Posted on 04/25/2002 5:50:29 AM PDT by MagnusMat
Heh, I just made that same observation in an earlier post before reading yours. My passions get stirred up too. Not so much by the issue itself. Ignorance I can handle. Disagreements I can handle. A willingness to remain open while initially disagreeing I can handle.
What bothers me is not disagreement about Atkins. It is the mischaracterization of his ideas, book, diet, plan etc. in order to advance the Anti-Atkins zealotry. It is the babbling about all cheese-burger diets (which he doesn't advocate), the "friend of a friend of a friend" who ended up with high blood pressure, the "I heard Atkins will kill you" and the "Fat makes Fat and it is as simple as that" regardless of what you tell me.
Come on sourthernnorthcarolina. Admit IT! CARBS are the weapon of the ANTI-CHRIST and you are one of his soldiers heh heh...
Are you certain it's the Atkin's people that are deceived? =) Just for curiosity's sake try reading a few hours into the Atkins book. It may be like discovering the world is round after having been told all your life it's flat. Common sense is a popular source of deception. "You are what you eat" is logical but too simple, your body doesn't actually work like that. Dietary fat is not where body fat comes from.
The Atkins Diet is a fad diet. All fad diets will cause people to lose weight and those people will then swear by it even if the long-term effects of that diet are unhealthy.
Sheesh, in defending yourself on being called out on your first totally incorrect and misleading statement, you issue another one. See what I mean in my other reply about folks who don't agree with this diet finding a need to convince others it is wrong, even if it means making crap up?
Fad: A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.
Sorry, but this doesn't apply to the Atkins diet. It's been around a little too long to be considered a fad diet. I vehemently disagree with Dr. Ornish, but I wouldn't suggest his followers are on a fad diet. Why? Because I am a little more intellectually honest.
Simply punch "fad diet" into any search engine and the Atkins Diet will be mentioned in just about every link. I sense denial here.
I was simply listing the foods that I eat and I ended the statement with "Basically, these are the foods that the Atkins Diet tells you not to eat." And it is true. The Atkins diet specifically tells you not to eat (or eat very little) breads, pastas, rice, beer, fruits, (most) vegetables and anything else high in carbohydrates.
And your definition of a "fad diet" is not accurate either. All the fad diets have been around for a while, many of them since the 1970s and 80s. People are still going on the "grapefruit diet" after all these years. They call them fad diets because most people do not stick with them. They are short-term solutions only.
Well, I guess I am seeing things differently than you intended. You listed 8 "foods" (combining beer and alcohol as one) and said Atkins basically doesn't allow you to have them (I missed bread in your list when I first read it). Of those 8, Atkins allows and even encourages 4 (half) of them. 4 of 8 does not equal "these aren't allowed" in my book - but I know what you were trying to say.
With respect to the word "Fad," it wasn't my definition. It was the dictionary's. Again, with your explanation, I now know what you were TRYING to say (or at least pretending that you were trying to say :})
In any event, I will agree that I may be nitpicking. However, I nitpick because too often truth is blemished by the small, subtle twists that people make in their statements to convey an unrealistic picture. That is what I thought I saw occuring in the first statement that I took issue with. I get upset when I see Atkins critics immediatley say things like "you can't each vegetables" or "he promotes eating only bacon and cheeseburgers" when this is the furthest thing from the truth.
When talking about health, and knowing that some people won't go beyond this thread and actually do a little research as they should, I find it necessary to try an correct the mischaracterizations and misrepresentations that I see - whether intentional or not.
I am not a die hard Atkins promoter, even though I have found a limited carb diet suits me well. In fact, I have begun to investigate whether what I thought was a reaction to carbs is more realistically food allergies. Fruit, grains and beans do a real number on me. However, reasonable quantities of rice, potatos, corn (weird, because corn is very common allergen, especially for those who react to grains) don't really impact me as much and when eaten with protein, seems to be ok. Alcohol knocks me out (one beer even).
As I've stated in other posts, I feel that different people fare better on different foods. I've witnessed this so I try to suggest that people educate themselves about how the body digests food, creates energy, stores and burns fat, builds muscle etc. and then observe how foods impact them both near-term and over the course of a few days. Only then can someone tell what works for them. Ornish can talk till he is blue in the face but it won't convince me that I should be living on fruits, beans and wheat. Like I said, different fuels for different types of engines. Those who make generalizations without understanding the complex biological processes that take place and where variants in each of our engines can exist are doing themselves and everybody else a disservice.
Cows get Fattened up on Grain.
Cows ain't people. Grain, for them, is a big caloric step up from grass. I'm sure that if farmers could come up with a higher fat diet that the cows would eat, and that was cost efficient, they would.
