Is Atkins only for the morbidly obese?

[not2late]

Re: Getting support, and supporting your significant other....

But Carbohydrate restriction for the treatment of diabetes has been around since 1898 (Dr. Elliot Joslin) See link.

http://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.com/forums/diabetic-reading-info/16889-controlled-carbohydrates-diabetes-history.html

If my memory serves me, one of the side effects of controling diabetes by restriction sugar and carbohydrate consumption was weight loss... hence the low carb dieting for weight loss...

It depends on the Diabetic.

Type 1 diabetes is when the person doesn’t produce any or very little insulin. They are typically thin/underweight because they cannot use any of the carbohydrate they eat---essentially they are starving. You don't want them to lose more weight. When Joslin successfully treated them with his low carb diet because by reducing the amount of dietary carbs, they had to eat more fat, which provided the energy to sustain their bodies. These people tend to gain weight to a more normal weight because they are no longer using their body fat and muscle to survive. Even today Type 1 diabetics are typically thin, normal-weight people. For example, Mary Tyler Moore and that Jonas brother hve Type 1 Diabetes. This was the most common type of diabetes during Joslin's lifetime in the early 20th century.

In Type 2 diabetes, the person is producing insulin fine. But their bodies don’t recognize the insulin, so the body has to make more insulin to force it to be recognized. However, type 2 Diabetics tend to be overweight. When these people go on a low carb diet, they replace their carbs with more fat, which leads to that whole weight loss thing. Joslin had some of these people as patients and used his low carb diet to control their diabetes successfully.

[not2late]

Re: Getting support, and supporting your significant other....

Moose - is it possible you're thinking of Dr. Atkins saying only those people who are "morbidly obese or metabolically resistant" should stay on extended induction? While I still don't think that would quite accurate, it's probably closer to the truth and you might be legitimately confusing the context of what he said.

Just trying to help understand/figure out what the disconnect might be here.....

Good thought, Slap. But evenso, Dr. Atkins wrote it was the people who had a high metabolic resistance to weight loss who may benefit from extending Induction. And from our experience here, the heavier you are doesn't mean you are more resistant. In fact, we had a former mod who had a 50 pound weight loss goal and could never eat more than 20 net carbs daily. OTOH, we have had "heavy weights" with low metabolic resistance.

[Muscat Moose]

Re: Getting support, and supporting your significant other....

Good thought, Slap. But evenso, Dr. Atkins wrote it was the people who had a high metabolic resistance to weight loss who may benefit from extending Induction. And from our experience here, the heavier you are doesn't mean you are more resistant. In fact, we had a former mod who had a 50 pound weight loss goal and could never eat more than 20 net carbs daily. OTOH, we have had "heavy weights" with low metabolic resistance.

Great moment for one of these annoying little smileys on the side...


Slapshot makes a good point and please forgive me for not having sources on hand. I'm on the other side of the planet here and the local book shop only has one of his dusty old cookbooks from 10 years ago... Thinking back, I probably heard him say it in one of his audio books... I watched both his infomercial videos last night and they say nothing in their either. I also think we're confusing "Atkins diet" (induction weight loss) with "Atkins diet" (beneficial eating that assists in a healthy lifestyle and general weight management).

A seafarer/explorer named Tristan Jones once claimed that he repeated the journey of the Fram (to drift with the polar ice pack to within 250 miles from the North Pole) in his sailboat, alone with a three legged, one eyed dog named "Nelson". Whether it's true or not, he claimed to have eaten nothing but fish, seal meat and blubber for two years and said he was in better shape than he had ever been in his life when he was finally found after becoming un-bound by the pack ice after his two year journey. He had mentioned back then (1954) that somebody should research the health benefits of such a diet (see the book Ice, by Tristan Jones)

It's a known fact that polar tribes in North America, Scandinavia and Russia lived for probably thousands of years on fish/animal only diets and knew nothing of heart disease, diabetes or cancer. Once sugar was introduced into their diet, they fell in step with the rest of the world... The people of Iceland were another example, as was cited by Atkins. So yes... Everyone can live on Atkins with one caveat...

These people, however, ate the entire animal... Everything... This is why if you give your dog steak every day, it will starve to death... So it isn't really duplicating the diet of our caveman ancestors, as Atkins claims. You have to take supliments to make up for the reindeer intestines, fish guts, fish eyes, fish skin, animal bone marrow, brain, cartilage, skin, heart, liver, kidneys, stomach, tongue, fat and blubber fat that we won't eat in a modern society. Vegetables don't cary enough of the vitamin content to make up for only eating animal muscle/fat, unless you eat a lot of them and include portions of higher glycemic fruits, grains, legumes and vegetables. Hence the risks involved if you forget your vegetables and suppliments when dieting under induction for extended periods...

