Hi , I'm new to the group but have been on the Atkins induction diet for about six months, losing 12 pounds in the process. I have read Atkins closely and been persuaded by the case that he makes.Can anyone point me to any evidence at all that demolishes his case.
<anth...@prospectx.fslife.co.uk> wrote: >Hi , >I'm new to the group but have been on the Atkins induction diet for about >six months, losing 12 pounds in the process. I have read Atkins closely and >been persuaded by the case that he makes.Can anyone point me to any evidence >at all that demolishes his case.
>Tony.
you can expect to be waiting for an answer for a really long, long, long time.
>Hi , >I'm new to the group but have been on the Atkins induction diet for about >six months, losing 12 pounds in the process. I have read Atkins closely and >been persuaded by the case that he makes.Can anyone point me to any evidence >at all that demolishes his case.
Well, I can point you to evidence that Atkins is not completely correct - calories DO count, you can't eat unlimited food and lose weight. If you want to know more, ask Nina. Nina! -- -Beth, Pseudo usenet cop BikeE FX, AT and rans gliss Anchorage, Alaska
"pncolella1" <pncolel...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Nope. But can anyone point him in the direction of Tinakaye's site so he can > have one more positive reason to believe? > Welcome aboard, Tony!
> Neva:-)
> >Hi , > >I'm new to the group but have been on the Atkins induction diet for about > >six months, losing 12 pounds in the process. I have read Atkins closely and > >been persuaded by the case that he makes.Can anyone point me to any evidence > >at all that demolishes his case.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:29:23 -0800, "BethF" <d...@alaskaREMOVETHIS.com> wrote:
>Well, I can point you to evidence that Atkins is not completely correct - >calories DO count, you can't eat unlimited food and lose weight.
Not quite true - Atkins does play down the importance of calories in a diet because of two reasons: 1) fat calories don't count as much as carb calories (they're converted to energy less efficiently by our bodies so we burn more of them) and 2) he says that most everyone eats less on his diet because they don't get carb cravings plus fat and protein take longer to digest so you aren't hungry all the time. And both of these are very true. But he never actually says "calories don't count."
> If you >want to know more, ask Nina. Nina! >-- >-Beth, Pseudo usenet cop >BikeE FX, AT and rans gliss >Anchorage, Alaska
>"pncolella1" <pncolel...@aol.com> wrote in message >news:20010705145209.25030.00002503@ng-fq1.aol.com... >> Nope. But can anyone point him in the direction of Tinakaye's site so he >can >> have one more positive reason to believe? >> Welcome aboard, Tony!
>> Neva:-)
>> >Hi , >> >I'm new to the group but have been on the Atkins induction diet for about >> >six months, losing 12 pounds in the process. I have read Atkins closely >and >> >been persuaded by the case that he makes.Can anyone point me to any >evidence >> >at all that demolishes his case.
> Well, I can point you to evidence that Atkins is not completely correct - > calories DO count, you can't eat unlimited food and lose weight. If you > want to know more, ask Nina. Nina! > -- > -Beth, Pseudo usenet cop > BikeE FX, AT and rans gliss > Anchorage, Alaska
Beth Atkins doesn't really suggest unlimitied eating. My interpretation is that he suggestes a higher fat diet becasue of its negligble convesion rate to glucose. If anything I think he states that your caloric intake will lower naturally because of the "ketosis effect".
> > Well, I can point you to evidence that Atkins is not completely correct - > > calories DO count, you can't eat unlimited food and lose weight. If you > > want to know more, ask Nina. Nina! > > -- > > -Beth, Pseudo usenet cop > > BikeE FX, AT and rans gliss > > Anchorage, Alaska
> Beth Atkins doesn't really suggest unlimitied eating. My interpretation > is that he suggestes a higher fat diet becasue of its negligble > convesion rate to glucose. If anything I think he states that your > caloric intake will lower naturally because of the "ketosis effect".
Atkins says cut calories at least a dozen different times in the book. And NEVER says you can eat UNLIMITED amounts of food. There is a subtle difference between eat all you need versus eat all you want.
Lee Rodgers ==========
>On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:29:23 -0800, "BethF" <d...@alaskaREMOVETHIS.com> wrote: >Well, I can point you to evidence that Atkins is not completely correct - >calories DO count, you can't eat unlimited food and lose weight. If you >want to know more, ask Nina. Nina!
