What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

[liv]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

If you have 16 carbs of veggies you cannot have 2 Atkins products on induction. I think that is the problem I like their induction veggie insistence and I like the idea of foundation. But why skip the rung with more induction veggies in it. I want to know the reason. Did they test it out and found that people did better on the diet that way. Is there a paper that supports this? Did someone actually do this in real life. Or did they just pluck this out of the air and the readers will be the "research subjects" in the on going experiment.

[atkinsgal08]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

>>If you have 16 carbs of veggies you cannot have 2 Atkins products on induction.>>

While "they" say you can, 2 products a day are certainly not required.

And I agree ... that someone eating 2 products a day on Induction, isn't getting enough of the other good stuff.

[mitzimarie]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

If you have 16 carbs of veggies you cannot have 2 Atkins products on induction. I think that is the problem

LOL - Liv, I can't tell if you're serious, or making a joke. I'm assuming from the smilie, that you are joking. But since you said earlier, that you feel that they push products, I'm not sure. In case you're not joking, I will reiterate - Atkins products are not required, nor even pushed, in my opinion.

I like their induction veggie insistence and I like the idea of foundation. But why skip the rung with more induction veggies in it. I want to know the reason.

Well, unless one of us can personally interview the authors, we can not know for certain what their reasoning was on changing up the rungs a little bit. As I stated earlier, my thought is that they didn't need to put another rung of more veggies, because a minimum of 12g of net carbs from foundation vegetables is required from the start. In Induction, you are eating from the first 2 rungs, one of which is vegetables. Then after Induction, you move onto Rung 3.

You know as well as I do, that a good deal of people doing DANDR Atkins choose the lowest-carb veggies as part of their 3-cup maximum of veggies... they are getting no-where near 12g of net veggie carbs.

The new book states that as you add new foods, you'll substitute some of them for other carb foods you are already eating, but NOT your 12 to 15 grams of net carbs from foundation vegetables. That remains a minimum requirement throughout OWL. You can always add more if you want to... you do not have to stay at 12g.

[mizski]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

my thought is that they didn't need to put another rung of more veggies, because a minimum of 12g of net carbs from foundation vegetables is required from the start. In Induction, you are eating from the first 2 rungs, one of which is vegetables. Then after Induction, you move onto Rung 3.

Hmmm...this makes sense. There should be a footnote in the new book by Mitzi!

I think my biggest problem in comparing the two books is that I am definitely DANDR-brained. But some of these posts are making me aware that in many cases it's not DANDR brain but explanations/interpretations that came from ADBB.

I am really liking this discussion. I'm learning more about Atkins. And I'm not opposed to fine-tuning things. Still not going to add that salt though!

[mitzimarie]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

Hmmm...this makes sense. There should be a footnote in the new book by Mitzi!

I think my biggest problem in comparing the two books is that I am definitely DANDR-brained. But some of these posts are making me aware that in many cases it's not DANDR brain but explanations/interpretations that came from ADBB.

Oh, Miz - you are spot-on with this observation. I could come up with plenty to say on that topic.

I am really liking this discussion. I'm learning more about Atkins. And I'm not opposed to fine-tuning things.

I'm loving the discussion, too! Some may assume that I like the new book better, but that's not the case. I like both of them. And I am always looking to learn as much as I can about the Atkins way of eating.

Still not going to add that salt though!

LOL - yeah, there is potential for trouble there, if someone doesn't read everything they have to say about it. If someone had truly been going completely salt-free, I could see how adding 1/2 teaspoon of salt may help them. Thing is, I think most people are already getting a 1/2 teaspoon of salt in their diet already. So they would have no business adding it.

[mitzimarie]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

Me, again

I'm about to head to bed, and just wanted to say again how much I've enjoyed the discussion. I'd like to just throw one more thing out there - we have no means discussed everything in the new book. And while I do like some of the new ideas very much, I do not necessarily agree with everything in the book.

Having said that, I must honestly say that there are a couple of things in DANDR that I took issue with. Bottom line - I don't think any book is 100% perfect. But I do love DANDR, and still re-read it often... I get something out of it, everytime. Now, I am almost complete with my second reading of the new Atkins book... I am sure that I will read it many times, and get something out of it everytime.

I think this discussion is a perfect example of how important it is to read the book this board is based upon - 2002 Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution. Do not rely solely upon the interpretations of others... read the book yourself. Read the stickies in the forums for each of the phases. Use the Search feature available on this board, and research topics you are interested in. Knowledge is power.

