Now wait a minute. If I do this silly diet for 10 days and the results are counter to what you expected, you’re not going to tell me to do it for 20 more days, are you? Because I’m willing to go on the all-bacon diet for 10 days just for kicks, but 30 is not happening. For one thing, I have shoulder surgery on the 24th and I will be having a milkshake afterward, come hell or high water. 
HUH???
He is not a scientist. He is not a doctor. He is not a researcher. He is a science journalist. His book brings together the peer-reviewed research done by others.
Good grief, how hard are you people going to bend to find fault??
What’s wrong with asking for someone providing medical advice to have their theories be peer reviewed? Wouldn’t it be foolish to not ask for these things?
Exactly.
Actually 10 will suffice. As long as you don’t pop back in to say “Yeah I lost, but it was just water!” 
As usual Dio, you are way behind.
Stanford University did a major study in 2007, headed up by a nutrition researcher who is a lifelong vegetarian…Atkins was proved to be the most effective for weight loss, most effective for cholesterol, triglicerides, etc.
As I stated elsewhere in the thread where I linked to the Stanford YouTube presentation of the data, the vegetarian nutritionist called the facts a “Bitter pill to swallow”.
Do keep up.
It would be very odd to “handwave away” the very thing you are explaining in depth…
I put gas in my car, but that’s not why it runs.
We’re not talking about the Atkins diet, we’re talking about this clown, Staubes (who goes much further than Atkins), and his total lack of scientific basis for his magical weight loss claims.
None of what you stated contradicts his “findings”. As far as I know he’s never claimed that the US isn’t experiencing an obesity epidemic. He’s trying to explain why we’re experiencing said epidemic.
None of this is to say that I agree with the guy.
OK, game on. Thread here. I will start tomorrow because dinner is already in the oven for tonight and there are baked potatoes in there.
That seems rather high to me. The calculators I’m finding it have it around 1500 calories.
I’m 5’11", male, 35, 165 lbs, and 1800-2000 calories will just about sustain my weight with no further exercise.
Anyone who believes what this book is claiming is a credulous ignoramus grasping at straws to avoid personal responsibility for their own health.*
**American Journal of Public Health, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition British Journal of Nutrition, Netherlands Journal of Medicine, International Journal of Obesity, Endocrinology, An integrated Approach, Journal of The American Medical Association, Annals of internal Medicine *etc, etc, etc.
I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor. I am not a researcher. I am a science poster. My post brings together the peer-reviewed research done by others.
By the way Stoid, I’ll come out and support your points. I’ve lost a lot of weight doing low carb. I’ve gained a lot of weight back when I go off. I won’t for a minute deny that it works. But I agree it’s BORING. It’s really hard to look way into the future and say to yourself, no more bread. No more potatoes. No more popcorn. No more corn. No more rice. No more beans. No more cookies or cake or pie. I’ve been dancing around the edges of Type II for decades. Because at least you and I understand that having just a little of these things sets the insulin dump back in motion and pretty soon you’re craving more and more and more. Insulin resistance BLOWS!
Oh my god.
It’s not HIS theories. It’s the data. The research. The facts. T*hat others have already done. *
He’s REPORTING.
That’s what journalists do.
And that would be exactly why I prefer this book to the books written by ONE doctor, ONE researcher, ONE guy with a theory who has something to sell. He has brought together an enormous amount of information from all over the world, ranging from last year to decades ago, and all of it comes together to say that the SINGLE doctors and authors like Atkins and the Hellers, who were dismissed as crackpots on their own, were right all along.
When it was the one author/doctor/diet guru, you wanted him or her to be backed by scads of information from other doctors and researchers. Now you finally get all that in one place, and you want it to be one person’s theories.
Well, yeah, I guess that makes sense. Then you can dismiss him as a crackpot.
Sorry to disappoint.
I’m not finding fault with what he recommends - if you had read my last post you’d see that I was just suggesting getting a balance of information from many sources, rather than relying so heavily on one thing. But there is a world of difference between a book constructed from peer-reviewed papers that you have interpreted yourself and an actual peer-reviewed paper.
Believe me, it’s not at all uncommon for journalists to cite papers that don’t actually say what the journalists think they say. Whether they are misunderstanding or misinterpreting the information, I don’t know. But it happens. Peer-review also tends to encourage the author to admit that there is controversy about the issue - it sounds like this book is cherry-picking only the science that you want to hear.
“We”? No, Dio, you aren’t talking about anything that has actually been said at all, you’re just making nonsensical noises that clearly demonstrate your complete disconnection from anything and everything that actually has been said. Including the man’s name.
So… bye bye.
Irony, this post is it.
As I said, almost 20 pages of citations to sources. Any judgment you make based on anything other than reading it yourself is pretty hollow.
Stoid, what percentage of the human population do you estimate has the same weight-loss resistance/low metabolism that you do?