So no, I have no doubt in my mind that a low carbohydrate lifestyle will work for everyone who wants to do so... Atkins was concerned about curing the obese who tried other diets and failed because the diet they were on didn't work... This was due to their failing metabolism brought on by an unhealthy lifestyle. It was for these people he wrote his weight loss books. This was my point. Sure everyone can do Atkins induction, but 98% of all diets (including Atkins) fail, and it isn't because those who failed didn't read the book or the diet failed them more than the lack will power to continue the diet.

There are times on the Atkins diet when I feel like a could run into a donut shop and take hostages. Despite all the hype on the diet, it has its will testing moments like any other diet. It's the failures on Atkins that are an increased risk to your health, moreso than other diets. Most who start Atkins will fail out of sheer will loss. It's a reality.

It's also fact that Atkins induction strips out a lot of natural nutrients... If you have a normal metabolism and can lose 10, 20, or 40 lbs by just kicking out refined sugar and white flour and eating a natural, organic diet and getting vigorous aerobic excercise 4 times a week, would it be a better answer to your weight problem than taking vitamin pills and and eating under 20 carbs a day and possibly saturating your kidneys with ketones? Yes...

Induction dieting was for people who were very overweight and needed to lose weight because their metabolism was fried. That was what it was designed for. The need to lose the weight outweighed the other potential health issues with the diet.

I believe Slap was right in that Atkins was referring to the induction diet, especially the extended induction...

[not2late]

Re: Getting support, and supporting your significant other....

I also think we're confusing "Atkins diet" (induction weight loss) with "Atkins diet" (beneficial eating that assists in a healthy lifestyle and general weight management).

Dr. Atkins didn't make a distinction between the two. In his books, he implies that you use the weight loss aspect in order to lose the weight, then you use the maintenance aspect to maintain it. Thus, Atkins is a complete diet---a lifestyle change which enables you to maintain a healthy weight and healthy life. Again, Dr. Atkins made it clear in his books that the obesity and its related diseases: high cholestrol heart attacks, diabetes type 2, were due to the consumption of refined carbs.

Atkins was concerned about curing the obese who tried other diets and failed because the diet they were on didn't work...

Not true. Dr. Atkins devoted two books Dr. Atkins Nutrition Breakthrough and Dr. Atkins Super-energy Diet to applying his Diet to cure things like chronic fatigue, diabetes, headaches, etc. If you hd read all his books as you claimed earlier, you would have known this and not repeated this tripe. Furthermore, the Atkins Center for Complementary Medicine treated an array of people with medical problems ranging from obesity to fibromyalgia, headaches, high cholesterol, etc. Dr. Atkins was a follower of "orthomolecular medicine": he believed that pharmaceutical companies were a big scam and that the medicines they produced were ultimately more harmful than helpful so Dr. Atkins relied on diet/nutrition to cure/treat/prevent disease.

This was due to their failing metabolism brought on by an unhealthy lifestyle. It was for these people he wrote his weight loss books.

In DADR’72, there are two patients Dr. Atkins specifically mention who had weight loss goals of less than 30 pounds: Jenny O’Hara (start weight 145 goal weight 120-125, height 5 ft 6 in) and Hal Linden (start weight 188.5 goal weight "a few pounds", height 6 ft 1 in). Both of these patients were/are actors.

Here’s a pic of Jenny O’Hara with the Muppets circa the mid ‘70s.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/muppet/images/thumb/a/af/Jennyohara2.jpg/300px-Jennyohara2.jpg

It's the failures on Atkins that are an increased risk to your health, moreso than other diets.

Did you read this from that anti-Atkins website you pulled direct quotes from earlier? Seinberg.net Photography An Atkins Culture

Most who start Atkins will fail out of sheer will loss. It's a reality.

My observation from my years here at ADBB is that most people fall off the diet because 1. they don't bother to fully educate themselves about the diet and 2. they don't have the confidence in themselves that they can succeed.

It's also fact that Atkins induction strips out a lot of natural nutrients...

Which nutrients? If you are doing a Fake-kins whereby you eat only meat and eggs and skip the veggies, then I can see that you lose nutrients. But if you do it the way Dr. Atkins wrote, there is no great worry. Moreover, Induction lasts 2 weeks. If you choose to stay on it longer than that, that's your nutritional problem and you can't blame Atkins.