Good night!

[liv]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

Well, unless one of us can personally interview the authors, we can not know for certain what their reasoning was on changing up the rungs a little bit. As I stated earlier, my thought is that they didn't need to put another rung of more veggies, because a minimum of 12g of net carbs from foundation vegetables is required from the start.

See I need reasons. I don't want to follow a novel written about an eating programme. Everytime time they make a change I want to know why. Is there a good scientific reason for this change. Did they test it out? If there was I may consider it. I really don't think the reader should have to guess. I think they should have told us why.

Atkins products are not required, nor even pushed, in my opinion.

Well from a lawyer point of view this is true. The are not requiring us to eat it. But they make exceptions to their own rules allowing people to eat this things (which contain milk products, soy, peanuts and chocolate) . How many questions do we get about these products that most of think are best not to eat on induction? And what about other boards around? A quick look around told me that was happening. The book was launched at the same time as a big product market campaign by the company.

As I said earlier, I think they are just trying to avoid confusion with the term ketoacidosis. Fat-burning is still a very integral part of the Atkins plan in the new book. In fact, it stresses to remain in fat-burning mode even in Maintenance, which is different than DANDR. I think that is a very important difference, which I happen to think is key to long-term success for me.

Yes this was interesting. And one of the truly new things in the book that goes directly against what we seem to get in DANDR. Again I felt they just threw it out there without explaining why they are making the change.

Also it makes me think that their use of the term "fat burning' is not quite the same as what we commonly call ketosis. Because most of will not be in ketosis in maintenance. And I am not thinking they meant we should eat carb low enough to be in that state. So I was confused about it.

I think they are saying that as we have burned up all the body fat we need to burn we should keep adding fat for that "oven" to burn so then they are arguing that fat is the critical ingredient in fat burning and not like we tend to think the absence of carbs.

So in maintenance one eat more carbs (what ever that number is), one eats more fat than on induction and then less protein. I agree that is something to think about. If they had only given a real scientific explanation or show me that they had tried this out on real people I would be more easy about it.

But yes I am excited about the new book as well. I was thinking last night as we were discussing this what I would have done if this book had been around when I started in 2007. Would I have gone new or old?

[mitzimarie]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

Wow, Liv - did we read the same book? Just kidding

OK, I'm on my way out of the door, but I want to continue this later. I do want to post something I have written, to explain what I am referring to:


From 2002 Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution:

Chapter 17: Lifetime Maintenance

page 208 - How To Do Lifetime Maintenence Correctly

"Now that you've made it to your goal weight, you can continue to select from a greater range of foods and consume more carbs than you did in the two earlier phases of Atkins. But as I've said at every transition: No way is this a license to return to your old eating habits. All too often, people win the battle of weight loss only to lose the war of weight control. To maintain your goal weight, you must know your metabolic needs. Your Critical Carbohydrate Level for Maintenance (CCLM), which you found during Pre-Maintenance, lets you know how many carbs you can each day to maintain your weight. Stay right at or around that number, and your weight should not fluctuate beyond the perfectly natural range of 2 or 3 pounds. (Hormonal changes and other daily fluctuations in your body account for a small seesaw effect.) Later I'll tell you about why and how you may have to adjust your CCLM at various times in your life."

page 210 - The Nitty-Gritty of Maintenance

"What you should be asking yourself is "What level of carbohydate consumption do I fell best on?" That's a more rational goal than trying to find the highest number of carbs you can get away with. This may mean you actually stay slightly below your CCLM. Many people find they feel better on a low level of carbs - perhaps only 30 or 35 grams a day - than they do on the most liberal version of the plan. That might be two salads and a couple of helpings of other vegetables. Together with satisfying portions of protein and fat, such an approach could provide good nutrition if you were vigilant about opting for nutrient-dense goods."

page 212 - Dealing With Weight Gain

"But even with flexibility and great food, you can come upon a patch of trouble. What if you're happily eating away and feeling great, and then suddenly you notice those awful pounds and inches are staging a revival? Since you are in Lifetime Maintenance, you're probably no longer in lipolysis, which, by definition, involves an element of fat loss. Newly slim people are no longer trying to shed pounds, and so they don't burn fat for fuel most of the time because they're above their CCLL. (emphasis is mine)



From 2010 The New Atkins for a New You:

Chapter 9: Into The Home Stretch: Pre-Maintenance

page 159 - Your Carb Tolerance

"It's important to understand that looking merely at weight loss can oversimplify the issue of carb tolerance. Your energy level, ability to concentrate, tendency to retain fluid, and, of course, the old signals of unreasonable hunger and carb cravngs must also be considered. For example, even if you're losing weight at a CLL of say, 50 grams of Net Carbs a day, you might still be reawakening food cravings or blood sugar swings or experiencing low energy, which could make maintaining that level of carb intake problematic long term. Why are we bringing this up? Because some people, for a variety of reasons, find that they do best at 25 to 50 grams of New Carbs in either the weight loss or weight maintenance phases. Your objective is not to push your carb intake to the absolute limit but to advance to the point where you're comfortable and don't stimulate the return of any of the old symptoms that originally got you into trouble. Bottom line: finding your ACE is not just a matter of getting to the right weight; if you're pushing your ACE too high, it is probably not sustainable.

What's unique about the low-carb way of eating compared to other diets is that adhering first to your CLL and later your ACE results in profound changes in your metabolism, enabling you to better control your intake of calories. The flip side is that if you exceed your ACE, you're forcing your body to burn more glucose while inhibiting fat breakdown and utilization. This makes it harder to control appetite and feel satiated, with the result that you'll almost certainly regain lost pounds. You'll lost the Atkins Edge and the metabolic bully will rear its ugly head again, blocking fat burning."

page 160 - Getting (The Fat) Up There

"From everything we've told you so far, you'd think that it's the carbs in your diet that stop weight loss at your goal. That's partially true, because carbs do exert a stong control over your metabolism - the bully thing. But when you move from losing weight to maintaining weight, you need to increase your consumption of healthy, natural fats slightly to meet your maintenance energy needs." (emphasis is mine)

Chapter 10: Keeping It Off: Lifetime Maintenance

page 170 - Protect Your Weight Loss, But Maintain Your Weight

"Now that you're no longer trying to trim pounds and inches, you clearly need more energy from food sources since you're no longer relying on your body fat for some of your fuel. Most people find that their appetite increases slightly as they approach their body's healthy natural weight, even as they stay within their ACE. It's important to understand that the extra fuel to keep your weight stable should come primarily from dietary fat so that you remain in a fat-burning mode. (emphasis is mine) If you find that your weight is dropping below the desired level or experience fat hunger, you'll need to allow a little more fat into your diet."

page 170 - Fat Remains Your Friend

"If you ignore this advice and continue to add carbs beyond your ACE, you'll soon be revisited by the same old demons of hunger and carb cravings. Overconsuming carbs only invites that metabolic bully back into your life. Your metabolism is already adapted to efficiently moving fat into your cells and using it for energy rather than storing it for later use, providing a sustained and predictable fuel supply. Perhaps you've noticed that once you've adapted to a low-carb diet and complying with your ACE, you can be an hour or two late for a meal and not feel desperate. How so? The answer is that even when you're at your goal weight, you still have a couple of months' worth of energy reserve tucked away as body fat. This means that your muscles, your liver, and your heart are getting a continuous, uninterrupted flow of energy directly from fat. Even your brain, which requires more than 500 Calories per day, gets much of its energy from fat. If you've banished 30 pounds of body fat since you've started Induction, your body has burned off an awesome 100,000 Calories more than you ate. And there's no reason your metabolism can't continue that same burn rate for fat - keeping the Atkins Edge - as you maintain your new weight. (emphasis is mine)

page 174 - Lifetime Maintenance With An Ace of 50 or Less

"The simplest description of this approach is Ongoing Weight Loss with a bit more variety and some additional fat."

----------------

I like this new book very much. Unlike the Atkins book prior to this one (the one put out by the company; not DANDR), it embraces fat. I like the attention given to Lifetime Maintenance. I LOVE that it advocates continuing to burn fat instead of glucose in Maintenance. That part is different than DANDR. (that is what my emphasis in bold is about)

[mitzimarie]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

OK, I am back from my delicious lunch with Mom - Chicken Shawarma Salad from our favorite Greek/Lebanese restaurant. Outstanding!

Now, back to business

See I need reasons. I don't want to follow a novel written about an eating programme. Everytime time they make a change I want to know why. Is there a good scientific reason for this change. Did they test it out? If there was I may consider it. I really don't think the reader should have to guess. I think they should have told us why.

While I don't view it as a novel, I will grant you this - it is a lot easier to read than something like Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. To me, reading that book was like running a marathon - it took forever, and it wore me out. Much too scientific-minded for my taste. I am glad that I read it, though. Although it's not one I'm going to re-read.

