Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

[Chef Kevin]

Wow, I went on Amazon a while back and found the 1972 version of Diet Revolution for $.01. A whole PENNY! I paid 3.99 shipping, but who cares, the total was $4 even.

OK, so I have been reading it. It is very different from the 2002 version we follow here.

I am trying to decide if the changes came about because of pressure from the outside OR if the research just led them to make the changes for increased health and wellness.

I would like to think it was for effectiveness, but I am not that naive. It is making me question the changes.

If anyone else has read the book, please let me know what you think.

I would list some of the changes, but then newbies might get confused as to what this board follows.

[jmg21887]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

I am also curious about the main differences of the two!

[Chef Kevin]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

Ok, so here is my official question from the 2 versions....

In the 1972 version, Dr A says that you cannot add new body fat from dietary fat while in ketosis.
In 2002, this really isn't said. He says several times that you are burning your own fat, but never that you are not burning dietary fat. He also says the famous don't count calories, but they do matter, but there is the metabolic advantage that helps.

The examples of what people were eating in the 1972 book was amazing. Pounds and pounds of food. Now, in the 2002 book, portions are reduced and the large portions are gone from the examples.

Anyone else notice these things?

[Chef Kevin]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

Man, now I am really stuck on this.

You need insulin to store fat. If your insulin is low, then you aren't storing fat. You can't do it, right?
If you overeat protein, it is converted to glucose, so, bang, insulin, and then stored fat. i get that.

But, if you don't eat excessive protein, keep the fat high, carbs low (say 20g), then the dietary fat cannot be processed. Right? or wrong?

This is driving me nuts today. I can't seem to find an answer.
I have been searching online and even the medifast diet site says they use ketosis as the tool for burning stored fat, but they don't explain how it works.

[TitianWasp]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

Based on my own experience, I am perfectly capable of running in the 20g carb range, with nice purple ketosticks (hence, burning fat), but not losing a pound because I was just eating too darned much. I will give a modicum of creedence to stallers, but I also notice that a lot of stallers are high calorie foods and at the end of the day, if you consume more than your body can burn, you will either excrete it or store it. Let's face it - thousands of years of evolution in the absence of 7-11 stores has made us much better storers than excreters.

My educated guess is that you can indeed store fat from dietary fat while in ketosis if you eat too much. Or at least not lose any. There's really only so much fat the average person can burn in a day.

But being as ketosis tends to retard the appetite, one hopefully doesn't enough for that to happen.

[Chef Kevin]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

I don't eat that much, and I am losing, I am just trying to figure this little mystery out.

I realize that you can eat too many calories and gain, per the 2002 book. But with the metabolic advantage you get the benefit of incomplete burning of fat (some places say you only get about 5 calories out of a gram of fat if converted to ketones, so quite a caloric savings).

My big thing here is to try to figure out how people were eating so dang much in the 72 version and still losing!
I went to a BJ's restaurant on saturday and got a chicken caesar and at about a third of it and was full, so I am nowhere near eating huge portions anymore.

My hunger is under control, and I love that, I was just trying to figure out why the book was changed so radically.

[Kent]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

My take on your statement:

if you don't eat excessive protein, keep the fat high, carbs low (say 20g), then the dietary fat cannot be processed. Right? or wrong?

It is essentially true; however, the definition of excess protein comes into question. If the body is not triggered for insulin release, it can not store the fat.

However, that insulin release could be due to a variety of reasons -- excess protein perhaps over 75g for 200 pound person could indeed cause it or even a cephalic reaction, such as artificial sweetener intake. Your brain simply thinks it needs to release insulin. I found the biggest change was the addition of other vegetables other than just salad on Induction.

[Elizellen]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

My take on the changes is that Dr Atkins experienced 20 years of clinical evaluation of how his patients coped with the original plan in DADR and adapted it to make it more effective and easier to follow in DANDR.