If you have a normal metabolism and can lose 10, 20, or 40 lbs by just kicking out refined sugar and white flour and eating a natural, organic diet and getting vigorous aerobic excercise 4 times a week,

What is a normal metabolism? If you believe in the hunter-gatherer theory, a metabolism that allows a person to eat 120 pounds of sugar yearly and still be thin is an abnormal metabolism because humans did not evolve that way.

would it be a better answer to your weight problem than taking vitamin pills and and eating under 20 carbs a day and possibly saturating your kidneys with ketones? Yes...

Is this more stuff you read on that anti-Atkins website?

[Georgiana]

Re: Getting support, and supporting your significant other....

I also think we're confusing "Atkins diet" (induction weight loss) with "Atkins diet" (beneficial eating that assists in a healthy lifestyle and general weight management).

There is nothing to confuse, because Induction is simply a (short!) part of the Atkins Diet, not the Diet itself. Those who do only the Induction phase of Atkins with the intention of going back to the eating habits that got them fat in the first place are not doing Atkins. There is no such thing as "Atkins Diet (Induction weight loss)".

Vegetables don't cary enough of the vitamin content to make up for only eating animal muscle/fat, unless you eat a lot of them and include portions of higher glycemic fruits, grains, legumes and vegetables. Hence the risks involved if you forget your vegetables and suppliments when dieting under induction for extended periods...

Atkins without vegetables is not Atkins either. If someone doesn't bother reading the book, it's his/her own problem. The Atkins Diet is perfectly safe as it is. That there are some people who are too lazy too read the book or think they know better than Dr. Atkins, that's a completely different story and you can't blame the Diet for this.

So no, I have no doubt in my mind that a low carbohydrate lifestyle will work for everyone who wants to do so... Atkins was concerned about curing the obese who tried other diets and failed because the diet they were on didn't work... This was due to their failing metabolism brought on by an unhealthy lifestyle. It was for these people he wrote his weight loss books. This was my point. Sure everyone can do Atkins induction, but 98% of all diets (including Atkins) fail, and it isn't because those who failed didn't read the book or the diet failed them more than the lack will power to continue the diet.

I'm glad we agree that everyone can do Atkins, even the Induction Phase.

It's the failures on Atkins that are an increased risk to your health, moreso than other diets. Most who start Atkins will fail out of sheer will loss. It's reality.

If you make such a claim, I want you to show me reviewed medical evidence that failing on Atkins poses a greater risk to one's health than failing on other diets. Sure, doing Atkins for 4 days and then being off track for 2 won't do your health any good, but that's not failing on Atkins, because it's not Atkins in the first place (see Dr. Atkins' warning in DANDR 2002, Chapter 17, pp. 223-225). If one does Atkins correctly (no cheats, varied foods, etc.) the chances of failure are small, even though there might be some stumbles along the journey. After all, there is great food you are allowed to eat, you can even have occasional desserts, you never go hungry, plus you lose a bunch of weight and improve your health with diet and exercise --- I don't know what else one can ask for!

As with any "diet" plan, if you go off Atkins and return to your old eating habits, you will gain the weight back. Part of that will be water weight regained as you are refilling your body's glycogen stores. The rest will be weight gained due to your lousy eating and has nothing to do with Atkins.

As for general health, if you go off Atkins with a carb binge, then it is possible to have the same reaction to sugar as someone with insulin resistance would, for 3-4 hours after the binge. If you then continue binging (or eating high carb), things will get back to "normal". As before, any damage you will cause to your health will be again due to your lousy eating, not to Atkins.

And that 98% figure that you quote for people failing on diets does include people who don't follow the diet correctly. This is one of the unfortunate things about Atkins --- the "diet" being so popular, everybody thinks they know how to do it and don't need to read/re-read the book. Others, as Megs said, go on a never-ending Induction and get bored with foods, find their diet too restrictive and cheat on brownies or whatever (these are those who, you say, fail out of "sheer lack of will"). If they had read the book and followed it, they would have known that food boredom (or missing some foods) after the first two weeks of Induction is the signal that one should move to OWL and add back more veggies, fresh diary, nuts, berries, legumes, fruits, starchy vegetables, grains and, those who drink, alcohol.

There are times on the Atkins diet when I feel like a could run into a donut shop and take hostages.

If your cravings were ever that bad, then you were either out of ketosis or you had a cephalic response or an undiscovered food trigger. Fortunately, there are low-carb donuts one can make if only eating a donut will make one happy.

Despite all the hype on the diet, it has its will testing moments like any other diet.

