Posted on 08/07/2002 8:48:30 AM PDT by an amused spectator
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Atkins low-carb, high-fat diet is supposed to be simple, but it's raising complex medical and nutrition questions. Now two new studies show that those who follow the diet can lose significant amounts of weight, but other research is raising concerns about the safety of the program, linking it to an increased risk of kidney stones and bone loss.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
I'm 40 and I just got diagnosed. It makes me wonder how many latent cases are out there. Supposedly 1 in 200 people have it, but I don't know anyone else who is officially diagnosed.
I have a theory that all of the "beer bellies" out there are undiagnosed celiacs. I know plenty of people that drink a lot of beer that don't have "beer bellies." I remember how my stomach would bloat after eating pasta or pizza. Hmm...
the whole "low-fat" house of cards is starting to teeter and there is a LOT of money at stake to keep the status-quo
I find it laughable that this USA Today hit piece against Atkins DOES NOT MENTION ANY DANGER FROM HEART DISEASE OR HIGH COLESTROL, which is of course the "common sense" danger that the average person might ascribe to the Atkins diet...
Is that the WORST problem they can pin on Atkins? That in itself speaks VOLUMES about how far off the mark modern low-fat nutrition is...
I've also lost weight on a high protein/low carb diet. What perplexes me, is with the variety of humans around the world, why the professionals claim a "one size fits all" concept of diet in the first place.
My wife got us started on this diet about 3 weeks ago. I was 5'9" and weighed 177, not obese but I had a little beer belly. We threw out all the chips and crackers and such and gave it a try. I weighed in this weekend at 169 and I drink prolly 2 or 3 beers a day when I get home from work. We don't follow it strictly, we still have corn sometimes and had a pizza the other weekend. We both feel better and will continue with it.
Is this guy that ignorant of the Atkins diet. Atkins does not reduce the number of calories, he reduces the amount of carbohydrates. So it is does have to do with where they come from.
A number of companies (including Russell Stover, Brachs Whitman) make sugar-free chocolate these days for diabetics, made with sweeteners like maltitol that taste as good as sugar but do not affect insulin levels. On a low-carb diet, these chocolates are essentially free.
It's not something many doctors think of when they here their patients ailments. Too bad, because much like lactose intolerance, a change in diet is all that is needed to clear up the problem.
I just discovered Atkins candybars! Walmart was selling them (and another brand, CarboLite) for $.96 ea. for a little over 1 oz. bars. Both brands are goooood! They're sweetened with Splenda of course, and also something called Maltitol, whose carb numbers are recorded as "Sugar alcohol" on the nutrition label and apparently don't count towards the "Net Effective Carb" count. So each candybar has 2g net carbs.
1/2 of my initial weight loss came back after 2 years, but even if it all came back I wouldn't switch back to the Food Pyramid diet, because of the constant heartburn!
Another point in favor of the Atkins people is the sick way the no-fat Nazis view their little dogmas as a quasi-religion. Yechhhhh!
Their self-serving agendas are more important than their touted concern for people's health.
Now two new studies show that those who follow the diet can lose significant amounts of weight, but other research is raising concerns about the safety of the program, linking it to an increased risk of kidney stones and bone loss.
Two new studies and several deaths prove that drinking too much water can be fatal. More people have died as a direct result from drinking water than have died from using the Atkins diet.
Some of the nation's leading obesity researchers and nutritionists are outraged by the diet, arguing that it runs contrary to the advice of most major health
Outraged that they're being exposed as incompetents. Outraged that a highly successful diet is gaining market share as it debunks the government subsidized/protected sugar and grain growers.
How did those people get labeled as "leading researchers"? They were designated not by the accuracy of their research, rather, they gained the label by towing government propaganda supporting sugar and grain growers .
The findings are reported in the August American Journal of Kidney Diseases. "We think the diet's combination of low carbohydrates and high animal protein results in sufficient acid to increase the risk for certain kinds of kidney stones," she says.
Drinking water increases the risk of dying from drinking too much water. Obviously the benefits of drinking water outweigh the risks.
"Do people really want to give up bananas and their favorite fruits?" Ayoob asks.
Do recreational drug users really want to give up their favorite drug -- alcohol and caffeine being the most abused drugs, second only to sugar abuse? Many people have gladly quit consuming those toxic substances.
Let me be the first here to make a full-fledged attack on the above pinheads that call themselves nutritional scientists, who operate in the fine tradition of the morons that nearly executed Galileo.
Morons did in Socrates and Jesus -- Galileo was more fortunate.
Memo to morons: Just because you don't know WHY the Atkins diet works don't mean it don't. So why don't you "scientists" try the Scientific method for once - and DO find out why.
The reason why is self-serving agendas subsidized by government grants and farm aid. That's what makes them losers -- eschewing their rational scientific minds.
A natural diet consisting of mostly meats (with their attached fats) and vegetables is the way humans have eaten forever. If breads and sugars were natural foods, the metabolism would have no problem handling them. But as it is, a shot of sugar/flour spikes insulin (this includes today's luscious, hyper-fructose fruits), which in turn drives down blood sugar and causes lethargy and confusion quickly.
chilepepper: the whole "low-fat" house of cards is starting to teeter and there is a LOT of money at stake to keep the status-quo
Should the lawsuits against fast-food restaurants ever get to court the nutritional facts will be in the lime-light. Mercat can you weigh-in (no pun intended) on this issue?
SamAdams76: Then how is it that my grandmother managed to live to 90 (and is still going) despite making biscuits and gravy every morning for 70 years now?
LindaSOG: There are exceptions to everything! My great-grandpa Louie smoked 40 cigarettes a day and was healthy as a horse when he died in a car accident at the age of 96.
Your response is so obvious yet SamAdams76 feigns ignorance. It appears that he prides himself on playing dumb.
Not playing dumb but stating facts. Fact is that eating bread has not been proven to be bad for you. Many people (including my grandmother) has made it to their 90s despite bread being in their daily diet. Now perhaps I can agree with you that a large amount of processed foods are not healthy. I avoid the kind of processed foods you find in most convenience stores (Drake's cakes, Hostess Twinkies, etc.) But it's quackery to suggest that bread is killing us simply because it does not come naturally like animal fats and vegetable (which my grandmother also ate a lot of).
Sam Adams76: Then how is it that my grandmother managed to live to 90 (and is still going) despite making biscuits and gravy every morning for 70 years now? 46
LindaSOG: There are exceptions to everything! My great-grandpa Louie smoked 40 cigarettes a day and was healthy as a horse when he died in a car accident at the age of 96.
Zon: Your response is so obvious yet SamAdams76 feigns ignorance. It appears that he prides himself on playing dumb.
Not playing dumb but stating facts.
If you weren't playing dumb then admit that you knew your "grand-mother" comment was not an argument at all because it has no bearing on the issue. Else wise you were feigning being dumb.
Many people (including my grandmother) has made it to their 90s despite bread being in their daily diet.
So have many people that smoked cigarettes lived into their nineties. You used a narrow subjective perspective to base your 46 argument. Stating facts from your immediate family. But that's okay, as far as facts go on this thread -- whether narrow or wide-scope perspective -- the low-carb high-protein facts have the others outnumbered ten to one. Free markets -- as this forum is -- decisively lean that way.
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.