Trashing Doctors?

1024Bytes said:

I think the anti-diet thread has gotten to extremes. Losing weight and
keeping it off requires a sea change in dietary habits. Period. Any
resumption of unhealthy eating results in regaining the weight. Once
your body creates a fat cell, the cell never dies. It just sits there
and waits for an extra calorie to store.

And if you don't take any extra calories, they won't grow... if there is a
deficit, they'll shrink after giving up the triglycerides.

Quoted message said:

I have personal experience here. I am 6'1" and weighed 309 in 1990. I
went through insanity with the Pritikin diet to get to very near my
ideal weight by 1992.

Why was it an insanity for you?

Quoted message said:

I have remained within a few pounds of that
weight since. I don't recommend Pritikin to anyone. It's misery. For
anyone who doesn't know, Pritikin is the opposite of Atkins: all
unrefined carbs.

I'll bet your doctor thinks the world of you, however, when you were on it.

Quoted message said:

However, I have used the maintenance version of Atkins for quite some
time and remain at or about 208, which is near-ideal for my age and
body type.

208 is unlikely to be near-ideal for any age and/or body type.

Quoted message said:

I can't guess about your knowledge, but people who rail
against Atkins almost never know anything about the maintenance phase
of the diet and should spend some time learning about it. It's
extremely healthy, and quite near what many balanced nutritionists
recommend for anyone.

It can be inferred that you believe that the induction phase of Atkin's is
unhealthy as you defend the maintenance phase.

Quoted message said:

Beyond that, examine the most recent findings on the Atkins diet and
you have to at least question your assumptions that it is unhealthy.
One example:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/916555.asp?cp1=1

Here is a short clip from that article: A month after Dr. Robert C.
Atkins’ death, his much-ridiculed diet has received its most powerful
scientific support yet: Two studies in one of medicine’s most
distinguished journals show it really does help people lose weight
faster without raising their cholesterol.

Go ahead an cite those studies so we can discuss them.

Quoted message said:

Blasting any diet because people get off it, resume their old eating
habits and regain their weight is the extreme position.

Not really.

Quoted message said:

In a way, it's
like saying drinking beer doesn't work because you drink three and it
gives you a good buzz, but the buzz goes away when you stop drinking.

Drinking beer doesn't work for anything long term.

Quoted message said:

No matter whether you call a weight-loss technique a diet or something
else, If you resume eating the way you ate to become overweight, you
will gain the weight back. And that is not an extreme statement.

Better look for a way that folks can stick with, then.

Quoted message said:

It's also not extreme to say that people eat radically fattening diets
(maybe not Twinkies and Nestle's Qwik, but radically fattening) to
bloat to the point of injuring their health in the first place. The
percentage of obese people who have metabolic problems severe enough
that it causes them to become obese on a rational diet is incredibly
small.

Correct.

Quoted message said:

This European example is old, and tired and untrue at least in great
part. There are certain dietary habits in certain Europeans nations
that do contribute to rational weight. One of them in many Europeans
countries is a diet that is quite near the Atkiis maintenance diet. In
other parts of Europe, obesity is extremely common because of a high
intake of carbs.

In Asia, it's mostly carbs (rice). Is there rampant obesity in Asia?

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

JC Der Koenig said:

<profanities snipped>

S/he's back.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

"Der Koenig" translates to "the King" ...
shameful indeed.

1024Bytes said:

One point the anti-Atkins crowd forgets is that in its early stages
(before the maintenance phase is supposed to kick in) the diet is
supposed to be heavy in meat, fish, cheese, nuts, eggs, low
sugar/starch vegetables and fruit, etc.

That does not sound low-fat to me. Thumbing through the Atkin's recipes, I
also see a lot of diary products which you neglect to describe.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:22:00 GMT, Bob Cardone

cardone1!@!mindspring.com said:

1024Bytes said:

However, I have used the maintenance version of Atkins for quite some
time and remain at or about 208, which is near-ideal for my age and
body type. I can't guess about your knowledge, but people who rail
against Atkins almost never know anything about the maintenance phase
of the diet and should spend some time learning about it. It's
extremely healthy, and quite near what many balanced nutritionists
recommend for anyone.

