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

[liv]

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

I agree with bizzle. Many people who cut down fat radically may need fiber to move stuff but on a high fat diet stuff moves for most of us. I think there is no need to worry about the rda recommendations in that area like we do not worry about consuming the rda recommended amounts of carbs daily

If fiber is a personal goal I think that can be accomplished fine using DANDR if a person sets his/her mind to it.

I of course used DANDR to lose weight and am biased in that direction I also am very skeptical about the Atkins Nutritional company and the things they have tried to do to our way of eating over the years. But cudos to them for coming out with a book that I did think was pretty good and not focused on promoting products.

[hiddenhottie]

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

[QUOTE=bizzlekitty;1228653]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.

QUOTE]

Actually, DANDR 2002 pg 76 says quite the contrary regarding fiber. In fact, Dr. Atkins encouraged fiber supplementation - especially during induction - because constipation can be an issue in that stage. It makes sense to me that the 3 cup limit of allowed veggies would be lifted since there is little insulin reaction.

[mitzimarie]

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

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?

Again - this board was set up specifically to support 2002 DANDR. If you want support for 2010 NANY, you may want to visit the atkins.com board.

Look, if you read through the posts on the link I provided earlier, you will notice that I am a big fan of the new book. HOWEVER, while on this board, I give advice based upon 2002 DANDR.

I'm not sure how to be more clear on that. This is NOT an Atkins debate board... it is a support board for 2002 DANDR.

[hiddenhottie]

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

I'm not sure how to be more clear on that. This is NOT an Atkins debate board... it is a support board for 2002 DANDR.

So, I'm guessing that the answer to my question is that you do not incorporate the current research...?

I thought this was an Atkins discussion board, put here to support those following the Atkins diet. So far, I'm not seeing any 'support' for discussion. Even Atkins made adjustments based on current research and this can be seen from one book to the next.

[liv]

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

This board is here to support the Atkins people following a diet not to support discussing the diet. Although some people do prefer to discuss it rather than follow it
That being said I personally think it is good to discuss. I think we will have this discussion a lot and it is good to think about the way you are eating and have good reasons for eating that way.

[Georgiana]

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

Namely, the issues w/ induction 'flu'

The issue of Induction flu is discussed in DANDR 2002, and the solutions given by Dr. Atkins are the same as those in NANY, with the exception of the sodium supplementation.

Many people feel perfectly fine with no broth, even when they are consuming less than 50 net carbs a day. I never had 2 cups of broth in a day, yet I did not experience any of the symptoms described in NANY. In fact, my sodium intake is usually around 1500 mg per day... which isn't much.

Some people do experience mild symptoms as they transition from glucosis to lipolysis, but these symptoms are usually gone within the first 5-6 days... even without broth.

Very few people have more severe symptoms that require a long-term way of managing them. For those people, drinking broth might actually help.

The idea that sodium might help comes from studies done by Dr. Phinney. At least in the beginning, a ketogenic diet has a natriuresis effect, which could reduce blood volume and cause secondary potassium wasting, thus leading to orthostatic symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, fatigue, etc.

The conclusion of Dr. Phinney's studies was actually more complex than, "supplement with sodium to avoid Induction flu". He was looking at the effect a very low carbohydrate diet has on physical performance. For this, what he tested was the maximum aerobic capacity (VO2 max) of the subjects... which is very far from the level of exercise most of us perform.

So... what Dr. Phinney actually found was that, after a period of adaptation, physical performance is not impaired on a very low carbohydrate diet that is supplemented with sodium (3000 mg) and potassium (1000 mg) when protein is restricted to 15-25% of the total calories (or 1.2-1.7 g per kg of ideal body weight).

From these studies alone, it is difficult, imo, to isolate the effect of sodium. I'm not saying that sodium supplementation is unnecessary for everybody... but, also based on what I've seen on different forums, I doubt it is a necessity for most people doing Atkins... especially to be done for as long as net carbs are below 50 grams.

lack of fiber on induction

As J. wrote, that depends on the person's vegetable choices. If one eats 3 cups of lettuce, then no... one is not getting a lot of fiber.

My personal opinion about cups of vegetables is different than what ADBB goes by... but, while at ADBB, I've learned to play by the rules. As for the advice given here, if you read around the forum, you will see that there are quite a few of us encouraging members to choose their vegetables wisely. I doubt any experienced member will say that eating 3 cups of lettuce is just as good as 3 cups of more nutritious vegetables, which are higher in net carbs.

To get the RDA of 25+ grams of fiber

The authors of NANY do not mention that one should aim for 25+ grams of fiber.

a person would have to be eating 2 cups of avocado and 1 cup artichoke every day.

Avocado does not count as a vegetable in DANDR 2002. It's limited to 1/2 a small one per day, during Induction.

[2big4mysize]

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

WOW lots of selective reading going on there with your quotes.

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)?

[QUOTE=hiddenhottie;1228657]

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.