Yes, DANDR had more more science within the text than the new book. And the science in DANDR wasn't nearly as intense as the Taubes' book, so I was able to get through it easily... I am happy that I was able to understand the information presented. In the new book, there is less scientific info within the text. But in the back of the book, there are nine pages of notes citing the studies used for each chapter. Did I read that part? No... and I don't plan to. Honestly, I must admit that I don't like reading that kind of stuff. I finished the Taubes' book, becuase I didn't want to back down from the challenge of reading it, once I started. But I'm not taking anything like that on again... I glaze over like a doughnut when trying to read scientific studies. I let Georgiana read that intense science stuff, then condense it down for me. So, like her, it sounds like you are one who craves the science, too. My hat is off to you! Wish I had a higher tolerance for it, but I don't. Especially since two scientists can read the exact same study, and come to different conclusions about it. Think about it... for every study there is out there that supports a certain point of view, there are others that support the other side. It's maddening.

The are not requiring us to eat it. But they make exceptions to their own rules allowing people to eat this things (which contain milk products, soy, peanuts and chocolate) .

DANDR did the same thing... there are shakes and Bran-a-Crisp crackers (whatever that is) within the sample menus. It says that although it is important that you eat primarily unprocessed foods, some controlled carb food products can come in handy when you are unable to find appropriate food, can't take time for a meal or need a quick snack. It says that while any of these foods can make doing Atkins easier, don't overdo it. (page 129 in DANDR). Page 175 says you can select from the variety of convenience foods (bars and shakes being the two most avaibable).

In the new book, the wording is very similar. On page 90, it says that some low-carb food products can come in handy when you're unable to find appropriate food, can't take time for a meal, or need a quick snack, and that such foods can make doing Atkins easier, but don't overdo them. And they say don't substitute them for any of your 12-15 grams of Net Carbs from foundation vegetables.

The book was launched at the same time as a big product market campaign by the company.

There are probably going to be big product market campaigns put out by the company on a regular basis... that's just big business. The fact that the latest one may have coincided with the release of this book, is probably just a coincidence. And the fact is, I have no idea whatsoever what the launch date on the latest campaign was.

Yes this was interesting. And one of the truly new things in the book that goes directly against what we seem to get in DANDR. Again I felt they just threw it out there without explaining why they are making the change.

Also it makes me think that their use of the term "fat burning' is not quite the same as what we commonly call ketosis. Because most of will not be in ketosis in maintenance. And I am not thinking they meant we should eat carb low enough to be in that state. So I was confused about it.

I think they are saying that as we have burned up all the body fat we need to burn we should keep adding fat for that "oven" to burn so then they are arguing that fat is the critical ingredient in fat burning and not like we tend to think the absence of carbs.

So in maintenance one eat more carbs (what ever that number is), one eats more fat than on induction and then less protein. I agree that is something to think about. If they had only given a real scientific explanation or show me that they had tried this out on real people I would be more easy about it.

I have lots of thoughts on this, but don't have the time to go into right now. But I will say this - no one should underestimate the fact that we are each different in our tolerances and metabolic makeup. As someone who had 90 pounds to lose and is extremely carb-sensitive, my experiences and needs in Maintenance may be different than those with less to lose and a different metabolic makeup. And I do think that their "fat-burning" (the new book's) is exactly the same thing as ketosis. Just my POV.

I was thinking last night as we were discussing this what I would have done if this book had been around when I started in 2007. Would I have gone new or old?

I would have read both, lived out my own experiences, and take what I needed from each of them. Just like I'm doing now.

Understand this, everyone - as a Moderator of this board, I fully support DANDR and will continue to give advice based upon it. In fact, I would have never even brought up the subject of the new book at ADBB. But since someone else did, I was ready to jump in.

[mizski]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

Understand this, everyone - as a Moderator of this board, I fully support DANDR and will continue to give advice based upon it. In fact, I would have never even brought up the subject of the new book at ADBB. But since someone else did, I was ready to jump in.

I am very glad we are having these discussions on the new book. But the new book does pose some problems that I'm not sure how to deal with. I imagine some people will read the new book and may venture over here. The advice we will give them may be different. More of a quandary to me is the veg heads. I think the new book offers a much more doable vegetarian/vegan plan than DANDR. To quote DANDR (which is what this board is based upon) would be denying them useful information; quoting the new book could be a slippery slope of when or what book to go by. Then again we do cite other books by Dr. Atkins or even Taubes and others. So I'm not sure how to handle these possible future situations. Maybe I just think too much!

