Posted on 07/16/2003 11:57:41 AM PDT by Timesink
Edited on 07/22/2003 2:46:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A host of sinful foods have been demonized as the root of obesity and poor health of American adults and children. Fast food restaurants have been sued, accused of contributing to customers' obesity because their food tastes too good and they tempt us by advertising. Taxes are being proposed on foods deemed fattening or bad for us, namely, anything with meat or fat, that is fried or processed or that is sweet.
As for genetics, I believe that is true, My whole family runs to obesity, and most died of heart diseases and digestive problems. I often though it had to do with old fashioned Danish cooking--lots of butter, fried meats and taters plus farm fresh eggs and heavenly desserts.
I fell off my roof (about a 16 foot drop) last December putting up Christmas lights, and didn't break or sprain a thing.
My wife tells me I have a thick skull, and women are always right. So, there you are.
This is a lie so blatant that it is undeniable proof that Mr. Fumento is either completely ignorant of the subject matter or has a personal vendetta against the late Dr. Atkins. The text of Atkins's book makes it quite clear that you are not allowed "limitless calories" by any stretch of the imagination. The reader is specifically told to try to keep their caloric intake within "normal" daily limits as generaly defined by the mainstream medical community (~1500-2000 calories/day), and that your outlook at every meal should be "eat until you are satisfied, not until you are 'full' or 'stuffed.'"
The only person with the Jayson Blair problem here is Fumento.
What are his others? I missed a lot of this thread.
Most of the diets demand high amounts of carbohydrate, which spikes insulin and leads to weight gain.
For me, my blood tests, treadmill tests, and energy levels tell me all I need to know about how "healthy" Atkins has been. For me.
If pointy-heads at medical institutes can't quite let go of their outdated notions of the food pyramid, I could care less.
Atkins works for me, and has, for the last six years. It's also worked for a lot of other people.
There's a modified version of Atkins that has gained a lot of interest, called the "Palm Beach Diet." The doctor who wrote it is simply piggybacking on Atkins' second wind, with a tweak here and there.
Whatever. Cut the carbs and start living and loving life.
Since so many in this thread have mentioned various diet companies such as WW, Jenny Craig, etc, I'd just like to point out that all of these outfits radically change their entire overall weight-loss strategies on a regular basis, as newer research becomes available for them to adopt. Someone who was one WW, Jenny Craig, etc, fifteen years ago wouldn't even recognize their 2003 weight-loss programs.
Needless to say, a lot of those adaptations are in the "lower carb" direction, though many are also expanding to offer several wildly different plans from which to choose, depending on your own personal circumstances, health problems, etc.
Ornish is Satan, IMHO, unless you suffer from very specific medical conditions (usually a bad heart).
That's what really pisses me off about so many holier-than-thou types on this subject (not all, just the ones I'm about to describe). People who have the metabolism of a hummingbird have no right telling others with the metabolism of a hibernating bear to sacrifice AT ALL. If the overweight persons wants to make that sacrifice, good for him or her. But how DARE those who need not do, order others to do, simply to fit THEIR anti-fat bigotry?
It's really not in your best interests, najida, to post links to wildly left-wing political organizations as "proof" that Atkins doesn't work. Here's what consumerfreedom.org has to say about the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine:
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Who would guess that a fanatical animal rights group could pass itself off as a physicians’ organization concerned with health issues? Judging by its stated positions, PCRM’s goals are to abolish the use of animals as food (including milk, eggs, and other animal products) and to eliminate the use of animals in scientific experiments. The group furthers its mission by continuously misinforming the American public about animal research and providing potentially dangerous dietary recommendations. The American Medical Association has rightly labeled PCRM “an animal rights front organization.”While PCRM claims to be primarily a network of doctors, the group’s own literature shows that physicians make up only 5% of its membership. Furthermore, the group’s member physicians represent less than 0.5% of America’s doctors. Far from being an unbiased source of health guidance, PCRM has asserted itself as a home for anti-meat, pro-vegan nutritionists who are committed to removing beef, dairy, poultry, and other animal products from our diets for good.
It is Fumento that is intentionally conflating Taubes's and Atkins's separate statements in order to make the ATKINS DIET ALONE look bad. Fumento could have separated Taubes's claims (if those are indeed Taubes's claims; I haven't read the Times article since it was originally published), but he intentionally chose not to because it would have weaked his Atkins-is-evil argument. The blame is entirely Fumento's.
If Reaven was misquoted or quoted out of context, then boo on Taubes. But it doesn't alter the fact that Fumento is doing the same thing himself on a far more massive scale. There IS NO "Atkins-Taubes Thesis." There is the Atkins Thesis, and whatever Taubes spun from it. To conflate the two is to lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.