Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

[hiddenhottie]

I ask because I only see references to DANDR 2002. I have read the new book and think it has some good stuff!

[JulieB]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

If you look at the Terms of Reference for this board, you'll find that this board goes by DANDR '02.

I think that is great, because it is the last book that Dr. Atkins himself wrote.

[mitzimarie]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

I ask because I only see references to DANDR 2002. I have read the new book and think it has some good stuff!

The reason you see references to 2002 DANDR on this board, is because this board was created specifically to support 2002 DANDR. It is not a general Atkins or general lowcard board - it is 2002 specific.

Having said that, there has been discussion comparing the two books. Rather than create another thread to discuss the same thing, I will refer you to the one that is already here: http://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.c...kins-book.html

[mizski]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

From the ADBB Mission Statement:

"Our underlying values are founded on the Atkins approach to weight loss from the 2002 edition of Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution (2002 DANDR), which we believe to be the safest and most nutritionally efficient method in existence."

Although there has been some discussion on the Atkins 2010 book, ADBB goes by DANDR 2002 and the advice received will be from that book.

IMO it is very important to pick a plan and stick with it particularly during Induction. Trying to meld both books during Induction is confusing with conflicting information. Also, the OWL rungs are different in the new book meaning the foods allowed are different from the DANDR 2002 rungs.

[CalicoPrairie]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

I've read the new one. I bought it before I found this board. It's ok, but I prefer the 2002 version for it's focus on natural, whole and fresh foods, which is what I've been moving toward for a while.

[hiddenhottie]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

I perused the other link and, like most of you, I felt similarly on how the company strayed from the spirit of Atkins' original diet. However, after reading the book, I've changed my mind. I like how they've addressed the issue of fiber during induction and made it a requirement to get in more veggies. I also like how they addressed carb withdrawal by going over how to wean yourself off of carbs so that induction flu is minimal. I also like that it incorporates new research on the diet (which, unfortunately, Mr. Atkins cannot currently do himself). I think the book has redeemed the company's reputation (in my mind). Also, I didn't see that it strayed from whole foods at all , but kept w/ Dr. Atkins view of unprocessed, healthy eats.

[brandywine1241]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

I also like that it incorporates new research on the diet

I think you'll find that the new research is nothing more than replication and confirmation of the studies Dr. Atkins based his books on. This research has been around (and ignored) for more than 30 years until recently.

[hiddenhottie]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

I disagree. It's because of this research that changes were made and I think the changes were desperately needed. These are issues that are often mentioned on this board.

[Georgiana]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

What changes do you think were "desperately needed" and are supported by the research presented in NANY?

[hiddenhottie]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

Namely, the issues w/ induction 'flu' and lack of fiber on induction, which I believe I alluded to in a previous post.

[atkinsgal08]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

There's not a lack of fiber on 2002 Induction. Of course, that's assuming that people are eating enough vegetables with fiber.

And one could have the Induction "flu" following the new book, too.

[hiddenhottie]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

Actually, it would be quite difficult to get in enough fiber on induction when veggies are limited to 2 cups (loosely packed) salad vegetables and 1 cup cooked vegetables. To get the RDA of 25+ grams of fiber, a person would have to be eating 2 cups of avocado and 1 cup artichoke every day. I mention these two specifically because they are the highest in fiber. In the new book, the allowable vegetables are not limited to anything except the specific carb count for the phase a person is on. I think that this is a much healthier view of vegetables than in the previous books and I think these changes were made to reflect the results of current studies.

I am wondering why there is so much reluctance to embrace the new book, with updated information, when the 'nuts and bolts' are true to Atkins' original program (as noted in your previous responses)?

[Elizellen]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

I think you are willfully missing the main reason as has been stated by many posters in this thread.

We go by the 2002 edition of DANDR because this support board was set up to help people trying to follow the instructions given in that book.

We 'older' members have considerable experience and knowledge of those rules so can give knowledgeable and relevant advice about it, and 'newer' members also help out by looking things up in their copy and advising others too, with details of their experiences.

Many of our members do not have a copy of the new NANY book so to give suggestions according to that would only confuse them.

[hiddenhottie]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

We go by the 2002 edition of DANDR because this support board was set up to help people trying to follow the instructions given in that book.

We 'older' members have considerable experience and knowledge of those rules so can give knowledgeable and relevant advice about it, and 'newer' members also help out by looking things up in their copy and advising others too, with details of their experiences.

Many of our members do not have a copy of the new NANY book so to give suggestions according to that would only confuse them.

It's perfectly understandable why just one book would be chosen as a point of reference. So, does this mean that modifications and instructions are given based on current research and personal experiences or is the board still going 'strictly by the book' of DANDR 2002 which doesn't include these modifications?

[bizzlekitty]

Re: Do you go by the new book? Why or why not?

Just like fat has been given a bad wrap for the 30 years due to misinformation, I don't believe fiber is "all that" of needing to get 25g a day as the RDA recommends. Especially when you're on a low carb diet.

Where does fiber come from? Mostly fruits, some vegetables, whole grains. We're already eating lots of veggies, which contain many nutrients the body needs. Fruits? Well, they are also loaded with sugar which has an impact on the body. Whole grains? You can get equivalent fiber from veggies which often have more nutrients.

Most nutritionists recommend it to help slow down the absorption of carbs and the glycemic impact. We already have that advantage by following Atkins.

And then there's the whole colon cancer thing, right? Maybe not.
Fiber Does Not Help Prevent Colon Cancer, Study Finds

It can help with digestive issues. But I would bet a majority of low carbers don't have as many issues as alot of digestive issues are due to starchy, refined carbs and not eating right. If we do, things like flax can help us out.

Folks have existed for many years without eating lots of fiber (ex. Eskimos) and have done just fine.

Personally, I don't worry as long as I'm eating my veggies and some fruit (berries). My nutritionist would like me to eat more, but all the reading I'm finding is inconclusive that it really is all that.