does. It is not a magic bullet. In fact, you are putting yourself at risk when you place yourself in the hands of this fraud, Atkins, just as you are putting yourself at risk when you follow the advice of a faith healer and step away from prudent medical advice and hard-earned knowledge. As my cites show, you will likely regain whatever weight you lose on Atkins. Succesful people, like the ones cited in the recent USA today article, who maintain weight loss over a period of time, tend to do so because they are eating fewer calories and exercising more than they were. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/67 "2002-12-11T01:31:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cuckoorex \* > > * * * the ADAs approach to nutrition has not had any kind of spectacular success in combating obesity, has it? What are the long term effects of obesity compared to the potential long term effects of a diet high in protein, moderate in fat, and low in carbohydrates? [/quote] It’s this kind of apples-and-oranges (excuse me, Atkins fans: t-bones and lobsters) comparisons that most discredit Atkins supporters to me. First, are you suggesting that the ADA is responsible for the obesity of people _who choose not to follow its guidelines_? That’s a bizarre suggestion, if it’s what you’re saying. And if it’s not what you’re suggesting, what are you trying to say with that first sentence? Second, we shouldn’t be comparing the long term effects of obesity to the long term effects of the Atkins diet. We should be comparing the long-term effects of the Atkins diet to the long-term effects of a high-fiber, low-fat diet that empasizes eating moderate portions of a wide variety of whole foods. The current scientific evidence suggests that the whole-foods diet will prove more healthful in the long-term, but the evidence is far from conclusive; that’s why I really want to see such a study. However, even if it proves that the whole-foods diet is superior, there will be people unable or unwilling to shake their unhealthy addiction to a fatty, high-protein diet. For them, the Atkins diet may be the best choice: a fatty, high-protein, low-sugar diet is of course more healthful than a fatty, high-protein, high-sugar diet. But don’t compare Atkins to obesity. That’s a false choice for public policy, and a false choice for most people. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/68 "2002-12-11T01:32:11Z")
My quackwatch cite, which I’ll give again here: [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/lcd.html](http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/lcd.html) Cites three different studies of several thousand people **not** just the 18 person study that Libertarian mirepresented in such egregious fashion. The AMA says: > [@](#): > > The AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition [2], Consumer Reports [3], and many individual experts have warned that the unlimited intake of saturated fats under Atkins’ food plan can increase the dieter’s risk of heart disease. Last year, experts at the University of Kentucky did a computer analysis of a week’s worth of sample menus and reported: > > ``` > * The diet contained 59% fat. > * The diet provided fewer servings of grains, vegetables, and fruits than recommended by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. > * Although the diet can produce short-term weight loss, long-term use is likely to increase the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cancer [4]. > > ``` Here’s the study that Lib poh-poohs fraudulently: > [@](#): > > Another recent study was done by researchers at the Bassett Research Institute in Cooperstown, New York, who followed 18 Atkins dieters for a month. During the 2-week induction period, the dieters consumed 1,419 calories a day, compared with 2,481 calories a day before starting the diet, and lost an average of about 8 pounds. In the next phase, dieters averaged 1,500 calories a day and lost an additional 3 pounds in two weeks. Dieters in both phases cut back on carbohydrates by more than 90%, but the actual amounts of fat and protein they ate changed little. Some patients felt tired, and some were nauseated on the plan. Most indicated that they were eager to go back to their regular diet [5]. Yet another study here: > [@](#): > > Another study found that (a) 41 overweight people who followed the Atkins diet for six months lost an average of 10% of their initial body weight; (b) most lowered their blood cholesterol level by 5%; © some increased their cholesterol level; and (d) 20 subjects who continued the program had maintained their weight loss at the end of a year [6]. and yet another here: > [@](#): > > In yet another study, researchers who compile the National Weight Control Registry analyzed the diets of 2,681 members who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. Because the Atkins diet has been used for more than 30 years, the researchers reasoned that, if it worked, its followers would be well represented. However, they found that fewer than 1% of these successful people had followed a diet with less than 24% or less of their daily calories in the form of carbohydrates. The mean duration of successful weight maintenance in this low-carbohydrate group was 19 months, whereas the mean duration of dieters who consumed more than 24% of their daily calories as carbohydrates was 36 months. Because so few Atkins dieters were found in the