To Fish re: diet/food (from: i would appreciate an opinion)

I am having such a difficult time getting through Dr. Atkins' book. First, it has been terribly copy-edited, which just brings out my mental red pen. I want to make corrections all over the damned book! His chatty style is also really bothering me.

Second, I'm concerned about his constant "harking back" to the 19th century and before. Eight chapters in and he has done this dozens of times, but he has never once even considered the point that pre-industrialisation people were more physically active (through manual labour) and often died younger (from disease or otherwise). It's bothering me. I can figure how he would dismiss those points, but it still feels like shoddy science not to consider them.

I'm also concerned about how much he advocates the new low-carb substitutes: "Advances in scientific understanding have paved the way for alternatives to foods that are high in carbohydrates [he goes on to give a list of high-carb foods]." So he bashes manufactured food - especially refined sugar and flour - in the same chapter as he advocates other manufactured food? How do we know this new, manufactured carb-subsitute is safe? What if we are being led down a "carb substitute" path that will end us up in 70 years with some other dietary epidemic? What about all the evidence showing that artificial sweeteners are incredibly bad for you, and are possibly neurotoxins?

Maybe I just really don't want to like this. :-/

Yeah, the book's not well-written. I'm not sure diet books ever are.

Which edition do you have?

What is his point in mentioning the 19th century? Is he comparing the diet then with the diet now?

I do remember he was very pro-artificial sweetners. It's a source of debate amongst low-carbs - for a variety of reasons. Some have criticisms similar to yours - they're not natural and may have unanticipated consequences. Others feel like relying on AS make interfere with losing the taste for sugar. After a while eating less sugar, you lose the taste. Sweet things you ate formerly are now too sweet. A third reason that's given for not using AS is that there's some evidence that the sweet taste alone can cause a rise in insulin.

Maybe.

Keep in mind that Atkins was a clinician not a scientist. He was a doctor who helped people lose weight. He wrote a book meant to be read and used by the average person. And many of his patients might have objected to giving up all sweets. They might not have stayed on the diet without the AS. He was a practical man.

I hated low carb for a long time too.

I remember a friend once telling me that she'd lost so much weight on Atkins. She's was so pleased, and I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't even congratulate her. I was thinking what an awful diet she was on.

We have it ingrained in us that meat is bad, animal fat is bad. I think it's funny that my two coworkers who are the most health-conscious are low-fat mavens. They eat granola bars. Yuck! Probably the biggest problem is that we don't eat whole foods. We eat food products.

I have "Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution". It seems to be some kind of second edition.

Yes, basically. He talks about how people in the 19th century ate meat swimming in cream but they were (apparently) OK. He also talks about 'cave men' eating animals and plants they could kill/pick and that made them healthier and (more) free from disease.

I mostly thought it was hypocritical of him to bash all the manufactured carbs through an entire chapter, but then at the end of the chapter laud artificial sweeteners (and other fake carb products).
I never have eaten artificial sweeteners and I never will; that is probably what will make the diet so hard. This book is full of them.

I'm neither a clinician nor a scientist, yet I keep finding logical flaws in his book. That concerns me. One can write a scientifically valid work for a layperson. I think the paleo book I have (by Loren Cordain) is so much better.

I found more problems whilst I was reading last night. It's a shame, because the diet seems *almost* sensible.
Actually, the book kind of reads like Dr. Atkins wrote the book, then his editor/publisher/publicist realised they could make even more money selling those "Dr. Atkins' granola bars!" and "Dr Atkins' cupcakes!" so they inserted paragraphs into the book to make it part of the plan all along. The book was published in 2002, so it wouldn't surprise me.

I don't think animal fat is bad; but equally I've never thought of a granola bar as a good food. (It's all sugar!)
I doubt anybody will ever convince me that eating a very pure, whole foods vegetarian diet (like in the China Study) is less healthy than following Atkins/paleo/similar. I imagine success depends more on adherence than anything else; and I'll stand by my point that Atkins-type diets are easier to follow in the West.

I remember when "Atkins" was a big thing sometime in the last decade, I despised everybody who was doing it. That was probably because I was working in a restaurant and we got all the "low-carbers" in. They were mostly idiots who didn't seem to understand that substituting a bowl of pasta for an omelette (not on our menu!) with two slices of toast was not "following a low carb diet", it was just "bothering the chef".

I find it kind of bizarre that we live in a culture where people should be congratulated for weight loss, anyway.

Here's another thought:
What about natural sweeteners like raw honey? I'm halfway through the book (well past the "science" and well into the "meal plans") and he has yet to even mention it.

Honey was probably the most common sweetener throughout much of history -- though rarely consumed as it's so dangerous to get at

So would eating honey-sweetened desserts once in a blue moon actually be so bad?
(And, can you tell I am trying to come up with a way to eat dessert )

Yeah, that's the second edition. The first edition (1972) was even more poorly written. I think the books are kind of sweet actual. People like Dr. Atkins are my heros. They've tried to get the word out against the tidal wave of voices of low-fat and low calorie. There were a few others in the 1960's, but Atkins is the one who's remembered. (One of the books back then was called The Drinking Man's Diet. ) One of the oldest that I know of was from th 1860's there in London - William Banting's Letter on Corpulence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting. He was the dieter, not the doctor.

You don't have to use the AS if you don't want to.

Cordain is a scientist. Atkins is not. I think that more than one clinician has found that what the researchers find in the lab doesn't work in the clinic. And researchers ignore the experience of clinicians at their peril.

Those of us who have struggled to follow traditional weight loss advice, only to find ourselves starving and weak on low calorie diets, then stumble on low carb and feel so much better and lose weight easily too, are just relieved that Dr. Atkins wrote his book and stood up to the bullies. Do you know they dragged him in front of a Congressional hearing to justify himself in the 1970's?

To me low carb diets are the equivalent of the anti-psychiatry approachs to sz. If a person recovers from sz and feels that sz was some kind of spiritual experience, maybe others can learn from his experience? Or should we roll our eyes and says, "But it's not scientific."

Yeah, his products are a separate issue. I never use them. His cookbooks are the same way. Half the recipes call for special Atkins products. Doesn't detract from the central message for me.

I think when people put out an effort and achieve a goal, they like to have other people notice and praise them. It's probably a result of how we're raised - with rewards and punishments to motivate us. Most of us crave that sort of attention. Maybe there are a few people who are completely uninterested in praise from other people, but they're in a tiny minority.

I really think you don't understand who this book is aimed at. Honey is sugar. The people who need that book don't handle sugar well. Using myself as an example-- when I was in my early 20's and thin as a rail, I had my first indication that my body doesn't cope well with sugar. I had horrible low blood sugar reactions to eating sugar. My body releases too much insulin when I eat sugar, so my blood sugar goes up, then comes down hard and fast leaving me weak, shaky, tired, and confused. The people who read that book and need to adhere to that diet have similar problems with processing sugar. Ironically we're the same people who crave sugar the most.

The author of Neanderthin (a paleo-type diet) has his dieters use honey as a sweetner, because it's found in nature without processing - which is his criteria for deciding whether to eat something or not. He does say that people who need to lose weight should eliminate or seriously limit the honey.

So if you don't have the metabolic issues of the typical Atkins dieter, I say go for it. Frankly if I were you, I'd go for the sugar.

I love sugar. If it weren't for the fact that I'd be diabetic in no time, I'd indugle in it all the time.

Maybe for the third edition, they could pay me to copy-edit it.
Then I would have money to buy all this blasted meat!!

I adore Banting! There's an exhibit about him and his diet at the Wellcome Institute (a big medical research charity that also runs a museum). Did you know that before ANYBODY said "dieting", they said they were "Banting"?? The Wellcome Institute has all these pictures of flappers and their "Banting" meals.

I'm starting to detect huge political overtones in his book, too. I know corn subsidies are a huge issue in the US -- as a Canadian/European, it's not something I've ever been directly affected by.


My problem with Atkins is not necessarily that he's unscientific, it's that he's illogical/makes contradictory assertions. Maybe he wasn't actually illogical about his diet at a "higher" level, but the chattiness of his book means he often contradicts himself -- I think probably, as you say, as a practical response to how people are used to eating.

I get the feeling his personal wealth manager or similar decided on the products. I'm not really fussed about them and don't plan to eat them (actually, I'm not even sure they're sold in the UK any longer).

