Posted on 08/12/2003 9:55:31 PM PDT by carlo3b
|
|
||||
|
SLIMMERS following the controversial Atkins diet are gambling with their health, a nutrition expert has warned. Dr Susan Jebb said it would be "negligent" to recommend the diet, favoured by stars such as Geri Halliwell and Catherine Zeta-Jones, to anyone overweight. Millions of people around the world have tried the low-carbohydrate, high-protein regime. But Dr Jebb, of the Medical Research Council's Human Nutrition Research Centre in Cambridge, said its claimed benefits were based on "pseudo-science". She argued that, despite a number of studies, no one knew what the long- term effects might be. Dr Robert Atkins, who developed the diet, believed that carbohydrates such as bread, pasta, rice and starchy vegetables made the body produce too much insulin. He claimed that led to hunger and weight gain. His answer was to avoid such foods and eat unlimited amounts of fat and protein, leading the body to burn fat. But Dr Jebb said such a dramatic change in eating habits was a leap in the dark. For most people, protein accounts for a mere 15 per cent of their calorie intake. But much higher levels are eaten on the Atkins diet. Dr Jebb said: "We simply do not know the long-term health implications. "I certainly think we should be adopting a precautionary principle in terms of public health." Her warning comes two months after two teams of American scientists declared the Atkins diet was effective and safe. They found that over six months, 63 Atkins slimmers lost almost twice as much weight, an average of one and a half stone. After a year, the gap had closed though, with the Atkins dieters down to an average weight loss of a stone compared with half a stone for others. But Dr Jebb said the studies were too limited to provide meaningful evidence. Dr Atkins died in April, aged 72, after slipping on ice outside his New York office and hitting his head. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
GREAT... take a bow, YOU DA MAN!!!!!!
We'll be pullin for ya!!! Good luck.. :)
Geeeze, You could get webbed feet, messing with all that water.. Frankly, if you drank all of that water, it wouldn't matter which diet you were on, you'd lose weight.
The filling aspect would discourage eating, and the bulking of the stomach, would overcome the natural hunger. That is just elementry.. Are you following a diet with those requirements?
NMH, again, you make some valid points; my point was the same as BibChr--the points get lost in the generalizations. Some of those generalizations and accusations are simply wrong. Physicians prescribing what the insurance company will pay for does not imply that a patient does not get a drug or that a patient gets an inferior drug.
Here is just one example of many in that area: you have seen the commercials for the "purple pill." That purple pill is extremely expensive. Three other drugs that are no less efficacious and have no more side effects are very expensive; however, one of those drugs can be obtained, if it is the sole source drug for that category, for TEN PERCENT ($ 0.34 per capsule, rather than $ 3.60 per capsule) of its usual cost.
Now, it would be silly and irresponsible to not take advantage of this--the patient is not harmed and the money saved can be used for other purposes. Everyone gripes about the cost of medical care, and this is a serious effort to contain those costs. Believe me, before these things are decided, a lot of study, work, and consensus go into the decision.
To me, to argue with that process--as your statement implies--is to argue for care being more and more rationed. And it IS happening. As we place the system under more and more regulatory constraints; as cost pressure continually builds; and as more and more non-payers have access to the system, this process will become more critical.
But that addresses just one simplistic statement you make--others include statements that EVERY DRUG adversely affects the liver and kidneys, which is ridiculous. Another is your attaching dark motives to all physicians, which is just preposterous. That statement reminds me of the Laetrile controversy in the 1970's where people made the same generalization: evil physicians were keeping this "life-saving" drug from people. What none of the complainers then--and you now--don't consider is that physicians and their families also use the system. Why would they put something over on themselves?
So, here is the upshot: I told you in a friendly way that your good points were subsumed by your rash generalizations. Your responses reinforce that. You may reply, but no response will be forthcoming--you can continue to undercut your own arguments with my blessing.
Don't you realize what you just said? "Physicians prescribing what the insurance company will pay for ..." is NOT always in the patients best interest. It is the PATIENT that is to be prescribed for REGARDLESS of what the insurance company has planned. A trained monkey could prescribe to a pre existing contract. Get it?
"Here is just one example of many in that area: you have seen the commercials for the "purple pill." That purple pill is extremely expensive. Three other drugs that are no less efficacious and have no more side effects are very expensive; however, one of those drugs can be obtained, if it is the sole source drug for that category, for TEN PERCENT ($ 0.34 per capsule, rather than $ 3.60 per capsule) of its usual cost."
You totally miss my point. I'm NOT talking about substituting a generic for a name brand. I'm talking about the APPROACH of a ALLOPATHIC doctor as compared to say, something like and Natropathic or a Osteapath. Do you know what they are? If you don't then you won't see what I am talking about.
"To me, to argue with that process--as your statement implies--is to argue for care being more and more rationed. And it IS happening. As we place the system under more and more regulatory constraints; as cost pressure continually builds; and as more and more non-payers have access to the system, this process will become more critical."
We are NOT at all on the same page. The above has NOTHING to do with my complaint. For starters look up what an allopathic is. Compare that to a Ostepath or a Naturopath. These are not allopathic doctors. Also they are VERY cost effecive and do NOT typically recommend either over priced generic or brand name kidney/liver damaging drugs as the doctors you talk about are. However they are typically NOT covered by insurance contracts but ARE more effective then them.
"But that addresses just one simplistic statement you make--others include statements that EVERY DRUG adversely affects the liver and kidneys, which is ridiculous. "
No it's not ridiculous. It is true. If you were a doctor of any stripe you'd know that. It's common knowledge.
"Another is your attaching dark motives to all physicians, which is just preposterous. That statement reminds me of the Laetrile controversy in the 1970's where people made the same generalization: evil physicians were keeping this "life-saving" drug from people."
Really? Want a specific on that one? A drug that exists NOW that puts 90% of those who have NonHodgkins Lymphoma is remission even if they are on their death bed? This is quite common to have a drug tied up in court or with the FDA while people die. It's all about MONEY.
"What none of the complainers then--and you now--don't consider is that physicians and their families also use the system. Why would they put something over on themselves?"
Sure they "use" the system but my complaint is the APPROACH used. Yes, often a married spouse will divorce but TOO OFTEN they remarry the same ABUSIVE counterpart. So, what's your point?
"So, here is the upshot: I told you in a friendly way that your good points were subsumed by your rash generalizations. Your responses reinforce that. You may reply, but no response will be forthcoming--you can continue to undercut your own arguments with my blessing."
I've told you numerous times that you refuse to get my point. You've thrown in all kinds of irrelevant information that doesn't address what my complaint is. For starters, know what I am talking about first, such as look up what a Naturopath is. Look up an Osteopath is and compare it to an allopath. When you know the differences in their approaches then and ONLY then will you get my point and understand what I am saying.
As for this Biblican Dan fellow, he's let his emotions get the better of him. According to him, nice people are always good people. Or nice people should be defended no matter what. Simple but ridiculous.
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.
