Atkins Diet Turns Food Pyramid Upside Down
 

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/hea...392/detail.html

BOSTON -- No carbohydrates, no fruits, no vegetables and as much fat and protein as you can handle. That seems to be the mantra of the Atkins nutritional approach, the diet that claims to aid weight loss by starving the body of carbohydrates -- its main energy source -- forcing the body to burn fat for fuel. Just the usual garbage from someone who hasn't read the book - no fruit, no veggies

An estimated 25 million Americans, 12 percent of the adult population, are currently adding the bacon and sending back full breadbaskets, according to Atkins officials.

The Atkins program works by depriving the body of carbohydrates and inducing a state of ketosis, making the body believe it is starving. When the body is denied carbohydrates, it runs short on its constant supply of glucose -- the breakdown product of carbohydrate -- and is forced to burn body fat energy, Atkins says.

In the first two weeks of the diet, there is an induction phase where carbohydrates are restricted to 20 grams a day. Dieters will see a large initial weight loss coming from water loss, not body fat. After the induction phase, dieters are encouraged to slowly increase the amount of carbohydrates in their diet, pulling the body out of ketosis. Yep, that 30lbs I lost must be all water weight... and the 100+lbs that others have lost? Must be water weight too

Nutritionists believe the diet has seen such a following because, in theory, it works. Atkins eliminates fruits, cereals, breads, grains, baked goods and starchy vegetables from a person's diet, presenting a significant calorie reduction -- the basis of any weight loss system. AAARGH!

Despite the initial weight loss, nutritionists say the diet does not aid long-term weight loss and puts dieters at an increased risk for colon cancer, high cholesterol, kidney damage and heart disease. Atkins reads like a heart-disease heaven, encouraging people to load up on fatty red meat, butter and bacon, contradicting numerous health studies and turning the food pyramid upside down, according to the National Institutes of Health.

Health experts fear the diet causes people to miss out on many needed vitamins and minerals, and may also increase the risk of cancer. The Atkins approach discourages dieters from eating fruits and vegetables, causing dieters to lose out on their cancer-fighting potential. Yep that's right. No veggies. Nope. Not for me :bash:

The diet is not recommended for vegans and lacto-ovo vegetarians, because it cannot be done successfully without protein derived from animal products. Atkins is also not recommended for diabetics, who may become hypoglycemic if they do not receive enough carbohydrates. Well the vegan thing is fair enough, but diabetics??? From what I've read (I'm not diabetic myself), a low carb diet is PERFECT for diabetics, and helps control their blood sugar far better than a high carb diet. Hypoglycemic my butt



The Atkins diet comes from research done by Dr. Robert Atkins, a graduate of Cornell University Medical School. Atkins first published his diet plan in 1972 in his book "Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution," which advised people from staying away from sugar-rich, processed foods that had become so prevalent in most U.S. diets. Since the original plan was released, Atkins published Atkins-friendly cookbooks and sold low-carb food options, vitamins and supplements via the Atkins Web site.

ARGH! Misinformation AGAIN! When will these people learn?

Pretty accurate and concise comments there, my friend. :D

I so agree. So many people are misimformed about the Atkins approach as they don't read the darn book!

I just email some nutritionist who claims that the SB diet is healthier than atkins, but when I compared the two they look identical to me. This person also thinks that you can't have fruits and vegtables or breads for that matter. And I'm sick of hearing how the atkins diet is hurting the bread industry. Bull on that also. The low carb breads are using better grains, not the junk. I don't know but I have lost 67 pounds 7 years ago, funny I haven't gained anthing back like the critics say you would. In fact I beleive that I'm eating better and healthier as I'm not putting all that junk in my body.

I beleive that some day most of americal will be following this WOL.

When will they learn. :nono:

Marie

I love this stuff
 

Like saying that quiting smoking is not for smokers because they may become "hypotaric" is they don't smoke enough. If blood sugar is too low, diabetics are overmedicated. Doesn't make sense to tell people who are usually overweight (as least Type II like me) to eat more, at least not with a straight face.

Besides, the fad-diet pushers (Nutritionists) don't recommend this diet for anyone, much less diabetics and vegetarians. Diabetics are supposed to go to a Dietitian every six months to learn "how" to eat (as if that is a problem for overweight people). If these "sick" people do Atkins, why would they need a Fad-diet pusher; er, I mean a Nutritionist.

Somehow I doubt that Atkins officals couched their comments to make it sound like Atkins is the All Bacon, All the Time Diet. In fact, Dr. A.'s books tell you to avoid bacon and its many cancer causing chemical additives.

