Wading in here...Potatofree, what you are saying boils down to the old "the ends justify the means" argument...so if in some Arab countries, by chopping off people's hands who offend, it does in fact stop thieving... yes, it works.

But there is an ethical question and worse, a credibility question that is involved here regarding the use of science to promote a diet that round counter to prevailing beliefs, and then not using it to make new statements. Its like the boy who cried Wolf...who is going to believe them when they answer criticisms in future, if they recant now? Many here feel betrayed and angry.

Val

whoops, that should read "runs counter to"

Val

What is a "pack" of cream?

I'm not changing anything.

Kay

Excellent point. Drs who were against saturated fat to start with still won't think atkins is healthful, and they still wouldn't recommend it.

I'm sorry but I just can't see the good in this like potatofree. It seems to me like they are making an obvious grab for the poorly informed, yo-yo dieting mentality consumer... the type of person who will do whatever diet is hot at the minute but doesn't quite get that weight loss is about lifestyle changes. Currently southbeach diet is their diet of choice, since it preys on every dietary evil of the day (oooh carbs AND saturated fat... icky icky!) and has a sexy name (oooh la la "south beach" ... sure reminds you of lazy summer days and young people with hot bodies, doesn't it? :rolleyes: ). AN thinks by changing atkins slightly to look more like the sexier, trendier south beach they hope to gain some of that market share.

I hardly think recommending fewer sat fats is in any way akin to chopping off someone's hand!!!

I'm trying to understand why it's seen as such a betrayal,and I'm sorry if I offended anybody. I obviously questioned something I shouldn't...

Potatofree, yes it was an extreme example to make a point.. it is "akin" in the logic involved only...i.e. that the ends justify the means. The issue here that is making people angry is that Atkins Co will lose credibility with consumers and hence shoot themselves in the foot. It is bad enough to have to explain that it is OK to eat sat fats without having to now explain that Atkins Co have sold out to consumerville.

Val

P.S. And don't feel bad, you did say you were playing devil's advocate after all, and you have generated some califying discussion as a result.

Val

Good grief...that should read 'clarifying'...argh!

V.

I don't find what you're saying offensive.

But you're missing the point.

30 years of maintaining that saturated fats and natural animal fats are healthy and good for us. During that period, numerous studies confirmed this assertion. The man then dies, and a few months later, his company takes a 180 turn saying that saturated fats are not healthy, and should be reduced, that Dr. Atkins didn't really mean what he said.

Many of us here like eating naturally, and don't like trimming fats from meat, or using low-fat dairy. We like it natural. Dr. Atkins was an early champion of this view.

If you can't see the oddity in this, or that it's a big deal to Atkins followers, then it will be hard to explain it any further.

But either way, it's not offensive, just different points of view. You don't have to eat saturated fats, but many of us prefer not count and do the math to reduce anything, if there's no proof that we need to reduce it.

Wa'il

So it's basically the fact that Atkins and some of it's followers will have egg on their face becaust the corporation sold out... I get it.

I still stand by my opinion, even though I know most of you feel I'm dead wrong, that if it gets more people to try a low-carb way of eating it's not a TOTAL loss.

I don't mean to be overly sensitive, either, but I got reprimanded by a few people when I switched from Atkins to CAD, almost as if I was some sort of traitor!! I'm trying to understand why some people take a food plan to the extreme of having a strong emotional reaction when they feel it's being criticized or held in a bad light. Kind of an anthropological thing...

I respect your various opinions, and I know you have the science to prove your point. I'm not saying you're wrong in any way either...I'm just trying to get a better handle on understanding the points expressed here.

Someone here wrote to Atkins Co. How do others feel about doing the same? Can anyone suggest an email address?

Val

"So it's basically the fact that Atkins and some of it's followers will have egg on their face becaust the corporation sold out... I get it."

No I don't think you do. I think Tamarian's post explains it better...all low carb dieters will now suffer (including the one you are on) because of loss of credibility no thanks to Atkins Co. and their backdown, which is not supported by science. We have to keep the science in front of the public, don't you see, in order to maintain credibility re this WOE. Saying it is better to restrict sat fats to a particular percentage is not supported.

Val

Lets remember one thing. The clinic is closed. To me that says a lot. The only thing left is the corporate mentality that will push frankenfood for profit and will say anything to increase profits. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they have no crediblity left with me.

I think that Atkins pushed the enveloppe and because of this we have all won. We have won a new understanding of nutrition based on science and not marketing. We have learned to question what we hear and not accept blindly what the establishement says.

So basically now we are on our own. There is no one to tell us what to do. We must think for yourselves. And really, in a way, that's a good thing.

I think you're in the wrong thread.

If you want to debate which plan is best, there are several available sub-forums here to discuss that, or you can start a thread in the war zone with whoever "reprimended" you.

This is not about CAD, or even which plan is right.

Wa'il

I understand it's not a debate of which plan is right. I'm trying to understand what the fuss is about, not pick petty fights!

I'm not stupid, just asking for clarification and trying to understand other people's point of view.

My comment about being reprimanded was to give some background as to why I might be tring to understand people's reaction, and why I'm asking the questions I am!

Most of the posters here have been very understanding and generous in their tolerance of my questions, and as I already stated, the science backs up the original point of the people who are upset...that in the absence of excessive carbs, satfats are NOT harmful. I actually DO read what is posted for my education, since I'm here to LEARN.

So thank you for those who have tried to anwer me, even if my ignorance is frustrating. I'll go back to the "right" area now, and leave you alone.