diet pill?

[daquix]

Re: diet pill?

I do Atkins. Nowhere in my ANDR does it say to pop carb blockers as part of premaint, or maint. Atkins is Atkins, anything else, isn't Atkins.

OK?

I do Atkins too. Carb blockers are not a diet. They are something that you can use on your diet. Like L-carnitine.

[Mirya]

Re: diet pill?

Well, i'm sorry you think that I am rude, but you tried to throw in a backwards stab at me without knowing the situation. I have a job where, energy is CRUCIAL. There have been times, where if I didn't get something in my body to give me a boost, I would have fainted. Literally.

I didn't site any medical journals because it was late and I had to get to bed and I figured I could find them the next morning. I came on here today and another poster already did the work for me. With 4 studies that showed a positive report and only 1 that showed a negative report.

Once again, I am sorry that you think I'm rude, but you took that backwards stab at me without knowing what I was going through. Last week, we had a job where I had to pick up and carry, in buckets, hundreds of logs and pieces of wood from a back corner of a 2 lot yard, carry them across the yard and put them in our truck ... for 9 hours straight. Then I had the priviledge of transfering concrete blocks and bricks from that backyard to the front. And I do this type of work, many days a week. Perhaps you could understand why I need something to give me a boost, a bit more than the average person.

What does ths have to do with taking carb blockers. It looks to me like you needed more energy. Maybe Im totally lost here but I kinda figured this was MOOT POINT.

[Chicklady]

Re: diet pill?

OK?

I do Atkins too. Carb blockers are not a diet. They are something that you can use on your diet. Like L-carnitine.

L-cartinine is in the book If one is on Atkins, isn't it logical to use his book as ones research?
I didn't say carb blockers were a diet. I said they weren't part of the Atkins diet.

[daquix]

Re: diet pill?

What does ths have to do with taking carb blockers. It looks to me like you needed more energy. Maybe Im totally lost here but I kinda figured this was MOOT POINT.

Sorry. That was a reference to another thread, that ChickLady brought up.

[daquix]

Re: diet pill?

L-cartinine is in the book If one is on Atkins, isn't it logical to use his book as ones research?

I don't disagree with you, and if you could believe me, I am a nice guy. I get riled up in discussions (I'm on my way to Law School) - its just a habit. However I have experience with this product. If a diet pill came out that would magically make you lose weight and get good health with no side affects, would you not take it because its not in the book? Maybe you wouldn't. I would.

Doesn't Dr. Atkins talk about that back in the 60's or 70's, the advancements we have now in supplements and food was not available then? We evolve and he recognized that, and he put that in the new book. If only he were alive today.

Here is a forum of some people who use it, if anyone cares.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/207766/

[Chicklady]

Re: diet pill?

I don't disagree with you, and if you could believe me, I am a nice guy. I get riled up in discussions (I'm on my way to Law School) - its just a habit. However I have experience with this product. If a diet pill came out that would magically make you lose weight and get good health with no side affects, would you not take it because its not in the book? Maybe you wouldn't. I would.

Doesn't Dr. Atkins talk about that back in the 60's or 70's, the advancements we have now in supplements and food was not available then? We evolve and he recognized that, and he put that in the new book. If only he were alive today.

No. I no longer trust any of it, thank you! Ask me 10 years ago, and probably would have said yes! Now maybe if I could look into the future and see that 50 years down the road, that supposed healthy weight loss pill hadn't caused cancer, hardened arteries, whatever......

[Chicklady]

Re: diet pill?

BTW, weren't carb blockers around before his death?

[daquix]

Re: diet pill?

No. I no longer trust any of it, thank you! Ask me 10 years ago, and probably would have said yes! Now maybe if I could look into the future and see that 50 years down the road, that supposed healthy weight loss pill hadn't caused cancer, hardened arteries, whatever......

I suspect that you don't take any medicine that has came out in the past 25-30 years? Because to be honest, pretty much everything you can put in your mouth as medicine or a supplement that has came out in the past 25-30 years, we don't have proof that it won't lead to bad long term effects.

