Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bluefish
For folks like Senator Pardek, it is much easier to spout off about will power or merely repeat the dogma that is being challenged as the unquestionable truth, than to actually examine the logic, science or even personal experiences of people posting here. His imagined "pro athlete" (which is most certainly a horrible basis for figuring out what makes sense for the rest of us) is all he needs to justify ignoring the actual debate and continuing to believe dogma.

LOL - nice rant - still waiting for proof of all the pro athletes who use that weird diet.

If your diet is based on losing weight, go Atkins - if it's based on becoming healthy - exercise, weight train, and eat 30% carbs!

255 posted on 07/06/2002 6:13:25 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]


To: Senator Pardek
If your diet is based on losing weight, go Atkins - if it's based on becoming healthy - exercise, weight train, and eat 30% carbs!

One size fits all? I would be in throes of hypoglycemia - and FAT - if I had a diet that high in carbs. Those are excessive carbs for those who have had weight problems/diabetes II/low blood sugar. That might work for you, but it doesn't work for many. And I have acheived optimal health [as have the people in the studies I have posted] on my low carb/high fat diet.

I know it makes people FURIOUS but low fat/high carb diets do not work for many people as the article above indicates and is not the be-all and end-all that people falsely purport.

258 posted on 07/06/2002 6:26:42 PM PDT by Dana113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies ]

To: Senator Pardek
If your diet is based on losing weight, go Atkins - if it's based on becoming healthy - exercise, weight train, and eat 30% carbs!

Senator Pardek, I don't find your recommendation here to be much outside of what I would expect to be healthy for most people. The carb level you propose is significantly lower than most of the mainstream dogma has promoted over the past decade or two, and I find it to be reasonable, assuming you are talking about complex carbs. I would agree that exercise is an extremely important part of the equation and that weight training is way under-emphasized among most health "experts."

What I take issue with is the absolute certainty with which you state your superior "knowledge," and that you state it with zero qualifications. Furthermore, you make no exceptions for people with disturbed carbohydrate metabolism and seem to suggest that your recommendations will work for everybody, regardless of their condition.

Your pro athlete challenge is not only silly, it is logically ignorant. When discussions like this arise, they are generally talking about either average people or those who are in a state of obesity and need to lose weight. Professional athletes are neither and would make a horrible representative sample upon which to make conclusions for all of us. Furthermore, the article here has pointed out that we are beginning to see the metadata with respect to high carbohydrate diets and the results are not pretty - hence the actual title. You take a much more moderate approach than the silly "eat all the carbs you want and restrict your fat to near zero" approach that we have seen over the years. While I would call this approach more moderate, the mainstream would not. In fact, your 30% carbs is lower than that proposed by Dr. Sears in his Zone diet I believe. So by mainstream standards, your diet can easily be characterized as "weird" itself.

I would never state as fact that any one particular diet makes sense for everybody, as diet is a very individualized thing. I know people who can thrive on a high carbohydrate diet and I know people who can't (myself included), regardless of whether exercise is involved or not. Once again, I view your recommendations as quite low and reasonable for most people, but possibly not sufficiently low enough for many.

Atkins, or other low carb diets, often help to correct desensitize insulin receptors, which allows people to slowly resume eating a higher level of carbs. Many of your statements continue to be quite hyperbolic, misleading and utterly misleading with respect to Dr. Atkins' recommendations and I believe you know this. Why you feel it necessary to attack something that many have found to be very helpful with the harshness of a religious zealot is beyond me, but I suspect most reading your posts have already determined that you are less interested in discovering truth, educating folks, or answering questions and are more intersted in convincing people that Atkins is the Devil incarnate. Again, I have no idea why, but your intellectual dishonesty and dogmatic approach to the whole debate is quite tiring.

Finally, as I've seen you do with my previous posts, this article, responses to others on this thread and most clearly throughout the thread the actual Atkins protocol itself, I am not sure that you will bother to read what I've said, before responding once again with your unqualified and unsubstatiated statements of certain facts. It that is the case, I will end the discussion because you are clearly not interested in having one.

317 posted on 07/07/2002 12:14:24 AM PDT by bluefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson