20 Nov 2003 | Ben Langhinrichs said...

I certainly think they are nuts. Whole grains and healthy eating are good enough for me. I can't believe as many people jump on these silly fad bandwagons as do.

20 Nov 2003 | d said...

I missing something by eating fruits, vegetables, and grains?

No. You are just eating healthy in a traditional way. Some people have a hard time eating like that; they are so used to the fast food and sedentary lifestyle... The atkins is good for them, if they slim up and start exercising, good things are done. So far there has not been any scientific research to PROVE (maybe suggest) these people are endangering their lives anymore than normal with the diet. America is a large nation full of large people with large heads. It takes something like the Atkins (the diet where you eat grease all day) to make them lose weight. I have zero problem with it.

20 Nov 2003 | thinNproud said...

The less fat people I have to look at, the happier I will be. Maybe this will help heal those defective glands that every fatties seems to have trouble with.

20 Nov 2003 | Paul said...

The less fat people I have to look at, the happier I will be.

The less bigoted comments I have to read, the happier I will be.

Atkins is simply the latest on the Diet Train, and will eventually pass. Some people will lose weight for a long time on it, and many more will gain it all back and then some. The only real solution is to eat well, exercise, and let your body meet its ideal weight - whatever size that may be.

20 Nov 2003 | Jonny Roader said...

"The only real solution is to eat well, exercise, and let your body meet its ideal weight - whatever size that may be."

I've got one part of that down to a tee!

Speaking as someone who has quite literally felt hungry since the age of 11 and who needs to lose a stone at least, I thought I'd give the Atkins diet a whirl. I lasted 12 hours. A 'wonder diet' that forces you to give up chocolate, alcohol, bread, pasta, cereals, doughnuts, cakes? Hmmm. Wonder how that's working.

20 Nov 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Warning, long rant ahead.

Nice selective quoting there, SU, on that news story. You forgot the next paragraph, which is:

The Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine stressed it could not prove the diet hurt or killed anyone, but one dieter said he was convinced the approach clogged his arteries and the parents of a teen-ager who died while on the diet also blame her meat-heavy regimen.

So, we don't have any proof, but we're going to take the anecdotal evidence of two nonprofessionals? Well, hell, I'm convinced.

As we went around on this a few months back, there are several huge misconceptions about how the Atkins approach actually works and what it does. Zac did a good job of outlining some of that. Atkins emphasizes vegetables especially. I've been on the diet for the last six months, and I've eaten more salad and green vegetables in that time than I'm sure I did in the previous six years. I don't have beef very often. A lot of poultry, a ton of fish. Exercise is also noted as a non-negotiable; it has to be done. And yet, many people don't.

We don't blame the traditional low-fat dietary approaches for beign fundamentally flawed when they don't work, we blame the people who don't stick to them. Why a different standard here?

The diet is is not about eating all the eggs, butter and steak you want. The Atkins books emphasize eating just to point of feeling sated, not to the point of being stuffed. He emphasizes not saying "I'll do this during the week and eat whatever on the weekends," which many people I've know on Atkins do. If the biomechanical processes Atkins is supposed to trigger are to be believed, you end up with only about two to three days a week you're in a fat-burning state. Hardly an effective way to diet.

The research that's been done recently shows that people on Atkins do lose slightly more in the first year, and common health markers like cholestrol and blood pressure are no different than people who follow conventional low-fat diets.

Yes, balance and moderation are key. And, oddly enough, that's what the diet ultimately espouses. Once you work out of the initial very-low-carb stages, you add more carbs back in in the form of, surprisingly enough, whole grains, fruits and vegetables.

It's not an approach for everyone. No diet is. Some things are going to work better for other people than others. And any diet program should be done workign with one's doctor.

All I have to go on is personal experience. In six months, working with my doc and exercising quite a bit (cycling ~50-70 miles a week, a little less now that the days are shorter and I can't go after work) and following Atkins, I'm down ~55 pounds. My overall cholestrol has dropped 45 points, with a similar percentage drop in bad cholestrol and gain in good, and my blood pressure's down 20. Cholesterol and BP were all in borderline state, and now I'm well within the desired ranges.

It worked for me. I'll never claim that it's going to work for everyone else.

20 Nov 2003 | Mike said...

Did anyone else happen to see the Louis Black segment on a recent "The Daily Show" where he makes fun of the Atkins diet?

It was funny.

21 Nov 2003 | Justin said...

I've been doing Atkins for a couple months now - and not sticking to it all the time, mind you - but I have terrible acid reflux. I carry a small supply of Tums in my car, backpack, beside my desk at work, and at home. I wake up sometimes (sometimes, as in every single morning) and I can feel the burning in my throat, or I'll cough every few minutes until I can get my Tums should I be somewhere without. I can say "thanks dad" for this trait, but at least I have learned after watching him develop a hernia from the same thing.

I like the idea of losing some weight, but more than anything, when I stick to Atkins (and not just the burger-no-bun stuff discussed above) it's like I've never had heartburn in my life. It just goes away like magic.

I won't restrict my carbs to nothing like some people do to lose weight. I haven't even read the book (my fiancee is my reference) although I should. She always explains that it's no as much about dropping carbs altogether, but lowering carbs from processed foods. We eat crepes, steak, salads, some fruits, nuts, chocolates, candy, ice cream, and I use plenty of Splenda in anything I want sweet. It's not really restrictive, it's just a change in habits. Like One-of-several-Steves, I too have eaten more veggies in the last 6 mo's than ever in my life.

If I lose weight - cool. But I can help control my high-cholesterol, and continue to elminate my dependence on Tums and for that I have a hard time worrying about Atkins making me unhealthy. I still like the idea of more studies though. It's great to be 24 and have to worry about diabeties, heart attack, and hernias. And I can't help to think about those less fortunate.

21 Nov 2003 | benry said...

not missing much. it's an easy way to lost 10-20 lbs but other than that you have to love bacon instead of bread.

21 Nov 2003 | SU said...

I guess what I'm really wondering about here is the diet in practice and the ramifications it will have long-term -- for both health and the food supply. As for selective quoting of the article on Yahoo!, I was quoting it because it was topical, not because it was definitive. Interesting mainly because it popped up today.

21 Nov 2003 | pb said...

I don't think the moderation axiom goes away. If you look at the typical diet, it is very heavy on the carbs. I've been simply trying to cut down on the potatoes, bread, sweets and pasta that I consume and eating about the same amount of fat, etc. Yes, I'm eating less. I really don't think many people are following a strict Atkins regimen.

21 Nov 2003 | Michael Spina said...

I'll be flyin' high when someone comes up with an all-carbs diet. Atkins can pry the soft pretzels and pasta from my cold, dead, low-cholesterol hands.

21 Nov 2003 | One of several Steves said...

I guess what I'm really wondering about here is the diet in practice and the ramifications it will have long-term -- for both health and the food supply.

That is an interesting question. There are already affects on the food-buying habits of Americans and Britons, as the original article noted. Whether they're long-lasting remains to be seen. These things tend to go in cycles as theories in dietary science change. I can remember back in the early 70s when my mom would order the "diet plate" - a hamburger patty with a side of cottage cheese and a small salad. Rather similar to what someone on a low-carb diet today might order. Eggs were bad, now they're OK, etc.

It will be interesting to see what the verdict is on low-carb approaches long-term. So far, the research that's been done has only studied people on a low-carb approach for 1-2 years. Since things like artereosclerosis and heart disease take years to develop, it's possible the long-term effects might not be good. On the other hand, Atkins himself did it for 30-40 years, and was quite healthy before he fell on an icy sidewalk and hit his head.

I think long-term, it won't have a profound effect on health or food consumption. People rarely stick to any changes in eating behavior, regardless of what they are. And, it is a challenge to stick with any restrictive eating regieme for a long time. There are days where I'm sick of meat and salad, even if I vary things up quite a bit. Although, oddly enough, I don't find myself craving carbs necessarily. Just some variety.

21 Nov 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Must ... resist ... temptation ... to weigh in on this issue.

21 Nov 2003 | Brian Levy said...

Must be killing you, Don

22 Nov 2003 | JF said...

My observations lead me to one conclusion: It's not as much what you eat, it's how much you eat. Portion sizes here in the US are outrageous.

24 Nov 2003 | Dan said...

Justin:

LOSE THE TUMS and get a prescription for one of the new acid blockers like Pepcid, generic Ranitidine (aka Zantac), or even over-the-counter Pepcid. Tums is calcium, which works at first, but the rebound effect will make your reflux even worse.

Take it from a guy who had reflux from infancy until 19, when I had an operation to fix my faulty valve. Now I have (operable) esophageal cancer from the "Barrett's," which is the condition that resulted from all the reflux.

Barrett's, incidentally, is the fastest-growing precancerous condition in the U.S. (due, no doubt, to our ridiculous diet).

Don't take Tums. If you need antacid, use the alumina/magnesia-based Maalox, but for real management of reflux, take the pills. No kidding.

24 Nov 2003 | Justin said...

Who knew that a friendly discussion about Atkins could freak someone out like that. I've never heard ob Barrett's, but after a quick google, I know more than ever and still less than I should. Do you have any other advice on good foods, or rules of thumb you could share with me. Not trying to get too off topic, maybe you should use email. justin -=- bluealpha -=- com. I'll be sure to learn more. Thanks Dan!

Regardless of whether low-fat, or low-carb really does make a difference it really comes down to portions, doesn't it? Low-fat foods replaced the fat with tons of sugar. So you remove something bad and replace it with an unknown which doesn't do us any good. Low carb foods will probably have something else which in excess won't help either. It's a combination of the "I don't care" factor, and the resistance to restrict portions. I don't even think it's resistance as much as it is habit. Sometimes it's just difficult to let a plate of food sit untouched in front of you. We're so used to making a meal substantial by using standard fillers like bread, rice and potato. You might call the meal chicken, but it may as well be called "rice, with a side of chicken breast." There's no question though, eating too much of anything just can't be good for you.

16 Jan 2004 | Wymond said...

This topic is one we will tackle later in this article, but it refers to making sure that your application and the dock aren't fighting it out for supremacy of the screen.