From Atkins’ website:
So, you add fruit after the two-weeks induction period and add more carbohydrate-rich fruits and veggies. I understand that each fruit provides is rich in one or two essential nutrients, and that those nutrients can be found in other vegetables. So, I am still asking the same question what is wrong with this?
I must be missing something: Scylla and I have both described many, many times throughout this thread what’s wrong with the Atkin’s diet. Do you object to specific points we raised?
Daniel
Dalmuti wrote:
How many hours a week does he practice medicine?
Lib, I’ve been trying to reach him on my red plastic Ornishphone, but there’s no answer. I’ll guess I’ll have to go to the roof and shine the broccoli-shaped OrnishSignal in the sky. When I finally get a hold of him, I’ll let you know.
In the meantime, you can read a short biography here and here and here, though they all say pretty much the same thing.
On the contrary, how many hours a week does Atkins practice? (Not counting all of the time he spends getting angioplasty.)
So, in conclusion, there is no science to support the claims of the Atkins diet, and indeed there are many objections and concerns.
It’s interesting that the one guy who’s been on the diet for three years in the USA today article has been exercising regularly while he was on the diet.
This jibes with my experience as well.
The term “diet” is really a misleading concept if one is trying to lose weight.
Dieting without exercise is like trying to drive a car without tires.
The most important thing you can do to insure the success of a weight loss program is to exercise regularly.
The fact is that if you don’t it probably won’t work, and if it does the results will be temporary.
Back in 1999 I lost 50 pounds and kept it off by doing two things.
I stopped eating all junk and fast food, and tried to eat basic foods. My guideline was that if it wasn’t something a caveman would be able to eat, I wouldn’t eat it either. Fresh fruit, vegetable, whole grain bread, fresh meat. I didn’t fry anything (except stir-fry and I used Pam instead of oil.) I avoid packaged and processed foods, and tried to take my food in the raw.
I started running. Back then I was at 20 miles a week. Now I’m at 50. By running 25 minutes a day, I burned around 2,500 calories per week extra, based on my weight.
That’s like cutting a whole day out of your diet.
The health benefits and the results were dramatic, and long-lasting.
If you don’t think it works, go hang out at a 10k or a marathon. Ask people if they used to be fat. I doubt you will find a larger instance of successful long-term weight loss than among runners.
If you can’t run, there’s always biking, climbing, whatever floats your boat.
The point is, eat intelligently and exercise, and the weight will come off. It won’t come off at first. Chances are you will gain a little bit in the first few weeks, but then it will just begin to come off slowly and surely
Why not do something intelligent and lasting, that will make you feel good and strong while you lose weight?
Why take the chance of hurting yourself with a temporary and unrealistic fad diet?
25 minutes of exercise a day is not a hardship. Stick with it for two weeks and it is likely to become the favorite part of your day.
The other thing I’ll mention is this:
Take the Scylla challenge. If you are overweight and want to lose it, make the commitment to complete a marathon. Take it seriously and visit a website on training for beginners. (if you want one let me know. There’s lots of good ones out there.) Plan it through and stick with it.
I’ll make one guarrantee. When you cross that finish line, you won’t be fat.
Dalmuti wrote:
Okay, no problem. When you do, let me know whether he’s a practicing — no, really — physician.
About 60.
Scylla wrote:
In all, Dr. Atkins lists 15 pages of studies that support his claims. I only have time to list a few from the first chapter. Besides, you’ll dismiss and ignore them anyway.
Lui, S., et al, “A Prospective Study of Dietary Glycemic Load, Carbohydrate Intake, and Risk of Coronary Heart Kisease in U.S. Women”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 71, 2000, pp. 1455-1461.
Westman, E., et al, “Effect of a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and Nutritional Supplements on Serum Lipids in Mildly Overweight Individuals”, presentation at Southern Regional Society of General Internal Medicien, February 18, 2000.
Volek, J.S., et al, “Fasting Lipoprotein and Postprandial Triacylglycerol Responses to a Low-Carbohydrate Deit Supplemented with n-3 Fatty Acids”, Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 19(3), 2000, pp. 383-391.
Nobels, F., et al, “Weight Reduction with a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate, Caloric Restricted Diet: Effects on Blood Pressure, Glucose and Insulin Levels,” Netherlands Joural of Medicine, 35(5-6), 1989, pp. 295-302.
Abbasi, F., et al, “High Carbohydrate Diets, Triglyceride Rich Lipoproteins, and Coronary Heart Disease Risk”, *American Journal of Cardiology, 86, 2000, pp. 45-48.
Morris, K., et al, “Glycemic Index, Cardiovascular Disease, and Obesity,” Nutrition Review, 50(9), 1999, pp. 273-276.
Hu, FB., et al, “Dietary Protein and Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease in Women”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70, 1999, pp. 221-227.
Jeppesen, J., et al, “Triglyceride Concentration and Ischemic Heart Disease: An Eight-Year Follow-Up in the Copenhagen Male Study”, Circulation, 97(11), 1998, pp. 1029-1036.
Reaven, G.M., et al, “Hypertension Is a Disease of Carbohydrate and Lipoprotein Metabolism”, American Journal of Medicine, 87(supplement 6A), 1989, pp. 2S-6S.
Gutierrex, M., et al, “Utility of a Short-Term 25% Carbohydrate Diet on Improving Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus”, Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 17(6), 1998, pp. 595-600.
Fujita, Y., et al, “Basal and Post-Protein Insulin and Glucagon Levels During a High and Low Carbohydrate Intake and Their Relationships to Plasma Trigycerides”, Diabetes, 24(60), 1975, pp. 552-558.
Garg, A., et al, “Comparison of Effects of High and Low Carbohydrate Diets on Plasma Lipoproteins and Insulin Sensitivity in Patients with Mild NIDDM”, Diabetes, 41(10), 1002, pp. 1278-1285.
Sondike, S., et al, “The Ketogenic Diet Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular Risk: A Randomized Controlled Trial”, Journal of Adolescent Health, 25, 2000, p. 91.
Kasper, H., et al, “Response of Body Weight to a Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet in Normal Obeses Subjects”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 26, 1973, pp. 197-204.
Yeah. They might be dead. You really shouldn’t give blanket medical advice like that. Many people, for a variety of reasons, cannot endure the running of a marathon.
Wrong again. Half wrong anyway. I can indeed dismiss them, because they are dismissable. I won’t however ignore them.
If you wish to cite these studies and quote relevant portions than we would have something to talk about. Just providing a bibliography though is totally useless.
Atkins has a wonderful list of cites on his website showing recent studies.
Before I started this thread I examined them. By and large they do not support his claims. At best, they simply don’t disprove them.
So, if you want to support your argument, why don’t you do what you’re supposed to do in GD? You’ve been around here long enough that you know how it works, so I consider your posting of a bibliography to be nothing more than playing games.
Cut the fat out of your argument. Put up or shove a cork in it, babes.
Quotes and cites from independant third parties that can be examined and discussed.
Quotes and cites.
Oh shut up. Obviously it goes without saying that people without legs shouldn’t consider “running” a marathon (though they can do the wheelchair version. Those guys cruise.)
Obviously it goes without saying that people with medical conditions or other health issues that preclude them from doing this kind of thing shouldn’t.
And, in case it’s not obvious (for the exceeding stupid out there,) I wrote this:
Any website or book about running a marathon for beginners is going to suggest that one speak to their doctor about the advisibility of beginning such a regimen. It’s going to talk about health issues, and tell you to do it safely, or not at all.
More importantly, it will tell you how.
I’m not sure how you’re getting away with keeping this Pit thread in Great Debates. 
I mean, you’re not even making a pretense at debate. Telling people to push corks up their anuses. Telling them to shut up. Demanding cites, and then declaring that you can’t be bothered to read them yourself. Posting either ignorant statements or lies about Dr. Atkins and the medical data. Railing and ranting ceaselessly…
No wonder you have failed to debunk the diet.