[daquix]

Re: diet pill?

BTW, weren't carb blockers around before his death?

If they were, then they weren't very popular. I believe most of the studies were released in the 2000's, after he wrote DANDR. When was DANDR written?

[Chicklady]

Re: diet pill?

well, I do take aspirin once or twice a year

[Chicklady]

Re: diet pill?

If they were, then they weren't very popular. I believe most of the studies were released in the 2000's, after he wrote DANDR. When was DANDR written?

my dandr is a 2002. atkins for life came out in 2004----they ain't in there either. Atkins doesn't strike me as a guy who worries about what is popular

[daquix]

Re: diet pill?

my dandr is a 2002. atkins for life came out in 2004----they ain't in there either. Atkins doesn't strike me as a guy who worries about what is popular

What I was referring to is that he may have not put it in there because, nobody was making a fuss about it. I don't know though. The other thing that occurs to me is that if DANDR came out in 2002, it was written earlier when most of the case studies had not yet been released.

[kate58]

Re: diet pill?

So we have 5 studies. 4 positive and 1 negative. Interesting. Sorry, but I refuse to call an extra 15 pounds lost per year, for those who don't lose weight easily, insignificant.

In fact what you have there is 1 positive, 1 negative, 4 inconclusive. So at the moment it's a draw!

It is a mistake of those who don't understand how scientific experiments are conducted, analysed and interpreted to confuse statistically insignificant outcomes with those that are statistically significant. I was not quoting 'some person' when I said the outcomes of those studies where not statistically significant, I was quoting the authors of the research - those who DID the research could only conclude having analysed the data that their results were inconclusive.

You simply cannot extrapolate from any experiment conducted over 12 weeks, for example, that results in an additional weekly weight loss of y that it will in a year produce an additional weight loss of yx52. That is not valid science, in fact its not science at all.

Dr. Atkins in the book says over and over how any diet is going to not be 100% sufficient in nutrients, thus why we should take supplements every day

Not quite. He said that additional nutrients in the form of minerals, vitamins and other agents over and above those currently belived to be optimal levals aquired in the diet are beneficial. He certainly never suggested that it would be ok to avoid or not get as many good nutrients as possible as part of a healthy diet and just make up for it with supplements.

There will always be doctors who don't agree with a study and those who do. There are plenty of doctors around the world, who still swear that Atkins is going to kill you. Do you listen to them? Didn't think so.

I take your point. However there is now a considerable body of published data that supports, in a statistically significant manner, the concept of controlled carb nutrition. In the back of the book there are pages of references to literature, all of which I took the time to look up and verify and I read a LOT of it before embarking on this diet and would not have done so had I not found, in the that and other literature to which it led me, compelling evidence of its efficacy.

That may make me obsessive and there may be a lot of people who are happy to take the advice of one man and one book in the absense of such support - I don't happen to be one of them. Maybe that makes me wrong but I'd rather be wrong a fair few times than sick or even dead once.

Let me tell you briefly how this obsession with getting the facts has served me very well in the past. When I had breast cancer and was told I HAD to have chemotherapy, I did the same thing - took a couple of weeks and delved into the literature. As a result of what I discovered and learned there I turned chemotherapy down, much to the annoyance and even anger of some of the doctors who were treating me. According to what they told me, I should be dead for quite some time now, but six years later I am not just alive but very well.

I'm not recommending that as a course of action for everyone, but using to to make the point that going back to research is never a bad idea. Many, actually most, studies of the chemotherapy regimes proposed for me, looked very good indeed if you just glanced at the outcomes of studies, but closer inspection revealed a very different story, in my particular case.

The guiding principle of medicine - "Primum non nocere" or "First, do no harm" - is often lost in to-days rush towards a pill for every ill.

[daquix]

Re: diet pill?

In fact what you have there is 1 positive, 1 negative, 4 inconclusive. So at the moment it's a draw!

