View Single Post
  #2  
Old April 4th, 2005, 04:58 PM
Cubit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Without the leader and his vision, the Atkins business seems off track.

I have had good luck using the net carb numbers in management. However, my
carbs are low enough that the non-net carb number is still below 50.

Rather than the glycemic index, perhaps a label indicating glycemic load
would be useful for some.

Another factor, I would look at is that a food may be relatively low in
total carbs, but the percentage of carbs in the product may be very high.
Thus, it is the wrong kind of food, marketed as low carb due to a skewed
interpretation.

I suspect the study quoted by Dr. Greger, that 75% of people saying they are
low carb actually have failed to restrict carbohydrates, is correct. It may
be the failure of low carb diet *cheaters* that has contributed to the
decline.

"Ignoramus30418" wrote in message
...
I find it rather amusing. This company used to sell crappy products
using a bogus calculation (of net carbs). Now it is, apparently, going
to sell same trash products, using just as bogus calculation (glycemic
index, according to the article).

My guess is that the experts are wrong in guessing that this change is
happening due to changing consumer dieting preferences towards
different types of diets. I think that the real reason for this switch
is that the net carb fraud became too notorious. Too few people
believe in "net carbs", and this fraud will probably soon be banned by
the government food agencies. Hence the preventive action by "Atkins
nutritionals".

Glycemic index calculation is even more nebulous than net carbs, and
is very easy to fake and lie about without the fear of being
successfully sued. Unlike carb counts, which are at least based on
objective lab tests, "glycemic index" is based on "blood sugar
response of human subjects". That response is variable and depends on
the person. So, al they have to do to fudge the numbers is find the
human subjects with the least response.

For a pdf of a good critique of Glycemic index, check out

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

--
223/175.7/180