Atheria: It’s against copyright law to post the entire text of a copyrighted article, and we take that very seriously around here. You need to e-mail a moderator and ask them to remove most of the text for you.
That wasnt the sheer fun part that was the part that was proving my point. They both contain the same basic family of chemical hence the arguement can be made that chocolate can be JUST as good as the fruit or veg that also contains these.Unless you want to argue that your phytochemicals are “better”. That is assuming these obscure little known nutrients are important enough to have any large contribution to nutrition in the first place. This chocolate debate is really tangental to my real arguement but fun as an aside.
Jonpluc, what are you arguing?
- Chocolate is healthy for us – we should all eat more chocolate!
- Chocolate is just as healthy for us as fresh fruits and vegetables – we should all eat more chocolate, fresh fruits, and vegetables!
- The American Dietetic Association knows less about phytochemicals than I do – since they appear in chocolate, they’re obviously not particularly healthful!
I’m not getting your argument. If you’re just propping up a straw man, it’s over. The straw man is dead, and you’re covered in straw. If you want to make a serious argument, let’s see it. Otherwise, move on, man. move on.
Daniel
My argument is simple and my apologies if it got sidetracked. I believe from my studies of Dr Atkins and others that there are foods that many people are “alergic” to. The main allergy to obese people is to carbs and thier close chemical families.Please read my definition of alergic in one of my previous posts in this same thread. I believe that you can sufficiently substitute other foods that dont have this reaction and get sufficient and healthy nutrition. In addition this will also cause weight loss and the asociated benefits of such.
I’ll be generous and assume your apology applies to the poorly-considered and frankly bizarre chocolate cake analogy :).
That’s fine if you believe that people are “allergic” to carbohydrates. I don’t think the bulk of science supports you, but whatever.
However, the point about phytochemicals is valid. If the current research on them bears out that they have significant positive health benefits (this is what preliminary research suggests), will you simply forgo their benefits? Will you look for supplements that contain the useful phytochemicals? Will you allow carbs into your diet in order to gain phytochemicals?
I know this is a hypothetical question. Nonetheless, the promising research into the variety of phytochemicals that appear in fish oil and in a variety of plant-based foods is definitely a point in favor of a varied diet that contains a lot of different plant-based foods. Maybe not a decisive point, but in the uncertain world of nutritional science, we don’t have any decisive points currently.
Except against McDonald’s diets. Those are bad enough to sue over. 
Daniel
Daniel wrote:
And as a lifetime Wolfpack fan, I’ll put my money on Duke. 
How is one “allergic” to carbs? Merely because they cause weight gain?
That’s not an allergy.
You’ll note he says he’s “alergic” to them, not “allergic.”
I think he spells it that way for the same reason that the tasty ice-cream treats are not called “chocolate tacos.”
Daniel
[sub]okay, I’m just being mean now. I’ll quit.[/sub]
I agree its not an allergy in a traditional sence but if you define allergy as a negative and harmful bodily reaction to a substance ingested inhaled etc. Certianaly producing abnormal levels of fat for your body to remain healthy is a negative reaction in the same way getting a rash from posion ivy is a negative bodily reaction." Merely gaining weight" belittles a very serious condition killing hundreds of thousands of people a year due to obesity. In fact allergy may be too gentle of a term. But your right in the truest sence that its not being used as a dictionary defined word.
And daniel YES you are just being obnoxious now and clearly you realized it BEFORE you hit send but for some reason it didnt seem to stop you.
Oh come on! It’s still not an allergy!
People gain weight if they eat too much fried fatty, salty food and don’t get enough exercise. That would NOT constitute an allergy!
Your body is built to gain weight. Some foods it may not burn as well as others. That is NOT an allergy.
In order for you to have an allergy to carbs, you would have to be able to eat as much fat and protein as you wanted, and gain less weight than if you had eaten an equivalent amount of carbs. I’m not saying it can’t happen, but I remain skeptical.
Of course, if you gain equally from each source, we have to assume that you’re equally allergic to all macronutrients (i.e., not at all).
Speaking for my own body thats EXACTLY what happens. In fact i LOSE weight when i eat only meat and non carb vegies and sometimes quite dramatically so. Ive never lost weight just eating carbs, being italian i would load up on garlic breads and pastas etc and it simply got ugly and i had to change my way of eating. Thats the WHOLE point of the Atkins approach.
Okay, fine. But dont’ tell me you have an allergy.
Your body is built to achieve and maintain a healthy reasonable weight, NOT to gain weight.Obesity is your bodys inability to function properly in this fashion and this failure causes an often fatal disease.