It is a mistake of those who don't understand how scientific experiments are conducted, analysed and interpreted to confuse statistically insignificant outcomes with those that are statistically significant. I was not quoting 'some person' when I said the outcomes of those studies where not statistically significant, I was quoting the authors of the research - those who DID the research could only conclude having analysed the data that their results were inconclusive.

You simply cannot extrapolate from any experiment conducted over 12 weeks, for example, that results in an additional weekly weight loss of y that it will in a year produce an additional weight loss of yx52. That is not valid science, in fact its not science at all.

And yet it is often done. Extrapolating data is the only way to do things many times, as many studies do not last for a year or longer. I do however understand your point. Basically what is being said is that although the participants who took the Phase 2 lost 1/3rd more pounds per week than those who took the placebo, they can't tell how that would work out over a longer period of time. Is that correct? If not, please explain.

Not quite. He said that additional nutrients in the form of minerals, vitamins and other agents over and above those currently belived to be optimal levals aquired in the diet are beneficial. He certainly never suggested that it would be ok to avoid or not get as many good nutrients as possible as part of a healthy diet and just make up for it with supplements.

And I am not telling you to do that either. And he does say in one of the chapters that in induction, you will most likely not be getting the amount of vitamins and minerals that he wants you to have. Therefore to take a multivitamin and a few other pills.

I take your point. However there is now a considerable body of published data that supports, in a statistically significant manner, the concept of controlled carb nutrition. In the back of the book there are pages of references to literature, all of which I took the time to look up and verify and I read a LOT of it before embarking on this diet and would not have done so had I not found, in the that and other literature to which it led me, compelling evidence of its efficacy.

Agreed. But the point was that there are doctors who still say it is bad. Many, many, of them.

That may make me obsessive and there may be a lot of people who are happy to take the advice of one man and one book in the absense of such support - I don't happen to be one of them. Maybe that makes me wrong but I'd rather be wrong a fair few times than sick or even dead once.

Let me tell you briefly how this obsession with getting the facts has served me very well in the past. When I had breast cancer and was told I HAD to have chemotherapy, I did the same thing - took a couple of weeks and delved into the literature. As a result of what I discovered and learned there I turned chemotherapy down, much to the annoyance and even anger of some of the doctors who were treating me. According to what they told me, I should be dead for quite some time now, but six years later I am not just alive but very well.

I'm not recommending that as a course of action for everyone, but using to to make the point that going back to research is never a bad idea. Many, actually most, studies of the chemotherapy regimes proposed for me, looked very good indeed if you just glanced at the outcomes of studies, but closer inspection revealed a very different story, in my particular case.

The guiding principle of medicine - "Primum non nocere" or "First, do no harm" - is often lost in to-days rush towards a pill for every ill.

I don't see it as obsessive. I see it as a smart woman, doing the smart thing. Good job!

[LCer09]

Re: diet pill?

Last week, we had a job where I had to pick up and carry, in buckets, hundreds of logs and pieces of wood from a back corner of a 2 lot yard, carry them across the yard and put them in our truck ... for 9 hours straight. Then I had the priviledge of transfering concrete blocks and bricks from that backyard to the front. And I do this type of work, many days a week. Perhaps you could understand why I need something to give me a boost, a bit more than the average person.

I work at a high volume restaurant/night club/music hall, and sometimes have to go for 8-10 hour shifts, on my feet, without a break. I mean without even sitting down ONCE, no smoke break, nada. That's while hauling huge trays of food and/or drinks around, moving heavy tables and chairs all over, climbing up and down three flights of stairs all night AND throwing drunks out at 2:30am. I know needing energy. And if not for Atkins? I'd never be able to do it, and would be back in a cubicle somewhere having half the fun for less than half the money. I see my coworkers desperately clinging to their Red Bulls and just LAUGH. Well, inside. Quietly. (hey, they laugh out loud at the way I eat, I'm justified!) If you do this WOE correctly, and stick to it, it will give you back everything Dr. A promised.