If a potato turns green from being exposed to sunlight, this part contains some of the toxins found in other parts of the plant. That is why it is a common recommendation to throw away the green parts of a potato.

So who exposes their potatoes? Not I.

Same could be said of his opinion on low-carb dieting. Everything is said about supplements he backs up with his own personal experience with treating his patients and studies done by others. Its the very same standard and method he used to endorse his belief in low-carbing. I wrote out your paragraph below changing only those key parts.

On the subject of Atkins diet, sure Atkins sells a book and diet products. That is how they are makng money. Nothing wrong with that, just don't trot that out as proof that we must eat low-carb to be healthy. Yes Dr. Atkins did advocate retricting carbs and eating higher fat and proteins. Did he know how much longer or healthier we would be if we ate this way? Did he have any data on that? Or was it just a hunch on his part? I haven't seen many conclusive positive results from studies of low-carbing. My guess is, the difference is at best very small and at worst, the low-carb diet may do more harm than good. They certainly do harm your budget. Is low-carbing worth an extra 3 months of life?

I agree.
Just it seems that the poster I was commenting on actually believe grains and potatoes can't be eaten unless cooked.
I was suprised, I'd never heard of the "killer spud, terrible tater, toxic tuber", till I started researching.

Actually, I'm sure Dr. Atkins and others have saved a number of diabetics w/ CHD from certain death, amputation, and other horrific complications of a metabolism destroyed by sugar.

In these cases - and for those who show symptoms of sugar metabolism disorder (such as myself) - longevity of life is not only certainly significantly enhanced by a low carb regimen, but quality of that life (which is arguably more important than duration) is also vastly enhanced.

The efficacy of low carb for those with endocrine disorder from high sugar diet isn't a "hunch". This is fact. Talk to any of the diabetics on this board. Talk to any of the hypoglycemics and ladies with PCOS who struggled miserably on low or no fat for years.

YOu do raise some valid points, IthinkIcan. But on this one you are wrong. There is no comparison between vitamin pills and the efficacy of low carb. Vitamin pills may help people, whereas low carb has most definitely changed thousands of peoples lives for the better - mine included.

I said, the same of what he said, could be said and replaced. I do not agree totally that lowering your carbs isn't good, nor do I agree totally that supplements are merely a hunch, rather than proof.

What I believe, is that almost all foods are good. I especially believe that we are a nation of extremes, alpha and omega types. I honestly think we enjoy picking on our food. Its fairly simple to cognize that way. We like to create rules and lists. It illuminates a struggle that otherwise, seems too daunting to accomplish.

Back to the previous discussion on supplements. Sure, this type of diet guideline can be prescribed to help those who have ailments, that carbohydrates are certain to aggrivate the problem and/or cause it to get worse.
That being said, I am going to use my own personal educated guess, that the percentage of people who are jumping on the low-carb bandwagon, are seeking a cure for the ailment of obesity and its side effects mostly.
In this quest, people have discovered that they can lose weight eating low carbs and are not hungry. That's ALL the proof they need before they begin demonizing any starchy food, be it rice or a potatoe. I didn't consume large amounts of plain potatoes, plain carrots, or just plain rice. It was french fries, glazed carrots, or fried rice heaped with sweet n sour chicken. I can almost guess most of those people didn't eat any better than I.

When I was on Atkins, I felt the exact same way. I couldn't ever imagine putting a bite of a nasty toxic tuber on my tongue again. I was sure, at least I hoped, I'd found the magic cure. I just don't believe its that simple anymore.

I totally agree IthinkIcan, with the content of your message.
I just was pointing out that it wasn't an appropriate comparison since the positive benefits of reducing carbs are seen immediately and are significant, unlike with vitamin supplements.

The difference between low carb and supplements, is that with low carb you see results. And results are proof that it works. With supplements, in the majority of cases you do not experience any difference. That fish oil pill isn't going to make you feel any different. OK in the initial stages of Atkins you get cramps and pottasium helps, you mentioned this and it is one instance where supplementation helps. Similar effects may be seen by those who are experiencing some sort of problem to begin with.

But when healthy people take supplements, the majority of the time they are simply not going to make a big difference in the way you look or feel. Not in the short term anyway. You might benefit down the road, look better 30 years from now, live a little longer, etc. But how does one do controlled experiments that show that there are truly benefits? You can't.

Low carb has been proven experimentally, by more than just one doctor. As great as Atkins was, he was only one man. And being right about something, does not make you right about everything. Look at Linus Pauling.

I don't think we're as far off as you might think. I believe there are lots of instances where a supplement might do someone some good. Its just that I don't buy the idea that vegetables aren't as nutritious as they once were, or that we can't get the majority of what we need through a healthy balanced diet that has mostly unprocessed foodstuffs. The human body has the ability to hold onto many of the things it needs. Just look at how long the vegans can go without supplementing with B vitamins.