I was a radical feminist for a while, so that's where I'm coming from.
I'm less of a radical feminist now, but I still think it's odd that we live in a society where so much focus is put on the body and what shape it is, regardless of how difficult it is to achieve that body.

No, I got that part. It's just that in the particular chapter where he rails against refined sugar, he completely fails to mention honey. I wondered if it was a cultural thing where perhaps not much honey is (/was) eaten in the US, or if it was for another reason.

The psych drugs/coeliac disease messed up my system so much that I have no idea what I crave anymore. I've never wanted to eat wheat products (which is unsurprising in hindsight with the coeliac and all) but on some of the drugs I would eat four or five pounds of pasta at one sitting, or a whole loaf of bread. Even still, some days it's all I can do to choke down a salad and other days I can plow through an entire family-sized dessert. *shrugs*

I don't know what I have! All I know is that I look very thin, but I have a BMI of 24 and I feel roly-poly. I have bad PMS and heard that eliminating sugar could help. I also worry about diabetes because it's rife through my mother's family; but they're also all alcoholics.

It's day 6. When do I get the energy burst? Or even feel less miserable?

I'm not even following the induction of Atkins very closely; there are still lots of carbs in my diet. I counted them the last three days and I'm getting about 40g per day, which is too much for induction but actually about half of what Dr. A recommends for a young, "normal" weight person who is highly physically active.

So am I supposed to do the induction strictly and this will pass faster?

I took the advice on this page:
http://elowcarbfoodlist.org/the-keto...ms-and-relief/
that you recommended, Costello. Everything tastes yummier because I'm rubbing butter all over it, but I don't feel any better.

Idk. I never felt miserable or had a burst of energy.

Right now I'm on day 8, and I'm cruising. Of course I've already been in ketosis, so I think my body is trained to switch back and forth between glucose and ketone bodies for fuel. What I love about low carb is that I don't feel as hungry when I'm limiting carbs. Something happens when I eat this way. I don't think about food as much. I miss mealtimes because I'm not feeling hungry so I just forget to eat. And I feel satisfied with less food. It's just weird.

Could be low carb isn't right for you. Or it could be that you need more than 40 grams. Btw, I never count my carbs. I just find it irritating to keep track - measuring and weighing everything I eat.

Ah, measuring and weighing-- that reminds me. There are two other low carb doctors I forgot to mention because most of what they do is in foreign languages. Dr. Annika Dahlqvists and Dr. Jan Kwasniewski. I was attracted to Dr. Kwasniewski's diet because it's so high fat, but it requires fairly rigid fat: protein:carb ratios, and I just will fail at that. He has a couple of books in English but they're hard to get and pricey. Plus, from what I hear he gives contraditory advice at several points.

I want to be cruising
Bizarrely, I'm not hungry. I thought it was maybe because I feel so sick. Maybe I'll have a worse transition because I've been veggie for so long. Who knows. I'll stick it out for fourteen days and see how it goes. I have bacon tonight (my favourite!!) so that's a BRILLIANT consolation.

I could never weigh or measure anything, either. I just looked at my list of everything I ate and then used a carb counter to check it all.

Damn, not even my freakish polyglottism will help here. Also, that book is going for 79 euros
Some of the stuff on that "Homo Optimus" website is pretty priceless
"Thus, the optimal nutrition ought to transform an individual into homo optimus, a member of the human species with yet unknown and unfulfilled potential."

So uhm . . . anybody else thinking of 'Man and Superman'????

Yeah, the anti-low-carb crowd calls this "anorexia" and lists it amongst the evidence that low carb is evil and dangerous. Apparently they believe if you're dieting you should be suffering. A wide streak of sadism in that point of view I think.

A few years ago there was an article in a newspaper - from Chicago? St. Louis? anyway somewhere with a large Polish immigrant community - about Kwasniewski's diet. There was a lot of traditional Polish food mentioned as I recall.

That newspaper article:

Praise the lard : The 'Polish Atkins diet' recommends eating prodigious amounts of animal fat.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...d-optimal-diet

Or definitional inaccuracy. Anorexia means you don't eat anything -- literally in Greek putting nothing edible in your mouth. It's not a condition of not feeling hungry! I think that is 'apeinasia' but I'm not sure.