Beyond that, examine the most recent findings on the Atkins diet and
you have to at least question your assumptions that it is unhealthy.
One example:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/916555.asp?cp1=1

In reading the article on the link you posted, it states that LDL
showed very little change on the Atkins diet. It also states that the
initial rapid weight loss , more rapid than a low fat diet for
instance , by the end of a year is not that much different from any
other diet. It also states that people on the Atkins diet are just as
likely to drop out of the diet as any other diet. Finally it mentions
that no long term studies have been done with this diet.

So what do we have , a diet that's main claim to fame is that it
causes you to rapidly lose weight at first ( so would eating only
grapefruits for a couple of months ) Meanwhile, a person on this diet
is not eating many foods that are healthy. I have not met one doctor
that has spoken well of this diet.

Bob

I don't know if you know this, but U.S. doctors damned angioplasty for
a very long time. There were no studies. Doctors just didn't like it.
And it fell out of favor here. Meanwhile, in Europe, they started
looking into it. Pretty soon, it became an everyday procedure. About
that time, U.S. doctors became interested again. Now, it's an everyday
procedure here. The same thing appears to be happening with certain
other procedures, such as EECP. I have a cardiologist who felt that
Atkins, given my cholesterol (with Zocor) was terrific for me and says
he recommends it to patients who need to lose weight all the time.

I wonder why it appears you are not particularly familiar with the
difference between the Atkins weight loss diet and the Atkins
maintenance diet. I think you might be surprised what you find if you
look into the latter. Also, Atkins describes a lower fat version of
the weight loss diet for those whose cholesterol is high....it
involves more chicken and fish and less fatty meat, yellow cheese,
etc. So simply describing the Atkins diet as a bacon diet is careless
and reckless and incorrect.

On your issue of studies: I believe the fact that nutritionists and
doctors have never been willing to study the Atkins diet, despite the
fact that it has been there to study since (what?) 1972 (the articles
I sent you reflect this, by the way) shows the same closed-mindness. I
understand that medicine cannot race into adoption of every fad.
That's not science. But medicine cannot afford to condemn what it does
not know about. To do so is not science.

On the issue of working out vs. dieting: It would be true to say that
I have known people who have worked out for a year and got in fairly
good shape, and then quit. Does that mean working out doesn't work?
Hardly. It means discipline is needed to remain in shape. The same is
true at meal time. If a person once used the Atkins diet to lose
weight and then starts back with the same ol', same ol', and gains the
weight back, that doesn't show that Atkins doesn't work. It shows the
person lacks discipline.

Courtney said:

Didn't you know that doctors take a HYPOCRITIC OATH? Yeah, they say it is
Hippocratic, but it is really HYPOCRITIC cuz so many of them are hypocrits.

Why do you think Dr. Atkins was a hypocrite?

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

MD/PhD said:

1024Bytes said:

One point the anti-Atkins crowd forgets is that in its early stages
(before the maintenance phase is supposed to kick in) the diet is
supposed to be heavy in meat, fish, cheese, nuts, eggs, low
sugar/starch vegetables and fruit, etc.

That does not sound low-fat to me. Thumbing through the Atkin's recipes, I
also see a lot of diary products which you neglect to describe.

Geesh, I didn't say it was low fat. I'll quarrel when it's necessary
but I think you've simply misread me or misquoted me. The Atkins diet
is what it is...a weight loss phase and a maintenance phase. I wonder
if you think an obese person is safer maintaining their overweight
condition, or losing the weight and then moving to a much healthier
maintenance.

1024Bytes <[email hidden]> wrote:

snip

Quoted message said:

I wonder why it appears you are not particularly familiar with the
difference between the Atkins weight loss diet and the Atkins
maintenance diet. I think you might be surprised what you find if you
look into the latter. Also, Atkins describes a lower fat version of
the weight loss diet for those whose cholesterol is high....it
involves more chicken and fish and less fatty meat, yellow cheese,
etc. So simply describing the Atkins diet as a bacon diet is careless
and reckless and incorrect.

On your issue of studies: I believe the fact that nutritionists and
doctors have never been willing to study the Atkins diet, despite the
fact that it has been there to study since (what?) 1972 (the articles
I sent you reflect this, by the way) shows the same closed-mindness. I
understand that medicine cannot race into adoption of every fad.
That's not science. But medicine cannot afford to condemn what it does
not know about. To do so is not science.

