If you’re referring to me as one of those anti-atkins vegetarians, your first statement is incorrect. You’ll note that I’ve repeatedly laid my bets with the ADA dietary guidelines, and explicitly mentioned that those guidelines include eating lean meats, fish, and poultry. I’m able to separate my ethical food choices from my nutritional ones, although I’m happy that they’re mostly compatible.
The Atkins diet does work for weight loss; I think everyone agrees on that. However, it’s simply not been studied sufficiently to tell whether it has serious health effects. I support such studies, as I’ve made clear, and specifically think they should be long-term studies that compare the Atkins diet to current nutritional guidelines.
I agree with the last statement I quoted above, and have said so repeatedly: if you’re currently porking out at McDonald’s three times a day, filling up on fries and Big Macs and white bread and Coke, everyone agrees that you’ll benefit by cutting out the fries and white bread and Coke.
I do think, however, that there’s a real question as to whether the Atkins diet’s restriction of most carbs is a good idea. If you are, as Jonpluc mentioned, comparing an Atkins diet to one rich in garlic bread (normally white bread soaked in butter) and pasta (normally white flour, often with fatty sauces), then the health benefits of Atkins might result from not eating so much simple carbohydrates and fat. I’d really be interested in seeing someone who moved from an ADA-recommended diet to an Atkins diet and benefited from doing so.
Libertarian, I confess that I’ve not understood either of your last two one-sentence posts. Wolfpack fan? Logic vacation?
Daniel- Wasn’t even aware you were a vegetarian. Perhaps it is just I notice the outspoken, shall we say, vegetarians and that I don’t notice the quieter ones.
I agree about the long term effects of the atkins diet. It’s not known, and I would love to see studies showing it either way, I hate not knowing one way or another.
If somebody is following an ADA diet (even more so combined with exercise), I don’t think they would need an atkins diet. Like I said, I would hope people would use it as a stepping stone to get to a better diet, one that is more exercise-friendly. (btw, you know bodybuilders cutting often use this 0 carb, ketone diet for quick weight loss right? you know how they get the energy to train? Stimulants alone)
The pertinent part of the Wolfpack post was the Duke reference, since the latest study, which I’ve quoted and cited, and which was generally supportive of the health benefits of the Atkins Diet, was conducted and published by physicians at Duke University.
As to the logic vacation, see the post immediately above the one where I said that.
They are helpful for energy, from what I understand they are not necessary. Though try going a few weeks without fiber. (which I do believe you get with some meats)
They give a burst of energy, but that is followed by an almost LSD like crash of lethargy. I had more energy after one day on Atkins than I’d had in years.
Libertarian, it’s unkind to dismiss something as illogical, and not state why. What provoked the “logic/vacation” post?
You can insult my logic all you want. But, you can in no way call me overweight, obese, unhealthy, or unfit. So I must be doing something right, regardless of where logic is. Wouldn’t you agree?
Personally, I would call it illogical to ever let my body get to the point where I felt the need to go on a diet. Where was logic during the months/years/decades before you went on the Atkins diet?
Lib, I asked 3 questions in my last post, and you answered none of them.
And as for your last post, are you saying you became overweight and hopped on the Atkins train because you were armed with logic, yet lacked nasic nutritional information? I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at.
Excuse me, why is the onus upon me to answer your questions? I “hopped on the Atkins train” after gathering information, and then using logic to process it.
Lib, you insulted my logic. As this isn’t the Pit, it’s would be polite for you to answer my question of “whay did you call my post illogical?” If you going around making claims without backing them up, it’s just poor debate, no?
I’ll repeat the 3 questions which I specifically addressed to you:
"Libertarian, it’s unkind to dismiss something as illogical, and not state why. What provoked the “logic/vacation” post?
You can insult my logic all you want. But, you can in no way call me overweight, obese, unhealthy, or unfit. So I must be doing something right, regardless of where logic is. Wouldn’t you agree?
Personally, I would call it illogical to ever let my body get to the point where I felt the need to go on a diet. Where was logic during the months/years/decades before you went on the Atkins diet?"