Articles like that are just pathetic. Before I started Atkins I had about three veggies I ate on a regular basis : lettuce, cauliflower and broccoli. During my year on the NO VEGGIES/FRUIT, ALL FATTY RED MEAT AND BACON DIET, I regularly eat asparagus, bok choy, cabbages, green onions, celery, spinach, spaghetti squash, daikon... and berries in season, fresh stone fruits... whole grains, organic dairy... really horrble stuff. Much worse than the Snackwells and Weight Watchers pizza I ate when I was following a "healthy diet"! :rolleyes:

I am a type II diabetic. I would definitly be hypoglycemic on this diet, if I didn't have to give up those wonderful meds I was on.

I was so upset to read that article that I wrote to them and told them that they were in error about the Atkins diet and that next time they wrote about the diet they should at least read the book. Oh course I wrote nicer than what I just wrote here. :D

I did the same as well (pointing them to articles about studies showing that Low Carb is NOT low calorie and other benefits of low carbing)

In fact, most of my comments were in my letter (though I also stated them a bit nicer :) )

Oh I was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO mad when I saw this!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

I've lived in MA and I always respected the reporters at WCVB. I could not believe they published this without even checking the facts!

I spent and hour composing a reply....curious if any of us get any response!

I have just finished sending them a letter as well. I am soooo tired of hearing this. What kind of reporting is it when you dont bother to read the book or take in interest in the research? Isn't that the point?

Here is the response I just sent. I tried to take alittle different angle than most of what I bet they will be getting.

*******
To whom it may concern,

While I understand the need to give news stories a bit of zip and make them appealing, I don't think it should be done at the cost of the reality of the story. Your article on the Atkins diet (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/hea...392/detail.html) is biased in its presentation, contains highly debatable information presented as "facts", and was clearly written by someone who has not read much further than the back of the Atkins book if they touched the book at all. Aside from the fact that the diet does include vegetables (in fact they are highly encouraged) and is good for type 2 diabetics (who often can reduce or go off their meds as a result of it) I am pretty disappointed to find that your station is presenting this as "news." I understand that you cannot review every article for sources, but some more editorial oversight might be warranted here. You have presented the "pop" perception of the diet, rather than the reality, which would indicate to me you would rather jump on the bandwagon and present what everyone else is saying, rather than actually spend the time to look for a different angle on, and perhaps the reality of, the Atkins diet and low-carb diets in general.

If you want a good story to write about the Atkins diet, what you should do is investigate the reality of what the diet recommends, versus the way many people actually eat when on the diet. There are plenty of people claiming to be low-carb or Atkins that are eating only cheese and meat and thinking they are getting healthy, because they've never read the book and are foolish enough to try a diet solely based on the presentation of mass-media articles like your own or others that are equally flawed. They then contribute to the perception that the diet is as you present it to be, when they, like most of the people reporting and giving opinions on the diet, have never taken the time to even read the book.

Additionally, it's all well and good to present the opposition to the diet. Many nutritionists, and Doctors will back up all of the claims made in your article, but you make the same mistake here that many others have made. You assume that because they have a title, they are informed. Kinda like assuming that the title “President” means you are informed about world affairs. I would suggest that before you ask anyone to give their expert opinion on the diet, you ask them if they actually read Atkins’s book, just for a start. Many people in the medical profession think Atkins is so opposite to what they have learned as “the right way” to eat, that they simply write it off without even looking to see if it works. They buy the Pop Media presentation too, instead of actually looking into the diet, so how can they be good sources? At the very least find informed opposition. You can treat this like a sensation, just like everyone else in the media, or you can treat it like it may be an indicator that the nutritional doctrine that we have had pounded into us for the past 30 years, is seriously flawed...and how big a story is that? Certainly bigger than a filler-story on a "fad" diet. You article says absolutely nothing new at all, it’s just the same ol’ misinformed perspective. Be reporters and news people, instead of just regurgitating what everyone else is saying, find the new angle, actually look at whether the diet may or may not work, and what that says about the way American eat, and THEN tell us about it. There is a story here if you want it and consider it newsworthy, so why not go for that instead of just using the same old filler?

I heard an interesting talk from a lawyer yesterday about current US libel laws that suggested that publications that fact-check their work are at greater risk of losing a libel case than those who don't. Basically, one has to publish a lie both knowingly and maliciously to lose a libel case. Hence, if one unknowingly publishes a lie, then one is off the hook - regardless of how reckless or malicious that lie was.

Although libel itself is not an issue here, the point is, one result of the law is to dumb down publications even further than they would be naturally. Those journalists that strive for accuracy are punished; the reckless get off.

Well....here's something.

It appears that WCVB, The Boston Channel is their web site, has pulled the article. You can still find it my doing a search, but it's not listed on their site...even tho articles written prior to this one are still there!

Hey, it's a start!

That was an awesome reply Ogden ! If that doesn't give them pause for reflexion, nothing will

Good job !! :thup: