Hate to tell you this, but it doesn't matter if some, or even most, labs take a week, a month or a year to get the numbers back.


Kent's use of this fact in refuting tomjackson's assertions is only applicable if ALL test results require a minimum of a week to come back. As long as it is possible and practical to get your lab results back the same or next day then the argument loses all merit. And, it is very possible and very practical to get these result back the same or next day - it generally costs a bit more, but if someone is already worried about what is happening to their cholesterol levels, then they may very well be willing to pay the extra to get a rapid response.

As for a doctor ordering a second cholesterol screening after only four weeks, did tomjackson say that his doctor called him up out of the blue and requested that he have another blood screening done? No. If you told your doctor that you were starting a diet and wanted to have your blood work done at the beginning and again after four weeks, don't you think that your doctor would agree to his patient's request? If not, then what is magical about six weeks, which is when Dr. Atkins himself recommends that the bloodwork be redone?

Kent's other arguments are largely full of similar flaws of reasoning. For instance:

1) Tomjackson provided the most relavent information - he noted the changes in his HDL, LDL and TG. If you feel that the base data values would be more useful, then you should state that, explain why, and ask for it to be provided. It is hardly proof or even an indicator that someone is not being truthful because they provided the bottom line results. Would the truthfulness of someones assertions be questioned in a similar vain if they claimed that their values improved by that amount?

2) Three week versus four week issue already addressed. As for the 20% change in three weeks being preposterous, upon what is that based. Atkins in his book claims that the average drop in TG measurements after six weeks is 39%. If that fell uniformly, that would be 20% in three weeks. My total cholesterol (based on a home test kit that doesn't give breakdowns) went from 201 to 153 in four weeks. That's 24% in four weeks. Lots of other people have seen 25% moves in the first month. Are they all liers?

3) If you tried an approach, and saw your numbers deteriorate significantly, wouldn't you consider whatever steps were taken to be for the purpose of undoing the bad effects of that approach? What's so unreasonable about that?

4) This is actually one of the classic fallacies of debate. You agree that it is completely reasonable for a doctor to say it tomjackson, but then, based only on your desire that it not be the case, claim that this somehow proves that he didn't say it and that tomjackson is lying and through this out as a scare tactic.


Do I think that tomjackson has been too quick to examine his circumstances and fully understand his situation. Yes, especially if he didn't explore the type of LDL that went up. Do I think that tomjackson is unreasonable in issuing his warning? Not at all.