Libertarian, I apologize for not being clear. When I said,
I in no way meant to imply that Atkins was similar to the McDonald’s diet. Perhaps I should have said, “We need to be contrasting Atkins’ recommendations to those of other dietitians, not to McDonald’s recommendations.”
My point is that I hear Atkins folks talking a lot about how much healthier the Atkins diet is than a traditional American diet, but I don’t think that’s very relevant. Everyone knows that McDonald’s is unhealthful. We should instead be comparing it to the AHA diet.
Is that clearer? Once more, I recognize the vast differences between Atkins and McDonald’s, and in no way meant to imply otherwise.
Daniel you seem to be implying that there are no vegtables consumed in the Atkins diet.Nothing could be further from the truth. There are pages of allowable vegtables including spinach, lettuce ,tomatoes cucumbers,celery etc. The only thing that your not really getting is the high starch ones like potatoes and rice. This is not a “junk food” diet of any sort. Personally i think the “need” to eat fruits is completly overrated. The sugar in them does you more “harm” than the nutrients it contains benefits you. Would you eat a candy apple on a diet? Why not as it has all that vitamin c etc. The answer is its simply not a good tradeoff. Your vitamin c and other fruit nutrients can be replaced by tomatoes etc and suppliments and not have to expose yourself to sugars that can cause health/diet problems.
And ultra even if that was true im sure we dont know all of the nutrients in tree bark either but that doesnt mean that we are missing out on anything useful to the body by not knowing it.
?? I agree with you: nothing could be further from the truth than to say that I’m implying that there are no vegetables consumed in the Atkins diet. I neither said nor implied any such thing.
I’m well aware that the Atkins diet allows limited consumption of vegetables and even more limited consumption of fruit (and drastically limited consumption of whole grains). Where Atkins departs from mainstream dietary guidelines, as we all know, is that Atkins limits the dieter’s intake of fresh fruit and vegetables and whole grains. The AHA dietary recommendations do not do so, except inasmuch as they advise a moderate total intake of calories.
Libertarian, I just realized that you may have been picking on this part of my post:
I should say that I’m guessing about the content of the study in question: I’m guessing that it compares the AHA diet to a diet rich in sugars and other simple carbs and poor in vegetables and fruit. If I am correct, it is only tangentially related to the Atkins diet because, while the Atkins diet is poor in fruits and vegetables (compared to the AHA diet, and similar to what I’m calling the McDonald’s diet), it is not rich in sugars and other simple carbohydrates. By calling it “tangentially related,” I’m saying that it doesn’t really compare Atkins to AHA, which is an agreement with your position.
The labels just list the nutrients that we know are important. There’s no disclaimer stating that there might be other nutrients because no one’s going to sue for that.
And the tree bark comparison isn’t relevant: there’s a lot of evidence that fruits are good for you, and not much for tree bark.
ultra true but the evidence of fruits being good for you is credited to the nutrients that we know are in them. Noone is saying apples are good for you but damned if we know why must be some secret super ingredient we havnt discovered yet.
jonpluc, if you’re saying that we credit known nutrients for all the health benefits of fresh fruits, you’re wrong. From The American Dietetic Association’s position paper on phytochemicals:
The full position paper states repeatedly that phytochemicals “may provide additional health benefits,” that they “are actively being investigated for their health-promoting potential,” that “[s]cientific evidence is accumulating to support the role of phytochemicals and functional foods in the prevention and treatment of disease,” that “there is also a need for further investigation of these substances for potential health benefits and possible health risks.”
So no, we don’t know all the beneficial (or harmful) components of fruits and vegetables. We’re still investigating.
At least this isn’t as flawed an analogy as treebark. Excellent point, jonpluc. Next time someone suggests that you add more chocolate cake to your diet, you can point out that there’s no suggested health benefit to doing so.
Are you being deliberately obfuscatory? Do you really not understand the nutritional differences between chocolate cake and fresh fruits?
This whole set of analogies has gotta go, because they’re simply not in line with current nutritional science.
Fair nuff but since i assume these chemicals are also present in the multitude of vegtables that Atkins alolows ill consider myself covered in these areas. The real issue was the concept of tradeoff. The benefits of the mystery vitamins do not seem to outweigh the damage of fructose to my system. A reasonable substitution such as tomatoes is a good substitute. I cant change my eating habits because there may or may not be a good bad or indiffrent vitamin that we havnt even discovered yet in a food. Again if you take the healthiest item on the planet and roll it in flour and deep fry it, mystery vitamin content becomes irrelevant to me. I view fruits as natures “deep frying” proceses. It took a perfectly good source of vitamins etc and ruined its benefits to me by adding metabolic poision that will make me fat and all the other well documented ill effects of overweight.
jonpluc, you can assume all you like, but once you start assuming you understand the presence of phytochemicals better than cutting-edge nutritionists (now there’s a phrase you’ll never see in Wired), you’ve gone to the same “gut feeling” level of discourse that you criticize in Atheria.
Fructose is clearly not a poison when eaten in moderation, unless you’ve redefined the word “poison” past all recognition. I’d love to see examples of people who’ve grown obese eating a moderate, varied diet rich in fresh fruit and vegetables and complex carbohydrates and moderate to poor in protein and fat. Such a diet would follow the AHA’s guidelines. The “varied” part of the diet is important because, frankly, we don’t understand all the components of food right now, and we’re still discovering new nutrients and chemicals.
Again, however, if you want to work on gut feeling, more power to ya. Just recognize that your gut and modern nutritional science are at loggerheads.
When i call fructose a poision i mean it in a very specific way. Atkins says that many people who suffer from being overweight are unable to process carbs in the same normal way that others can. Some call it “metabolism” or whatever. In essence its almost an allergy in that your body has a negative reaction <excessive fat buildup> to it that causes long term harm. Peanuts arnt poisions per se but to people that are allergic to them its a deadly poision. So i assert that to people with this carb intolerance it is indeed a poision.
Well, I’m still not sold. (And even if I were, I wouldn’t try it, because I don’t really need to lose weight-I just need to eat healthier and exercise more so I’d have more energy and muscle tone).
I mean, for every person here who states that Atkins really worked for them, there are also people who had horrible problems with it. And the idea of taking advantage of ketosis-which is a process the body starts when it’s starving…I dunno.
Daniel i was wondering if you were being deliberatly obfuscatory. I started out by saying i could substitute other foods for the generally excepted benefits of fruits. IE using known vitamins and such and replacing them with other foods with same such known vitamins. Then you critisise that plan by bringing up some mystery vitamins that i may or may not be replacing or benefiting from. I then try to bring up the point that that can be basically said for any or all foods and you basically go back to a circular arguement of well we all know the benefits of apples vs cake.Since you have repeatedly stated that we dont know all the benefits and liabilities of our food you DONT know. And if your going to pishaw that and say everyone just KNOWS apples are better than cake then you are going against your own arguement. If your saying a reasonable analisis with the data at this time says that apples are better than cake then i come back to my original point that says due to the analysis of the data we have on hand now i can sucessfully replace lost nutrients from apples with other food alternatives.