QUOTE]

Actually, DANDR 2002 pg 76 says quite the contrary regarding fiber. In fact, Dr. Atkins encouraged fiber supplementation - especially during induction - because constipation can be an issue in that stage. It makes sense to me that the 3 cup limit of allowed veggies would be lifted since there is little insulin reaction.

First lets address this fiber issue.

If you open that book you keep pulling quotes from you will see in rule 12 chapter 11 of DANDR 2002 that additional fiber is permitted. 2 T of flax will get one 5.6 grams of fiber and the rule says a tablespoon or more so one could easily consume the amount of flax in a one min muffin and be induction legal.
One can pick 2 cups of lettuce and be sorely lacking in fiber or one could pick 2 cups of higher fiber veggies like jicama with almost 12 grams of fiber for 2 cups. it is easy to get fiber in the 14 day induction period and lets remember as Dr Atkins said in his last interview on Larry King in 2002 "it is just 14 days!"

So, I'm guessing that the answer to my question is that you do not incorporate the current research...?

I thought this was an Atkins discussion board, put here to support those following the Atkins diet. So far, I'm not seeing any 'support' for discussion. Even Atkins made adjustments based on current research and this can be seen from one book to the next.

You have drawn a wrong conclusion there. This board never claims to be an atkins discussion board. Back in 2003 when this place was created there were 4 Atkins books in print; the orginal 72 version, the 1992 new one, the 2002 DANDR, and the Atkins For Life Book. The board could have supported all the plans but decided to only support the 2002 version. No discussion nor support for the other books was used to answer newbies. It was a stand that angered folk who came here as a a 72 atkins follower. Those folk found other places for support as did folk who chose not to do a by the book Atkins since cheating and not following the rules was frowned upon here.
I'm sure the current admins and owner had a discussion about did ADBB want to change to the new book and after careful consideration chose not to. As a member of this board advice given to inductees should comply with the 2002 DANDR induction chapters.

One good thing about using the 2002 book it is very easy to get inductees on day 15 to move to OWL rung 1 since they want more veggies. THat helps get them to work all the phases and not do induction to goal weight which causes many a goalie to be a regainer.

How folk doing the new book are going to convince an inductee on day 15 they need to move to OWL and more veggies when they are already having 6-10 cups is beyond me.

There are other atkins boards supported by ADBB that you can find a link to at the bottom of the main forum if you'd like to have a place to support your Atkins plan.

[hiddenhottie]

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

Thanks for your response, 2big. It has been nice to see some well thought out, non-militant, responses in the last few posts. Thank you for your insight, 2big, on why DANDR 2002 was selected for it's guidelines and you have a very valid point about moving on to OWL. As for discussion, this is what I copied from the main portal:
Main Atkins Diet Forum General discussion for all aspects of the Atkins Diet

This is why I posted the discussion here. You guys might want to think about changing that if discussions are not desired

[2big4mysize]

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

Thanks for your response, 2big. It has been nice to see some well thought out, non-militant, responses in the last few posts. Thank you for your insight, 2big, on why DANDR 2002 was selected for it's guidelines and you have a very valid point about moving on to OWL. As for discussion, this is what I copied from the main portal:
Main Atkins Diet Forum General discussion for all aspects of the Atkins Diet

This is why I posted the discussion here. You guys might want to think about changing that if discussions are not desired

Well let me tell you about why it says that. I was a mod back in the early day and I ask for the OWL forum, the 14 day induction and the extended induction forums since back then all we had was the main forum so folk doing induction would get induction info and not see one of those recipes for premaintnenace and think they could eat that on induction. We also had vocal inductees telling day 16 folk that they were cheating cause they were eating more then 3 cups of veggies. The phase in your profile wasn't availible back then. You'd be surprized how many folk didn't know when they started that atkins had 4 phases and what was legal for upper phases was not legal for induction.

After much discussion those phase forums were created and per the discussion the main forum was kept for all things atkins not phase one and two related. Eventually as members progressed a premaintnenace forum and a maintenance forum were created along with a second time around for ther repeat folk.

However the entire AtkinsDIET BULLENTIN BOARD.COM IS 2002 EDITION based so even if the portal says "Main Atkins Diet Forum General discussion for all aspects of the Atkins Diet" it means for all aspects of the 2002 diet.

BUt even with that one can discuss the new book in the new book topic. If one wants to follow the new book then one needs to be sure they have it in their phases info and refrain from giving advice based on that new book info if it conflicts with the rules from the 2002 edition so as not to confuse any newbies. on another board I post on the first thing one has to ask a newbie is what version of atkins are you doing when they ask if something is legal that would be legal for one book but not another.

As the owner, mods and admins become aware of a seperate needs forum here they usually get created if a person to moderate them is found and a real need is there. Maybe there eventually will be a 2010 Atkins forum here as there used to be a low carb other forum for those not following 2002 DANDR. Those folk took a beating from folk answering their posts from ther new post feature and using 2002 DANDR rules not realizing the OP was not doing DANDR and was posting in the low carb other forum. That forum was eventually spun off into a new board.

