DANDR versus Atkins 72?

[jemiijad]

Before I registered, I lurked. I saw several threads specifying that 'on this site, we follow Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution."

I get why it would be wise to avoid editions of the book that may have come out after the Doc's death. But is this the wrong place for someone who has the original book? Are there sigificant differences? As far as I can tell, he initially said 2 scant cups of veggies, and then changed it to 3 in DANDR.

Am I missing anything else? Are there others that are using the first version around here?

[atkinsgal08]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

>>Are there sigificant differences?>>

YES!!!

>>s far as I can tell, he initially said 2 scant cups of veggies, and then changed it to 3 in DANDR.>>

The first week of 1972 Atkins was virtually no carbs ... only a wedge of lettuce was allowed.

The 2002 plan is virtually COMPLETE different than 1972.

Why would you want do do a 38 year old plan?

[jemiijad]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

Fast reply!! Thanks.

I have my book here, and it def gives a list of several vegetables that can be had during Induction. Again, the quantity is less- he says two small salads, a scant cup each.

As for the 38 year old plan... I don't see that as a disadvantage at all... this is really a many hundreds of years old plan, being as we are eliminating the refined foods that came in with the Industrial Revolution.

Sooooo... being as I no longer have a copy of DANDR (will purchase one, so that I can compare and make my own completely informed decision,) any other details I should know, 4 days into Induction?

"Completely different" seems a bit strong, no? We covered the veggies during Induction. The food lists are really close, except now they've got Splenda. I guess what I concluded from memory (I have read DANDR, about 2 years ago) is that you should eat green veggies, meat, seafood and eggs. A little cheese, avoid frankenfoods- the same in both books!

[atkinsgal08]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

>> I have my book here, and it def gives a list of several vegetables that can be had during Induction.>>

There was no "Induction" in the 72 plan.

What's the copyright of your book?

>>green veggies,>>

There's other colors, too!

>>ny other details I should know, 4 days into Induction?>>

https://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.com/forums/atkins-low-carb-dieting-faqs/6782-what-rules-induction.html

https://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.com/forums/atkins-low-carb-dieting-faqs/6781-what-foods-can-eaten-induction.html

[Georgiana]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

this is really a many hundreds of years old plan, being as we are eliminating the refined foods that came in with the Industrial Revolution.

The knowledge we now have about net carbs and the health benefits of vegetables and dietary fiber are the main things, imo, that set apart the 2002 and the 1972 plans.

[jemiijad]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

Found some old threads discussing different versions. Thanks again.

[mizski]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

ADBB follows DANDR to make it easy for everyone to be on the same page. As you may have noticed from other low carb BBs, advice is often conflicting and confusing when people are following different plans.

That said, there is a large group of devotees to Atkins 72...just not on this BB. It's popularity seems to be in response to Atkins Nutritional's use of frankenfoods. Many also claim that the 1972 version is simpler with the main foods being protein, fat and some veggies with occasional bit of cheese or a couple nuts. Others like the fact that you add carbs back in any order you choose rather than DANDRs OWL levels. From what I have read, many Atkins 72 followers found that the net carbs in DANDR were too high for them (even in Induction) and found keeping track of total carbs (and keeping them low by mostly eating just veggies, proteins & fat) works better for them in the weight loss department.

After looking over Atkins 72, I decided to go with more modern knowledge contained in DANDR. I do agree on the importance of fiber and supplements and find the OWL levels key in teaching me how to maintain my weight in the future while losing weight right now. It's a personal decision. Wishing you success in whatever plan you chose.

[not2late]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

Before I registered, I lurked. I saw several threads specifying that 'on this site, we follow Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution."

I get why it would be wise to avoid editions of the book that may have come out after the Doc's death. But is this the wrong place for someone who has the original book? Are there sigificant differences? As far as I can tell, he initially said 2 scant cups of veggies, and then changed it to 3 in DANDR.

Am I missing anything else? Are there others that are using the first version around here?

As the others have said, we follow the 2002 edition here. There are differences and while many of the moderators here have read the 72 diet, I don't think any of us are familiar enough with it to give you any meaningful support or advice about it.

[brandywine1241]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

>Are there sigificant differences?>>

YES!!!

>>s far as I can tell, he initially said 2 scant cups of veggies, and then changed it to 3 in DANDR.>>

The first week of 1972 Atkins was virtually no carbs ... only a wedge of lettuce was allowed.

The 2002 plan is virtually COMPLETE different than 1972.

Atkinsgal, could you please specify where you think the two plans are "completely different"? Blanket statements such as this without supporting documentation are not particularly helpful....

[atkinsgal08]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

>>could you please specify where you think the two plans are "completely different"?>

Well, as a few examples, there wasn't "Induction" ... or OWL ... or any named phases in the 72 plan.

The first week of the 72 plan was virtually 0 carb ... the emphasis on vegetables when starting out wasn't there in 1972.

After the first week, you could add food back in in what ever order you missed them ... there was no OWL Carb ladder as there is in 2002.

There was no "net carb" in 1972, since it wasn't known until after the 1999 edition that fiber didn't have an impact on blood sugar, and could be deducted.

There's 38 more years of science in the 2002 edition.

The ultimate goal of maintaining weight loss was the same though!

Are those enough examples for you?

[meow]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

Not only is it 38 years of science, but 38 years of practice, as well. Several other low-carb diets have come around, and that has helped people refine what works best for them as individuals, but also the trends that show up in large groups.

[brandywine1241]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

Well, as a few examples, there wasn't "Induction" ... or OWL ... or any named phases in the 72 plan.

The first week of the 72 plan was virtually 0 carb ... the emphasis on vegetables when starting out wasn't there in 1972.

After the first week, you could add food back in in what ever order you missed them ... there was no OWL Carb ladder as there is in 2002.

There was no "net carb" in 1972, since it wasn't known until after the 1999 edition that fiber didn't have an impact on blood sugar, and could be deducted.

There's 38 more years of science in the 2002 edition.

The ultimate goal of maintaining weight loss was the same though!

Are those enough examples for you?

Yes, thank you. Those make your original reply much more useful.

[Desertthorn]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

Speaking of Atkins books, I understand there is a new NEW Diet Revolution coming out. I wonder how we are going to embrace it. LOL

[Georgiana]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

I understand there is a new NEW Diet Revolution coming out

The book won't be a new "Diet Revolution". Its title is The New Atkins for a New You: The Ultimate Diet for Shedding Weight and Feeling Great.

[Elizellen]

Re: DANDR versus Atkins 72?

The book won't be a new "Diet Revolution". Its title is The New Atkins for a New You: The Ultimate Diet for Shedding Weight and Feeling Great.

I am surprised they didn't squeeze the words 'sweet' and 'sexy' into the title