No one said it's going to be easy peasy to reach and maintain goal. Like any other diet, Atkins does require some work. But the fact that you can eat a variety of satisfying, nutritious foods and, until one point, experience the appetite suppression effect of ketosis makes it easier to stick to it, imo.

It's also fact that Atkins induction strips out a lot of natural nutrients...

Really? "A lot" of nutrients? I'd like to see some proof for this, please.

If one eats a variety of foods during Induction (I've seen people doing crazy things, like eating only lettuce for their veggies) and enough calories, one will provide his/her body with most of the necessary micronutrients (19 out of 24, according to the Atkins Center; see DANDR 2002). The micronutrients that are below the RDI during the Induction phase can be supplemented in the form of a vitamin supplement. Vitamin supplements are safe and effective as long as they are taken as supplements, not as food replacements. Even those bashing Atkins agree on this and many eating plans do include a vitamin supplement. And again, Induction only needs to last two weeks, regardless of how much weight one has to lose.

If you have a normal metabolism and can lose 10, 20, or 40 lbs by just kicking out refined sugar and white flour and eating a natural, organic diet and getting vigorous aerobic excercise 4 times a week, would it be a better answer to your weight problem than taking vitamin pills and eating under 20 carbs a day and possibly saturating your kidneys with ketones? Yes...

Those who have 10-40 lbs to lose do not need to do Induction for more than two weeks. Anyway, it is simply your personal opinion, based on absolutely no medical evidence, that doing Atkins Induction for (more than) 2 weeks is detrimental for one's health (if they have a lot or not so much weight to lose) or at least not as healthy as simply giving up refined sugar and white flour. If you check the UConn study of Volek et al. (2002), you will see that Induction is safe to follow, even for normal weight folks, for at least 6 weeks. In fact, not only it is safe to follow, but it actually has the same benefits to health as it does for obese individuals.

Your claim that Induction might "saturate your kidneys with ketones" is hooey. There is no concrete medical proof that Atkins has a negative effect on kidneys (or on health, in general) for persons who don't have a kidney condition before starting Atkins. Those with a kidney condition are warned in the book not to do Atkins unless they are told otherwise by their physician.

Induction dieting was for people who were very overweight and needed to lose weight because their metabolism was fried. That was what it was designed for. The need to lose the weight outweighed the other potential health issues with the diet.

Funny you say that. Because the first Atkineer only had 40 lbs to lose. It was Dr. Atkins himself.

For those with only 20-30 lbs to lose, Dr. Atkins said (DANDR 2002, Chapter 13, "Are You Ready for Phase Two?"):

Although Induction offers plenty of advantages, there are lots of valid reasons for progressing: boredom with food choices, modest weight loss goals (say 20 or 30 pounds) and perhaps the chance to avoid becoming dependent on a "crash diet" mentality.

So he specifically refers to those having only 20-30 lbs to lose, saying that it's better if they move to Phase Two (OWL) immediately after Induction. He never says that they should not do their 14-day Induction.

Show me some medical evidence that Atkins (Induction, OWL or any other phase) causes health problems and I am willing to discuss it. In the absence of concrete evidence that Atkins Induction, done correctly, is detrimental to one's health, the claims you are making are just the same ol' myths that broken anti-Atkins jukeboxes have been repeating for years.

I believe Slap was right in that Atkins was referring to the induction diet, especially the extended induction...

Referring to those with a high metabolic resistance, Dr. Atkins wrote (DANDR 2002, Chapter 13):

People with high metabolic resistance can benefit from doing Induction longer because it gives them time to correct metabolic imbalances they may have developed over time.

As Megs wrote, one's metabolic resistance is not necessarily related to one's weight. To show this, Dr. Atkins gave in DANDR 2002 the example of "Dan", an Atkineer who started at 323 lbs (he was 5'10") and moved to OWL right after the first two weeks of Induction; his goal weight was 210 lbs, so he lost over a hundred pounds.

To summarize what you are saying:

• Atkins Induction is for those who are very overweight.
  • It is for them too, but those with fewer pounds to lose should also follow the Induction phase, according to Dr. Atkins (DANDR 2002, Chapter 13, p. 159).
  
  
• Very overweight folks have metabolic imbalances.
  • Not necessarily, as Dr. Atkins explains and exemplifies in DANDR 2002 (Chapter 13, pp. 160-163)
  
  
• The Induction Phase of Atkins can be damaging to one's health and is only justifiable for those who are very overweight.
  • There is no reviewed medical study showing that Atkins causes health damage. On the contrary, there are studies showing the opposite, both for normal-weight and overweight subjects (see for e.g., Sharman et al. 2002, Westman et al. 2002, Volek et al. 2002, Yancy et al. 2004).
  