===================================================== IN MY OPINION prefaces anything written above my name Lowcarb Retreat http://www.lowcarb.org LOSE weight for LOOSE jeans LOSERS have LOOSER jeans I've been LOSING fat YOU'RE determined. It shows on YOUR face. =====================================================
> Well, I can point you to evidence that Atkins is not completely correct - > calories DO count, you can't eat unlimited food and lose weight. If you > want to know more, ask Nina. Nina! > -- > -Beth, Pseudo usenet cop
> Atkins says cut calories at least a dozen different times in the book. > And NEVER says you can eat UNLIMITED amounts of food. There is a > subtle difference between eat all you need versus eat all you want.
> Lee Rodgers
My issue with that *IMO* most people cannot tell the difference between *need* and *want*.
> I think that the editors of the books see a huge potential in diet > books and as the Eades reported in a discussion regarding PROTEIN > POWER, when they found their first publisher, they found that their > manuscript was being edited into a format that would present their > health plan as yet 'another diet book'; a quick "diet-pill" for rapid > sales to the masses (those are all my words, not theirs!).
> This is primarily why the Eades switched publishers so that they > could write the PPLP book they way they wanted; lay out the science > and remove the aura of FAD from their presentation.
> It is apparent that "many"(to some 'power of ten') people ARE looking > for MAGIC PILL solutions and Dr Atkins has been targeted due to some > degree of sensationalism, misinformation, and frustrating dogma in > the real world. I have no idea how much editing control Dr Atkins had > over his books but it it doesn't take much effort to see that harmful > elements of promotional Marketing are side effects which are > affecting the public image of his plan.
However, even if Atkins had zero control over the book back then, he has control over the book now. He could have done the same thing the Eades have done. But in the end, the big publishers aren't interested in the facts and figures - they're interested in a book that SELLS. It's up to the author what they want to do.
>> I think that the editors of the books see a huge potential in diet >> books and as the Eades reported in a discussion regarding PROTEIN >> POWER, when they found their first publisher, they found that their >> manuscript was being edited into a format that would present their >> health plan as yet 'another diet book'; a quick "diet-pill" for rapid >> sales to the masses (those are all my words, not theirs!).
>> This is primarily why the Eades switched publishers so that they >> could write the PPLP book they way they wanted; lay out the science >> and remove the aura of FAD from their presentation.
>> It is apparent that "many"(to some 'power of ten') people ARE looking >> for MAGIC PILL solutions and Dr Atkins has been targeted due to some >> degree of sensationalism, misinformation, and frustrating dogma in >> the real world. I have no idea how much editing control Dr Atkins had >> over his books but it it doesn't take much effort to see that harmful >> elements of promotional Marketing are side effects which are >> affecting the public image of his plan.
>However, even if Atkins had zero control over the book back then, he has >control over the book now. He could have done the same thing the Eades >have done. But in the end, the big publishers aren't interested in the >facts and figures - they're interested in a book that SELLS. It's up to >the author what they want to do.
>"We are all awaiting the instant gratification granted us through the >blessed affirmations of Her Royal Highness, The SlackMistress." -Mike Turco
>"My take on Nina is that she has no sense of humor at all." - Tonia
Atkins wants people to find his diet so irresistable that they try it long enough to see that they can indeed lose weight (else why the pain of induction?) and he can't be faulted for that. It's intended to do three things: To convince people that low-carb is healthy, to convince them that low-carb is enjoyable, and to make people lose a few pounds immediately so they will stick with it. Without stressing all of those, you end up with either a text book on unusual nutrition theories or just another dry diet book that sits on the shelves.
Does he lie? NO. Does he stress how easy and fun this diet is over how much work it is to actually adjust to eating low-carb? YES. Would I have lost my 55 pounds without reading his book? NO, or at least, not yet.
> >> I think that the editors of the books see a huge potential in diet > >> books and as the Eades reported in a discussion regarding PROTEIN > >> POWER, when they found their first publisher, they found that their > >> manuscript was being edited into a format that would present their > >> health plan as yet 'another diet book'; a quick "diet-pill" for rapid > >> sales to the masses (those are all my words, not theirs!).
> >> This is primarily why the Eades switched publishers so that they > >> could write the PPLP book they way they wanted; lay out the science > >> and remove the aura of FAD from their presentation.
> >> It is apparent that "many"(to some 'power of ten') people ARE looking > >> for MAGIC PILL solutions and Dr Atkins has been targeted due to some > >> degree of sensationalism, misinformation, and frustrating dogma in > >> the real world. I have no idea how much editing control Dr Atkins had > >> over his books but it it doesn't take much effort to see that harmful > >> elements of promotional Marketing are side effects which are > >> affecting the public image of his plan.
> >However, even if Atkins had zero control over the book back then, he has > >control over the book now. He could have done the same thing the Eades > >have done. But in the end, the big publishers aren't interested in the > >facts and figures - they're interested in a book that SELLS. It's up to > >the author what they want to do.
> >"We are all awaiting the instant gratification granted us through the > >blessed affirmations of Her Royal Highness, The SlackMistress." -Mike Turco
> >"My take on Nina is that she has no sense of humor at all." - Tonia
> Atkins wants people to find his diet so irresistable that they try it > long enough to see that they can indeed lose weight (else why the pain > of induction?) and he can't be faulted for that.
We can't know what Atkins wants. I would say Atkins wants to sell books.
>> >> I think that the editors of the books see a huge potential in diet >> >> books and as the Eades reported in a discussion regarding PROTEIN >> >> POWER, when they found their first publisher, they found that their >> >> manuscript was being edited into a format that would present their >> >> health plan as yet 'another diet book'; a quick "diet-pill" for rapid >> >> sales to the masses (those are all my words, not theirs!).
>> >> This is primarily why the Eades switched publishers so that they >> >> could write the PPLP book they way they wanted; lay out the science >> >> and remove the aura of FAD from their presentation.
>> >> It is apparent that "many"(to some 'power of ten') people ARE looking >> >> for MAGIC PILL solutions and Dr Atkins has been targeted due to some >> >> degree of sensationalism, misinformation, and frustrating dogma in >> >> the real world. I have no idea how much editing control Dr Atkins had >> >> over his books but it it doesn't take much effort to see that harmful >> >> elements of promotional Marketing are side effects which are >> >> affecting the public image of his plan.
>> >However, even if Atkins had zero control over the book back then, he has >> >control over the book now. He could have done the same thing the Eades >> >have done. But in the end, the big publishers aren't interested in the >> >facts and figures - they're interested in a book that SELLS. It's up to >> >the author what they want to do.
>> >"We are all awaiting the instant gratification granted us through the >> >blessed affirmations of Her Royal Highness, The SlackMistress." -Mike Turco
>> >"My take on Nina is that she has no sense of humor at all." - Tonia
>> Atkins wants people to find his diet so irresistable that they try it >> long enough to see that they can indeed lose weight (else why the pain >> of induction?) and he can't be faulted for that.
>We can't know what Atkins wants. I would say Atkins wants to sell >books.
Of course. And the way to do that with a diet book is to start with a diet that works, a technique that gets people hooked on it, and then sell the hell out of it. Which is exactly what his book does. Capitalism at its finest.
> > >> I think that the editors of the books see a huge potential in diet > > >> books and as the Eades reported in a discussion regarding PROTEIN > > >> POWER, when they found their first publisher, they found that their > > >> manuscript was being edited into a format that would present their > > >> health plan as yet 'another diet book'; a quick "diet-pill" for rapid > > >> sales to the masses (those are all my words, not theirs!).
> > >> This is primarily why the Eades switched publishers so that they > > >> could write the PPLP book they way they wanted; lay out the science > > >> and remove the aura of FAD from their presentation.
> > >> It is apparent that "many"(to some 'power of ten') people ARE looking > > >> for MAGIC PILL solutions and Dr Atkins has been targeted due to some > > >> degree of sensationalism, misinformation, and frustrating dogma in > > >> the real world. I have no idea how much editing control Dr Atkins had > > >> over his books but it it doesn't take much effort to see that harmful > > >> elements of promotional Marketing are side effects which are > > >> affecting the public image of his plan.
> > >However, even if Atkins had zero control over the book back then, he has > > >control over the book now. He could have done the same thing the Eades > > >have done. But in the end, the big publishers aren't interested in the > > >facts and figures - they're interested in a book that SELLS. It's up to > > >the author what they want to do.
> > >"We are all awaiting the instant gratification granted us through the > > >blessed affirmations of Her Royal Highness, The SlackMistress." -Mike Turco
> > >"My take on Nina is that she has no sense of humor at all." - Tonia
> > Atkins wants people to find his diet so irresistable that they try it > > long enough to see that they can indeed lose weight (else why the pain > > of induction?) and he can't be faulted for that.
> We can't know what Atkins wants. I would say Atkins wants to sell > books.
Nothing wrong with making money..especially if your helping a couple of 100 thousand people along the way.
> >Adam Selene wrote: > >> Atkins wants people to find his diet so irresistable that they try it > >> long enough to see that they can indeed lose weight (else why the pain > >> of induction?) and he can't be faulted for that.
> >We can't know what Atkins wants. I would say Atkins wants to sell > >books.
> Of course. And the way to do that with a diet book is to start with a > diet that works, a technique that gets people hooked on it, and then > sell the hell out of it. Which is exactly what his book does. > Capitalism at its finest.
> > Adam Selene wrote: > > > Atkins wants people to find his diet so irresistable that they try it > > > long enough to see that they can indeed lose weight (else why the pain > > > of induction?) and he can't be faulted for that.
> > We can't know what Atkins wants. I would say Atkins wants to sell > > books.
> Nothing wrong with making money..especially if your helping a couple of > 100 thousand people along the way.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with making money.
>> >> Atkins wants people to find his diet so irresistable that they try it >> >> long enough to see that they can indeed lose weight (else why the pain >> >> of induction?) and he can't be faulted for that.
>> >We can't know what Atkins wants. I would say Atkins wants to sell >> >books.
>> Of course. And the way to do that with a diet book is to start with a >> diet that works, a technique that gets people hooked on it, and then >> sell the hell out of it. Which is exactly what his book does. >> Capitalism at its finest.
>> -Adam
>Certainly. Just like the LC bars that he markets.
> >> >> Atkins wants people to find his diet so irresistable that they try it > >> >> long enough to see that they can indeed lose weight (else why the pain > >> >> of induction?) and he can't be faulted for that.
> >> >We can't know what Atkins wants. I would say Atkins wants to sell > >> >books.
> >> Of course. And the way to do that with a diet book is to start with a > >> diet that works, a technique that gets people hooked on it, and then > >> sell the hell out of it. Which is exactly what his book does. > >> Capitalism at its finest.
> >> -Adam
> >Certainly. Just like the LC bars that he markets.
> > Atkins says cut calories at least a dozen different times in the book. > > And NEVER says you can eat UNLIMITED amounts of food. There is a > > subtle difference between eat all you need versus eat all you want.
> > Lee Rodgers
> My issue with that *IMO* most people cannot tell the difference between > *need* and *want*.
> > Well, I can point you to evidence that Atkins is not completely correct - > > calories DO count, you can't eat unlimited food and lose weight. If you > > want to know more, ask Nina. Nina! > > -- > > -Beth, Pseudo usenet cop
> Atkins wants people to find his diet so irresistable that they try it > long enough to see that they can indeed lose weight (else why the pain > of induction?) and he can't be faulted for that. It's intended to do > three things: To convince people that low-carb is healthy, to > convince them that low-carb is enjoyable, and to make people lose a > few pounds immediately so they will stick with it. Without stressing > all of those, you end up with either a text book on unusual nutrition > theories or just another dry diet book that sits on the shelves.
My belief is that he could have written a very enjoyable, easy to understand and easy to follow book that also explained things better than his current book.
As some of us have seen here on ASDLC over the last 3 years, there are a lot of L-C concepts that people take away from his book that aren't correct -- dark purple sticks, the "free" food idea, etc. And, after re-reading over some sections of the book I personally can see how easy it would be to pick up those ideas or misconceptions.
Atkins has introduced a lot of people to the idea of L-C eating, and I'll give him that credit. I do however wish he had written (re-written) a better book. My gut feeling is that in writing the book he and/or the editors haven't given the public enough credit. I think that most people who would be successful on his plan would understand the science behind most of the principles and that a clear knowledge of the total truth would be just as motivating.
