Replies

I hardly know where to begin, after that diatribe. As I indicated in another post, passions seem to run hot on this issue. Let me respond to a few of your points, and that will be all for the night, not because I'm attempting to cut off debate, but because it's well after midnight here in NC, and I need my beauty rest, probably more than most!

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.

OK, I will allow that I was rather harsh and as I agreed in a different reply, can get worked up myself. In fact, I made an observation before reading your own that this often occurs in these debates. Read a few other replies I have issued and you will see where I am coming from. I am not nearly as bothered by someone being wary of Atkins (as you are) as I am by someone who mischaracterizes what it is he promotes. For instance, whenever you see an article about Atkins, it is accompnied by a picture of greasy cheesburgers (I saw one that even had the bun on it!) and such - sending a message that is not correct. All too often, he is actually accused of many things that he would come right out and disagree with himself. I see a lot of people with an opinion on what they think Atkins is, yet clearly have no idea what he really says. Many of these people would be surprised if they read his book.

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.