Registry, the researchers concluded that the Atkins diet may not create the favorable “metabolic advantage” claimed for it [7]. The AMA issues this warning: > [@](#): > > The nutrition committee of the American Heart Association has issued a science advisory warning that high-protein diets have not been proven effective and pose health risks. The report covered the Atkins, Zone, Protein Power, Sugar Busters, and Stillman diets. The committee stated: > > ``` > * Such diets may produce short-term weight loss through dehydration. > * Weight loss may also occur through caloric restriction resulting from the fact that the diets are relatively unpalatable. > * The high fat content may be harmful to the cardiovascular system in the long run. > * Any improvement in blood cholesterol levels and insulin management would be due to weight loss, not the change in composition. > * A very high-protein diet is especially risky for patients with diabetes because it can speed the progression of diabetic kidney disease [8]. > > ``` Lib claims that there are 10,000,000 satisfied Atkins followers. Frankly, I consider this a lie. Atkins himself only claims 60,000 patients treated at his weight loss centers in 30 years. Maybe 10,000,000 people have bought the book. That would be a different thing than what Lib says. Lib wonders how come nobody is including Atkins dieters in the above cites. They are. They just don’t do well. Quackwatch says this about it. [quote] Although Atkins has advocated the diet for nearly 30 years and states that more than 60,000 patients treated at his center have used his diet as their primary protocol, he has never published any study in which people who used his program were monitored over a period of several years. Scorekeeping could be done simply and inexpensively by mailing an annual questionnaire and tabulating the results. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/69 "2002-12-11T02:22:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Justhink \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by tracer_ > > Wait a minute – > > > > That would mean that even those eskimos who **die** have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease than the rest of the population. (I mean, everybody dies eventually, right?) > > > > If they’re not dying of cancer or heart disease, what are they dying of? Salmonella? > > I’ll admit that these distinctions are irrelevant from that point of veiw. It’s like talking about societies and addiction, and then chiming and and saying, “Yeah, but we’re all addicted to life. Let’s go cold turkey on that, the withdraws are painful like any other addiction, but after-wards you will see the benefit of not having this addiction.”. That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. One of the reasons cancer and heart disease are so prevalent in industrialized societies is because people in industrialized societies **live so damn long**. Cancer and heart disease most often afflict the elderly, partly because they take so long to develop. If eskimos usually die of, say, pneumonia, or dysintery, or whatnot, before they **get old enough** to have a serious chance of contracting cancer or heart disease – or, for that matter, if eskimos don’t have regular check-ups, and cancer and heart disease are actually more prevalent but we don’t know about them because they aren’t diagnosed in the early stages – then that would put a serious hamper on the notion that “Eskimos have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease **because** they are carnivorous.” ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/70 "2002-12-11T03:09:45Z")
**Scylla** , First, you seem to ignore the personal statements by board members who have tried the diet. Apparently the fact that is has worked for those people doesn’t mean jack to you because you have cites. Second, you earlier claimed that the induction phase of the diet reduced calories down to 1200 a day. I pointed out that the sample menu contained 2000 calories, I read it straight from the book (Pgs 133 and 134 from the paperback version of ‘Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution’). You ignored this fact. Refute it buddy. Ah, but you can’t so that must be why you ignored it. Third, your cites have extremely small numbers. One of your cites that ‘Debunks’ Atkins claims that 20 out of 41 people kept their weight off for a year. I’d bet that %50 of people on a diet keeping the weight off for a year is a damned good percentage. At the same time the cite says that “most lowered their blood cholesterol level by 5%”. By GOD!!! Their cholestorol level went DOWN!! MY GOD!1 They are gonna die now. ☹ Last, for every cite you post I can post a counter cite. I’d do it but it would require my typing in the cites from the back of Atkins book and I don’t have the time. One chapter of Atkins book has 70, yes 70, studies listed backing up his diet. The cites run from 1969 to 2001. While you might think Atkins is a quack he surely knows more about what he is talking about than you do. Slee ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/71 "2002-12-11T03:34:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sleestak \* > \*\ ***Scylla** , > > First, you seem to ignore the personal statements by board members who have tried the diet. Apparently the fact that is has worked for those people doesn’t mean jack to you because you have cites. \*\* Well yes. Anecdotal