What would you like to see in the next edition of DANDR (or other book by the Atkins team)? Here's what I would add:

1. Special discussion for people who have large amounts of weight to lose--at least 75 pounds, maybe even put it up to 100 pounds. The reason is that is takes a long time to lose that much weight and very few people are ready for the stalls/plateaus/turtle-like losses that will come after 50 or 60 or 70 pounds have been lost (I know there are a few exceptions to this). These stalls are not a result of thyroid imbalance or yeast infection, etc., they are part of the normal process of losing a very large amount of weight.

2. More recognition of the different experiences of men and women as we diet, due to hormones.

I would put in more information about stalls and I would take out the majority of *incredible* weight loss examples and put in some more realistic examples. I think the book sets expectations for very fast weight loss that aren't met by most people and that causes a LOT of frustration.

I would also want the writing team to look to boards like this (or focus groups of experienced Atkineers) to find issues that were confusing, not clear, etc. and clarify them in the next book.

A writer is only as good as his editor! Dr Atkins was brilliant but he needed a better editor.

i'd add more information on the different possible reactions to malitol, frankenfoods, etc.

I would like to see some of the contradictions that exist in the book cleared up. Especially between allowable foods at different stages and recipes for those stages which contain disallowed foods.

I would agree that a more realistic view of how fast weight will come off would be nice. But the reality is that the huge success stories of loosing a lot of weight in a short amount of time is going to sell more books and get more people to try the plan. The upside of that is the more people who try it will probably find that they like the way they feel and the things that they can eat and therefore stay on the plan even though they aren't losing as fast.

But back to my point, lol, giving people a realistic rate of weight loss would be very helpful and then give the examples of people who have lost a lot quickly.

I also think a more realistic discussion about total calories. I struggled a long time with finding the right amount of calories per day to consume. I believe calories count more that Dr. Atkins leads people to believe. I can't eat more that about 1600 to 1800 calories a day or I don't lose. And that's at induction level carb intake. Even at that it's slow going when your knees don't allow much excercise.

I agree with all the posts AND I would warn of some side effects that seems to be temporarly but very scary like hair loss.

Those are excellent suggestions quest.

Also, I would emphasize the importance of portion control and using calories as a guide to eating proper portions. I know part of his selling point making the program attractive is the fact we don't starve, and he wanted to make that clear (by banishing calorie counting), HOWEVER this has caused a lot of needless frustration and confusion for some dieters.

Some people actually believe you can eat as much as you want and not gain weight , or even actually lose weight so long as you are sticking to the allowed foods and in your "ketosis" safe zone. I think if you only had read the DANDR, and took everything very literally, you could arrive at that conclusion. The fact the book opens up with false/misleading advertisements like saying "imagine a huge smorgasbord in front of you full of healthy veggies and meats, and eating to your hearts content" certainly does contribute to this misconception.

So, if I could revise the DANDR, the first thing I would change is to omit that opening passage and replace it with something more truthful but still conveying the desired message (instead of making it sound like you will gorge on atkins, stress the fact that you will eat satisfying food in responsible portions while never starving and still lose weight). Also, I would advocate the usage of calorie counting as a guide if you find yourself on a plateau. Many people plateau on atkins, but if you ask these people how many calories they are eating they will give you a blank stare since they believe calories are unimportant... it's just not true, calories do count, and some people (especially habitual/emotional eaters like me) need to watch them.

Oh and I would also deemphasize the importance of ketosis. People think some magical physiological shift happens when those sticks turn purple, but it just isn't true. The shift between burning primarily glucose and ketones is a gradient one, and having ketone bodies show up on a stick in concentration doesn't alone mean you are losing weight, eating/digesting less carbs, or doing atkins "better" than someone who's sticks read negative.

Also, a lot of people will think eating a food they shouldn't be eating is alright, so long as it "keeps them in ketosis". This is a bad way to think, because then they will believe they can eat any old junk regularly and have it be good for their bodies.

The importance of "ketosis" myth also gives people this crash diet mentality... they think so long as they have their ketosis safe zone, any transgression is remediable. It fosters an unhealthy mentality that this is a quick weight loss program, not a lifestyle change when in reality the only permanent weight loss is the fruit which is born of lifestyle changes.

I heartily agree with all the comments given here. People truly believe that this diet is somehow a magic thing and that lbs will fly away as long as you stick to it religiously. I would bet that if one could enter the stats into a graph, with everyone eating exactly the same way, you would get a normal curve..so that a few people don't lose easily, a lot lose in a moderate fashion, and a few lose heaps quickly. The factors that impact weight loss that are not discussed in sufficient depth are: the amount total you have to lose, your age (the younger, the easier), the number of times you have yoyo dieted in your life, hormone factors, the fact that the big initial loss is lbs of water, and after that expect slower loss of mainly fat tissue, the total stupidity of relying on daily scales weighing, the normality of plateaus, etc. To me, the superstitious digging for mysterious stall inducing items is a big waste of time for the most part. I think people should be educated about all this and understand the following: low carb means a healthier diet with the absence of sugar and processed starches; there is a slight metabolic advantage to low carbing but calories must be adjusted down as you lose; the main advantage comes from the satiety effect and not feeling hungry/deprived; the importance of not dropping calories too low; the importance of focusing on making this a WOL rather than a 'diet' that you go on only long enough to lose weight; you are not 'cheating' when you eat junk any more than you are 'cheating' when you shoot up heroin...you are doing damage to yourself by choice. I think they should leave out the fat fast notion as a 'stall breaker' as I am dubious about the health aspects of doing this.

These are some of the things I feel must be changed...I hope someone passes these posts on to the Atkins folks.

Val

I think that the entire discussion of how to add carbs in 5 grams increments until you figure out your critical level for losing is misleading. Most of our bodies don't seem to work like that. I can lose one week on the same level of carbs that causes me to stall another week. Partly this is because calories do count, partly this is because of fluctuations in other areas of my life (hormones, stress, sleep, exercise, etc.) and partly this is just because our bodies are not machines and don't always react the exact same way to the exact same things.

Excellent post Val...

I too get a little miffed by the superstitious witch hunts for "stall inducing food". I also cast a cynical eye to people who say they react to sugar alcohols like genuine sugar.

Perhaps the reason the stall broke when you removed say, faux candy bars and peanut butter, is because you created a 300 calorie deficit, not because the foods themselves were "stalling" you? Maybe the reason you stall when you eat sugar alcohols is because they taste sweet, and sweet is a flavor that you were deprived so you overdo it and eliminate a good size of your calorie deficit?

Don't mistake me, I totally believe that there are some foods which can stall people. I have heard that moldy foods can cause problems in some which might be true, and I personally can attest that too much splenda in people who exhibit a strong insulin response will bring back old symptoms (splenda is bulked with maltodextrin, a carb worse than HFCS GI-wise). Whenever I eat too many home made treats sweetened with splenda, I am sure it causes my insulin to surge (which then causes subsequent low blood sugar, which causes the shakiness and irritability).

What miffs me are the people who eliminate tons of calories when they eliminate foods, and then decide the reason they were stalling is because "they just can't have sugar alcohols" or "they just can't have peanuts" or what have you.

Also, this method doesn't consider the water gain that is inevitable when reintroducing carbs from a previous ketosis-inducing carb level. What should have been said is carbs should be reintroduced until your symptoms resurface (uncontrollable appetite, weakness, or whatever your personal symptoms were). If you go only by scale weight, you will be left under the false impression you can tollerate only a ridiculously low amount of carbs.

Wow, Liz, I was thinking in post this other one but you did it clear and loud!

Last week I re-read all the carb ladder chapter trying to figure out how can I apply it to me...There's no way!

I wish they could make potatoes magically low carb...