Some lucky people don't need much more than the Atkins book to be successful. But as we've seen here, quite a few people need a bit more information than the book supplies. Many of the successful L-C people we we see here found more complete information either here on one of the other low-carb internet venues or medical research sites. What I often wonder/worry about is the success rate between those who only read the Atkins book and those who go on to learn more about low-carb either by other books, internet, or even self experimentation.
I don't disagree with any of these points - but let me just throw out one question: Would low-carb diets be anywhere near this popular without Atkins' very enthusiastic book?
-Adam
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 10:21:07 -0400, RRzVRR <rrZ...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Atkins wants people to find his diet so irresistable that they try it >> long enough to see that they can indeed lose weight (else why the pain >> of induction?) and he can't be faulted for that. It's intended to do >> three things: To convince people that low-carb is healthy, to >> convince them that low-carb is enjoyable, and to make people lose a >> few pounds immediately so they will stick with it. Without stressing >> all of those, you end up with either a text book on unusual nutrition >> theories or just another dry diet book that sits on the shelves.
>My belief is that he could have written a very enjoyable, easy to >understand and easy to follow book that also explained things better >than his current book.
>As some of us have seen here on ASDLC over the last 3 years, there are a >lot of L-C concepts that people take away from his book that aren't >correct -- dark purple sticks, the "free" food idea, etc. And, after >re-reading over some sections of the book I personally can see how easy >it would be to pick up those ideas or misconceptions.
>Atkins has introduced a lot of people to the idea of L-C eating, and >I'll give him that credit. I do however wish he had written >(re-written) a better book. My gut feeling is that in writing the book >he and/or the editors haven't given the public enough credit. I think >that most people who would be successful on his plan would understand >the science behind most of the principles and that a clear knowledge of >the total truth would be just as motivating.
>Some lucky people don't need much more than the Atkins book to be >successful. But as we've seen here, quite a few people need a bit more >information than the book supplies. Many of the successful L-C people >we we see here found more complete information either here on one of the >other low-carb internet venues or medical research sites. What I often >wonder/worry about is the success rate between those who only read the >Atkins book and those who go on to learn more about low-carb either by >other books, internet, or even self experimentation.
> In article <3B44DED1.D3691...@pop.mindspring.com>, > Nina <ninaSPAM...@pop.mindspring.com> wrote:
> > BethF wrote:
> > > Well, I can point you to evidence that Atkins is not completely correct - > > > calories DO count, you can't eat unlimited food and lose weight. If you > > > want to know more, ask Nina. Nina! > > > -- > > > -Beth, Pseudo usenet cop
> > Atkins wants people to find his diet so irresistable that they try it > > long enough to see that they can indeed lose weight (else why the pain > > of induction?) and he can't be faulted for that. It's intended to do > > three things: To convince people that low-carb is healthy, to > > convince them that low-carb is enjoyable, and to make people lose a > > few pounds immediately so they will stick with it. Without stressing > > all of those, you end up with either a text book on unusual nutrition > > theories or just another dry diet book that sits on the shelves.
> My belief is that he could have written a very enjoyable, easy to > understand and easy to follow book that also explained things better > than his current book.
> As some of us have seen here on ASDLC over the last 3 years, there are a > lot of L-C concepts that people take away from his book that aren't > correct -- dark purple sticks, the "free" food idea, etc. And, after > re-reading over some sections of the book I personally can see how easy > it would be to pick up those ideas or misconceptions.
> Atkins has introduced a lot of people to the idea of L-C eating, and > I'll give him that credit. I do however wish he had written > (re-written) a better book. My gut feeling is that in writing the book > he and/or the editors haven't given the public enough credit. I think > that most people who would be successful on his plan would understand > the science behind most of the principles and that a clear knowledge of > the total truth would be just as motivating.
> Some lucky people don't need much more than the Atkins book to be > successful. But as we've seen here, quite a few people need a bit more > information than the book supplies. Many of the successful L-C people > we we see here found more complete information either here on one of the > other low-carb internet venues or medical research sites. What I often > wonder/worry about is the success rate between those who only read the > Atkins book and those who go on to learn more about low-carb either by > other books, internet, or even self experimentation.