evidence sucks. What 2,000 people do under scrutinized circumstances is more credible than an individual opinion. You also seem to be missing the fact that I’m saying the diet works. Just not for the reasons you think it does. > [@](#): > > Second, you earlier claimed that the induction phase of the diet reduced calories down to 1200 a day. I pointed out that the sample menu contained 2000 calories, I read it straight from the book (Pgs 133 and 134 from the paperback version of ‘Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution’). You ignored this fact. Refute it buddy. Ah, but you can’t so that must be why you ignored it. Not at all, the calorie reduction is well cited, and well studied. The only reason for any confusion is that the Atkins diet doesn’t restrict portions. For example somebody that eats a 3,200 calorie diet may only consume 2,200 during Atkins. The reduction though on average seems to be 1,000 calories. The average diet is about 2,200. Hence 1,200 is a good number for averages. > [@](#): > > Third, your cites have extremely small numbers. One of your cites that ‘Debunks’ Atkins claims that 20 out of 41 people kept their weight off for a year. That’s a liberal use of plural. Some of the cites have samples of several thousand. > [@](#): > > I’d bet that %50 of people on a diet keeping the weight off for a year is a damned good percentage. At the same time the cite says that “most lowered their blood cholesterol level by 5%”. By GOD!!! Their cholestorol level went DOWN!! MY GOD!1 They are gonna die now. ☹ Oh can the melodrama! Yes, those would be good successful numbers. Like I said the diet works. Cholesterol tends to drop when you lose weight even if you’re consuming butter. You will also have good success starting a diesel motor with spray starter fluid. It is generally a very bad idea, as the long term effects to the engine are significantly negative. Similarly, the effects of an unbalanced and fat intensive diet are also potentially harmful. You are putting yourself at risk by following this diet according to every credible independant medical source including the AMA and the AHA. If yo wish to be so foolish and the risk is worth it to you then that is your choice. Saying that the risk doesn’t exist though is shammery. > [@](#): > > Last, for every cite you post I can post a counter cite. I’d do it but it would require my typing in the cites from the back of Atkins book and I don’t have the time. One chapter of Atkins book has 70, yes 70, studies listed backing up his diet. The cites run from 1969 to 2001. Yes, and not one of them follows up the long-term results of Atkins’ diet centers. And, studies that do follow long-term weight loss report dismal results for the Atkins diet. If you’ve been successful with Atkins you can sign in to the National Weight loss registry. All you have to do is maintain a weight loss of 30 pounds for a year. Yet, less than 1% of those that due report a low carb diet. I’m sure you can provide cites. We’ve already seen some ridiculous ones like the duck guy. Any creationist can provide cites. The question is can you provide credible impartial cites? I’m waiting. > [@](#): > > \*\*While you might think Atkins is a quack he surely knows more about what he is talking about than you do. > > Slee \*\* Probably. That’s why he’s a fraud and a shyster. He should know better. I’m sure Atkins is fully aware of the fallacies he is perpetrating. Unlike Atkins though, I’m not making this shit up. I’m citing impartial scientists, nutiritionists, government agencies, and non-profit health organizations. I am citing credible experts who have studied the claims and find them mostly false and baseless and in direct contradiction to the evidence. Your citing a quack, and some gullible people who want to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/72 "2002-12-11T04:15:04Z")
Y’know, **Libertarian** , I wouldn’t mind seeing _independent_ long term studies, myself. Dismissive name-calling and anecdotal stories about short term weight loss(and yes, I consider 1 year to be short term) prove nothing. Of course, if anecdotal evidence is what you crave, try this: I was on the Atkins diet for a period of 4 months, and followed it religiously. After 2 weeks I lost a total of 8 pounds, then the weight losss stopped entirely. People kept telling me that I had to keep going and that after another week or two the weight loss would continue, but it never did. What _did_ happen was that after I quit the Atkins diet, I decided to go on a regular sensible diet of less food, lower coloric intact and more exercise. And I gained 20 pounds in a two week period. My doctor was angry with me that I did not tell him that I went on the diet and told me that he had seen unusual weight gains with other patients that had quit the Atkins diet, due to some sort change in body chemistry that the Atkins “diet” causes in some people. Also, people with high blood pressure should consult with their doctor before trying _any_ diet. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/73 "2002-12-11T04:45:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > \*\*the ADAs approach to nutrition has not had any kind of spectacular success in combating obesity, has it? > > What are the long term effects of obesity compared to the potential long term effects of a diet high in protein, moderate in fat, and low in carbohydrates? It’s this kind of apples-and-oranges (excuse me, Atkins fans: t-bones and lobsters) comparisons that most discredit Atkins supporters to me. First, are you suggesting that the ADA is responsible for the obesity of people _who choose not to follow its guidelines_? That’s a bizarre suggestion, if it’s what you’re saying. And if it’s not what you’re suggesting, what are you trying to say with that first sentence?