  

[not2late]

Re: Getting support, and supporting your significant other....

By the way, I noticed you do alot of editing on your posts, Muscat. So for the record here's a copy of your thread as of 1000 EST 28 August 2009:

Quote:
Originally Posted by not2late
Good thought, Slap. But evenso, Dr. Atkins wrote it was the people who had a high metabolic resistance to weight loss who may benefit from extending Induction. And from our experience here, the heavier you are doesn't mean you are more resistant. In fact, we had a former mod who had a 50 pound weight loss goal and could never eat more than 20 net carbs daily. OTOH, we have had "heavy weights" with low metabolic resistance.

Great moment for one of these annoying little smileys on the side...


Slapshot makes a good point and please forgive me for not having sources on hand. I'm on the other side of the planet here and the local book shop only has one of his dusty old cookbooks from 10 years ago... Thinking back, I probably heard him say it in one of his audio books... I watched both his infomercial videos last night and they say nothing in their either. I also think we're confusing "Atkins diet" (induction weight loss) with "Atkins diet" (beneficial eating that assists in a healthy lifestyle and general weight management).

A seafarer/explorer named Tristan Jones once claimed that he repeated the journey of the Fram (to drift with the polar ice pack to within 250 miles from the North Pole) in his sailboat, alone with a three legged, one eyed dog named "Nelson". Whether it's true or not, he claimed to have eaten nothing but fish, seal meat and blubber for two years and said he was in better shape than he had ever been in his life when he was finally found after becoming un-bound by the pack ice after his two year journey. He had mentioned back then (1954) that somebody should research the health benefits of such a diet (see the book Ice, by Tristan Jones)

It's a known fact that polar tribes in North America, Scandinavia and Russia lived for probably thousands of years on fish/animal only diets and knew nothing of heart disease, diabetes or cancer. Once sugar was introduced into their diet, they fell in step with the rest of the world... The people of Iceland were another example, as was cited by Atkins. So yes... Everyone can live on Atkins with one caveat...

These people, however, ate the entire animal... Everything... This is why if you give your dog steak every day, it will starve to death... So it isn't really duplicating the diet of our caveman ancestors, as Atkins claims. You have to take supliments to make up for the reindeer intestines, fish guts, fish eyes, fish skin, animal bone marrow, brain, cartilage, skin, heart, liver, kidneys, stomach, tongue, fat and blubber fat that we won't eat in a modern society. Vegetables don't cary enough of the vitamin content to make up for only eating animal muscle/fat, unless you eat a lot of them and include portions of higher glycemic fruits, grains, legumes and vegetables. Hence the risks involved if you forget your vegetables and suppliments when dieting under induction for extended periods...

So no, I have no doubt in my mind that a low carbohydrate lifestyle will work for everyone who wants to do so... Atkins was concerned about curing the obese who tried other diets and failed because the diet they were on didn't work... This was due to their failing metabolism brought on by an unhealthy lifestyle. It was for these people he wrote his weight loss books. This was my point. Sure everyone can do Atkins induction, but 98% of all diets (including Atkins) fail, and it isn't because those who failed didn't read the book or the diet failed them more than the lack will power to continue the diet.

There are times on the Atkins diet when I feel like a could run into a donut shop and take hostages. Despite all the hype on the diet, it has its will testing moments like any other diet. It's the failures on Atkins that are an increased risk to your health, moreso than other diets. Most who start Atkins will fail out of sheer will loss. It's a reality.

It's also fact that Atkins induction strips out a lot of natural nutrients... If you have a normal metabolism and can lose 10, 20, or 40 lbs by just kicking out refined sugar and white flour and eating a natural, organic diet and getting vigorous aerobic excercise 4 times a week, would it be a better answer to your weight problem than taking vitamin pills and and eating under 20 carbs a day and possibly saturating your kidneys with ketones? Yes...

Induction dieting was for people who were very overweight and needed to lose weight because their metabolism was fried. That was what it was designed for. The need to lose the weight outweighed the other potential health issues with the diet.

I believe Slap was right in that Atkins was referring to the induction diet, especially the extended induction...

[mitzimarie]

Re: Getting support, and supporting your significant other....

As I said earlier... There's a difference between Atkins nutrition which should be for everyone and Atkins weight loss (weight loss through low carb induced ketosis)... He has nutrition right but he has said that his diet is not for everyone.

I'm on my way out of the door, so I will make this short. I need to clarify a couple of things:

1) My doctor steered me toward Atkins in 2003, and the book he referred me to is the 2002 edition of Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution (the book this board is based upon).

2) When I had my annual physical and blood work done last week, the urinalysis report showed the presence of ketones... he is fine with that. He and I have discussed ketosis... it is NOT dangerous.

One more thing - to be quite frank, this thread is getting long and I am getting bored with it.... mainly, because I trust my doctor and don't agree with your premise. The reason I don't just ignore the thread now, is because I fear that you are discouraging those who have the potential to change their lives for the better by getting healthy through the Atkins lifestyle.

So, I'll cut to the chaste - What exactly is your point with this thread? To save me, and others, from ketosis? To discourage the many people who are experiencing success and better health, just because they didn't start out extremely obese or diabetic? Honestly, I'm at a loss with regard to your motivation.

[Muscat Moose]

Re: Getting support, and supporting your significant other....

By the way, I noticed you do alot of editing on your posts, Muscat. So for the record here's a copy of your thread as of 1000 EST 28 August 2009:

I don't see where I edited in my quote? I did on earlier quotes because I'm half way across the world on a computer that likes to crash Internet Explorer, so I commonly save... However, on this one I wrote it all the way through I'm pretty sure, though I don't remember if I added anything minor (like fixed spelling errors and such). If it's anything significant, it wasn't me. After the first couple of posts, I was asked on the forum not to re-edit my posts, as if it were a crime or cheating or something... I've never been on a forum where re-editing posts was a huge faux pas before... and I used to be a moderator on one...

I also noticed that you guys missed the point of the entire post...

What diet is better if you can lose weight with either:

A) A diet where you cut back the sugar and junk food and preservatives and eat a healthy mix of all the food groups, (I'll add - keeping Atkins approach to nutrition in mind) and get plenty of exersize...

B) A diet (or a phase of a diet - if you want to be obtuse) where you have to take vitamin pills to compensate for lost nutrition (referring to Atkins Induction phase)... And don't tell me THAT'S not in the book..

If you could lose the same amount in both, the obvious choice is "A"...

Hence, induction dieting is better for those who CAN'T lose weight by method A.... but A is better if you don't have to lose a ton of weight.

That's the point of this whole discussion.

You guys are quite frankly taking this a little too far and arguing just to argue. You're not meeting me half way in the discussion. You've got me painted as some kind of anti-Atkins mole or something and you've obviously decided to gang up on me and argue every concevable sentence I write if it can be twisted into a context that that can be bashed with quotes and points I already know about... or bashed just to bash.

Most diets, including Atkins, fail because of will power, despite what you say... You'd have to be living in a cave not to realize that... It's just more of your arguing just to argue...

Much of what I wrote in the last post was off the top of my head... It didn't come from any "Anti-Atkins" website...

I know what I read and I know what I know and I'm giving my opinion, which I think is a darn good one and I have a right to it...

This isn't a medical licensing board, it's a forum. I don't think I'm required to print an Appendix list of references at the end of everything I write and quite frankly, I'm beginning to believe that you wouldn't believe me if I did.

I also believe in Atkins. Yes, I've looked at other diets and some have their merit too...

But I do like Atkins... But I really think I made a fair point... and I'll find where Atkins pointed out the obesity/metabolism thing we talked about earlier... It will probably be in about three weeks, when my books and CD's come in.

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."

Joseph Joubert (1754-1824) French moralist.

"Quarrels would not last so long if the fault lay only on one side."

François de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680) French writer.


FYI... For me, this discussion is over till then. It's not worth the blood pressure increase this is causing me.

[Muscat Moose]

Re: Getting support, and supporting your significant other....

I'm on my way out of the door, so I will make this short. I need to clarify a couple of things:

1) My doctor steered me toward Atkins in 2003, and the book he referred me to is the 2002 edition of Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution (the book this board is based upon).

2) When I had my annual physical and blood work done last week, the urinalysis report showed the presence of ketones... he is fine with that. He and I have discussed ketosis... it is NOT dangerous.

One more thing - to be quite frank, this thread is getting long and I am getting bored with it.... mainly, because I trust my doctor and don't agree with your premise. The reason I don't just ignore the thread now, is because I fear that you are discouraging those who have the potential to change their lives for the better by getting healthy through the Atkins lifestyle.

So, I'll cut to the chaste - What exactly is your point with this thread? To save me, and others, from ketosis? To discourage the many people who are experiencing success and better health, just because they didn't start out extremely obese or diabetic? Honestly, I'm at a loss with regard to your motivation.