[mitzimarie]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

I am very glad we are having these discussions on the new book. But the new book does pose some problems that I'm not sure how to deal with. I imagine some people will read the new book and may venture over here. The advice we will give them may be different. More of a quandary to me is the veg heads. I think the new book offers a much more doable vegetarian/vegan plan than DANDR. To quote DANDR (which is what this board is based upon) would be denying them useful information; quoting the new book could be a slippery slope of when or what book to go by. Then again we do cite other books by Dr. Atkins or even Taubes and others. So I'm not sure how to handle these possible future situations. Maybe I just think too much!

Miz, I am so glad that you are getting something out of this discussion. I am, too!

As to how to offer advice on ADBB - that's simple, in my view. This board is based upon 2002 Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution. It is not a general low-carb board (there are plenty of those out there), and it is not a general Atkins board. It has an owner, and the board was created specifically to support 2002 Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution. I plan on respecting the mission statement of this board, and will give advice based upon that.

Having said that - that does not mean that there cannot be discussion about the new book. Look at this one! Doesn't it ROCK?! I think so.

I think we can mention other sources, as long as everyone keeps in mind that this ADBB, and supports 2002 DANDR.

[brandywine1241]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

Yes that was one of the things that confused me about the new book. They cut out everything about the glycemic index ....

They give no explanation as to why they are cutting out this aspect of low carbing, they just do it. Not sure if that is progressing or regressing.

I think I remember seeing something about studies showing that the glycemic index is not as important as previously thought. Maybe Georgiana can weigh in on this?

Ricotta cheese after berries I just don't get it. I don't get the logic. I understand the logic of the original ladder. You add the items which are fatty and with low impact first and then the rest. But in this one it seems coincidental.

Maybe it is because lots of people are lactose intolerant, and moving a potential allergen to a later rung made sense to the authors.

But here's the thing, IMO. NANY was written by researchers who have gotten their information from the artificial environment of studies. (eg randomly assigning people to groups and testing a hypothesis.) DANDR was written by a practitioner who developed a plan based on his experience treating tens of thousands of people in the real world. These folks CHOSE low carb and presumably were motivated to succeed based on the fact that they paid Dr. Atkins mega-bucks to tell them how to do it. NANY will, no doubt work well for lots of people. But for those who are having trouble, we can give them advice based on DANDR which we know works for folks like us.

To be fair, DANDR was very poorly edited. (Is it 3T or 3oz of heavy cream? Is tomato juice allowed? The sample menus are not flagged as to whether or not they are induction friendly.) In the early days of this board, Dr. Atkins practice was still operating and much clarification was obtained, particularly by 2bigformysize and Brook, from the staff.

[atkinsgal08]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

>>much clarification was obtained, particularly by 2bigformysize and Brook, from the staff.>>

That's "hearsay" though, as I've recently learned!

[Baylor]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

I feel like the New book just offers more options on Plan. I mean if someone picks up the new book and grabs the lifestyle and makes themselves a successful Atkins life is it any less on plan than if they had done it by DANDR 2002?
No.

I think that What I got from Dr Atkins is that he wanted to change lives. He wanted people healthy and fit and this new book will do that just like all the other versions. To say it is less Atkins because it was not written by him is short sighted. I get people's loyalty to him. I think he was awesome and thank him for helping me change my life. But I think more than anything he just wanted people to grasp the plan and change their lives.

I don't like when people tell people they are not doing Atkins because they are not doing their particular version. I think people need to accept that not one way works for everyone and someone picking up that new book will see many more options to get on Atkins, get healthy and lose weight.

There are many rules that have been handed down that have no basis in any of the books. They are still helpful but I don't see how you can embrace some of them and not embrace the new book that is actually Atkins.

[mizski]

Re: What's Diff Between Atkins Book?

I see that other threads/questions on the new book are being started but I'm going to add a comment to this discussion.

A question on another BB reminded me of the excellent information on supplements in DANDR 2002. The chapter on nutritional supplements (Chapter 23) is incredibly informative and guides people in customizing supplements based upon their needs. The new Atkins 2010 book only has one paragraph (p. 68 ) suggesting the bare minimum of a non-iron multi, EFA and possibly Vitamin D. Better than nothing but for those who have read the supplement chapter in DANDR, there is so much more one can do to help their health and weight loss.