Atkins

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I don't know if I want to try this diet anymore. Seems like there's a lot more bad then good when it comes to results and side effects.

I also like pasta and breads, and don't want to just eat bologna or turkey as opposed to a regular sandwich.

Well, good luck, Fatso.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I refer you all to Gina Kolata's "Rethinking Thin".

From Publishers Weekly

Starred Review. New York Times reporter Kolata may be the best writer around covering the science of health. Here she offers an eye-opening book that questions all our received wisdom about why we get fat and the health hazards of those extra pounds. In chapters equally entertaining and dismaying, Kolata (Flu) traces the history of dieting fads back to the 19th century; discusses our changing ideas about the ideal body (thinner and thinner); and, most importantly, explains how genetic and biochemical understanding has (at least among researchers) replaced the view of obesity as a lack of self-control. Most dramatic is Kolata's recounting of Jeff Friedman's groundbreaking search at Rockefeller University for the "satiety factor," a hormone he called leptin that tells our brains when we're full. The science alternates with moving chapters in which Kolata follows a group of people in a weight-loss study who are trying desperately to get thin—a quest that, as Kolata makes increasingly clear is sadly futile. In her final—and perhaps most surprising—chapter, Kolata blasts those in the obesity industry—such as Jenny Craig and academic obesity research centers—who are invested in promoting the idea that overweight is unhealthy and diet and exercise are effective despite a raft of evidence to the contrary. This book will change your thinking about weight, whether you struggle with it or not. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

HC, This is ignoring an elephant (no pun) in the room, while looking at something esoteric that people will use to support the claim that good diet and exercise is futile. What I'm about to post are somewhat old stats I had from some work I did.

We have an obesity epidemic in the United States. 58 million people overweight. 40 million OBESE, which means that it is not just the few extra pounds and an unrealistic body image problem that society has thrust on people. Eight out of 10 people over the age of 25 are overweight. 78 percent of Americans don't get even the most basic levels of activity to promote good cardiovascular conditioning. A quarter of the population is completely sedentary. And we have seen a 76 percent increase in Type II diabetes in adults 30 to 40 since 1990. 80 percent of the diabetes we are seeing is related to obesity. 70 percent of the cariovascular disease we have seen in the last 50 years--a similar epidemic--is related to obseity. 42 percent of breast and colon cancer that is diagnosed is among obese individuals. 30 percent of gall bladder surgery is related to obesity. 26 percent of obese people have high blood pressure, which contributes to a host of health problems, including potentially, stroke.

It's horrifying when it comes to children. In 1982, 4 percent of American children were overweight. In 1994, it was 16 percent. By 2001 it was 25 percent--or a quarter--of our children. The numbers are sadly much higher when it comes to minorities. 33 percent of African American Hispanic children overweight in 2001.

In 1979, hospital costs associated with childhood obesity--forget the billions adult obesity is costing us and taxing our health care system, I am just talking about children--amounted to about 35 million. In 1999 it was $127 million. Today, it is even higher, although I don't have the number.

In children, again, those one in four overweight children are showing early signs of diabetes in most studies addressing it. It is a health epidemic and we are doing it to ourselves. 60 percent of those children alrady have at least one risk factor for heart disease.
As recently as 1990, 4 percent of childhood diabetes was Type II. That number has risen beyond 20 percent.

I could go on and on. So looking at some obscure book that looks at a study on leptin and then concluding that people can't help themselves to live healthier by dieting and exercise really misses the point, in my opinion. They can. Leptin and satiety factors aren't the problems for all of those obese people, who have become more and more obese over the last 50 years. The fact that they eat unhealthy and don't exercise enough is what accounts for it. The health problems and the costs associated with them that we've seen are self explanatory.

It's really as simple as most people not wanting to face obvious truths. That pint of Haagen Daz is not good for you -- especially when you are eating it all the time. That fast food is not good for you -- especially when it is a great deal of what you eat. That box of twinkies is not good for you. And not getting enough exercise is not good for your body. People KNOW this intuitively. They just have lived increasingly lived lifestyles contrary to what they know intuitively, because the fatty foods taste good and are almost like opiates. It's a hard habit to kick. And it's hard work to run and lift weights and exercise every day. It's easier to sit on the couch and play X box while blowing through a bag of Doritos. That's a generalization, of course, but when you are seeing obesity numbers skyrocketing the way we have, the generalization is not completely out of line. It's behavior related, not something beyond most people's control.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

So looking at some obscurefamous book by a Pulitzer finalist reporter for The New York Times who did graduate work in molecular biology at MIT

fixed

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Nice Googling, Ragu. All those stats! In one handy spot!

http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/statistics-obesity.htm

 

[The Big Ragu]

Nice Googling, Ragu. All those stats! In one handy spot!

http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/statistics-obesity.htm

Frank, It may have been pulled from there, but those numbers are sitting in a folder right next to me on my desk. Unsourced and I didn't feel like finding out where they came from. Perhaps they came from a common source, because I don't remember looking at that site? I also did that story quite a while ago, and I wanted to make a quick post on a message board -- I didn't include all that info in the story it was for and I had no idea where the info came from (although I know from the reams of other numbers I have it's all true), because it was typed out with a bunch of other diabetes-related info from various other places...

The link aside, are you disputing the fact that obesity (and the health-related problems associated with it) has become a major problem in this country and it is not a matter of leptin -- it's a matter of people eating like shirt and living sedentary lifestyles?

That's the crux of it. You seemingly don't want to hear it, though. Sorry it doesn't work for you.

But you can ignore it, obscure it and pretend that obesity and the problems associated with it aren't real. They are. I haven't seen a thing from you addressing it. Just editing my posts, calling people Dr. Yadda Yadda and trying to come up with rationalizations that defy the obvious when it comes to good nutrition and healthy lifestyles.

It's like trying to have a conversation with a creationist in some ways -- you're not quite that fanatical and not being overtly ignorant, but what I have posted almost falls under "common sense."

EDIT: Now it makes sense. I interviewed someone from Wellness International when I was working on that, who forwarded me that mess of statistics. And that is what that Anne Collins site references. I'm sure you'll now call Wellness International biased because it is in the business of health products. But I can document obesity and diabetes stats from any of about 100 sources and it is inarguable that we have seen obesity in the U.S. rise in staggering ways--particularly over the last 20 to 25 years. And we have seen the associated health problems with that. You really can't call it into question, Frank. It's reality. Sorry.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

My entire point has been that there is plenty of disagreement about weight loss -- and obesity -- among the people who devote their lives to its study. I really do not see why any sane person would want to insist only one point of view has science on its side. Or give us the false impression that he's done vast research on the topic when obviously anyone with a Google bar could assemble that research in less than five minutes from a single source. I'm a generalist with no special training in this subject. My area of expertise is in recognizing bullshirt of various kinds. In a nutshell, it's what we do.

 

[UncleHappyPants]

I've dropped 20 pounds since January following the Atkins diet. My triglycerides have gone from "High" in January to "Normal" in June.

The key to the Atkins diet is it essentially eliminates refined convenience foods. You won't eat anything with refined flour or high fructose corn syrup. The great majority of your carbohydrates will be complex ones that come from vegetables and fruits. It's the way people ate for thousands of years before we turned to agriculture.

I feel more full because of the protein and my food tastes better because of the fat. Dinner is usually a nice grilled piece of fish/steak/pork/chicken/whatever along with some lettuce (mixed with other vegetables) topped with olive oil. Dessert is sugar-free jello or a low-carb cheesecake. I better stop, I am making myself hungry!

 

[dooley_womack1]

Indeed, uncle. Atkins most certainly will work, with some exercise, if you don't eat all meat and you follow the wide-ranging things listed for you to eat, including fruits and vegetables. If it's not for you, fine, but Atkins is not the equivalent of killing the economy one Twinkie at a time.

 

[Moderator1]

I don't know if I want to try this diet anymore. Seems like there's a lot more bad then good when it comes to results and side effects.

I also like pasta and breads, and don't want to just eat bologna or turkey as opposed to a regular sandwich.

If you are not comfortable with it, than you should not try it!

 

[budcrew08]

I don't know if I want to try this diet anymore. Seems like there's a lot more bad then good when it comes to results and side effects.

I also like pasta and breads, and don't want to just eat bologna or turkey as opposed to a regular sandwich.

Well, good luck, Fatso.

That hurts. It's completely and 100 percent true, but it still hurts.

 

[budcrew08]

I don't know if I want to try this diet anymore. Seems like there's a lot more bad then good when it comes to results and side effects.

I also like pasta and breads, and don't want to just eat bologna or turkey as opposed to a regular sandwich.

If you are not comfortable with it, than you should not try it!

That's why I thought I would ask here... just to get the opinions of the some of the smartest people in the world. There's been a lot of good info, but the argument between Ragu and Frank has been interesting to go through.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Indeed, uncle. Atkins most certainly will work, with some exercise, if you don't eat all meat and you follow the wide-ranging things listed for you to eat, including fruits and vegetables. If it's not for you, fine, but Atkins is not the equivalent of killing the economy one Twinkie at a time.

Dooley, anything that restricts calories will work. And something that doesn't have you eating a ton of fatty meats, while getting good amounts of complex carbs in your diet not only can help you lose weight, it's healthy for you. So if that is simply the kind of diet you are saying everyone who goes on Atkins follows, it isn't unhealthy. It might actually be a pretty sensible full-time diet.

From what I understood, that isn't the case, though. Most people want a quick fix. And many people don't follow it in a healthy way. That's my worry about it. That a lot of people go on Atkins and just see the "limit carbs" stuff. And they eat eggs and meat and fatty food (which can pack protein)--anything but carbs. I don't really know the diet that well, so I could be wrong, but my impression of it also was that it is very protein rich, so when done in an extreme way it taxes your kidneys and the reason a lot of people see short-term results that beat other fad diets is massive water loss.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But it does fit what we know about how the body works and even just by some of the testimonials on here, it doesn't sound like a sustainable, or sensible long-term way to eat, which SHOULD be people's goals -- not a quick fix that has more people than not losing weight and then putting it right back on and them some (other testimonials on here and elsewhere).

It "works" shouldn't be enough for people. Not if it isn't healthy or sustainable. An all-liquid starvation diet will work. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. It's unhealthy. And again, my fear about Atkins, the way most people try to follow it, is that they do unhealthy things, not the sensible things you posted. I do agree that anything killing the economy one twinkie at a time is a great thing. Twinkies themselves are killing the economy in health costs, so maybe you are saving the economy one twinkie at a time if you can get people to trade them in for non-fatty sources of protein and complex carbs.