See my last post... I'm not against the lifestyle... Never have, never will be... I think you guys are reading too much into this... I have never said in my posts that the Atkins diet wasn't right for you... You've lost a considerable amount of weight by your photos. You obviously needed every phase of this diet/lifestlye... and probably still do... That's not my point...

If, when you started, you were only a little bit overweight (relative to you ideal size), given the trend of diet successes (including Atkins), it might have been better to dive into something a little more balanced at the start than induction, if you had a healthy metabolism. That's my point... I'm not saying it's unsafe.... but induction is less safe than other methods... but more effective for those who really need it as the risks are greater without it.

I too am tired of this subject.

[not2late]

Re: Getting support, and supporting your significant other....

I also noticed that you guys missed the point of the entire post...

What diet is better if you can lose weight with either:

A) A diet where you cut back the sugar and junk food and preservatives and eat a healthy mix of all the food groups, (I'll add - keeping Atkins approach to nutrition in mind) and get plenty of exersize...

B) A diet (or a phase of a diet - if you want to be obtuse) where you have to take vitamin pills to compensate for lost nutrition (referring to Atkins Induction phase)... And don't tell me THAT'S not in the book..

If you could lose the same amount in both, the obvious choice is "A"...

Dr. Atkins writes in DANDR 2002 Chapter 11 subsection "Nutritional Supplements"

"But in starting people on my program, I have found that their vitamin and mineral reserves are often so depleted from the way they were eating before that it frequently taste a week or two of supplementation with vitanutrients to build them up again"

Further in the same section he writes:

" because if you choose nutrient-dense foods, it is easy to consume adequate amounts of most vitanutrients"

So your idea of Atkins Induction phase is fundamentally flawed.

You guys are quite frankly taking this a little too far and arguing just to argue. You're not meeting me half way in the discussion. You've got me painted as some kind of anti-Atkins mole or something and you've obviously decided to gang up on me and argue every concevable sentence I write if it can be twisted into a context that that can be bashed with quotes and points I already know about... or bashed just to bash.

I can't speak for anyone else, but frankly, I can't figure out what you're angle is. But the more you post, the more it becomes apparent you haven't read any of Dr. Atkins' books or interviews or even viewed his videos because you wouldn't be repeating the same falsehoods and misconceptions over and over again if you had.

Most diets, including Atkins, fail because of will power, despite what you say... You'd have to be living in a cave not to realize that... It's just more of your arguing just to argue...

From what I've seen on ADBB, most people fail due to a lack of confidence in themselves to get to goal. They have a negative view of themselves and hence engage in self-sabotage time and time again. We have threads about these folks who don't know why they cheat eventhough they feel satisfied with the food they eat and eventhough they have the proper foods on hand.

And no, it's not "arguing just to argue"---this is a case of setting the record straight.

Much of what I wrote in the last post was off the top of my head... It didn't come from any "Anti-Atkins" website...

I'm not talking about your last post, I'm talking about the prior ones where you copy-pasted things off an anti-Atkins website.

I know what I read and I know what I know and I'm giving my opinion, which I think is a darn good one and I have a right to it...

So is it your opinion that Dr. Atkins wrote his diet was only for the morbidly obese?

This isn't a medical licensing board, it's a forum. I don't think I'm required to print an Appendix list of references at the end of everything I write and quite frankly, I'm beginning to believe that you wouldn't believe me if I did.

If you're going to say Dr. Atkins wrote/said that his diet is only for the obese, then you better back it up with quotes from the book or interviews---not lifting things off an anti-Atkins website like that steinberg-photography blog you copied parts of your supporting argument from. By the way, in future, you better remove the footnote indicators from your posts---that way it will look more like an original thought than a bad copy-paste job.

This is an Atkins support board and as you can see, you're dealing with people who have either read or own copies of all the books Dr. Atkins published and we can look things up to see if it is really "in there" or not.

But I do like Atkins... But I really think I made a fair point... and I'll find where Atkins pointed out the obesity/metabolism thing we talked about earlier...

I don't believe anyone disagreed with you that obesity is metabolic in nature. I think the disagreement came with your statement that Dr. Atkins said his diet is only for the morbidly obese.

It will probably be in about three weeks, when my books and CD's come in.

Great! Then you can direct us to the book, chapter and paragraph number. That way I don't have to spend my evenings re-reading DADR cover to cover trying to find what you said Dr. Atkins wrote.

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."

Joseph Joubert (1754-1824) French moralist.

During the course of a discussion, it's completely within reason to be asked to provide documentation to back your arguments up. And it's completely within reason to verify that documentation. Also, during a discussion, it is protocol to preface opinion with statements alluding to that, such as "In my opinion" or "I believe" or "I think". That helps separate fact from opinion/conjecture and prevents confusion.

