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

[CalicoPrairie]

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

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

I'm sorry. I worded my post incorrectly.

The feel that I'm getting from you is that you feel that NANY is just as good as DANDR--which isn't at all an issue, so I'm not sure why you are trying so hard to defend it when people here are satisfied with the version they are using, and the version that this site supports.

The "feel" I'm getting from your responses to the previous posters' explanations of why this board follows DANDR, is that this is not ok with you for this board only to support DANDR and not NANY as well, and that you feel that should change. I'm sorry if I am perceiving your opinion incorrectly, I am going strictly off your posts here in this thread. I am going to make the assumption that you aren't a rude person, just passionate about your version of the diet because it works for you. That's cool.

Discussion was an incorrect word to use, because of course it's ok to discuss NANY here. However, when we are giving advice, as a group we tend toward giving advice for DANDR 2002, since that's the way the forum is set up.

[mitzimarie]

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

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

It is 100% possible to get 12g of net veggie carbs in Induction and still be in accordance with 2002 DANDR.

I love the requirement of foundation vegetables in the new book.

[cleochatra]

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

The new guidelines, for me, are painfully politically correct. Atkins 2002 already appeases all of the food pyramid standards save for grains.

Adding more vegetables should be ruled as unConstitutional due to cruel and unusual punishment.

[cleochatra]

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

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.

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.

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.

Great points. I agree that all of the options are just so people can say, "Hey! Latino friend! You can do Atkins too!" But it's so silly, because Latinos have been following Atkins for years, as have vegetarians. In my thoughts,m the new book brings little to the table in terms of good information. I think the difference between 2002 and 2010 is that people can now find SO much information on the internet, it's absolutely difficult to present information we don't already know through our own arduous research.

And I have no doubt in my mind every success story in that book is either Atkins 2002 or Atkins '72.

I think all the additions will just make it a ridiculous plan. No one will learn anything about themselves without the stringency (if you can move OWL rungs around and in some cases skip induction altogether) and then people will say, "Ah. See? Atkins doesn't work." The whole point of induction is to negate most of the foods which tend to cause people blood sugar and biochemical issues. If someone is downing almond milk and has a tree nut intolerance, they're not going to learn anything from the new induction.

Those are my concerns. I'm a purist, and I didn't see a reason to go and mess around with Atkins. That said, I want to know who gets to goal and stays there with the new plan. I could be smoking crack. Maybe it's the new South Beach of low carb, since it's hard to fail if little is verboten.

[hiddenhottie]

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

@ Calico - I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. I was simply responding to the posts recieved. I asked if the board in general would be going by the new book - why or why not? and I got alot of (non)answers that generally said that the board is not said up to do that and discussion of it is not welcome. I put more information out there for discussion to see if I could get an answer that wasn't defensive and contained a reasonable explanation as to 'why or why not?' Elizellen's answer was very defensive and didn't provide a very reasonable explanation. 2big was nice enough to be respectful and say something that makes sense beyond 'that's just the way it is and that's the way it's going to be.' I used to be on this board alot, but I've stopped for the most part because I'm seeing that prevailing attitude more and more on here and I don't find it very supportive. However, it seems the board keeps growing, so some people may just like it.

[hiddenhottie]

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

@Mitziemarie - I agree! I love that about it too!

@Cleochatra - I agree with you also about it being politically correct and thank you for your informative viewpoint. To seasoned Atkineers, much of the information isn't new - just rehashed in a way that seems new and might draw more people to the eating program.

[CalicoPrairie]

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

@ Calico - I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. I was simply responding to the posts recieved. I asked if the board in general would be going by the new book - why or why not? and I got alot of (non)answers that generally said that the board is not said up to do that and discussion of it is not welcome. I put more information out there for discussion to see if I could get an answer that wasn't defensive and contained a reasonable explanation as to 'why or why not?' Elizellen's answer was very defensive and didn't provide a very reasonable explanation. 2big was nice enough to be respectful and say something that makes sense beyond 'that's just the way it is and that's the way it's going to be.' I used to be on this board alot, but I've stopped for the most part because I'm seeing that prevailing attitude more and more on here and I don't find it very supportive. However, it seems the board keeps growing, so some people may just like it.

The interesting thing is that people are supported here and they say so in myriad posts on a daily basis when they post questions about DANDR. It always sits strange with me when people seem unsatisfied with a forum for whatever reason and complain about it publicly. I often wonder why it's such a fight, and why the "offended" party doesn't find a more accommodating forum that fits their needs better.

Contrary to what you believe about me personally, I really wasn't trying to be rude--I really couldn't figure out what the problem was in this thread. The part I wasn't understanding is why it was important to you to keep dishing out info that people didn't seem interested in, it came off to me as if you were trying to do some convincing because you continually refuted people's responses with more information as to why you were right about NANY being just as good (if not better) than DANDR. Forgive me if my curiosity of your intentions came across as rude, it wasn't meant that way.

Anyway---as far as which is better, I have no idea, and I'm not defending one above another, and I think it's great whichever book people use, just as long as they are using it!

Anyway--I'm done. I'm satisfied with having heard your points, and feel like anything further would be beating a dead horse. It's hard to see the intentions of a person, and I trust that yours were as pure as you said they are.

[atkinsgal08]

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

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

Well, it's certainly getting "most" of your Induction net carbs from Induction (foundation) vegetables, which is exactly what Dr. Atkins says in Rule #3 of DANDR.

It's just quantified more clearly, imho.

[cleochatra]

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

hidden-- I think it's an important discussion to have. This board reads only "Atkins Diet Bulletin Board" so who's to say which plan will be followed by title alone? I definitely asked what would happen with the new iteration because it's a valid question.

I don't think anyone ever anticipated a new tome after the doctor slipped, hit his head and then drifted away. The iteration changes a lot of things, really. I cringe to think of what must be happening at the Atkins site right now in terms of trying to force everyone over the the new book (and the new products) (assuming that's happening).

To me, the newer the diet plan, the more further it is removed from the point of what Dr. Atkins had intended in the beginning. My favorite iteration in terms of simplicity and success is still Atkins '72, although I support Atkins 2002 for many reasons and for so many! I think 2002 brings to the table the rotation diet to locate food intolerances, something '72 and 2010 were remiss in delivering.

If it wasn't for 2002, I never would have found out that I shouldn't have much in terms of: carrots, mushrooms, nightshades, broccoli, glutens, soy and tree nuts (whew! Long list, right?). Atkins 72 wouldn't have helped much there; nor would the 2010 if rungs can be skipped according to the wishes of dieters. To me, food intolerances are the root of many ailments we suffer in this country, and unless we can pinpoint those precise intolerances, we can never expect to get better as a people. So to move away from the rungs in a practical order is doing an immense disservice to dieters who will eat the soy and never understand they're allergic to soy and assume Atkins is making them ill, and not the soy.

Again, I'm a purist, so I think 2010, while welcoming greater numbers into its fold, risks sending people away again with a pat on the head and a "thanks for your patronage".

[hiddenhottie]

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

@Cleo- I do have to say that is the one thing that bothers me about it - rungs. As you said, it's too flexible there and could be missing the point of Atkins' research entirely.