No. My post said they could find both sides of the issue. Read it in its context. It was absolutely non-adversarial. Then some moron jumps on my case saying he doesn't need anybody making his choices for him. Right! Like the choice to get fat in the first place.
"But I have a genetic predisposition to obesity. Whaaaa!" Baloney. You get fat because you eat. Period.
Re concerning Atkins, in the final analysis, we believe what we want to believe. I could care less. I've never been fat, and don't plan on it.
And, if I were, I would not need to simply supplant one food group with another. I would exercise the necessary self-discipline to lose weight. Were not talking rocket science, here.
It's all about consumption vs. expenditure. It's that simple.
I posted in the same sense. Nothing more or less.
It was absolutely non-adversarial. Then some moron jumps on my case saying he doesn't need anybody making his choices for him. Right! Like the choice to get fat in the first place.
And it seems they put a burr under your saddle too.
You posted that Atkins was dangerous due to renal failures and the cholesterol issues. I posted back concerning how the studies were flawed and follow-up studies didn't support the conclusions.
You then wrote some anecdotal thing concerning your wife and nameless doctors. I counter with the millions of Atkins dieters (also anecdotally) that swear by it.
It's all about consumption vs. expenditure. It's that simple.
No-one has said any different. Many over-weight but otherwise healthy people find it easier to reduce calorie consumption by eating more fat calories and fewer carbohydrate calories.