The original induction was for one week only then you could choose your favourite 5 carb addition, which I know I read somewhere he said some patients were choosing to add 5 carbs of booze rather than more nutritious foods and he decided we needed better guidelines to follow, hence the levels (rungs) of OWL in DANDR.

Many inventors and researchers as they find out new stuff often adapt their original thinking and evolve a better plan and so I think did Dr Atkins.

[Chef Kevin]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

Yeah, I see what you are saying. Evolutionary steps I guess.
They did talk about a bunch of booze in the 1972 version. I don't drink at all myself, but i thought it was quite funny how times have changed.

Kent made a good point about the protein. I guess, in a sense, this is a "calorie restricted diet" because if you over eat the protein, you will convert it to glucose, so then you must stay under that threshold in order to not build fat. So the 65/30/5 ration plays out to x number of calories based on your body's reaction to the level of grams of protein.

Hmmmm, I guess that works.

[Chicklady]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

I followed the 70's version my first time in Atkins. i must say, i feel healthier this time out, and I don't have "regularity" problems. I do think Atkins experience with his patients is what brought about a lot of changes.....that and new science.

[MommaRuthie]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

did one of his older books say that you could drink diet orange soda??? I had a friend who drank a ton of diet sunkist when she was doing atkins years ago... I remember her showing it to me in a book. Needless to say, she never did lose alot of weight.

[Chef Kevin]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

I thought it said not to drink it. I'll look it up.

[liv]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

To me the biggest difference between the two books is that the 2002 takes into account fiber - which the first one does not and the second one is much more aware of the glycemic index than the first one. So on 2002 you start out eating more veggies - it is healthier and it does not hurt any with the weightloss - as long as you keep it down and keep it low glycemic. The 2002 therefore also give better advice of how to proceed from the first phase of the diet. In the first book all carbs were equal. We now that is not true - the glycemic index plays a big role too - so in DANDR carbs are added back in order. I think that is very helpful. Will help people with tools to keep off the weight too better than that the 72 one did.

[Zarabelle]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

Hi there

I also bought the 1972 book on amazon. I found it really interesting. Especially the fact that you should only have 2-3 tsp of cream (not tbsp) and that you could add back your favourite foods in your own order. I read both copies of his books and have learnt from both. I know the temptation could be to add back less healthy foods first with the 1972 book - I know I would have considered it!!

Another brilliant book to read is Living the Low Carb Life: From Atkins to the Zone Choosing the Diet That's Right for You (Hardcover). I was a bit concerned when someone recommended this to me that I may start reading all about other low carb plans and confuse myself but actually I have used it as a reference book on ketosis (best explanation I have seen) and there are lots of tips and info.

[not2late]

Re: Atkins 1972 vs Atkins 2002

Wow, I went on Amazon a while back and found the 1972 version of Diet Revolution for $.01. A whole PENNY! I paid 3.99 shipping, but who cares, the total was $4 even.

OK, so I have been reading it. It is very different from the 2002 version we follow here.

I am trying to decide if the changes came about because of pressure from the outside OR if the research just led them to make the changes for increased health and wellness.

I would like to think it was for effectiveness, but I am not that naive. It is making me question the changes.

If anyone else has read the book, please let me know what you think.

I would list some of the changes, but then newbies might get confused as to what this board follows.

I've read and own DADR and DANDR1992. I've also read and own the other Atkins books, he published between DADR and DANDR1992.

What I noticed is that with each book, he added or changed things around based on what he was seeing with his patients at the Atkins Center. Remember the Atkins Center was Dr. Atkin's private medical practice, so he had a huge patient base and was able to observe what worked and what didn't work.

In DANDR 2002, he included a reference bibliography. If you take the time to look up those references, you'll see that Dr. A was keeping current and using the best current information for his diet and dieters.

I don't think Dr. Atkins sold out to the mainstream---he was, afterall, brought up before a US Senate Subcommittee to testify about his diet, he got into a fight with Pritikin on the Mike Douglas Show, and plenty of nutritional experts still think his diet is hogwash. I think Atkins Nutritionals have sold out and made the diet more mainstream.