Atkins Attack



D

Diarmid Logan

Guest
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109890,00.html

Atkins Attack

By Steven Milloy

Already-confused dieters are no doubt reeling from reports this week of a new study linking a high-
carbohydrate diet with weight loss.

Rather than well-conducted scientific research, though, the new study appears to be merely a junk
science-fueled attack by government nannies on politically incorrect low-carbohydrate regimens like
the Atkins Diet (search).

"In the midst of the low-carb craze, a new study suggests that by eating lots of carbohydrates and
little fat, it is possible to lose weight without actually cutting calories - and without
exercising, either," reported The Associated Press this week.

"Revenge of the High-Carb Diet - Ha! It Works, Too" was the Reuters headline.

But unlike the sensationalistic media, which tend to limit their reporting of new study claims to
regurgitated press releases and sound bites from study authors, I actually read the study in the
Jan. 26 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

It didn't take long to discover why study subjects on the high-carbohydrate diet lost weight - they
ate fewer calories!

The researchers divided the 34 study subjects into three groups: a control group of 12 individuals
who consumed a low-carbohydrate diet (search); a group of 11 individuals who consumed a high-
carbohydrate diet; and a group of 11 individuals who consumed a high-carbohydrate diet and did
aerobic exercise.

Study subjects were provided with foods constituting 150 percent of their required daily caloric
intake and instructed to eat as much as they wanted. Carbohydrates constituted 45 percent of the
control groups' calories and about 62 percent for the high-carbohydrate groups.

After 12 weeks, the study subjects on the control diet weighed the same as when the study started.
But study subjects on the high-carbohydrate diet lost weight: about five pounds on average for those
in the high-carbohydrate-only group and about 10 pounds for those in the high-carbohydrate-plus-
exercise group.

To the study authors and media, these superficial "results" apparently prove that you can lose
weight while eating as many carbohydrates as you like - and you don't even have to exercise.

It might be a couch potato's fantasy come true - except that the study details tell a
different story.

As it turns out, study subjects in the high-carbohydrate groups consumed about 400-600 calories less
per day than those in the control group. Over the 12-week period of the study, then, the average
study subject in the high-carbohydrate group consumed about 42,000 calories less than the average
study subject in the control group.

Since a pound of fat represents about 3,500 calories, it's no wonder why those in the high-
carbohydrate group lost weight. It was because they ate less, not because of any magical effects of
a high-carbohydrate diet.

Although the media's apparent lack of interest in examining the actual study data is disappointing,
the inaccurate description of the study to the media by lead author William J. Evans of the
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences is even more dismaying.

He told Reuters that the study subjects ate "around 2,500 calories per day," thereby implying that
the only difference in their diets was the amount of carbohydrates. That's just plain misleading.

Control group subjects averaged 2,825 calories per day during the 12-week study; high-carbohydrate
group subjects averaged 2250 calories per day and high-carbohydrate-plus-exercise subjects averaged
2,413 calories.

Such variation over 12 weeks adds up to significant differences in total caloric intake and is most
likely what produced the observed weight loss in the high-carbohydrate groups.

The study authors then had the audacity to slam low-carbohydrate diets, such as the Atkins diet, as
a means to lose weight.

"Little evidence exists to support this idea," wrote the study authors.

But it appears that there's not even that much evidence in favor of their all-the-carbs-you-can-eat
idea.

It's no secret that nutrition nannies in the federal government oppose high-protein/low-carbohydrate
diets like the Atkins plan ― not because such diets don't work but because their fat-is-OK
approach contradicts the nannies' low-fat dietary prescriptions of the last 30 years. (The irony of
course is that obesity has supposedly skyrocketed while America went low-fat.)

Evans and his group, not surprisingly, were funded by the National Institutes of Health, a
government group that claims in bold-face on its Web site that "[High-protein/low-carb diets are]
not a healthy way to lose weight!"

That may or may not be true. Much more research is needed. Hopefully that research won't be
conducted by biased, government-funded research hacks.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the
author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).
 
B

Bj In Texas

Guest
Diarmid Logan wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109890,00.html
>
> Atkins Attack
>
> By Steven Milloy
>
> Already-confused dieters are no doubt reeling from reports this week of a new study linking a high-
> carbohydrate diet with weight loss.
>

Wonder which bread company sponsored that one.. LOL BJ
 
T

Tcomeau

Guest
"BJ in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Diarmid Logan wrote:
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109890,00.html
> >
> > Atkins Attack
> >
> > By Steven Milloy
> >
> > Already-confused dieters are no doubt reeling from reports this week of a new study linking a
> > high-carbohydrate diet with weight loss.
> >
>
> Wonder which bread company sponsored that one.. LOL BJ

The author of the study published a book on last May. I guess he wanted to take atkins off the
bestseller list and see if his book would replace it.

***
William J. Evans, PhD:

AstroFit: The Astronaut Program for Anti-Aging by William J. Evans (Author), Gerald Secor Couzens
(Author) Paperback: 320 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.81 x 8.42 x 5.53 Publisher: Free Press;
(May 13, 2003) ISBN: 0743216822

William J. Evans, Ph.D., a pioneer in the field of age reversal for more than twenty years, has
worked as an expert adviser to NASA on nutrition and exercise since 1988, and is the former head of
the Nutrition, Physical Fitness, and Rapid Rehabilitation Team of the National Space Biomedical
Institution. He lives in Little Rock, Arkansas, with his wife and three children. --This text refers
to the Hardcover edition.
****

Here is an excerpt from the study abstract:

***
From the Nutrition, Metabolism, and Exercise Laboratory, Donald W. Reynolds Department of
Geriatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare
System, Little Rock. Dr Starling is now with Pfizer Global Research and Development, Groton, Conn.
The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.
***

No relevant financial interest..... Yeah right.

TC
 
D

Digitalvinyl

Guest
This article also shows how poor our math skills are as a nation.

>Carbohydrates constituted 45 percent of the control groups' calories (low carb)

That means of the 2,825 calories the "low" carbers ate, 1271.25 calories came from carbs. That's 317
CARB GRAMS PER DAY. While that is lower than USDA recommended (60% of calories) it has nothing to do
with Atkins.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
 
D

Doug Freyburger

Guest
Diarmid Logan wrote:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109890,00.html
>
> Atkins Attack By Steven Milloy Already-confused dieters are no doubt reeling from reports this
> week of a new study linking a high-carbohydrate diet with weight loss.

So they found folks that low fat works for. Big deal. Low fat works for plenty of people. Who denies
that? But studies that compare LF and LC show that LC works even better than LF.
 
E

Ear Rings

Guest
LC = lose weight ,feel good and happy

LF = lose weight (maybe), feel hungry, tired and bitchy, not happy

You choose.

"Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Diarmid Logan wrote:
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109890,00.html
> >
> > Atkins Attack By Steven Milloy Already-confused dieters are no doubt reeling from reports this
> > week of a new study linking a high-carbohydrate diet with weight loss.
>
> So they found folks that low fat works for. Big deal. Low fat works for plenty of people. Who
> denies that? But studies that compare LF and LC show that LC works even better than LF.
 
M

Meghan Noecker

Guest
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:21:45 GMT, "Ear Rings" <[email protected]> wrote:

>LC = lose weight ,feel good and happy
>
>LF = lose weight (maybe), feel hungry, tired and bitchy, not happy
>
>You choose.

This isn't the same for everybody.

I can do low-fat. Nobody would want to be in the same room with me if I did low carb. You think low
fat is bitchy, then you haven't seen me with no sugar.

I know that low carb works for a lot of people, but I would be doomed to cheat every day because
there is no way I can change my diet that much and actually stay on it.

If I am short on sleep, then my coworkers will appreciate me eating some chocolate, ir not to get me
moving a bit faster, than as an attitude adjustment. If that means I need to lower my calories
elsewhere to take care of that, then so be it.

As it is, I don't eat many fruits or veggies, and the ones I like are the ones that have more carbs.
I am geared for sweet, and I avoid most things that aren't.

It is wonderful that we have more than one "diet" or WOE to choose from since not everybody will be
able to do well on the same one.

I'm not going to berate somebody for doing a diet I don't care for. My best friend at work was doing
the Atkins and lost quite a bit. I encouraged her on her diet as she encouraged me on mine. Totally
different diets, and both of us losing weight.

Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
 
C

Chris Braun

Guest
On 1 Feb 2004 09:08:08 GMT, [email protected] (Meghan Noecker)
wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:21:45 GMT, "Ear Rings" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>LC = lose weight ,feel good and happy
>>
>>LF = lose weight (maybe), feel hungry, tired and bitchy, not happy
>>
>>You choose.
>
>This isn't the same for everybody.
>
>I can do low-fat. Nobody would want to be in the same room with me if I did low carb. You think low
>fat is bitchy, then you haven't seen me with no sugar.
>
>I know that low carb works for a lot of people, but I would be doomed to cheat every day because
>there is no way I can change my diet that much and actually stay on it.
>
>If I am short on sleep, then my coworkers will appreciate me eating some chocolate, ir not to get
>me moving a bit faster, than as an attitude adjustment. If that means I need to lower my calories
>elsewhere to take care of that, then so be it.
>
>As it is, I don't eat many fruits or veggies, and the ones I like are the ones that have more
>carbs. I am geared for sweet, and I avoid most things that aren't.
>
>It is wonderful that we have more than one "diet" or WOE to choose from since not everybody will be
>able to do well on the same one.
>
>I'm not going to berate somebody for doing a diet I don't care for. My best friend at work was
>doing the Atkins and lost quite a bit. I encouraged her on her diet as she encouraged me on mine.
>Totally different diets, and both of us losing weight.
>
>
>Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com

I will second what Meghan said. I've lost 97 lbs. (pretty close to where I want to be now) on a
relatively low-fat diet (not extremely so -- I average roughly 25% fat, 35% carbs, 40% protein). I'm
not particularly into sweets as Meghan is; I just want to be able to eat all kinds of foods, as I
plan to eat this way for life.

I'm happy, energetic, not hungry, not bitchy. Do what works for you.

Chris
 
E

Ear Rings

Guest
Get some diet counselling. High sugar does not work forever. You have a yeast colony in your gut
that will eventually put you on anxiety medication, depression medication and give you a long slow
terminal disease. This results in an addictive allergy. The more you feed the allergy the more "lack
of sugar" attacks you will have.

The low fat approach will result you probably bad exzema or psoriasis. You need fats but "good
fats". Talk to some people doing Weight watchers for a few years of continuous loses. It works but
there can be big problems from it too.

Best of luck.

"Meghan Noecker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:21:45 GMT, "Ear Rings" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >LC = lose weight ,feel good and happy
> >
> >LF = lose weight (maybe), feel hungry, tired and bitchy, not happy
> >
> >You choose.
>
> This isn't the same for everybody.
>
> I can do low-fat. Nobody would want to be in the same room with me if I did low carb. You think
> low fat is bitchy, then you haven't seen me with no sugar.
>
> I know that low carb works for a lot of people, but I would be doomed to cheat every day because
> there is no way I can change my diet that much and actually stay on it.
>
> If I am short on sleep, then my coworkers will appreciate me eating some chocolate, ir not to get
> me moving a bit faster, than as an attitude adjustment. If that means I need to lower my calories
> elsewhere to take care of that, then so be it.
>
> As it is, I don't eat many fruits or veggies, and the ones I like are the ones that have more
> carbs. I am geared for sweet, and I avoid most things that aren't.
>
> It is wonderful that we have more than one "diet" or WOE to choose from since not everybody will
> be able to do well on the same one.
>
> I'm not going to berate somebody for doing a diet I don't care for. My best friend at work was
> doing the Atkins and lost quite a bit. I encouraged her on her diet as she encouraged me on mine.
> Totally different diets, and both of us losing weight.
>
>
> Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
 