In this last question, I was specifically asking where your logic was when you were in the process of becoming overweight. I don’t understand how you can feel so superior to me as to respond to my well-intentioned post with “Blargh”, and imply that you are a much more logical person than me, when you’re the one who let yourself get overweight. I’m sorry. I just don’t get it. If you’re so logical, then you shouldn’t have let yourself get overweight. Can you refute that?
Lib, I’m sorry my [keyword] advice [/keyword] about the Ornish diet didn’t sit well with you. I was simply plugging Dr. Ornish, because he doesn’t get quite as much press as his evil twin Dr. Atkins, and thought some people might be interested. You obiovusly weren’t, which is fine and well and good. But, it in no way called for a “blargh.”
The fact that Dr. Atkins has never published a paper may be a Poison Well, but it is also very, very true. You can’t prove othewise. Why doesn’t he publish papers? Because peer review would eat him alive. Why does he have to fund his own studies? The reason is more than likely because no serious medical institution wants to waste their money on it.
The Converse Accident is unfounded, because you don’t know enough about the diet, its goals, its aims, or its methods to make that call. The weight loss aspect is completely intended, though not the main focus of the program. Not at all an accident.
Argumentum ad Verecundiam? Guilty. I was trying to provide a link in case anyone wanted to read more about the Ornish Diet. Sorry it offended you.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam and Petitio Principii? I’ll give you those too. Because “rational” and “intuitive” obviously mean different things to you and I. Subscribing to the Atkins Diet is highly irrational to me, yet not to you. Eating healthy and staying in shape is intuitive to me, but seemingly not to you. Such is life.
I will restate my other two questions, a third time, for you:
Nevermind the “superior” bit, as you already cleared that up. But, please explain how a logical person lets themself become overweight. I’m curious.
Your 1st question should maybe be stated more as “what effects do bread and potatoes have that rice doesn’t?”
Someone told me that some candida diets do allow certain potato types. The diet I was on didn’t allow for them.
The rationalle I was given for the diet is that certain foods are better food for the yeast bacteria you have in your system. There is supposed to be countering bacteria that helps keep it under control, but sometimes things like taking antibiotics can kill off much of the controlling bacteria, giving the yeast bacteria a chance to get away in your body and cause grief, like achy joints. (Something that disappeared for a long time when I finished the diet.)
The high rice intake in the diet (along with some cereals), and the significant weight loss over a short period, suggests to me that a no carb diet is not the only, and necessarily best way for some people, to approach significant weight loss/control. For others, maybe no carb is the better way.
Glucose is the preferred energy source for many cells, and is absolutely necessary for red blood cells, nerve cells, retinal cells and beta cells (the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas) to function.
See also here for notes on the metabolism of fats (which is, ultimately, what is at issue with this type of diet: how the body metabolizes fats):
Also, you can read this for the biochemical processes involved in fatty acid metabolism. The important concept to note here is that your body will “make due” with what it is given. There are multiple biochemical pathways which can produce the energy cells need to function. However, one of the dangers of diets of this type (or high-carb diets, or high-anything, low-everything-else diets) is the over-reliance on one specific metabolic pathway. Yes, the body can still handle it, but only for so long.
It is the utilization of multiple pathways that is the biochemical basis for a so-called “balanced diet”. You will note here the statement is made that, “The best strategy for burning fat is a low fat diet coupled with exercise.”
I’ve explained it to you once, stating that I did not have the available information. How would explaining it to you a second time assuage your, um, curiosity?
Finch
For your information, the extremely low carb portion of Atkins applies solely to the brief introductory first phase of the diet. And the carbohydrates eliminated in that phase are nutrionless refined sugar, bleached flour, white rice, and starchy vegetables. The dieter, even in that phase, still eats salads, broccoli, bell pepper, green beans, and so forth.
By the fourth and final stage, the dieter is eating potatoes and other carbs. It might be a good idea to read the book.
Perhaps it is just I notice the outspoken, shall we say, vegetarians and that I don’t notice the quieter ones.