What else in my article was wrong?
I will et you know the reason I am not posting scientific studies. The thing is that almost the entire scientific community agrees with me. If I quote them, you will say that I am "Parroting," the status quo which IMHO is a conveniant way to say nothing I post will change your mind.
Lets see, how about this quote, it has Harvard AND the ADA...
"Atkins explains it this way: when carbohydrates are severely restricted, the body is missing its main energy source—glucose that is made from carbs—and so it burns its own fat to use as energy and you lose weight.
The American Dietetic Association’s explanation is this: A low-carb diet forces the liver to produce that missing glucose, in the process sacrificing muscle and other lean tissue.
Since a low-carb diet depletes muscle tissue and water quickly, dieters see instant results. But when a normal diet is resumed, the muscle tissue is rebuilt, water is restored and weight quickly returns.
“It’s calories and portion sizes that have made us fat, not complex carbohydrates,” says Dr. George Blackburn, a leading obesity expert at Harvard University.
“Every diet that lowers your overall caloric intake is going to make you lose weight,” adds Dr. John Foreyt, director of Nutrition Research at Baylor College. “You could have people stand on their heads and they’d lose weight.”
Since 95% of the bloody world agrees with me, I could post a billion others. When I posted anything such as carbs being the brains main source of energy, you said I was falling for thier propoganda.
About my misunderstanding of the condition known as Ketosis which I apoligized for, I also have medical essays which I will post so as to not make this too long.
The reason I am not doing any RESEARCH is because I have done it before and since I have been training for over fifteen years I think I have a handle on it but if it is research you want, I will give it to you. Of course, it will be flawed "Anti-Atkins;" research by your estimation.
"As a long term maintenance plan, there is a concern that ongoing ketosis may present some hazards, and this is the major criticism of this diet plan. In some cases the definition of ketosis is at issue - some persons mistake the ketosis of a low carbohydrate diet with the ketoacidosis of a diabetic who does not obtain adequate insulin, or the normal ketone levels caused by fat metabolism with the ketosis of excess fatty acid breakdown.
As for the safety of long-term ketosis with adequate calorie intake, enough scientific studies have not been performed to provide an answer on this, although no adverse effects have been noted to date, especially on liver and kidney function. One issue which has not been studied adequately is that of potential calcium and bone loss from acidification of the bloodstream by ketones over a prolonged period of time."
Nor is there a single study that shows that low carb diets burn muscle. On the other hand, there are MANY that demonstrate that LOW FAT, LOW CALORIE do burn muscle because when the body is deprived it begins to burn off the parts that it doesn't need and/or burns up the most calories. That would be hair and muscle.
Since 95% of the bloody world agrees with me, I could post a billion others. When I posted anything such as carbs being the brains main source of energy, you said I was falling for thier propoganda.
Basically I said it was nonsense, and it is. Simple common sense should tell you that that is silly. If this were true, then people would DIE when deprived of carbs, and nothing of the sort happens. In fact, they THRIVE. People do die when they are deprived of protein and fat, though.
In the article: Simply put, ketosis is evolution's answer to the thrifty gene. We may have evolved to efficiently store fat for times of famine, says Veech, but we also evolved ketosis to efficiently live off that fat when necessary. Rather than being poison, which is how the press often refers to ketones, they make the body run more efficiently and provide a backup fuel source for the brain. Veech calls ketones ''magic'' and has shown that both the heart and brain run 25 percent more efficiently on ketones than on blood sugar. [ Richard Veech, an N.I.H. researcher who studied medicine at Harvard and then got his doctorate at Oxford University with the Nobel Laureate Hans Krebs.]
You are WRONG AGAIN. Just as you claimed ketosis was wrong. Again, it is becuase you simply believe what you were told rather than seriously looking at ALL the studies, which would have told you that low fat is a DISMAL FAILURE that has led to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes II in this country. It is NOT Atkins that needs to be defended here, but this low fat quackery that folks like you continue to push!
You then state:
Since 95% of the bloody world agrees with me, I could post a billion others
Is the truth determined by a majority opinion that has been brainwashed or it is determined by reality? 95% of the world once thought the world was flat. 95% of the world used to think slavery was just dandy. Did that make it right or correct?
The article above explains in detail how this low fat fad all started - maybe you should read it because you need to understand that the SCIENCE IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE and does not support low fat.
Not to beat a dead horse but this statement confirms exactly what I have said all along. And that is that you DO NOT make your claims based on FACTS. You admitted it right there.