"Krusty" > writes:

>"Dana Carpender" > wrote
>> If the body can make it, it is considered inessential. That's the
>> definition. Carbohydrate is inessential.

>The body can make protein. By your logic. Protein is "inessential".

Well, the body can make protein that only has the "inessential"
amino acids; half of the amino acids in our proteins we need to
get from our diet.

But, sure. The body can make fat as well, so fat and carbohydrates
and 10 of 20 amino acids are inessential. Eating a diet solely
consisting of tryptophan, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine,
threonine, valine, leucine, and isoleucine (histidine and arginine
aren't really required in adults pretty much) -- the things that
are essential -- would be a terrible idea.

Even if you took sixty vitamin and mineral pills a day, Atkins-style.


--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
... or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University

Joseph Michael Bay wrote:

> "Krusty" > writes:
>
>
>>"Dana Carpender" > wrote
>>
>>>If the body can make it, it is considered inessential. That's the
>>>definition. Carbohydrate is inessential.
>
>
>>The body can make protein. By your logic. Protein is "inessential".
>
>
> Well, the body can make protein that only has the "inessential"
> amino acids; half of the amino acids in our proteins we need to
> get from our diet.
>
> But, sure. The body can make fat as well, so fat and carbohydrates
> and 10 of 20 amino acids are inessential.

There are essential fatty acids, though.

Eating a diet solely
> consisting of tryptophan, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine,
> threonine, valine, leucine, and isoleucine (histidine and arginine
> aren't really required in adults pretty much) -- the things that
> are essential -- would be a terrible idea.
>
> Even if you took sixty vitamin and mineral pills a day, Atkins-style.


Not required.

Joseph Michael Bay wrote:

>
>
> But, sure. The body can make fat as well, so fat and carbohydrates
> and 10 of 20 amino acids are inessential. Eating a diet solely
> consisting of tryptophan, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine,
> threonine, valine, leucine, and isoleucine (histidine and arginine
> aren't really required in adults pretty much) -- the things that
> are essential -- would be a terrible idea.
>

That's not everything that's essential, by any means. You've left out
vitamins, minerals, and essential fatty acids. I suspect there are
other essential nutrients -- things we *must* have, and cannot create --
that we haven't yet identified, either.

So yeah, living on protein powder containing only the essential aminos
would be a very bad idea. Not very satisfying, either.

> > What I find interesting is that people will ignore groups like the AMA,
> > ADA, the National Academy of Sciences, and so forth in favor of a
> > non-peer-reviewed, unscientific and largely anecdotal study;
>
> You're aware that there are a lot of studies of low carb diets in
> peer-reviewed journals? You're aware, too, that there are studies
> showing that recommendations of a low fat diet based on complex carbs
> turned out to be valueless?

You're aware that there are also a lot of studies in peer-reviewed
journals showing that Atkins is bunk, and that low fat diets based on
complex carbs can be quite good for you? Pick a position, there is a
peer-reviewed study the supports it, and another that contradicts it.

> all
> > because it says what they'd like to hear. \
>
>
> I ate a low fat diet high in whole grains and legumes for *years*. I
> was not eating junk. I hadn't bought a loaf of white bread in over 15
> years. I didn't drink soda. I exercised vigorously. I was *GAINING*
> weight, I was hungry all the time, my energy swings were nasty, and I
> had borderline high blood pressure. I *did* what the authorities told
> me to do. It didn't work for me. Low carb did, and does.

I'm glad it worked for you. But you're taking what worked for *you* as
a basis of declaring what is right and good for everyone. Billions of
people eat diets based on grains and legumes and don't have the
problems you describe.

Never once have I sad that the Atkins diet is "wrong" or bad for you.
For some people it works wonderfully. But that doesn't mean that
everyone should blindly jump onto the bandwagon. The unfortunate fact
is, many people who follow it are more attracted to the idea of an easy
way to lose weight with minimal effort than anything else.

For a normal, healthy human being it's just overkill.

Shuurai wrote:

>>>What I find interesting is that people will ignore groups like the AMA,
>>>ADA, the National Academy of Sciences, and so forth in favor of a
>>>non-peer-reviewed, unscientific and largely anecdotal study;
>>
>>You're aware that there are a lot of studies of low carb diets in
>>peer-reviewed journals? You're aware, too, that there are studies
>>showing that recommendations of a low fat diet based on complex carbs
>>turned out to be valueless?
>
>
> You're aware that there are also a lot of studies in peer-reviewed
> journals showing that Atkins is bunk, and that low fat diets based on
> complex carbs can be quite good for you? Pick a position, there is a
> peer-reviewed study the supports it, and another that contradicts it.
>
>
>> all
>>
>>>because it says what they'd like to hear. \
>>
>>
>>I ate a low fat diet high in whole grains and legumes for *years*. I
>>was not eating junk. I hadn't bought a loaf of white bread in over 15
>>years. I didn't drink soda. I exercised vigorously. I was *GAINING*
>>weight, I was hungry all the time, my energy swings were nasty, and I
>>had borderline high blood pressure. I *did* what the authorities told
>>me to do. It didn't work for me. Low carb did, and does.
>
>
> I'm glad it worked for you. But you're taking what worked for *you* as
> a basis of declaring what is right and good for everyone.

Where? Where did I say that? I have *never*, in *anything* I've
written, suggested that there is one diet that is right for everyone.


Billions of
> people eat diets based on grains and legumes and don't have the
> problems you describe.
>
> Never once have I sad that the Atkins diet is "wrong" or bad for you.
> For some people it works wonderfully. But that doesn't mean that
> everyone should blindly jump onto the bandwagon. The unfortunate fact
> is, many people who follow it are more attracted to the idea of an easy
> way to lose weight with minimal effort than anything else.

Since when is completely changing the way you eat "minimal effort?"

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:

>
>> people eat diets based on grains and legumes and don't have the
>> problems you describe.
>>
>> Never once have I sad that the Atkins diet is "wrong" or bad for you.
>> For some people it works wonderfully. But that doesn't mean that
>> everyone should blindly jump onto the bandwagon. The unfortunate fact
>> is, many people who follow it are more attracted to the idea of an easy
>> way to lose weight with minimal effort than anything else.
>
>
> Since when is completely changing the way you eat "minimal effort?"
>
> Dana
Since this thread was brought onto a Martial Arts NG... For us,
'changing what you eat' is a basic necessity.. and it most definitely
qualifies as 'minimal effort' compared to the rest of what we do..

You want to make a point, fine.. but please either take your actual
audience in mind when you make it or assume that not all will share your
particular point of view on (in this particular case) levels of effort.


P.

--
Unless otherwise indicated, anything I write is either garnered from
experience or pulled out of my ass, depending on situational needs..

Pushmi-Pullyu wrote:

> Charles Wm. Dimmick wrote:
>
>
>>I stay out of arguments about human evolution. Evolution of
>>invertebrates is one of my strong points, and I don't do too
>>badly with lower vertebrates, but there is too much about human
>>evolution that I don't know.
>>
>>Charles

> Ah, so you're who I should ask when I have any questions about
> politicians...

I said lower vertebrates, not lower primates.
And I'm not all that good on skunks, weasels, marmots, polecats,
and sewer rats. On the other hand I can give lots of info on
chickens, turkeys, and assorted other fowl.

Charles

Philippe wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>
>>> people eat diets based on grains and legumes and don't have the
>>> problems you describe.
>>>
>>> Never once have I sad that the Atkins diet is "wrong" or bad for you.
>>> For some people it works wonderfully. But that doesn't mean that
>>> everyone should blindly jump onto the bandwagon. The unfortunate fact
>>> is, many people who follow it are more attracted to the idea of an easy
>>> way to lose weight with minimal effort than anything else.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since when is completely changing the way you eat "minimal effort?"
>>
>> Dana
>
> Since this thread was brought onto a Martial Arts NG... For us,
> 'changing what you eat' is a basic necessity.. and it most definitely
> qualifies as 'minimal effort' compared to the rest of what we do..
>

For elite athletes, I'm sure you're right. But my observation is that
most Americans would quite literally rather die than change the way they
eat. They do it every day.

That's why the "go on a diet" mentality -- the idea that you can change
the way you eat just until the weight is lost, and then "go off the
diet" is so pervasive. Most people resist like hell the idea that they
really have to make a permanent change in how they eat. (And in the
amount of exercise they get, but then you knew that.)

Dana

"Carmen" > writes:


>Dana Carpender wrote:

>> I would be curious to know whether A) MD had any kidney trouble previous
>> to the diet, and B) whether MD actually followed the diet as Dr. Atkins
>> wrote it, or if he -- as so many -- decided that he should stay on the
>> Induction phase for fast-fast-fast weight loss.

>Basing my statements on a Google search (as my posts to MD have been as
>well) MD is pulling our collective leg. If I believed MD was on
>dialysis I certainly wouldn't be saying the things I've been saying in
>this thread.

Based on your Google search, you figure mdginzo has been pretending
to have experienced kidney failure, requiring dialysis, for the past
year or so?

That's just weird.



--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
... or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University

In article .com>,
"mdginzo" > wrote:

> >Well crap. I'm sorry Mark. I didn't spend enough time searching
> yesterday, just did a quickie because I thought I already knew the
> answer. You really are on dialysis - although not because of Atkins,
> because of diabetes. I'm sorry.
>
> But why would you say such a stupid thing in the first place - that I
> wasn't on dialysis when you had no idea either way? In any case, I had
> diabetes for over 20 years with absolutely no problem with my kidneys.
> The third year on Atkins I am on dialysis. In any case, my official
> diagnosis is kidney failure due to high protein diet not diabetes.

Oh, you weren't doing Atkins then, you were doing some other diet.
Atkins is high fat, low carb, moderate protein.


>I am not saying everyone on Atkins will suffer kidney failure, but i am
> saying that Atkins is not a miracle diet and not for everyone. It is
> still a quick-lose fad diet and one has to be careful when recommending
> it as a panacea(sp?) for weight loss.

Um. I don't know that Atkins fits the usual mold of a "fad diet". It's
certainly not along the lines of Slim-fast or Opti-fast or the
grapefruit diet or the cabbage soup diet. It's a lifelong eating plan
that includes all the major food groups, just in different proportions
than what the government recommends.


>
> >Ironic thing is, some of us low carb so our blood sugar stays low and
> >we get to *keep* our kidneys, and toes, and eyesight...my fasting
> >morning BGs run mid 80s these days w/o insulin or meds (Type II).
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact, while I was on Atkins I was able to stiop my
> insulin because my blood sugar stayed low. I was happy about that, but
> didn't know it was killing me anyway. Just Google on Atkins and
> kidneys.
>
> >Are you on a transplant list? I know the lists are atrociously long,
> >more so for minorities, and dialysis is a stop-gap measure but are >you
> >in relatively good health now?
>
> Besides being on dialysis I amin excellent health and in great shape
> for a transplant. We are lookign at an average of 3 years on thye list
> in my area - less for me since I need a pancreas also and that list is
> shorter. I am very active and every week my blood tests come out in
> the optimum ranges. Thanks for asking.

>That's why the "go on a diet" mentality -- the idea that you can change
>the way you eat just until the weight is lost, and then "go off the
>diet" is so pervasive.

Which is exactly what Atkins says to do. Just because "going off the
diet" is what Atkins recommends is no less "going off the diet".

mdginzo wrote:

>>That's why the "go on a diet" mentality -- the idea that you can change
>>the way you eat just until the weight is lost, and then "go off the
>>diet" is so pervasive.
>
>
> Which is exactly what Atkins says to do. Just because "going off the
> diet" is what Atkins recommends is no less "going off the diet".

He did not. Atkins advocated lifelong carbohydrate restriction. His
diet details how to increase carb intake to a level where one stops
losing weight, and no more. There's no suggestion that you can go back
to cereal for breakfast and pasta for dinner.