M

Meghan Noecker

Guest
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:35:16 GMT, "Ear Rings" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Get some diet counselling. High sugar does not work forever. You have a yeast colony in your gut
>that will eventually put you on anxiety medication, depression medication and give you a long slow
>terminal disease. This results in an addictive allergy. The more you feed the allergy the more
>"lack of sugar" attacks you will have.
>

I do agree that I need to cut more sugar. But I need a WOE that will allow me to splurge sometimes
on sugar without ruining my whole diet. And I need to lower it over time. Going cold turkey would
turn me into a wreck, and I would be doomed to fail. You would have to literally lock me up to keep
me from some form of sugar every day. Today, I had a few cups of hot chocolate. Going 3 weeks
without carbs is inconceviable to me.

Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
 
R

Roger Zoul

Guest
Meghan Noecker wrote:
:: On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:35:16 GMT, "Ear Rings" <[email protected]> wrote:
::
::: Get some diet counselling. High sugar does not work forever. You have a yeast colony in your gut
::: that will eventually put you on anxiety medication, depression medication and give you a long
::: slow terminal disease. This results in an addictive allergy. The more you feed the allergy the
::: more "lack of sugar" attacks you will have.
:::
::
:: I do agree that I need to cut more sugar. But I need a WOE that will allow me to splurge
:: sometimes on sugar without ruining my whole diet. And I need to lower it over time. Going cold
:: turkey would turn me into a wreck, and I would be doomed to fail. You would have to literally
:: lock me up to keep me from some form of sugar every day. Today, I had a few cups of hot
:: chocolate. Going 3 weeks without carbs is inconceviable to me.

Then don't. Sounds like low fat is the way for you...............
 
N

Nimue

Guest
Meghan Noecker wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:35:16 GMT, "Ear Rings" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Get some diet counselling. High sugar does not work forever. You have a yeast colony in your gut
>> that will eventually put you on anxiety medication, depression medication and give you a long
>> slow terminal disease. This results in an addictive allergy. The more you feed the allergy the
>> more "lack of sugar" attacks you will have.
>>
>
> I do agree that I need to cut more sugar. But I need a WOE that will allow me to splurge sometimes
> on sugar without ruining my whole diet. And I need to lower it over time. Going cold turkey would
> turn me into a wreck, and I would be doomed to fail. You would have to literally lock me up to
> keep me from some form of sugar every day. Today, I had a few cups of hot chocolate. Going 3 weeks
> without carbs is inconceviable to me.

You never go completely without carbs on Atkins!
>
>
> Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com

--
nimue

"There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock
 
D

Digitalvinyl

Guest
[email protected] (Meghan Noecker) wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:35:16 GMT, "Ear Rings" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Get some diet counselling. High sugar does not work forever. You have a yeast colony in your gut
>>that will eventually put you on anxiety medication, depression medication and give you a long slow
>>terminal disease. This results in an addictive allergy. The more you feed the allergy the more
>>"lack of sugar" attacks you will have.
>>
>
>I do agree that I need to cut more sugar. But I need a WOE that will allow me to splurge sometimes
>on sugar without ruining my whole diet. And I need to lower it over time. Going cold turkey would
>turn me into a wreck, and I would be doomed to fail. You would have to literally lock me up to keep
>me from some form of sugar every day. Today, I had a few cups of hot chocolate. Going 3 weeks
>without carbs is inconceviable to me.

Me too. For the last 20 years of my adult life I have been drinking
1/2 gallon or more a day of sugary drinks(including milk which has about half as much sugar as
Pepsi). Plus I love sweet sauces on foods. I put ketchup on everything(an infamous childhood
habit) and anything tastes good with barbeque sauce or honey mustard. I am a chocoholic, my
favorite being Double-stuff Oreos. While I don't eat chocolate every single day, I'd says I ate it
more than half the days of my life.

However, today is day 22. I haven't eaten chocolate or sweets in over three weeks. The only thing I
drank for 21 days is water. ON Atkins I accomplished something I have never been able to do by
willpower or moderation. Everything you said is exactly what I thought in the past.

>Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
 
I

Ignoramus6526

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Meghan Noecker wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:35:16 GMT, "Ear Rings" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Get some diet counselling. High sugar does not work forever. You have a yeast colony in your gut
>>that will eventually put you on anxiety medication, depression medication and give you a long slow
>>terminal disease. This results in an addictive allergy. The more you feed the allergy the more
>>"lack of sugar" attacks you will have.
>>
>
> I do agree that I need to cut more sugar. But I need a WOE that will allow me to splurge sometimes
> on sugar without ruining my whole diet. And I need to lower it over time. Going cold turkey would
> turn me into a wreck, and I would be doomed to fail. You would have to literally lock me up to
> keep me from some form of sugar every day. Today, I had a few cups of hot chocolate. Going 3 weeks
> without carbs is inconceviable to me.
>
>
> Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com

Hi Meghan. I am not an expert on diabetes. But I would note that if you are truly pre-diabetic, then
any interests of convenience and pleasing your tastebuds or moods should yield priority to
preserving your remaining health and life. Which is not to say that I suggest to stop eating sugar,
as such. But perhaps it is worth to talk to some competent doctor, not some turd, and see if you
need to make diet adjustments that are painful in the short run, but save your life and quality of
life in the long run.

I am sugarfree and eat no sweeteners or junk food and I heartily recommend doing same for all
healthy people. As you seem to have special health issues, I suggest at least checking it out with
some doc who actually knows something about nutrition and diabetes. Not some uncaring doc who thinks
that his only job is prescribing pills.

i
223/173/180
 
K

Kuhndog Runner

Guest
The atkins diet is for lazy people who refuse to excercise. The reason I say this is because no
carbs = no energy. If you stick with the 30 - 40 - 40 diet and get in 20 minutes of exercise 5 times
a week, you will encounter weight loss that is permenant and not temporarily there until you eat two
pieces of pizza!