Guinastasia, in fact amusingly enough NONE of the factors you listed in your last post according to Atkins cause weight gain #1 salty foods-nothing to do with weight gain unless you count a negligable level of extra water retention. #2 fried fatty foods in and of themselves are not “fattening” paradoxically. The only thing that would be bad about fried foods is if there is some “batter” that consists of carbs such as flour etc. Yes you can overcome your bodys normal weight balancing level by sucumbing it to 10 lbs of candy bars a day but the people that i term allergic are the ones that dont overeat and still seem to remain obese. The ones that insist they arnt pigging out and sneaking candy bars on the side.<im sure SOME of this is happening> but it seems to me there are 10s of MILLIONS of overweight people that ARNT eating 10 lbs of candy a day and are eating fairly normally but still have this resistance to properly processing carbs and are dangerously overweight because of it.
jon, what you seem to be missing is that Atkin’s theories are not widely accepted. You can go on and on about how it works and how conventional wisdom is wrong, but the evidence just isn’t there. Your experience is not statistically significant, and your intuition and those things that you’re just sure about are not convincing us. I’m glad that it worked for you, and more power to you if you’re keeping the weight off.
My position is this: I don’t think that Atkins is necessarily harmful. I also don’t think that it’s reasonable to deny that it works. However, I’m not convinced that it works for any reason above and beyond what happens on other diets–it’s just much more easy to sustain, that’s all. I also don’t see any evidence whatsoever that sugar, especially as found in fruit, is “metabolic poison”. If that were true, what would it imply for fruitarians?
I still maintain that the primary cause of obesity is a high-calorie diet coupled with a lack of physical activity. And I haven’t seen anything in here that even realistically suggests otherwise. It still comes in to calories in versus calories out.
I will grant this: not every calorie listed on the foods you consume is actually available for use, and the calories expended in a given activity are hard to measure. But it’s physically impossible for that equation to be invalid. Energy used has to come from somewhere, and energy consumed can’t just disappear.
Likewise, you cannot gain a pound from eating a five oz. candybar. So sugar isn’t exactly a poison that way, either.
I’m slightly contradicting myself here, but Dr. Dean Ornish is another fellow who wants you to buy his book. His diet, as well as his personal resume, appear to be much more established, more thoroughly researched, and much more respected in medical circles. (Atkins, on the other hand, has never published a paper in a respected medical journal.)
Granted, the main focus of the Ornish Diet is your heart, but weight loss and cholesterol reduction will natually be a side product of this vegetairan, whole foods diet.
Here’s the introduction to his book Eat More, Weigh Less.
Here’s a link to his Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, CA. It has a lot more information on the diet, as well as abstracts to some papers Dr. Ornish published.
As for the chocolate cake/vegetables tomfoolery above. Fruits and vegetables are the healthiest things we can possibly eat. First, it makes rational sense. It’s what humans have eaten since before we were even humans. Second, it’s just intuitive. (“Put a baby in a crib, and give it a bunny and a carrot. If it eats the bunny and plays with the carrot, I’ll buy you a new car.”)Third, it’s been scientifically proven. Take a gander at the Cornell-Oxford-China Project if you need proof.
To hop on Atheria’s train, I’ll leave you with a quote, from the article “Position of American Dietic Association on Vegetarian Diets,” from the Journal of the American Dietetic Association 97, published in 1997, pp. 1317-21.
“Studies indicate that vegetarians often have lower morbidity and mortality rates . . .Not only is mortality from coronary artery disease lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians, but vegetarian diets have also been successful in arresting coronary artery disease. Scientific data suggest positive relationships between a vegetarian diet and reduced risk for . . .obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some types of cancer.”
Best,
TGD
Blargh. Logic has taken a holiday.
Some would say logic is meaningless. 
(not myself though)
Interesting article Atheria, could you post the link to it, seems it got deleted.
I wouldn’t say bad breath and headaches is even a minor health problem. The article does not say anything about the people that suffered headaches being prone to them or not.
It seems the strongest anti-atkins dieters are vegetarians, which is no surprise. Vegetarians and vegans, in my experience, seem to have to put down and discredit any diet but their own. Not to say it doesnt happen on the other side of the fence also, but it seems to me that there are more non-vegetarians that support vegetarianism than veges that support non-vegetarianism.
While vegetarianism is a healthful diet, that is NOT to say there are not other healthy diets. Any source that suggests that, I will not accept as a reliable source.
The atkins diet seems to have no SERIOUS health effects, and it is a diet that works. How many obese individuals have tried the vegetarian diet and could not stick with it? How many have tried the low fat diet and could not stick with it. How many have tried the suggested “conventional, food pyramid” diet and have not been successful. The best way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise, but if you cannot keep a person in the gym, it doesn’t work. If people can stick to the atkins diet, and it is healthier than the diet (as in what they ate every day) they were previously on, then it is an improvement.
To say that it is not as healthy as (insert diet), then it should not be around, but if nobody can follow said diet, then it is not as healthy is it? Atkins diet is better than no diet, be there a healthier diet out there, if it does not get followed it is not of any use. Perhaps the atkins diet will be a stepping stone towards exercise, proper diet, and a healthier lifestyle. If not, it beats being obese and feeling miserable.
(but like I said before, I don’t support ketosis diet, I.e I don’t like it, but if it works, and people like it, so be it)