Dana

>
>Based on your Google search, you figure mdginzo has >been pretending
>to have experienced kidney failure, requiring dialysis, for >the past
>year or so?

>That's just weird.

Yes, and also according to Carmen, dialysis patients can't eat pizza or
drink alcohol because, I dunno, they might shrivel up and die or
something if they do.

>Data Point: I've been eating a low carb diet >for going on eleven years
>now. I am very healthy; all the tests confirm >it. Have kept 40 pounds
>off (with the occasional bump upward after a >nasty car wreck, when I
>couldn't exercise; and when I've gone >hypothyroid.) Drastically
>improved my energy level. Enjoy the food >tremendously, and really don't
>miss anything.

And if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
cookbooks, now would ya?

Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>
> Philippe wrote:
>
>> Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> people eat diets based on grains and legumes and don't have the
>>>> problems you describe.
>>>>
>>>> Never once have I sad that the Atkins diet is "wrong" or bad for you.
>>>> For some people it works wonderfully. But that doesn't mean that
>>>> everyone should blindly jump onto the bandwagon. The unfortunate fact
>>>> is, many people who follow it are more attracted to the idea of an easy
>>>> way to lose weight with minimal effort than anything else.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since when is completely changing the way you eat "minimal effort?"
>>>
>>> Dana
>>
>>
>> Since this thread was brought onto a Martial Arts NG... For us,
>> 'changing what you eat' is a basic necessity.. and it most definitely
>> qualifies as 'minimal effort' compared to the rest of what we do..
>>
>
> For elite athletes, I'm sure you're right. But my observation is that
> most Americans would quite literally rather die than change the way they
> eat. They do it every day.
Couple of things..
- I'd flip "americans" to 'North americans...' 'cause it's the same up
here..
- I doubt there are *any* elite athletes on RMA.. just M/A enthusiasts
for the most part (except for Trav.. he's elite.. well, elite something
anyway..).. and the diet change we go through is usually more related to
how the food makes us feel after we eat it.. If you've *ever* eaten
McDonalds before a class where your teacher *knows* you've eaten McD's,
you'll understand.. Diet change is more a matter of self-preservation in
those cases.. :P
>
> That's why the "go on a diet" mentality -- the idea that you can change
> the way you eat just until the weight is lost, and then "go off the
> diet" is so pervasive. Most people resist like hell the idea that they
> really have to make a permanent change in how they eat. (And in the
> amount of exercise they get, but then you knew that.)


P.
>
> Dana
>


--
Unless otherwise indicated, anything I write is either garnered from
experience or pulled out of my ass, depending on situational needs..

mdginzo wrote:

>>Data Point: I've been eating a low carb diet >for going on eleven years
>>now. I am very healthy; all the tests confirm >it. Have kept 40 pounds
>>off (with the occasional bump upward after a >nasty car wreck, when I
>>couldn't exercise; and when I've gone >hypothyroid.) Drastically
>>improved my energy level. Enjoy the food >tremendously, and really don't
>>miss anything.
>
>
> And if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
> cookbooks, now would ya?
>

Right, because an argument on usenet reaches soooo many people.

Dana

>> And if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
>> cookbooks, now would ya?

>Right, because an argument on usenet reaches soooo many people.

No, but I am sure you promote this dangerous diet wherever you go - TV,
radio, your daily interactions. Otherwise, you couldn't sell your
books. You talk about all the benefits one might get from this fad,
but you don't go on TV and talk about its dangers. These dangers, btw,
that can be avoided with a more balanced diet that includes more carbs
and grains. Dr. Atkins himself keeled over from a heart attack fer
chrissakes.

"mdginzo" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> And if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
>>> cookbooks, now would ya?
>
>>Right, because an argument on usenet reaches soooo many people.
>
> No, but I am sure you promote this dangerous diet wherever you go - TV,
> radio, your daily interactions. Otherwise, you couldn't sell your
> books. You talk about all the benefits one might get from this fad,
> but you don't go on TV and talk about its dangers. These dangers, btw,
> that can be avoided with a more balanced diet that includes more carbs
> and grains. Dr. Atkins himself keeled over from a heart attack fer
> chrissakes.
>
We went through this entire scenario with Dana on alt.fashion.
Finally when almost everyone got tired of her spamming and
her ridiculous (and, in some cases dangerous, medical opinions),
and said so, she left.

FWIW, she's apparently found the one cardiologist in America
who thinks Adkins is good for people's hearts. (Just to let you
know he's about to be cited.)

Be patient.

--AJ, back to lurking & having enjoyed your ng for years and
learned many useful things, including Ranee's slow-cooking
pot roast recipe

mdginzo wrote:

>>>And if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
>>>cookbooks, now would ya?
>
>
>>Right, because an argument on usenet reaches soooo many people.
>
>
> No, but I am sure you promote this dangerous diet wherever you go - TV,
> radio, your daily interactions. Otherwise, you couldn't sell your
> books.

You realize I've sold over a million books. Do you really think I've
spoken to that many people?


Dr. Atkins himself keeled over from a heart attack fer
> chrissakes.
>

Dr. Atkins did not have a heart attack, Dr. Atkins suffered a cardiac
arrest from a viral cardiomyopathy. Even the AHA, no fans of the Atkins
diet, stated publicly that they felt his diet had nothing to do with his
heart problems. But if you want to believe it was his diet, I can't
stop you.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Dr. Atkins did not have a heart attack, Dr. Atkins suffered a cardiac
> arrest


I'm just going to let that little archetype of your reasoning skills
lie there and soak into the audience's brains.

--Blair

"Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> mdginzo wrote:
>
>>>>And if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
>>>>cookbooks, now would ya?
>>
>>
>>>Right, because an argument on usenet reaches soooo many people.
>>
>>
>> No, but I am sure you promote this dangerous diet wherever you go - TV,
>> radio, your daily interactions. Otherwise, you couldn't sell your
>> books.
>
> You realize I've sold over a million books. Do you really think I've
> spoken to that many people?
>
>
> Dr. Atkins himself keeled over from a heart attack fer
>> chrissakes.
>>
>
> Dr. Atkins did not have a heart attack, Dr. Atkins suffered a cardiac
> arrest from a viral cardiomyopathy. Even the AHA, no fans of the Atkins
> diet, stated publicly that they felt his diet had nothing to do with his
> heart problems. But if you want to believe it was his diet, I can't stop
> you.
>
> Dana

No sane cardiologist would ever suggest Adkins for someone with
congestive heart failure (the more common name for viral cardio-
myopathy).

I know this from anecdotal evidence (having talked with many
of them when a family member was diagnosed with congestive
heart failure) and having researched the subject, in some detail,
myself).

--AJ

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>Dr. Atkins did not have a heart attack, Dr. Atkins suffered a cardiac
>>arrest
>
>
>
> I'm just going to let that little archetype of your reasoning skills
> lie there and soak into the audience's brains.
>
>
Hey, if you don't know the difference between a heart attack -- a
coronary artery becoming clogged -- and a cardiac arrest, where the
heart can stop for some other reason -- that's not my fault.

I repeat: Atkins had a viral heart infection. It's been documented.
That's not the same as coronary artery disease, and all your poking fun
doesn't make it so.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:

>
>
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
>> Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>>> Dr. Atkins did not have a heart attack, Dr. Atkins suffered a cardiac
>>> arrest
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm just going to let that little archetype of your reasoning skills
>> lie there and soak into the audience's brains.
>>
>>
> Hey, if you don't know the difference between a heart attack -- a
> coronary artery becoming clogged -- and a cardiac arrest, where the
> heart can stop for some other reason -- that's not my fault.
>
> I repeat: Atkins had a viral heart infection. It's been documented.
> That's not the same as coronary artery disease, and all your poking fun
> doesn't make it so.
>


And just so you don't think I'm delusional:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/...iet/index.html

Note the quote from Dr. Yancy, a member of the American Heart
Association's board of directors.

Dana

>You realize I've sold over a million books. Do you really think I've
spoken to that many people?

It doesn't matter how many you have "spoken" to. The fact remains that
you wouldn't sell any books if people didn't believe the crap you and
your cult spew about low-carb diets.

mdginzo wrote:

>>You realize I've sold over a million books. Do you really think I've
>
> spoken to that many people?
>
> It doesn't matter how many you have "spoken" to. The fact remains that
> you wouldn't sell any books if people didn't believe the crap you and
> your cult spew about low-carb diets.


Does it occur to you that some of us actually have *improved* our health
eating this way? That some of us really *did* feel like crap eating a
carb-heavy diet? I haven't eaten this way for 11 years because it's
making me ill, you know. Or do you really believe that I'm totally
insincere about this, or actually seriously ill, and in denial?

Dana

mdginzo wrote:

>>You realize I've sold over a million books. Do you really think I've
>
> spoken to that many people?
>
> It doesn't matter how many you have "spoken" to. The fact remains that
> you wouldn't sell any books if people didn't believe the crap you and
> your cult spew about low-carb diets.
>

Oh, and you might like to see the entire two articles that came up on
pubmed in response to "Atkins diet kidney":


A low-iron-available, polyphenol-enriched, carbohydrate-restricted diet
to slow progression of diabetic nephropathy.

Facchini FS, Saylor KL.

Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, San Francisco General
Hospital and University of California-San Francisco, Box 1342 UCSF, San
Francisco, CA 94143-1341, USA.

Diabetic nephropathy has become the leading cause of uremia. Several
lines of evidence suggest dietary factors other than protein intake have
a substantial role in the progression of diabetic nephropathy to
end-stage renal disease. The present investigation was initiated to
evaluate whether a carbohydrate-restricted, low-iron-available,
polyphenol-enriched (CR-LIPE) diet may delay and improve the outcome of
diabetic nephropathy to a greater extent than standard protein
restriction. To this aim, 191 diabetic patients, all with type 2
diabetes, were randomized to either CR-LIPE or standard protein
restriction and the following outcomes monitored: doubling of serum
creatinine, cumulative incidence of end-stage renal disease, and all
cause mortality. Over a mean follow-up interval of 3.9 +/- 1.8 years,
serum creatinine concentration doubled in 19 patients on CR-LIPE (21%)
and in 31 control subjects (39%) (P < 0.01). Renal replacement therapy
or death occurred in 18 patients on CR-LIPE (20%) and in 31 control
subjects (39%) (P < 0.01). These differences were independent from
follow-up interval, sex, mean arterial blood pressure, HbA(1c), initial
renal dysfunction, and angiotensin system inhibitor use. In conclusion,
CR-LIPE was 40-50% more effective than standard protein restriction in
improving renal and overall survival rates.


Effects of carbohydrate restriction on renal injury in the obese Zucker rat.

Kasiske BL, Cleary MP, O'Donnell MP, Keane WF.

The obese Zucker rat model of nonimmune-mediated, spontaneous focal
glomerulosclerosis is ideally suited to study the influence of diet on
the initiation and progression of glomerular injury. Young (6 wk) and
old (33 wk) lean and obese female Zucker rats were fed a
carbohydrate-restricted diet intermittently for 27 wk. Carbohydrate
restriction resulted in lower body weight (460 +/- 16 versus 310 +/- 7
g, p less than 0.025), kidney weight (1.26 +/- 0.04 versus 1.07 +/- 0.05
g, p less than 0.025), and glomerular area (6930 +/- 290 versus 5780 +/-
230 micron2, p less than 0.025) in young obese Zucker rats compared to
ad libitum-fed rats. Although urine-albumin excretion was substantially
reduced by carbohydrate restriction in young obese Zucker rats (41.1 +/-
12.3 versus 6.9 +/- 2.9 mg/24 h, p less than 0.01), glomerular injury
was not significantly altered. In old obese rats, carbohydrate
restriction did not significantly reduce albuminuria or prevent the
progression of glomerular injury. Thus, intermittent carbohydrate
restriction failed to alter significantly either the initiation of
glomerular injury in young, or the progression of nephron damage in old,
obese Zucker rats.

*******************

So while your doctor blames your kidney failure on your low carb diet,
there's not a lot of research to back him/her up. Certainly it has been
my experience that no matter what the health problem, from a cold to
residual pain from my car wreck, some doctor somewhere will see fit to
blame it on my low carb diet.

And you still haven't answered: Did you read the book and follow Atkins
as written, adding back progressively greater quantities of healthy
carbs every week, until you were in a very mild state of ketosis? Or
did you just decide that Induction was the whole diet, and call it "Atkins?"

Dana

In article .com>,
mdginzo > wrote:
>>That's why the "go on a diet" mentality -- the idea that you can change
>>the way you eat just until the weight is lost, and then "go off the
>>diet" is so pervasive.
>Which is exactly what Atkins says to do. Just because "going off the
>diet" is what Atkins recommends is no less "going off the diet".

Where does Atkins recommend going off the diet? When I read the book
it was pretty clear to the point of repetitiveness that it was meant
to followed for the rest of your life.

You can eat more carbs while maintaining weight than you can while
losing weight, but you will never be able to go all the way up to
your pre-diet levels. Even when you are able to increase carbs, you
are still supposed to greatly limit things like sugar and white flour.
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY

>Does it occur to you that some of us actually have *improved* our health
>eating this way? That some of us really *did* feel like crap eating a
>carb-heavy diet? I haven't eaten this way for 11 years because it's
>making me ill, you know. Or do you really believe that I'm totally
>insincere about this, or actually seriously ill, and in denial?

Oh sure, many have lost weight and many feel better and are healthier.
That is true of any fad diet. I am just here to do what you won't
dare to do and that is point out the dangers of this diet. You got a
problem with that?

You need to read a little further and see how the Atkins diet has been
known to cause kidney scarring.

mdginzo wrote:

> You need to read a little further and see how the Atkins diet has been
> known to cause kidney scarring.
>

You got a peer-reviewed study?

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
news
>
>
> Data Point: I've been eating a low carb diet for going on eleven years
> now. I am very healthy; all the tests confirm it.

That sounds like you have no health problems at all. Congratulations!


>Have kept 40 pounds off (with the occasional bump upward... when I've gone
>hypothyroid.)


Wait, that sounds like a health problem. I must be missing something. Did
the hypothyroidism go away on its own, or do you still have to take
medication for it?

Ernie Sty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
> news >
>>
>>Data Point: I've been eating a low carb diet for going on eleven years
>>now. I am very healthy; all the tests confirm it.
>
>
> That sounds like you have no health problems at all. Congratulations!
>
>
>
>>Have kept 40 pounds off (with the occasional bump upward... when I've gone
>>hypothyroid.)
>
>
>
> Wait, that sounds like a health problem. I must be missing something. Did
> the hypothyroidism go away on its own, or do you still have to take
> medication for it?

I take Armour thyroid. You're aware that hypothyroidism is exceedingly
common among middle-aged women? Also that there's at least some feeling
it runs in families? My mom was hypo.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:

>
>
> mdginzo wrote:
>
>> You need to read a little further and see how the Atkins diet has been
>> known to cause kidney scarring.
>>
>
> You got a peer-reviewed study?
>
>

I just did a PubMed search under "ketogenic diet nephrosis" -- zippo.

There are studies regarding stone formation in children kept on a
ketogenic diet for epilepsy. It should be pointed out that those diets
are *much* stricter than Atkins, cause a *much* deeper state of ketosis,
and restrict fluids specifically to conserve the ketones in the body.
But still no mention of nephrosis.

Dana

x-no-arachive: yes

mdginzo wrote:
> You need to read a little further and see how the Atkins diet has been
> known to cause kidney scarring.
>

The Atkins diet doesn't do that, but badly managed diabetes does.

Susan

In article . com>,
"mdginzo" > wrote:

> >Does it occur to you that some of us actually have *improved* our health
> >eating this way? That some of us really *did* feel like crap eating a
> >carb-heavy diet? I haven't eaten this way for 11 years because it's
> >making me ill, you know. Or do you really believe that I'm totally
> >insincere about this, or actually seriously ill, and in denial?
>
> Oh sure, many have lost weight and many feel better and are healthier.
> That is true of any fad diet. I am just here to do what you won't
> dare to do and that is point out the dangers of this diet. You got a
> problem with that?

I'll chime in and say I don't have a problem with it. There are dangers
in nearly every diet, and the main one in the Atkins diet, as with most
others is: Doing It Wrong.

Doing It Wrong in the Atkins diet can include: eating no vegetables,
eating no carbs, staying at Induction carb levels for too long a time,
trying to do low-fat at the same time, and not exercising.

If the diet is followed correctly, it is NOT high protein. Here's an
example, imagining a typical American overweight person and what may be
a typical meal:

Pre-Atkins lunch: Burger, fries, and a soda.

Atkins lunch: Burger (no bun) a side salad, water.

Well, you're already eliminating some unnecessary calories in the bun,
fries, and soda, and adding vegetables with the salad. Add to that the
interesting phenomenon that many people feel even LESS hungry when they
don't eat the carby foods, so they may not even finish the whole burger,
whereas pre-Atkins they'd still be hungry even after the full meal!

Does it work this way with everyone? Of course not. Some people don't
get that "Chinese food affect" (you know, you eat Chinese food and
you're hungry an hour later) from carbs, so limiting carbs doesn't help
lessen their appetite. But for those of us who do get more hungry when
we eat carby foods, Atkins can mean we end up eating less of
_everything_, not just carbs. So while the percentage of meat in the
diet may be greater, the overall quantity can be even less than before
going on low-carb. The only thing I eat more of now than before
starting low-carb is vegetables.

Luna wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "mdginzo" > wrote:
>
>
>>>Does it occur to you that some of us actually have *improved* our health
>>>eating this way? That some of us really *did* feel like crap eating a
>>>carb-heavy diet? I haven't eaten this way for 11 years because it's
>>>making me ill, you know. Or do you really believe that I'm totally
>>>insincere about this, or actually seriously ill, and in denial?
>>
>>Oh sure, many have lost weight and many feel better and are healthier.
>> That is true of any fad diet. I am just here to do what you won't
>>dare to do and that is point out the dangers of this diet. You got a
>>problem with that?
>
>
> I'll chime in and say I don't have a problem with it. There are dangers
> in nearly every diet, and the main one in the Atkins diet, as with most
> others is: Doing It Wrong.
>
>

I've asked a few times now how many of the Atkins critics actually *read
the book*. Still no takers.

Dana

Did you ever notice how the low fat brainwashed can never say saturated fats
without prefacing it with artery-clogging? Even supposedly impartial
scientific types?

In ,
Dana Carpender > stated

| Here's the only article on the topic to hit Google News today:
| http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-lcd052406.php
|
| Dana

FOB wrote:
> Did you ever notice how the low fat brainwashed can never say saturated fats
> without prefacing it with artery-clogging? Even supposedly impartial
> scientific types?
>
>

Yep. It's really pretty funny.

Dana (favors butter and coconut oil)

FOB wrote:

> Did you ever notice how the low fat brainwashed can never say saturated fats
> without prefacing it with artery-clogging? Even supposedly impartial
> scientific types?
>
>

I just had to add the classic quote from Dr. William Castelli, director
of the Framingham study on diet and heart disease:

"In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more
cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's
serum cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most
cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, [and] ate the most calories,
weighed the least and were the most physically active."

Maybe I'll go broil a steak...

Dana

>If the diet is followed correctly, it is NOT high protein. Here's >an
>example, imagining a typical American overweight person and >what may be
>a typical meal:

Even done right, with the Atkins diet you still have to worry about
testing your Ketone level and have to take a handful of vitamins every
day. That alone should send bells and whistles blowing.