Would any Atkins bashers like to join Susie Orbach’s campaign?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Okay, so I’m a dishonest, stupid, and uninteresting liar.[/quote[
Yeah. So?
Do tell, what exactly are you trying to say here?
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.
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
My quackwatch cite, which I’ll give again here:
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:
Here’s the study that Lib poh-poohs fraudulently:
Yet another study here:
and yet another here:
The AMA issues this warning:
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.
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.”
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
**
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.
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.
That’s a liberal use of plural. Some of the cites have samples of several thousand.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
Scylla quoted from Quack:
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?
Hey Scylla - here’s an interesting non-Atkins diabetes specialist talking about dietary fat. And carbohydrates. Makes interesting reading, especially WRT insulin levels and fat storage.
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.
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
:eek:
Holy Cats! An entire Justhink post that I can read and understand and not a single reference to suicide!
:eek:
However, though vaguely relevant, alas, it’s not strictly pertinent. Nor is it backed up by cites for its somewhat left-field assertions.
Still, it is an improvement.
Sorry for the hijack.
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