You cannot live on a severely restricted fat or protein diet for years.
I don't recall having advocated a "severely restricted" fat or protein diet, but what constitutes severity for one person may be considered moderate for another. Adequate protein is, of course, essential. Adequate fat is too, for that matter, though I suspect we'd disagree over what constitutes "adequate." I am of the opinion that most Americans eat far too much fat, and I include myself, for I am a long way from perfect. Now, if we're talking about weight loss diets as opposed to diets to live on for years, then darn right I'd advocate "severely restricted" fat; if your weight is where you want it, then of course you could loosen up -- that's just common sense. Even those of "ideal" weight, however, should limit saturated fat, in the interest of cardiovascular health.
Unfortunately, your "fat makes fat" statement may sound cute and logical on the surface, but it demonstrates sheer ignorance on your part even if you did try to hide the ignorance under an all-knowing and paternalistic presentation.
Well now, that's rather harsh. If it would make you feel better, I could insert "IMHO" every few sentences, but I thought it was implicit that this forum was one of opinions. If I gave you the impression that I am "all-knowing," then I apologize. It wasn't me who characterized the views of others on this subject as "sheer ignorance."
Monounsaturated fats trigger the body's fat burning mechnisms.
While I'm wary of "fat burning" claims ascribed to monounsaturated fats or to any food, I agree that monounsaturated fats, consumed sparingly, are benificial. There is, for example, substantial evidence that olive oil actually reduces so-called "bad" cholesterol. Some fat is needed, even in a weight-loss program, and olive oil is the way to go. Oh, IMHO.
Carbohydrates trigger fat storage through insulin release.
I'd agree with that statement if you said that simple carbohydrates, especially concentrated ones such as sugar, trigger fat storage through insulin release. But there's a world of difference between a Coca-Cola, whose sugar enters the bloodstream almost instantly, and a piece of whole wheat bread, which is digested much more slowly.
You obviously can't be bothered with something that requires a little knowledge or thought. Your simple and cute way of looking at things are sufficient for you, fine. By why spout it off and actually harm others' attempts to learn?
Again, I find that unnecessarily harsh. If I exhibited an unwillingness to entertain other opinions, or attempted in any way to "harm others' attempts to learn," I wish you'd point out where I did so.
At 43, life is great. I am in the gym 5 to 6 nights a week and run 2.5 miles to the train station every morning carrying a 30lb ruck. The little Japanese girl who runs the desk at the gym I go to (just outside of Osaka) told me the other day that the owner was threatening to just store my futon there to save me some time.
LOL, now if I could just get rid of this pesky little thing called WORK, I would be set.
Yes, I agree that simple carbs are worse than complex carbs. However, the blanket statement that wheat is o.k. is wrong for many people. Wheat is very common allergen. I myself blamed all carbs for my own health problems for a long time before I came to realize that wheat, flour and other grains make me feel like crap and basically shut down my digestion. Potatos (a very starchy food) do not have this effect on me to nearly the same degree. However, I do exceptionally well on lean meats, moderate dairy, whey protein, lots of vegetables, oils, mayonaise, seafood, eggs, etc. I do not do well on grains, fruits (with a few exceptions) or beans. My protein intake is decent, fat intake is lower than you would guess and mostly monounsturated, and my overall calorie intake is rather low. This is of course when I am doing things right. If I start eating bread however, I am like an alcoholic falling off the wagon and my health deteriorates rapidly. Something akin to the Atkins induction diet is the fastest way for me to get back on track with a relatively short withdraw period.
For those who read Atkins and internalize it well because they see themselves benefitting from it, I would suggest they also read Potatos Not Prozac and well as Dr. Sears' Entering the Zone for further insight into carbohydrate metabolism and varying takes on the "carbs are evil" idea. Atkins is the most aggressive in this outlook (and therefore perhaps the furthest from the truth), but his ideas are also the most accessible for those who simply do not have the inclination to dealve into this stuff deeply.
Ain't that the truth. Get up at 5. Bus at 5;30, in the gym by 6. Run 6-10 miles, Hot tub, shower, Office at 8. Back for lunch at 11:30 Lift. Heavy, or Heavier. 5 days a week.
I don't mind the 3 1/2 hour interlude between sessions, If I could just cut out that pesky need to return after lunch, so I could lift more.....
Up at 04:00, out the door by 04:30, 4km run to the station, an hour and a half by train to work, work all day, hour and a half back on the trains, and THEN I get to work out.
BUT, it is already Friday night here and I have the WHOLE week off next week(Japanese holiday schedule, a little thing called Golden Week). No work! Training!!! Time for some intense muscle fiber abuse.
Good for you. When I am not here I have 3 little ones all under 4. No time for it outside of my work day!
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.