[Georgiana]

Re: Is Atkins only for the morbidly obese?

I also noticed that you guys missed the point of the entire post...

What diet is better if you can lose weight with either:

A) A diet where you cut back the sugar and junk food and preservatives and eat a healthy mix of all the food groups, (I'll add - keeping Atkins approach to nutrition in mind) and get plenty of exersize...

B) A diet (or a phase of a diet - if you want to be obtuse) where you have to take vitamin pills to compensate for lost nutrition (referring to Atkins Induction phase)... And don't tell me THAT'S not in the book..

If you could lose the same amount in both, the obvious choice is "A"...

Hence, induction dieting is better for those who CAN'T lose weight by method A.... but A is better if you don't have to lose a ton of weight.

What Megs said about vitamins during the Induction Phase. And a multivitamin should not be taken only during the Induction Phase, but during all Phases of Atkins, so by saying that Atkins Induction is not so healthy as some other ways of losing weight because Dr. Atkins told us to take a multivitamin (and, if possible/necessary, other nutritional supplements), you are basically saying that all Atkins Phases are not as healthy as other ways of losing/maintaining weight. Is this what you are implying? Look what Dr. Atkins had to say about this. DANDR 2002, Chapter 23, p. 301:

Vitanutrients can benefit even people at the peak of health who eat an excellent diet. (Unfortunately, no matter how well we eat, our depleted soil no longer provides all the nutrients fresh produce used to yield.) I would go so far as to say that vitanutrients could extend one's lifespan.

And then on p. 302:

However, actually ingesting adequate amounts of vitanutrients can be problematic.

And again on p. 302:

I would like to provide you with a basic supplementation plan to follow now and after you've reached your goal weight.

So if you agree with the Atkins lifestyle, then you must agree that it's good to supplement your diet with a multivitamin and other nutritional supplements during all Phases of Atkins.

Oh, and in B), you forgot the mandatory exercise part of Atkins.

Then, you are basing your judgment on the assumption that someone's eating habits can change overnight if that person does not have a lot of weight to lose. "Eat less, give up crap food, exercise more. You'll lose weight." If it were that easy, no one would get to be 100+ lbs overweight. When we reached the 20 lbs mark, we would all give up sugar and be happy. But that clearly doesn't happen. And it does not happen because many of us, even when not eating pounds of sugar, processed foods and preservatives (which I did not do even before Atkins, by the way), will likely still eat too many carbohydrates and that will mess up our blood sugar and cause us to overeat. Furthermore, it is possible that we will not gain the full health benefits of Atkins, because we might miss to notice some food intolerances that are affecting our health. The purpose of Induction is not only to lose a bunch of weight. It is meant to switch our bodies from glucosis to lipolysis, to stabilize our blood sugar, to break addictions to certain foods (and if you have an addiction to potatoes, for example, you won't eat "just a bit" even if you have the best intentions in the world) and to curb cravings. Unless one has a super metabolism and no food issues, none of these will be achieved by eating all food groups and by exclusively cutting out sugar and processed foods. Besides, if someone had a super metabolism and no food issues, that person would not have gained 20-40 lbs in the first place.

This isn't a medical licensing board, it's a forum. I don't think I'm required to print an Appendix list of references at the end of everything I write and quite frankly, I'm beginning to believe that you wouldn't believe me if I did.

[...] That's my point... I'm not saying it's unsafe.... but induction is less safe than other methods... but more effective for those who really need it as the risks are greater without it.

If Induction is not harmful for one's health (i.e. is not unsafe, as you are saying), then how can you say it is less safe than other methods? It isn't. It is just perceived to be safer because of the dietary dogma that is being thrown at us, but that's a completely different thing. Any diet can certainly be improved and I am sure Dr. Atkins would have continued to improve the Atkins Diet if he hadn't had that freak accident in 2003, but this does mean the Induction Phase of Atkins, if followed correctly, has more risks attached to it than any other form of dieting. There is no proof for this.

And yes, everyone has the right to an opinion. But if there is evidence pointing the opposite of what you are trying to argue, then your opinion is likely wrong.

[Momtofour]

Re: Is Atkins only for the morbidly obese?

Why ask a question when you have your own answers? LOL

[Georgiana]

Re: Is Atkins only for the morbidly obese?

Why ask a question when you have your own answers? LOL

This thread actually started here: http://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.c...t-other-3.html

But these posts another thread, so they were moved into a separate thread (this one). Sorry for the confusion.