[email protected] (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109890,00.html
>
> Atkins Attack
>
> By Steven Milloy
>
> Already-confused dieters are no doubt reeling from reports this week of a new study linking a high-
> carbohydrate diet with weight loss.
>
> Rather than well-conducted scientific research, though, the new study appears to be merely a junk
> science-fueled attack by government nannies on politically incorrect low-carbohydrate regimens
> like the Atkins Diet (search).
>
> "In the midst of the low-carb craze, a new study suggests that by eating lots of carbohydrates and
> little fat, it is possible to lose weight without actually cutting calories - and without
> exercising, either," reported The Associated Press this week.
>
> "Revenge of the High-Carb Diet - Ha! It Works, Too" was the Reuters headline.
>
> But unlike the sensationalistic media, which tend to limit their reporting of new study claims to
> regurgitated press releases and sound bites from study authors, I actually read the study in the
> Jan. 26 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
>
> It didn't take long to discover why study subjects on the high-carbohydrate diet lost weight -
> they ate fewer calories!
>
> The researchers divided the 34 study subjects into three groups: a control group of 12 individuals
> who consumed a low-carbohydrate diet (search); a group of 11 individuals who consumed a high-
> carbohydrate diet; and a group of 11 individuals who consumed a high-carbohydrate diet and did
> aerobic exercise.
>
> Study subjects were provided with foods constituting 150 percent of their required daily caloric
> intake and instructed to eat as much as they wanted. Carbohydrates constituted 45 percent of the
> control groups' calories and about 62 percent for the high-carbohydrate groups.
>
> After 12 weeks, the study subjects on the control diet weighed the same as when the study started.
> But study subjects on the high-carbohydrate diet lost weight: about five pounds on average for
> those in the high-carbohydrate-only group and about 10 pounds for those in the high-carbohydrate-plus-
> exercise group.
>
> To the study authors and media, these superficial "results" apparently prove that you can lose
> weight while eating as many carbohydrates as you like - and you don't even have to exercise.
>
> It might be a couch potato's fantasy come true - except that the study details tell a
> different story.
>
> As it turns out, study subjects in the high-carbohydrate groups consumed about 400-600 calories
> less per day than those in the control group. Over the 12-week period of the study, then, the
> average study subject in the high-carbohydrate group consumed about 42,000 calories less than the
> average study subject in the control group.
>
> Since a pound of fat represents about 3,500 calories, it's no wonder why those in the high-
> carbohydrate group lost weight. It was because they ate less, not because of any magical effects
> of a high-carbohydrate diet.
>
> Although the media's apparent lack of interest in examining the actual study data is
> disappointing, the inaccurate description of the study to the media by lead author William J.
> Evans of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences is even more dismaying.
>
> He told Reuters that the study subjects ate "around 2,500 calories per day," thereby implying that
> the only difference in their diets was the amount of carbohydrates. That's just plain misleading.
>
> Control group subjects averaged 2,825 calories per day during the 12-week study; high-carbohydrate
> group subjects averaged 2250 calories per day and high-carbohydrate-plus-exercise subjects
> averaged 2,413 calories.
>
> Such variation over 12 weeks adds up to significant differences in total caloric intake and is
> most likely what produced the observed weight loss in the high-carbohydrate groups.
>
> The study authors then had the audacity to slam low-carbohydrate diets, such as the Atkins diet,
> as a means to lose weight.
>
> "Little evidence exists to support this idea," wrote the study authors.
>
> But it appears that there's not even that much evidence in favor of their all-the-carbs-you-can-
> eat idea.
>
> It's no secret that nutrition nannies in the federal government oppose high-protein/low-
> carbohydrate diets like the Atkins plan ― not because such diets don't work but because
> their fat-is-OK approach contradicts the nannies' low-fat dietary prescriptions of the last
> 30 years. (The irony of course is that obesity has supposedly skyrocketed while America went
> low-fat.)
>
> Evans and his group, not surprisingly, were funded by the National Institutes of Health, a
> government group that claims in bold-face on its Web site that "[High-protein/low-carb diets are]
> not a healthy way to lose weight!"
>
> That may or may not be true. Much more research is needed. Hopefully that research won't be
> conducted by biased, government-funded research hacks.
>
>
> Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute
> and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato
> Institute, 2001).
 
M

Marcio Watanabe

Guest
[email protected] (kuhndog runner) wrote:

>The atkins diet is for lazy people who refuse to excercise. The reason I say this is because no
>carbs = no energy. If you stick with the 30 - 40 - 40 diet

30-40-40?! This is one diet I haven't seen before.

--
Marcio Watanabe
 
I

Ignoramus11765

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, kuhndog runner wrote:
> The atkins diet is for lazy people who refuse to excercise. The reason I say this is because no
> carbs = no energy. If you stick with the 30 - 40 - 40 diet and get in 20 minutes of exercise 5
> times a week, you will encounter weight loss that is permenant and not temporarily there until you
> eat two pieces of pizza!

Do you think that, say, if a person does not eat for 36 hours, he cannot exercise at a
moderate level?

i
 
J

Jmk

Guest
On 2/5/2004 2:12 PM, Marcio Watanabe wrote:
> [email protected] (kuhndog runner) wrote:
>
>
>>The atkins diet is for lazy people who refuse to excercise. The reason I say this is because no
>>carbs = no energy. If you stick with the 30 - 40 - 40 diet
>
>
> 30-40-40?! This is one diet I haven't seen before.

It's for folks that want to get 110% of their calories each day!
--
jmk in NC
 
J

Jane Lumley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, kuhndog runner
<[email protected]> writes
>The atkins diet is for lazy people who refuse to excercise.

I run 6 miles a day, do weights three times a week, and have done Atkins since 15 January 2003.
--
Jane Lumley
 
E

Eff

Guest
"kuhndog runner" <[email protected]> wrote...
| The atkins diet is for lazy people who refuse to excercise.

...and generalizations are for lazy people who refuse to take the time to learn the whole truth.

eff