\*\* I’m trying to say that the ADA’s suggestions for controlling weight through their guidelines do not seem to be producing overwhelming success in battling the obesity ‘epidemic.’ I’m not saying that the ADA’s guidelines won’t work if they are followed; what I’m saying is, if people are not willing to follow the ADA’s guidelines but they ARE willing to follow Atkins’ guidelines, and either approach will take the weight off, then the Atkins approach is more effective. I’m still not sure that I explained that correctly, but the gist of it is, MOST plans will work if people are willing to stick to it; I could come out with the Nothing But Ramen Noodles diet and if people followed my plan of four packets of Ramen Noodles a day, a few multivitamins and nothing to drink but water, they would lose weight too…but it’s not likely that many people will have the desire to stay on such a diet for very long. The Atkins approach, for many people has more long-term appeal than low fat diets. \*\*Second, we shouldn’t be comparing the long term effects of obesity to the long term effects of the Atkins diet. We should be comparing the long-term effects of the Atkins diet to the long-term effects of a high-fiber, low-fat diet that empasizes eating moderate portions of a wide variety of whole foods. The current scientific evidence suggests that the whole-foods diet will prove more healthful in the long-term, but the evidence is far from conclusive; that’s why I really want to see such a study. However, even if it proves that the whole-foods diet is superior, there will be people unable or unwilling to shake their unhealthy addiction to a fatty, high-protein diet. For them, the Atkins diet may be the best choice: a fatty, high-protein, low-sugar diet is of course more healthful than a fatty, high-protein, high-sugar diet. But don’t compare Atkins to obesity. That’s a false choice for public policy, and a false choice for most people. Daniel \*\* What I meant by that statement is this: A lot of people in America are obese, and a growing number of them are considered morbidly obese. If they’ve tried low fat diets and just can’t stick with them long enough to see significant results, and they decide to try the Atkins diet (or another low carb diet) and it works better for them, and they take off 50 or 60 pounds, then the benefit they are going to get from having a lower body weight and potentially more exercise is, in my admittedly unprofessional opinion, going to outweigh any fears of detrimental effects 20 or 30 years down the road, because if they DON’T lose the weight at all, then they very likely be at very high risk to be dead in 20 or 30 years anyway from their obesity co-morbidities. So for a morbidly obese person who has tried and failed on low fat diets but is even moderately successful on the Atkins diet, I think that the potential risks of remaining obese are worse than the potential risks of what MIGHT happen 20 or 30 years down the road from the diet itself. Ultimately, these might be moot points anyway…according to most articles I’ve read, most dieters who follow ANY kind of diet are likely to regain all of the weight they lose, and then some…with the exception of those who undergo bariatric surgery, which of course is a whole other can of worms. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/74 "2002-12-11T10:34:57Z")
Scylla quoted from Quack: > [@](#): > > Although Atkins has advocated the diet for nearly 30 years and states that more than 60,000 patients treated at his center have used his diet as their primary protocol, he has never published any study in which people who used his program were monitored over a period of several years. Dr. Atkins explained in his book why he hasn’t published. Since you’ve read it, why don’t you share his reason with us? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/75 "2002-12-11T11:17:57Z")
Hey **Scylla** - here’s an interesting non-Atkins diabetes specialist talking about [dietary fat](http://www.diabetes-normalsugars.com/readit/chapter9-2.shtml). And [carbohydrates](http://www.diabetes-normalsugars.com/readit/chapter9-3.shtml). Makes interesting reading, especially WRT insulin levels and fat storage. ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/76 "2002-12-11T12:37:36Z")