On the issue of working out vs. dieting: It would be true to say that
I have known people who have worked out for a year and got in fairly
good shape, and then quit. Does that mean working out doesn't work?
Hardly. It means discipline is needed to remain in shape. The same is
true at meal time. If a person once used the Atkins diet to lose
weight and then starts back with the same ol', same ol', and gains the
weight back, that doesn't show that Atkins doesn't work. It shows the
person lacks discipline.

You are still not addressing the fact that almost all Doctors that I
have come in contact with in the last couple of years, ( I even
have 2 in the family) ALL "tell me" that the Atkins Diet is a very
unhealthy diet to be on for any long length of time. All the
studies that have been done to date, are about short term weight loss,
and even the article that you quoted by posting the link states that
there is no dramatic difference in weight loss between the Atkins Diet
and any other diet at the end of 1 year. A couple of pounds
difference, big deal. In the mean time you have to give up so many
healthy foods needlessly.

I also believe that the "long term" or maintenance diet is a recent
addition to the Atkins Money making machine, due to people
complaining about living in "Ketosis" all the time. Am I not correct?

Bob

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

JC Der Koenig said:

<profanities snipped>

S/he's back.

You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any type of
medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital, and why you
were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for unsuspecting
"patients". I've also heard that you bought your credentials on the
internet. Shame on you.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:29:46 GMT, Bob Cardone

cardone1!@!mindspring.com said:

1024Bytes <[email hidden]> wrote:

snip

Quoted message said:

I wonder why it appears you are not particularly familiar with the
difference between the Atkins weight loss diet and the Atkins
maintenance diet. I think you might be surprised what you find if you
look into the latter. Also, Atkins describes a lower fat version of
the weight loss diet for those whose cholesterol is high....it
involves more chicken and fish and less fatty meat, yellow cheese,
etc. So simply describing the Atkins diet as a bacon diet is careless
and reckless and incorrect.

On your issue of studies: I believe the fact that nutritionists and
doctors have never been willing to study the Atkins diet, despite the
fact that it has been there to study since (what?) 1972 (the articles
I sent you reflect this, by the way) shows the same closed-mindness. I
understand that medicine cannot race into adoption of every fad.
That's not science. But medicine cannot afford to condemn what it does
not know about. To do so is not science.

On the issue of working out vs. dieting: It would be true to say that
I have known people who have worked out for a year and got in fairly
good shape, and then quit. Does that mean working out doesn't work?
Hardly. It means discipline is needed to remain in shape. The same is
true at meal time. If a person once used the Atkins diet to lose
weight and then starts back with the same ol', same ol', and gains the
weight back, that doesn't show that Atkins doesn't work. It shows the
person lacks discipline.

You are still not addressing the fact that almost all Doctors that I
have come in contact with in the last couple of years, ( I even
have 2 in the family) ALL "tell me" that the Atkins Diet is a very
unhealthy diet to be on for any long length of time. All the
studies that have been done to date, are about short term weight loss,
and even the article that you quoted by posting the link states that
there is no dramatic difference in weight loss between the Atkins Diet
and any other diet at the end of 1 year. A couple of pounds
difference, big deal. In the mean time you have to give up so many
healthy foods needlessly.

I also believe that the "long term" or maintenance diet is a recent
addition to the Atkins Money making machine, due to people
complaining about living in "Ketosis" all the time. Am I not correct?

Bob

I don't know who your doctors are. The fact is that doctors bash the
diet based on a lack of science. If as you say there have been no
studies, on what basis are they bashing it? Gut? A desire for the
world to grasp the wonder of tofu?

Even among anti-Atkins nutritionists there is raging debate about what
kind of eating habits are healthy. There is no general agreement. Our
Dr. Chung here apparently thinks rice is the answer. I once was a
vegetarian and thought that was the answer. Others think that
unrefined carbs are the answer. Yet, none of them fits this weird
definition of success that is floating around in this thread--that
once you get on the diet you will never get off and never gain any
weight back.

The Atkins maintenance diet is not a new development. I believe you
are mistaken. It has been part of the Arkins plan for the entire 10
years I have been familiar with it. In recent books, maybe in the past
6 or 7 years, Atkins devoted more space to spelling out what that
maintenance diet should be like. That's good. Even if the maintenance
part of the diet is only well-developed for the last 6 or 7 years,
it's still a fact. So what is your problem now that it's there? During
the course of living on the maintenance diet, an Atkins dieter begins
eating all those healthy foods you are worrying about. Read the book
again. All those foods are there.

And there is a counter-point to that: During the time that people are
packing on the pounds on the equivalent of the Twinkies and Nestle's
Qwik diet, they aren't eating those healthy foods, anyway. Nearly all
diets (Atkiins or any other) face the huge hurdle that they have to
convince people to stop eating in a suicidal manner, lose weight to
give themselves a basis for a return to health, and then develop
eating habits that ARE healthy.

Maybe I don't understand your point about ketosis, but I doubt anyone
actually complains about living in "ketosis." I certainly don't. What
do they say? "Geesh when I pee on that strip and it is dark it bums me
out?" I'd say to them: Don't pee there. Or try not to miss and hit
your hand. Why would anyone complain about living in ketosis? I do
know that the weight loss segment of the Atkins diet is based on the
idea that to lose weight is a first step and the maintenance portion
of the diet is that the idea is to to keep it off is a lifetime
effort. Once you are on the maintenance diet there is a low level of
ketosis.

On this issue (mentioned earlier) of a diet being unsuccessful because
some people drop it and go back to their old way of eating and gain
weight back, I defy you to name a diet that some people do not drop,
and go back to their old eating habits, and therefore gain the weight
back. This premise that an eating plan is bad because it does not keep
weight off for all of life when you go back to unhealthy eating is
weird to me. Very weird.

Courtney said:

Of course not. Those doctors who think that everyone can loose weight on a
low fat, high carbohydrate diet are the hypocrits.

Everyone *can* lose weight on a low fat, high carb diet, but a lot of
people don't stick with that kind of diet.

martin

--
Martin Smith email: [email hidden]
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway

1024Bytes said:

One thing, Bob, that makes me wonder about this thread. Show me the
studies (apparently you think there are some) that show Atkins is bad
for you. If the article I sent you is correct, there have been few
studies...perhaps only the two named in the article. So where do you
get this idea that Atkins is unhealthy? And what kind of diet,
exactly, do you think does work? I mean exactly. Let's examine its
success using the same criteria you want to use to examine Atkins.

This is rather a ridiculous non-debate we are having because you
refuse to answer any of the questions that I ask you to answer, post
after post. I will say it again really slowly this time..

Why do you suppose that all the Doctors that I talk to, some of them
Heart Specialists, ( 3 in one week a few months back) all tell me that
the Atkins diet is a terrible diet to be on for any length of
time???????? Before you make another comment or statement, please
answer that question. Are these Doctors all morons that don't know
anything?

The second issue again ( seems like you just don't want to address any
of the issues that I bring up and would rather go on some pro Atkins
mantra in response) , is the evidence in the article that you quoted
very clearly states that not only have no long term health effect
studies ever been done of the Atkins Diet, but even being on the diet
for about 1 year , demonstrates that there is a minimal difference
between the Atkins Diet weight loss amount and any other diet weight
loss amount. I would therefore conclude that the difference in weight
loss is not too different , and the food groups and food types a
person would eat on the Atkins is rather bizarre by most medical and
nutritional expert standards compared to a well balanced diet. How do
you feel about this paragraph. Is the research in the article you
posted incorrect? If so , do you have some other study that proves it
wrong ?

The last question is, judging by your weight, and you stating that
your weight was in a good range, I am assuming that you are 6' 4" or
taller. Am I correct in that assumption?

A good diet , is to eat less calories than you burn a day. Works every
time. You should also eat whole grains versus refined or highly
processed food, eat high fiber foods, stay away from high glycemic
foods that cause your insulin level to bounce around, eat fish , and
low fat protein and stay away from high fat content protein. Limit
sugar as much as possible. A diet fairly close to this would be the
South Beach Diet, which was written by Cardiologist.

Bob

1024Bytes said:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:17:58 GMT, Bob Cardone

cardone1!@!mindspring.com said:

1024Bytes said:

>208 is unlikely to be near-ideal for any age and/or body type.

Actually, it is. At least according to the insurance charts I have
seen and my doctor is very pleased about it.

You must be really Tall. 6'4" or more I would suspect.

Bob

I am 6'1" and large frame and very well muscled. I weighed 195 with a
30-inch waist senior year of high school and the additional weight has
ruined my waist line. That would mean I am 13 pounds more than when I
was an athlete in high school. How about you?

I bet you BMI is to high to put you in the healthy weight category....

Bob

1024Bytes said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Atkins diet
is what it is...a weight loss phase and a maintenance phase. I wonder
if you think an obese person is safer maintaining their overweight
condition, or losing the weight and then moving to a much healthier
maintenance.

That would depend on how weight loss is achieved.

That's a hollow argument. You are now arguing that someone is better
off obese than losing the weight and moving to a healthier diet?
Please, doc!!!! You must know better.

What I think he is trying to tell you , is that there are good an bad
ways to lose wait. If you were in a concentration camp in WW2, you
would lose weight, but we all know that it was not a good way lose
weight. Either is the Atkins Diet, or the Grapefruit Diet, or long
term fasting diets or all the other flash in the pan diets that have
come about in recent years. Most are good for a year or two of selling
books, and then they fade away to be replaced by new ones. Atkins has
stuck around, because it cause rapid weight loss and people perceive
as "easy" because they can eat much of the [censored] that got them fat in
the first place. A gradual weight loss with calorie reduction and
increased exercise levels usually works with no gimmicks needed. And
it is a healthy way to lose weight.

Bob

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:13:07 GMT, "Courtney" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Those doctors who think that everyone can loose weight on a
low fat, high carbohydrate diet are the hypocrits.

I don't know of any doctor that believes everyone can lose weight on
that type of diet. Every doctor I know of would agree that
overconsumption is the major factor in weight gain in healthy folks.

1024Bytes said:

MD/PhD said:

1024Bytes said:

I think the anti-diet thread has gotten to extremes. Losing weight and
keeping it off requires a sea change in dietary habits. Period. Any
resumption of unhealthy eating results in regaining the weight. Once
your body creates a fat cell, the cell never dies. It just sits there
and waits for an extra calorie to store.

And if you don't take any extra calories, they won't grow... if there is a
deficit, they'll shrink after giving up the triglycerides.

That's what I have heard. They shrink. They don't disappear. They lay
there and wait for an extra calorie and if they find it, they try to
fill up with it.

Where are those extra calories coming from (rhetorical question)?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have personal experience here. I am 6'1" and weighed 309 in 1990. I
went through insanity with the Pritikin diet to get to very near my
ideal weight by 1992.

Why was it an insanity for you?

It was a drastically nasty, boring diet that involved centering my
entire life on acquiring and preparing tasteless and boring food. Not
for me.

Why does food (tasteless or not) have to be the center of one's life (another
rhetorical)?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have remained within a few pounds of that
weight since. I don't recommend Pritikin to anyone. It's misery. For
anyone who doesn't know, Pritikin is the opposite of Atkins: all
unrefined carbs.

I'll bet your doctor thinks the world of you, however, when you were on it.

Read the link I included in the first message and you will see that
not all doctors are aware of the true effects of Atkins.

What do you believe are the true effects of Atkins?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, I have used the maintenance version of Atkins for quite some
time and remain at or about 208, which is near-ideal for my age and
body type.

208 is unlikely to be near-ideal for any age and/or body type.

Actually, it is. At least according to the insurance charts I have
seen and my doctor is very pleased about it.

How tall are you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't guess about your knowledge, but people who rail
against Atkins almost never know anything about the maintenance phase
of the diet and should spend some time learning about it. It's
extremely healthy, and quite near what many balanced nutritionists
recommend for anyone.

It can be inferred that you believe that the induction phase of Atkin's is
unhealthy as you defend the maintenance phase.

I bring up the maintenance phase because some of this string has
focused on Atkins as if it were nothing but a lifetime of lard and
bacon when it is not.

I don't recall reading that claim anywhere in this thread.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Beyond that, examine the most recent findings on the Atkins diet and
you have to at least question your assumptions that it is unhealthy.
One example:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/916555.asp?cp1=1

Here is a short clip from that article: A month after Dr. Robert C.
Atkins’ death, his much-ridiculed diet has received its most powerful
scientific support yet: Two studies in one of medicine’s most
distinguished journals show it really does help people lose weight
faster without raising their cholesterol.

Go ahead an cite those studies so we can discuss them.

I included the link and the graf you are asking me about is directly
lifted from that link. You are free to go there and we can discuss
away.

I looked there and did not see links to the actual studies mentioned.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Blasting any diet because people get off it, resume their old eating
habits and regain their weight is the extreme position.

Not really.

Odd comment. So you want a diet that people will never stop before you
will call it a success?

One that will allow folks to reach and maintain their near-ideal weight.

Quoted message said:

Name one for me.

Do you *really* want me to?

Think about it.

Quoted message said:

If we also include exercise
in this discussion is that a failure because people do stop that?

Exercise is not dieting. Actual studies looking at obesity and weight loss have
shown that exercise is not essential for losing weight and that exercise by
itself rarely effects weight loss.

Quoted message said:

What
would be a success in your view?

See above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In a way, it's
like saying drinking beer doesn't work because you drink three and it
gives you a good buzz, but the buzz goes away when you stop drinking.

Drinking beer doesn't work for anything long term.

I am sure you are not really missing the point that badly, are you?

Simply making a point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No matter whether you call a weight-loss technique a diet or something
else, If you resume eating the way you ate to become overweight, you
will gain the weight back. And that is not an extreme statement.

Better look for a way that folks can stick with, then.

What is that? Name it for me and I will switch tomorrow.

Hmmmm, really?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's also not extreme to say that people eat radically fattening diets
(maybe not Twinkies and Nestle's Qwik, but radically fattening) to
bloat to the point of injuring their health in the first place. The
percentage of obese people who have metabolic problems severe enough
that it causes them to become obese on a rational diet is incredibly
small.

Correct.

Thank you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This European example is old, and tired and untrue at least in great
part. There are certain dietary habits in certain Europeans nations
that do contribute to rational weight. One of them in many Europeans
countries is a diet that is quite near the Atkiis maintenance diet. In
other parts of Europe, obesity is extremely common because of a high
intake of carbs.

In Asia, it's mostly carbs (rice). Is there rampant obesity in Asia?

You know what? I will not live on a diet of 90% rice. I just won't do
it. I wouldn't stick with it. So you have to come up with a better
example of a diet that is like the one you wrote about above where you
penned (typed): "Better look for a way that folks can stick with,
then." Rice isn't it.

If you had grown up on rice, you probably wouldn't not have a problem with
eating that lifelong.

No I am not suggesting you go on a "rice" diet. Just illustrating my point
regarding the link between carbs and obesity.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Bob Cardone said:

... ALL "tell me" that the Atkins Diet is a very
unhealthy diet to be on for any long length of time. All the
studies that have been done to date, are about short term weight loss,
and even the article that you quoted by posting the link states that
there is no dramatic difference in weight loss between the Atkins Diet
and any other diet at the end of 1 year.

All studies are short term, yet the claims made are long term.
Interesting disconnect leading to a logical falacy.

And I have yet to hear of the study that had its participants
follow the Atkins plan as it is actually written. I have read
summaries of plenty of studies that kept participants on Induction,
though. This is far too much like looking down the starting point
of a race in a stadium and complaining that runners are in danger
because they will inevitably run into the fence. It uses falacious
logic.

To study the Atkins plan it would take having participants follow
the directions in the book, as it is actually written, in all four
phases, and the study would have to be long term. Right now the
best that can be done would be a survey of people still on the plan
after several years, and that suffers from the logical falacy of
the skewed sample set. Sure, Dr Atkins was on his own plan 4 decades
and was in excellent health. He hardly makes a statistically valid
sample. Neither do the many who have been on his plan for anywhere
from 40 years through 2 years.

Quoted message said:

I also believe that the "long term" or maintenance diet is a recent
addition to the Atkins Money making machine, due to people
complaining about living in "Ketosis" all the time. Am I not correct?

You are absolutely NOT correct. And that makes it clear you have not
even read any edition of the book. The 1972 edition had a clear cut
maintenenance chapter. The 1993 edition had a clear cut maintenance
chapter. The 1999 edition had a clear cut maintenance chapter. The
2003 edition has a clear cut maintenance chpater. This can be
confirmed by reading the table of contents, even. And folks wonder
why doctors are the target of disparaging remarks! Can't or won't
even read the table of contents of a book, yet issue generalized
remarks condemning it.

Folks love to focus on the beginning of the plan, extrapolate that out
into the distance and then make statements based on that extrapolation,
but the beginning of the plan is not the plan. And assertions that
there was no maintenance phase in the plan makes it clear that even
the extrapolations of the beginning aren't based on having read the
books.

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

Exercise is not dieting. Actual studies looking at obesity and weight loss have
shown that exercise is not essential for losing weight and that exercise by
itself rarely effects weight loss.

I suspect that exercise has a major effect on weight, but that it is a slow
process that reveals itself over many years, not the usual periods of studies.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

I will answer slowly. Again: Medicine has not studied the Atkins diet
so your cadre of doctors is basing its opinion on something other than
science. I have said this over and over in this string. It's too bad
you cannot recall it long enough to take it into consideration.

Your question about doctors being morons is interesting. What about
the doctors who DO think the Atkins diet is effective? Are they
morons? What about the doctors quoted in the story I linked to during
this discussion? Are they all morons? Were the doctors you spoke with
(3 in a week or something) aware that the Atkins diet had a
maintenance phase? Apparently not.

Most doctors are not trained in nutrition. You should know that. What
that means doctors attempt to become informed about nutrition in an
atmosphere where there have been almost NO scientific studies of
Atkins (and the ones that have been done have just been completed
recently). In fact, since the diet emerged, a loud group of
anti-Atkins nutritionists and pro-tofu wackos has spoken against
it--but without any scientific basis whatsoever.

Let me say this slowly. A loud group of nutritionists who have not
studied something do not make an informed group.

I am the kind of consumer who is wary of experts. In the 1960s and
1970s, the best medical thinking was that amphetamines were the way to
lose weight. So our country was flooded with legal speed. It killed
people. Then we had Phen-Fen, which caused as much heart disease as
lard. That killed people. Now we have stomach by-pass surgery getting
more air time than the war in Iraq. I am very concerned about the fact
that some of the same people who pushed speed, Phen-Fen and stomach
stapling will not read the Atkins book before they condemn the diet.
That is not intended to be doctor bashing, because many doctors did
not engage in that kind of medicine. But it is my opinion about the
lack of science that is going into condemnation of a diet that has
worked for a lot of people.

Be as snippy as you want. Your personal list of doctors (and
apparently all you must do is go to doctors who dislike Atkins from
what you are saying) is not convincing to me since I have seen two
cardiologists in the past year who feel that the diet is fine.

Concerning your description of the South Beach diet being written by a
cardiologist: Atkins was a cardiologist. I was in the book store the
other day and there must have been 20 different diet books written by
cardiologists. They were all different. Some were polar opposites of
the others. Picking one from the others on the basis that
doctors/cardiologists authored them is impossible on the face of it. I
mean it's like this: A doctor wrote it. So what? A doctor wrote that
one, too. And that one, and that one, and that one.

I am familiar with the South Beach diet. It's on TV every day. It
seems to work for some people. I wonder if it fits this wild
definition of success floating through this string that it is so good
people never drop off it and never regain the weight.

On the issue that there is a small difference between the Atkins Diet
weight loss amount and any other diet weight loss amount: That is
indeed what the study shows. But the study found the difference
significant. And the study noted that people dropped off. So, here
again, we face this issue of people stopping a diet and regaining
weight.

However, before you can blast the Atkins diet you need to know enough
about it, including its maintenance phase (which you obviously do
not), to say that important food groups are not included in the diet.
I believe you are uninformed about the diet and have based your
strident opinion of it on hearsay. Since we are going to be so
confrontational, why is it that you feel so comfy bashing something
you know so little about?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:26:41 GMT, Bob Cardone

cardone1!@!mindspring.com said:

1024Bytes said:

One thing, Bob, that makes me wonder about this thread. Show me the
studies (apparently you think there are some) that show Atkins is bad
for you. If the article I sent you is correct, there have been few
studies...perhaps only the two named in the article. So where do you
get this idea that Atkins is unhealthy? And what kind of diet,
exactly, do you think does work? I mean exactly. Let's examine its
success using the same criteria you want to use to examine Atkins.

This is rather a ridiculous non-debate we are having because you
refuse to answer any of the questions that I ask you to answer, post
after post. I will say it again really slowly this time..

Why do you suppose that all the Doctors that I talk to, some of them
Heart Specialists, ( 3 in one week a few months back) all tell me that
the Atkins diet is a terrible diet to be on for any length of
time???????? Before you make another comment or statement, please
answer that question. Are these Doctors all morons that don't know
anything?

The second issue again ( seems like you just don't want to address any
of the issues that I bring up and would rather go on some pro Atkins
mantra in response) , is the evidence in the article that you quoted
very clearly states that not only have no long term health effect
studies ever been done of the Atkins Diet, but even being on the diet
for about 1 year , demonstrates that there is a minimal difference
between the Atkins Diet weight loss amount and any other diet weight
loss amount. I would therefore conclude that the difference in weight
loss is not too different , and the food groups and food types a
person would eat on the Atkins is rather bizarre by most medical and
nutritional expert standards compared to a well balanced diet. How do
you feel about this paragraph. Is the research in the article you
posted incorrect? If so , do you have some other study that proves it
wrong ?

The last question is, judging by your weight, and you stating that
your weight was in a good range, I am assuming that you are 6' 4" or
taller. Am I correct in that assumption?

A good diet , is to eat less calories than you burn a day. Works every
time. You should also eat whole grains versus refined or highly
processed food, eat high fiber foods, stay away from high glycemic
foods that cause your insulin level to bounce around, eat fish , and
low fat protein and stay away from high fat content protein. Limit
sugar as much as possible. A diet fairly close to this would be the
South Beach Diet, which was written by Cardiologist.

Bob

Martin W. Smith said:

Courtney said:

Of course not. Those doctors who think that everyone can loose weight on a
low fat, high carbohydrate diet are the hypocrits.

Everyone *can* lose weight on a low fat, high carb diet, but a lot of
people don't stick with that kind of diet.

I naturally ate fairly close to Atkins' maintenance, and never had a
weight problem, until my late thirties, when I was put on a low-fat high
carb diet because of familial hypercholesterolemia, along with 3 x week
aerobic classes. In 5 years I gained almost 45 pounds (usually eating
less than two pounds of food a day, mind you, but I'm quite short).
During that period, my HDL dropped from around 60 to around 15, and
total cholesterol climbed from the high 200s into the low 400s.

On low carb, I was able to drop the weight and maintain, and although
my cholesterol numbers are not considered good, it went back down to
where it was before low-fat made it worse, and the HDL went back up.

--
jamie ([email hidden])

"There's a seeker born every minute."

One thing I have wondered about situations like this is whether fish
and chicken and soft cheese (rather than block cheese) and other such
foods that are known to be lower in saturated fat have the same kind
of good effect for other people that they have had for me on Atkins
maintenance. My total cholesterol has dropped quite a bit since I have
moved away from the higher saturated fat options and toward the lower
saturated fat options. Have you tried getting rid of red meat and pork
and hard cheese etc.? If so, what has been the effect for you?

On 28 Aug 2003 18:42:39 GMT, [email hidden] (jamie)

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith said:

Courtney said:

Of course not. Those doctors who think that everyone can loose weight on a
low fat, high carbohydrate diet are the hypocrits.

Everyone *can* lose weight on a low fat, high carb diet, but a lot of
people don't stick with that kind of diet.

I naturally ate fairly close to Atkins' maintenance, and never had a
weight problem, until my late thirties, when I was put on a low-fat high
carb diet because of familial hypercholesterolemia, along with 3 x week
aerobic classes. In 5 years I gained almost 45 pounds (usually eating
less than two pounds of food a day, mind you, but I'm quite short).
During that period, my HDL dropped from around 60 to around 15, and
total cholesterol climbed from the high 200s into the low 400s.

On low carb, I was able to drop the weight and maintain, and although
my cholesterol numbers are not considered good, it went back down to
where it was before low-fat made it worse, and the HDL went back up.