View Single Post
  #4   ^
Old Sun, May-16-04, 00:12
CLASYS's Avatar
CLASYS CLASYS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 164
 
Plan: Atkins original diet
Stats: 245/210/175 Male 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: New York
Default

Eeech! Yet ANOTHER spun conclusion taken from the low-fat mantra and "bible".

These people never give up, do they?

How about the fact that a calorie is NOT a calorie is NOT a calorie!

One of these pinheads was quoted on a net-reported story that the conclusive study funded by the US govt PROVING that you can do better eating MORE calories than the low-fat version as long as it's actually true low-carb was "a violation of the laws of thermodynamics".

Oh! I didn't know that the human body was IDENTICAL to a calorie burning oven [used to actually measure calorie value of any material, the idea was touched upon in the article.]

Anyone with no spin or bias towards low-fat diets has to come to the Atkins' conclusions as we know it, but every one of these jokers has an agenda. After all, could the prestigious Mayo Clinic actually be WRONG about something?

Any diet fails with recivity; don't blame the diet, blame the [ex]-dieter. Drawing conclusions from people's lack of discipline is totally unscientific and unprofessional.

The conclusions here are an abomination and an embarassment to the TRUE scientific community which better have an open mind! To draw conclusions that it must be in keeping with the tired old low-fat mindset with a handwave is pure rot.

I have been able to keep myself in a state of ketosis for weeks on end. Inevitably, it was MY fault that I didn't maintain the diet, not the diet's "fault" inherently. The solution is to go back to induction and don't look back, etc.

Carbs are neither "good" nor "bad". In fact, they are ALL quite bad. To claim the old "empty calorie" theory by force of habit doesn't cut it anymore. Sure, you can get various vitamins and minerals from certain fruits and vegetables, but is it worth the sugar invariably accompanied when getting these nutrients in that form [as opposed to a carb-free vitamin supplement?].

One thing that cannot be underestimated is the effect of insidious carbs. If you go over your personal limit, you can instantly reverse the effects of ketosis and gain MANY pounds of fat weight overnight! I'm sure many of us have been through that weirdness [I have several times, not to be proud, just honest!]

Unless and until we get into the end-point maintainence phase of the diet, all carbs are unwelcome and to be avoided. The more we eat nearly unlimited quantities of fat and protein, the more important this actually is. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll eat lotsa meat and add lotsa Kraft extra-heavy mayonaisse to my nice juicy roast beef or turkey because it helps me get a total daily carb level down to the point I am in ketosis and also feeling satieted and increased energy in part due to the more stabilized blood sugar levels.

In the process I lower the incidence and intensity of diabetic complications, lower triglycerides and LDL while raising HDL, in essence lowering heart attack risk factors all the time practicing "heresy" according to the Mayo "experts".

The only points I can agree with them is almost a straw-man arguments. No one suggests that "empty calories" are any good for you, meaning processed sugars. But the unprocessed ones are just as bad.

This glycemic load crap is a scam. In essence, they say carbs are fine as long as you don't eat enough of them to do anything that would change their pre-ordained outcome. However, they ARE correct about this concocted "net carbs" myth invented by marketroids to sell high carb food as if it was lower carb.

The only [and TOTALLY IRRELEVANT] truth is that if one is severely diabetic, different carbs raise blood sugar levels in the short-term in different ways. One of the problems of being diabetic is attempting to maintain control of BS levels at all times; anything that makes the process more volatile isn't welcome. Thus, for the essence of long-term diabetic care assuming you are NOT stabilizing bs levels [which the Atkins diet may very well accomplish!], it is better to have sugar alcohols that will "spread out" the carb rise as opposed to spiking bs levels the way other carbs do. But when we are measuring carb INTAKE there is truly no difference between sorbitol and company and sucrose and company.

Curiously, "net carbs" also leaves out carbs attributable to digestible fiber, as if that's a "special" category off-the-board regarding carb intake as well. This is likely due to this somewhat "magical" property some make about by some ill-defined method, eating high-fiber is supposedly lowering heart attacks. [The truth there is likely merely that if you lower fat while eating too much carbs, you do better if the carbs are fiber. But no one, other than Atkins, ever studied that if you eliminate the carbs of ALL forms, you do far better because you lower the LDL, triglycerides, and raise the HDL, etc.] Statistical improvements can be quoted to spin any sort of study to skey the perceived results.

When are these guys gonna stop quoting their irrelevant and obsolete notions and FEELINGS about limiting fats when they have no evidence either way, just admit they simply don't know, and also be open to someone who CAN prove that their notions are wrong!

cjl (A founding member of the Mayo[naisse] Clinic)

ps: Anyone have an accurate carb count for Kraft REGULAR mayo versus the EXTRA-HEAVY variety only obtainable in 1 gal and 2.5 gal containers? [Note: Not all of the 1 gal containers are actually the extra-heavy variety!]
Reply With Quote