Why would someone want to try a ‘fad’ diet (or any other diet other than the ‘traditional’ diets that have failed them in the past)? Because for someone who is 30 years old and 450 lbs, taking off maybe 1 or 2 pounds a week, even if there are NO plateaus or setbacks, even if it’s a consistent 2 pounds a week, equals almost 2 and a half years of effort, compared to the relatively quick methods that low carb diets might acheive. Consider that there are almost ALWAYS plateaus and setbacks in weight loss efforts, and you see most morbidly obese people who are trying to lose weight give up when the look at themselves 2 years after starting the effort to find that the scale has maybe shown 30 pounds dropped (or worse, that they have yo-yoed back above their initial weight) instead of the 250 they needed to drop to get close to a normal weight. Can you honestly blame people in that position for wanting to try any and every diet that shows quick and significant results?
**
Because I’m debating. You’re just bitching (and I’m not sure I understand your use of smilie.)
Lying is not nice. It’s especially stupid when the proof of your lie is in this thread. I have made arguments and used credible cites to back them up. These cites have included nutritionists, Doctors, The AHA and others. I provided direct relevant quotations.
All you’ve done is bitch and lie.
Person. Not people. Person. Or to be more accurate, just you. I’ve told you to shut up (because you are lying.)
You have lied again. I did not tell you to put a cork in your anus. I told you to put a cork in “it,” and I was referring to your lying mouth. Any Assphasia you’re experiencing is your own dilemma.
Another lie. It’s not that I can’t be bothered to read them it’s that you’ve offered nothing to read. You’ve provided a bibliography. period.
Total bullshit. Rarely have I seen such egregious lying and whining, even from you.
Cite me one lie I’ve said about Atkins, and prove it
Just like “evolution” and “up the butt, Bob” this is one of those things where you are completely wrong but just haven’t the wit to see it.
Educate yourself.
Stop whining and bitching, act like a man and debate. Or, if you feel my behavior is innapropriate, notify a mod.
But, for the love of Jesus, cut the whiny bullshit.
You’re whole post is just a complaint of persecution.
If you think the Atkins diet is safe and effective, prove it.
If you can’t, go whine elsewhere.
Not in the least. I blame Atkins for victimizing them and taking advantage of them, and pushing a questionable regimen under false premises.
This is like watching a schizophrenic on crack.
You claim you have the book with all the quotes and cites. Open it up, hold it in front of your face, and move your eyes slowly from upper left to lower right. When you see words you don’t know, sound them out or ask someone to help you.
Cut the evasions and make an argument.
A bibliography is not an argument.
Saying “read the book again” is not an argument.
I’ll repeat the following:
My quackwatch cite, which I’ll give again here:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quacker...Topics/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:
quote: 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:
Here’s the study that Lib poh-poohs fraudulently:
quote: 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:
quote: 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:
quote: 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:
quote: 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:
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.
So the truth of the matter is that the studies to resolve this have YET TO BE DONE. The jury is still out! The studies above do not support the contention that the Atkins diet is harmful quackery. If the president of the AHA thinks Atkins is worth a second look, then JUST MAYBE it actually IS?
And, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, folks do not lose the weight on Atkins because they’re eating less calories. This just isn’t true. The old “calories in - calories” out saw does not hold up on the Atkins regimen. Something else is going on.
Poh:
My point exactly. Atkins has been purveying this diet for 30 years without having demonstrated its safety or efficacy. That’s not putting patients first. That’s irresponsible quackery.
Yes. You do keep saying that. Unfortunately, you’ve done nothing else but say it. The study you’ve cited shows a calorie reduction, (men at 1800 calories,) (women at 1200.) The study I cited from Atkins’ own website says that the ketosis and restrictive diet results in a loss of appetite, and cites the concurrent calorie reduction as the reason behind the weight loss, And Atkins agrees!
That’s pretty much straight from the horse’s mouth. What more do you want?
I’ll cite it for you:
http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2002/1/11-846989.html
Here’s from the summary:
And here’s Atkins’ commentary with my emphasisi:
Please note that this is in perfect agreement with what I wrote in my OP. I’ll quote it again for you:
From my OP:
This is also in concurrence with Dr. Liz Applegate, the three nutritionist commentaries I gave in the cites immediately following my OP, Quackwatch, and as many more independant medical cites as you would like me to produce (within reason.)
Since everybody agrees that less calories is the reason behind the Atkins’ diet working, including Atkins himself on his own website I hope you’ll reconsider your position.
Moving on:
Sure. I said it worked. It’s easier than a regular sensible diet and you get faster earlier results.
I don’t think that this is a faithful representation of what the study found. I would like to see it myself. My cites have indeed agreed that members of the Atkins diet see a significant drop in cholesterol, and this is attributed to the loss of weight. Since Atkins dieters lose weight faster (do to the starvation ketosis response) one would also expect their cholesterol and blood fats to drop faster. For example, if you go an all butter diet you will lose weight, and blood fats will drop. This will in part occur because the butter will make you sick to your stomach and you won’t eat that much. Your body will be starving for nutrients and consuming itself at a rapid weight. As fat is broken down water will be released as well. You will lose both water and fat weight more rapidly than on a tradittional diet.
You will also lose weight if you starve yourself in other ways. This doesn’t make it smart.
This is a six month study. I’ve cited and quoted others that show that some people’s cholesterol goes up, and that blood fats in general do not decrease as rapidly on the Atkins diet over a 6 month period as they do on a more traditional diet with the same amount of calories. The flaw in this study is that both groups were not consuming the same amount of calories.
Yes. Because he is a responsible Doctor and scientist. If he recieves data that shows him to be in error he will adjust his stance. In the meantime the American Heart Association has a warning out against this diet.
Atkins has not shown the same care and flexibility. He is promoting his diet and presenting claims that are not backed up by legitimate science. As your own cite shows, we don’t know if the diet is safe. Mainstream research so far indicates that it’s likely not. They have a warning against it. If mainstream science shows it to be safe and efficacious it will change its stance.
I repeat. Atkins has not bothered to prove his claims in the 30 years he has been promoting the diet. In fact, by his own writings the original diet was unsafe. He now recommends vitamin supplements as well as fish oil supplements.
These corrections came about because of mainstream science, not Atkins.
What other problems are there with this diet? What other dangers?
Oddly, there is something to be gained from Atkins’ research. As I say in the OP, 100 years ago the high fat diet was all the rage. People got fat, and issues of cholesterol and heart disease became associated with this diet. The high-carb diet then became all the rage. People still get fat, and have heart disease.
As Dr. Applegate says, neither Carbs nor fats are bad in and of themselves. It depends on what kind you are eating, and a sensible weight loss program will encompass both.
People nowadays do eat too many carbs and the wrong kind of carbs. This doesn’t mean that they should eat too many fats, though.
A balanced diet is the smart, reasonable, and safe way to go.
Try this. A drug company invents a new drug, and instead of testing it and showing it to be safe and useful they just start giving it to people. 30 years later people start to do research on the drug to see just how safe and useful it is.
That’s not wonderful. That’s dangerous fraud and quackery on the part of the drug company. So is it with Atkins.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
This is VERY BAD NEWS for people who have risked their health on the potentially dangerous unknowns of the Atkins diet.
It is especially bad news since there is no reason it should be this way.
60,000 people have been treated at Atkins’ centers. Not following up to see if it works, and if the people who have been treated are doing well is mind-numbingly irresponsible.
Quackwatch suggests, and my other cites agree that this ommission is not accidental. People tend not to maintain their weight loss in the long term on Atkins. They gain it back just like with any other fad diet.
By all means let us continue with the research that the fraudulent quack should have done 30 years ago, before he started playing games with people’s health to line his pockets.
Only a fool would put themselves on this diet (once they know the facts we’ve discussed in this thread (no offense if they’ve been unwittingly suckered into it,) until the research has been done, and the diet has been shown to be both safe and effective.
Bullshit. Energy has to come from somewhere, and it has to go somewhere.
People seem to think that this is controversial, or just conventional wisdom. It’s the first fucking law of thermodynamics! There’s absolutely no reason that it could be wrong.
Now I will grant you that maybe not all of the calories taken in are processed–some may just be shat out. But that just means that our measuring tools are off, not that physics is about to be turned over.
And a comment about the studies: there are some studies that show a favorable effect for Atkins, and some that show no effect. Can you find any that show no effect for the AHA guidelines, when followed?
Also remember, effectiveness is not the same thing as safety, which is one of the points of contention here.
I guess Lib was just here for the namecalling.
Keto > Atkins
Ummm. Bob is selling supplements.
No matter how much ECA Stack you buy and consume, you will still have to consume less calories than you are expending if you wish to lose weight.