[cleochatra]

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

I'm not a huge fan of the new book. I bought it for research purposes, but there are issues there; like why they share success stories that are obviously NOT incumbent upon the new book's plan, which is so new no one would have had the opportunity to follow it. I also hate the amount of vegetables they're pushing. It's far too many carbs in the beginning. Adversely, I like the added flaxmeal and almond milk in induction.

[mizski]

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

I'm not a huge fan of the new book. I bought it for research purposes, but there are issues there; like why they share success stories that are obviously NOT incumbent upon the new book's plan, which is so new no one would have had the opportunity to follow it.

I think ANI is trying to market to a new group and use the success stories as illustrations that Atkins does work. I didn't think of your point though...those people probably followed DANDR.

I also hate the amount of vegetables they're pushing. It's far too many carbs in the beginning.

Starting with basically OWL 1 and the high-sodium broth (my bugaboo with the book) I do wonder how people on NANY Induction do compared with those on DANDR Induction. I'm probably biased but I think the DANDR folks do better.

I'm split on the NANY veg issue. I agree it's probably too much to begin with (especially for those folks who didn't eat veg at all) but it would take care of the lettuce-only folks that we've seen so much over here in getting them to eat more veggies...unless they want to eat a TON of lettuce. Yuck. Also, for those who stay in Induction waaay too long, at least they would be getting in their veggies.

Adversely, I like the added flaxmeal and almond milk in induction.

Yes, and other things like balsamic vinegar, soy sauce, miso, Pickapeppa sauce, black bean sauce and the dozens of other condiments listed. The caveat is that they have to be carefully measured.

While *I* like all these ingredients, I wonder if it will make it more difficult to know what is acceptable or not with the stock "check the ingredients" advice.

The reason I liked DANDR and ADBB so much is that things were VERY clear cut and not that complicated when I started Induction. For me it was kind of like diet boot camp. I needed that. I did NOT need a zillion options and more do it my way plans.

[hiddenhottie]

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

When I used to go by DANDR, I filled my carb limit w/veggies. I did this at first partly because my digestive system was telling me that I needed more fiber and, also, I was craving the vegetation. Cravings for the vegetation were much different than the cravings for sugar. By eating more veggies, I actually felt full and satiated. Additionally, I lost weight faster. Adversely, when I stuck to the limit on veggies and filled my hunger with protein, I plateaued. As for the condiments, I think if bottled dressings are allowed, then why not these condiments? They seem to have similar impact. As for people's results, who knows if they followed the guidelines to the letter? Everyone's body reacts differently, therefore some variations are needed. I think the book reflects this. The rules for induction aren't terribly different. Most of the differences allow for variations for vegans and vegetarians. I like the fact that they included an actual plan for those who experience severe withdrawals, which gradually decreases the amount of carbs one consumes until they are at induction level. I think the book reflects that one 'size' doesn't always fit all.

[CalicoPrairie]

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

When I used to go by DANDR, I filled my carb limit w/veggies. I did this at first partly because my digestive system was telling me that I needed more fiber and, also, I was craving the vegetation. Cravings for the vegetation were much different than the cravings for sugar. By eating more veggies, I actually felt full and satiated. Additionally, I lost weight faster. Adversely, when I stuck to the limit on veggies and filled my hunger with protein, I plateaued. As for the condiments, I think if bottled dressings are allowed, then why not these condiments? They seem to have similar impact. As for people's results, who knows if they followed the guidelines to the letter? Everyone's body reacts differently, therefore some variations are needed. I think the book reflects this. The rules for induction aren't terribly different. Most of the differences allow for variations for vegans and vegetarians. I like the fact that they included an actual plan for those who experience severe withdrawals, which gradually decreases the amount of carbs one consumes until they are at induction level. I think the book reflects that one 'size' doesn't always fit all.

I don't mean any rudeness, but I'm wondering why it's so important that this board accept discussion of this new book? There are other low carb forums that do accept it, but the owner of this one has chosen to specialize it for DANDR 2002.

If it were me, I would think that it's ok for a board owner to feel free to choose what the discussion is going to be about. I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem?

[hiddenhottie]

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

I don't mean any rudeness, but I'm wondering why it's so important that this board accept discussion of this new book? There are other low carb forums that do accept it, but the owner of this one has chosen to specialize it for DANDR 2002.

If it were me, I would think that it's ok for a board owner to feel free to choose what the discussion is going to be about. I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem?

Calico, I'm sure if you didn't mean to be rude, then you wouldn't be, right?

As far as the discussion goes, I had a question and it was answered by 2big. In the meantime, I have received many outright defensive comments that didn't answer anything. FYI - we are still 'discussing' today because, apparently, some of the board would still like to discuss it. I assume that if no one wanted to be discussing it, no one would

[hiddenhottie]

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

BTW - I do thank most of you for your input as some of it was very helpful.