I agree with all the LC'er on this page...this is a forum for help and support, not to voice your opinion about your choice of eating habits....as for all of us....we have a found a way that works for us...so for future reference don't come to a Low Carb sight trying to enroll people into "your" WOE, we already have one!!

Thanks!

cherryrock, I don't need to see any articles. I don't go by articles. I can see how my body reacts and how healthy I am compared to what I used to be. And that is the truth.

Oh how I love potato

your links only show what everyone in this forum knows, that there are a lot of folks that are dead-set against it. We all know that most nutritionists do not accept this diet. Our contention is that they may be well meaning and are probably all nice people, but they are, however, wrong.

Anyway, your links are hardly evidence to prove your claims, or theirs...

we can just as easily point to dozens of studies that prove the contrary.

And finally, since it was an diet of animals and vegetables and nuts and fruits that sustained humankind for 2 million + years, why is it that now all of sudden this sort of diet is "bad" for us?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3541399/

This is not a peer reviewed article. It is a popular press article with anecdotal evidence based upon two people, neither which can be shown to have followed the Atkins regime correctly.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/AtkinsRev.html

This is a guys website where he is selling his own weight loss plan. Hardly an unbiased source of information.

http://www.atkins-diet.cc/risks2.php

This one confused me a bit until I found the registry page area which states that this is run by the Physicians for Responsible Medicine. A group known to have an anti-Atkins attitude as they are pushing a vegetarian or vegan diet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3128188.stm

HAven't looked at this one.

The New England Journal's an interesting article to quote. It is one of the researches that supported the view that LC lowered triglycerides and LDL.
In what way does this support your case?

From the abstract posted:

Results Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet had lost more weight than subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (mean [±SD], –6.8±5.0 vs. –2.7±3.7 percent of body weight; P=0.001) and 6 months (–7.0±6.5 vs. –3.2±5.6 percent of body weight, P=0.02), but the difference at 12 months was not significant (–4.4±6.7 vs. –2.5±6.3 percent of body weight, P=0.26). After three months, no significant differences were found between the groups in total or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. The increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations and the decrease in triglyceride concentrations were greater among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet than among those on the conventional diet throughout most of the study. Both diets significantly decreased diastolic blood pressure and the insulin response to an oral glucose load.

Conclusions The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease. Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups. Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets.

It showed that low carb diet DECREASED the risk factors, not increased them.

Quote:

It showed that low carb diet DECREASED the risk factors, not increased them

Ummmm, as Paleoanth demonstrated..... I think you just shot yourself in the foot!

Wanda

That's funny. Have you read thiis research before referencing it? It goes against what you said.

Unless you prefer lower good cholesterol, and higher bad cholesterol, or if you prefer taking statin drugs for life, as most Peta/PCRM members prefer.

Wa'il

it starts off with a typical nitwit nutritionist offerning the same tired criticisms, too much fat, not enough vegetables, leads to heart disease, obesity, blah blah blah..

but it does follow that up with the following, which I guess our PETA loving original poster (forgot the name) must not have bothered to read...

waht? You don't believe in messages from the other side? Jings, that would put a few probate lawyers out of a job.

Regarding the BBC uk article "The FSA does not mention Atkins by name - in fact her description is of diets which "cut out starchy foods altogether" - not a fully accurate description of the diet plan.

Nutrient risk

However, Ms Church says: "Cutting out starchy foods, or any food group, can be bad for your health because you could be missing out on a range of nutrients. "

1. The article itself states that Atkins plan is not mentioned
2. On the promotion of starchy foods, rice and potatoes there was a documentary on BBC last year saying that government agencies like the Food Standards Agency might try and promote the high carb foods because sales haev dropped and it is causing problems for farmers (I know that's kinda funny but it's good enough reason for promoting high carb food)

On the weight gain after Atkins - oh yes - happened to me too when I stopped following the Atkins plan before - and I know exactly why - because I started eating the old way - having 4-6 sandwiches (white bread) a day + pizzas and other fast food. This is not the way - this is a way of eating for life. Once bad habits are out of the window weight will never come back.

The weight gain happens for people on low calorie diets too. The problem is one can not stay on low calories for life - it is just not healthy!

Not exactly. I take it you didn't read the sticky at the top of this forum that states "read here before posting?" which says in part





Really? Well...let's go through those "facts" one by one, shall we?



As proof of this statement, you cite 2 examples (not any studies) from your own circle of acquantainces. You also leave out critical information such as: did they gain weight while remaining on low carb or did they gain weight by returning to their former eating habits? This is not "fact". This is a subjective, unverifiable statement.



Again, opinion. You do not cite any peer reviewed studies that support what you say. In fact, the studies that these opinions are based on are either not studies (very biased self-reporting surveys) or are based on a high carb AND high fat diet. Research done specifically on low carb dieters have failed to demonstrate any of the results that you so emphatically state to be absolute truth above. On top of that, non-low carbers (and yes, even vegetarians) also develop heart disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, constipation, headaches and halitosis.

Now let's look at the links you've provided so far:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3541399/

An opinion piece based on allegations from a one, Mr. Jody Gorran. Interestingly enough, it seems that Mr. Gorran thought that following low carb entailed eating regular cheesecake 3 times a week. Another point to consider is that Mr. Gorran apparantly had his heart checked for problems a full 6 months prior to beginning the Atkins program. One does wonder why since the type of tests he describes are not routinely done on people without serious risk factors for heart disease or already existing symptoms. Frankly, I hope that this case actually gets to trial (although it's highly unlikely) because the Atkins lawyers are going to have a field day cross examining this guy on the witness stand regarding what exactly he was eating while claiming to "follow Atkins". This is by no means any type of scientific study but instead on man's claims regarding what caused him to develop an arterial blockage.

http://www.drfuhrman.com/AtkinsRev.html

This one at least cites scientific studies to support his opinion. Unfortunately, if you actually look up and read the studies he cites, they don't show the absolute link that he claims they do. Meat linked to colon cancer absolutely? Interesting that he doesn't mention the equal number of studies regarding meat consumption and colon cancer that show no association. No fruit? Obviously, he hasn't read any of the low carb plans he is so set against. Not even Atkins induction excludes all fruits and after that 2 week period, they are one of the first things to be increased in the menu, in the form of berries (which contain the highest amounts of antioxidants of all the fruits). Saturated fat is linked absolutely to heart disease? Nope. None of the studies he cites shows a strong link. In fact, the fat/heart disease hypothesis has yet to be shown true conclusively by any study AND they are all performed on high carb AND high fat diets, so which is the causative factor...the carbs or the fat?

http://www.atkins-diet.cc/risks2.php

Opinion. They cite absolutely no references to back up their claims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3128188.stm

More opinion. No studies cited.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion about this, I'm game, but cite and give a link to the actual study and then we'll discuss it. I could care less what PETA supporters think of my "high protein" (hint..it's actually high fat, not high protein) diet.

so, ok, here's a few right back at you!

http://atkins.com/Archive/2004/4/16-486696.html
http://theomnivore.com/home.html
www.thincs.org
http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

OK...cant help myself here folks...those of you that know me...you may want to duck:

I have no problem with people holding differing opinions, but when you quote articles...quote them correctly for cryin' out loud!

#1) I thought the National Geographic article was VERY well done and even though it did offer varying opinions of low-carb diets...it did so with complete nuetrality and simply put those varying opinions out there for its readers to sort through on their own.

#2) NOWHERE did it say that those on Atkins gained it all back within 6 months. It did say:
#3) The quote by an unnamed nutrition expert was phrased in a way that made me think Ms Newman (the article's author) thought the statement was ridiculouw:
Ms Newman used the word "hissed"...not stated...not questioned...not exclaimed...ummmm ..."hissed". Made her (the "expert", not Ms Newman) sound petulant and childlike to me. Not how that would have been phrased if Ms Newman thought Atkins had no merit.

The diet is taken seriously enough that (and I quote again from the article) As for the that too was a direct quote from the article and the opinion of one man....not a collection of data as you made it sound in your post. That same man who made that quote, I might add, has his own diet plan and diet books to promote. The only true difference (cited in a debate with an Atkins rep) in what he advocates versus Atkins is how much fat should be allowable....good lord....he has to be different somewhere now, doesnt he, or he might as well just promote atkins and find a new way to make money for himself!

Outa time...on my way to work...please quote properly and learn how to read so that you can understand good reporting and the nuances within it.

Edited after work...somehow that last sentence wound up in the middle...had to move it.