> [@](#): > > _Origionally posted by tracer:_ > That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. > > One of the reasons cancer and heart disease are so prevalent in industrialized societies is because people in industrialized societies live so damn long. Cancer and heart disease most often afflict the elderly, partly because they take so long to develop. Cancers don’t really take that long to develop. There just happen to be a number of variables within modern society which cause it to slowly develop. The one major link to the rise of cancer is the introduction of the live polio vaccine in the first 3/4 of the last century which was tainted with SV-40, known to cause cancer and a whole host of symptoms which correlate to many of the somatic disorders and anxiety disorders seen articulated so much in written record and conversation and experience in this day and age. There is no doubt that Eskimo’s were given this vaccine around that period. Even with the new ‘dead’ vaccine, SV-40 is still travelling throughout our society, spread through saliva contact. That’s not even accounting for chemically induced, genetically induced or electrically/magnetically induced cancer. People’s bodies do just up and ‘quit’ after a certain while, even if they remain free of these specific diseases of the heart or immune system to effectively combat a reasonable amount of free-radical damage to the cells. There is quite a bit of evidence that Eskimo’s (and numerous other cultures who made the same transition) didn’t have these specific preventable diseases in their populations. > [@](#): > > If eskimos usually die of, say, pneumonia, or dysintery, or whatnot, before they get old enough to have a serious chance of contracting cancer or heart disease – or, for that matter, if eskimos don’t have regular check-ups, and cancer and heart disease are actually more prevalent but we don’t know about them because they aren’t diagnosed in the early stages – then that would put a serious hamper on the notion that “Eskimos have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease because they are carnivorous.” I totally aknowledge what you’re saying here. I find that the topic is more complex than even this analysis. Hormones are made from cholestoral, so to this degree those who metabolize cholestoral more efficiently in all it’s various forms are going to have greater statstical selection for a hormone translation and maintence band-aid if something comes up. On the more extreme ends however, the problem with these individuals is that they literally cannot metabolize carbohydrates very well, and this destroys their immune system. They are however much less suscptable to heart disease - that is not disputed. Even ‘funnier’, is that their bodies don’t metabolize alcohol which makes the blood-brain phenomenon that much more of a peak experience (toxidity), and it requires them to drink more to achieve it. Any one familiar with post-death autopsies can diagnose alcoholism from the heart, because all of the arteries are as clean as a newborns. So there is also this phenomenon which skews the percentages - carnivoires are more likely to become alcoholics or sugar-holics and die of something else as a result of immune defiency. The respective biochemistry orientations have their strengths and weaknesses, carnivores have a lot of advantages but can also be ruined with the discipline of any carbohydrate diet; including vegan and such, much quicker than vegetarian becomes ruined through a carnivores diet. While the direct causes are complex, as each biochemistry has it’s own signature; a pentad here is wisely applied and effective. Raw Vegetarian (don’t boil your vegetables!) Moderate vegetarian ‘Omnivore’ Moderate Carnivore Raw Carnivore (don’t cook your meat!) These signatures literally tell you what you should or should not eat for the rest of your life. All of these food are determined by pH balance. Carnivores don’t eat oranges or kiwi for vitamin C, they eat a root vegetale like brocolli or more pH neutral fruits like berries. The entire vegetable spectrum for carnivores consists of only root vegetables and nightshades - that’s it. Not all vitamin C is created equally, as carnivores metabolize calcium carbonates of Vitamin C more efficiently than from other sources. It can mean the difference between poisoning ones self with a vitamin or surviving off of it. I find the topic interesting. My impression of the Atkins diet is that it targets about 30% of the population for optimum or reasonable optimum health for a standard lifecycle without much addiction or disease. Outside of that band and you start encroaching on biochemichal incompatabilities; not to suggest that it won’t keep lots of people alive for quite a while though; but they’ll be faced with preventable problems with regards to their health. -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![Mort\_Furd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mort\_Furd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mort_Furd)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/77 "2002-12-11T12:52:13Z")
:eek: Holy Cats! An entire Justhink post that I can read and understand and not a single reference to suicide! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/78 "2002-12-11T12:56:59Z")
However, though vaguely relevant, alas, it’s not strictly pertinent. Nor is it backed up by cites for its somewhat left-field assertions. ---
**Author:** ![Mort\_Furd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mort\_Furd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mort_Furd)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/79 "2002-12-11T13:07:40Z")
Still, it is an improvement. Sorry for the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302/80 "2002-12-11T13:14:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Nor is it backed up by cites for its somewhat left-field assertions. But it’s true! Every word of it is true! I also find it extremely relevant as weight gain either comes from fat, protien or carbohydrates. A metabolic vegetarian is going to gain weight from this program. -Justhink [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-atkins/141302.md?page=5)