Where are all the thin poeple from Atkins first book?

Rob wrote:

DigitalVinyl wrote:

Rob wrote:


Count calories. It's the only way to succeed, that's the bottom line.


I'm in the mood for responding to a troll--just in that argumentative
kind of mood.

Counting calories IS a diet plan, genius. And like all those "fad"
diets you lose and then you gain back. Unless you count calories every
day until you are in the grave you run the risk of gaining it all back
or more. Most people, on every diet plan, gain weight back eventually.
Eventually willpower caves, **** happens, health problems arise and if
you are part of the poopulation that has a natural tendency for
overweight your body will put it back on.

I agree counting calories is a diet plan because I believe a diet plan
is a daily, monthly and yearly eating plan. It's not a quick fix. Yes,
I count calories every day. I know my typical breakfast, lunch and
dinner calories and stay within those boundries. If I slip out one
meal, I sacrifice at the next. That's how it works. It's how it will
work for the rest of my life. Everytime my metabolism slows I'll have
to readjust my caloric intake. Sucks, but that's how a lifetime diet works.

You are an idiot who hasn't researched anything.

I have researched:
Diets rich in animal protein increase the risk of stomach, breast and
Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma cancers. Apparently multiple university studies
and the American Cancer Society don't know as much as Dr. Atkins.

Diets rich in animal fats increase the risk of coronary heart disease.
Again, multiple university studies and this time The American Heart
Association are confused according to Dr. Atkins.

I assume you mean I haven't researched the Atkins diet fully. Sure,
there's more to learn about Atkins, but I'm already scared as hell from
what I've learned already about the risks and failure rates. I mean
risks and failures since his first book in the 1970s, not just his
latest book with 1-3 years of followers.

If you research deeply any reasonable subject you will find competing
evidence. You will find doctors, scientists who disagree. Most who
disagree with the majority and accepted practices gets squashed by
their peers. LIster was riducled and mocked by the most prestigious
doctors and "AMA"s of his time. They laughed at him cause he said
doctors should wash their hands and equipment before sticking their
hands inside someone's body during surgery. He didn't understand why
it worked better than dirty hands and rusty tools--but he was
convinced it worked better than what the "AMA"s said. He was LAUGHED
AT by the geniuses. It was a grassroots of individual doctors that
gave his suggestions a try that realized he was onto something.

People convince themselves that we live in such an "enlightened age"
that stupidity of the mob can never occur. Things like another Hitler
would never happen again because no one would "fall for it" or let it
happen again. Of course it would! We are still just as stupid as
humans two hundred years ago. We believe whatever we are fed and hold
fast to it because it MUST be true--everybody else believes it.

It's all about will power.

That's right all fat people are people because they weak people who
just constantly give into gluttony. Similar to male doctors who
disregard complaints the seriousness from women because men know they
just bitch about everything, or maybe its just their time of month. It
has nothing to do with science and everything to do with society,
human psychology and prejudice. Everyone in america is simply lazy
couch potatoes. It couldn't possibly be that the diet, even those
recommended by the AMA/FDA are in fact a major cause to the sudden
rise of obeisty. The FACT that ADULT ONSET DIABETES can't suddenly
can't be called that anymore because children in record numbers are
developing it before puberty--THAT must be because their parents are
gluttons and forcing the children to overdose on sugars or some such
nonsense. DOCTORS couldn't be contributing to it, they "know" too
much. It is just because everyone in the entire ****ry is lazy, and
stupid, and gluttons.

I believe the boom in obesity came from an increase in processed
conveience foods and quantity discounting. I believe this country was
Super Sized. Eating more because it was a bargain. Also the ability
for food manufactures to quickly adjust their labels to read what
everyone wanted them to show, "low fat". Regardless of calories or
sugars. Now they're rapidly throwing a new label on their product, "low
carb". How many will fall for it this time?

Every single one--they are all too stupid and lazy and gluttonus
overstuffing themselves beyond the human need for food. WHen they are
full they just keep shoveling it in cause that supersize only cost 39
cents more.

BTW--take a look at the supersizing and you will find the increase
occurs in CARBS and FAT. You assume it is only because of fat/calories
that this is bad. You ignore what you THINK is unimportant--like the
fact that excess carbs in the blood is converted to fat to be stored
and this process cannabalizes good cholesterol to make bad
cholesterol--and the trigger that must be pulled to get this
bad-rise-good-fall of cholesterol going is insulin--which is triggered
not by fat, but by carbs--sugar. Atkins focuses on that body trigger.
He also found that when you take the excess sugars out people stop
eating abnormally. The gluttony just reduces naturally. Bet your low
fat advocates and studies never mention this. They don't discuss how
hungry the patient is or how hard/easy it was to stay on plan.

Exercise and fitness are another revenue source. A way of tricking
people into believing they can buy weight loss. They go to the gym for
a half hour, burn 200 calories and then think it's okay to go to Burger
King for a 670 calorie Whopper, 450 calorie fries and a 255 calorie
soda. Over 1350 calories, "wait for .99 we'll Super Size it!" The fit
people at the gym ate right before they got to the gym. They are at the
gym to tone and gain muscle mass. Like myself, they are there to gain
weight, not lose it. Try advertising to overweight America that gyms
are to gain weight, think they'll increase memberships? It's all about
tricking people out of their money.

Amazing how statistics can be used to propose a lie, isn't it?

Hate me if you like,
Uhm... sorry you just don't matter enough for that.

but just maybe someone will cut and paste a couple
of my ideas and keep them around in case more studies reveal more
failures or dangers for low carb followers.

If you sepnt any time here you would have read the ever increasing
list of studies that prove that low carb is jsut as effective at
weightloss long term and better short term than low-calorie diets. You
also would have found clinical proof that the heart risks of
cholesterol, LDL and triglycerides have been PROVEN to be sometimes
drastically reduced on a low-carb diet--the EXACT OPPOSITE of what
medical doctors have been saying for 30 years. You would also know
that for the last 30 years almost no one was willing to even reserach
low-carb diets because "Atkins was a quack" and anything associated
with him is meant to be laughed at. ONly because millions of people
are trying this are doctors and researchers finally allowing dollars
to be spent researching this "quackery". Remember--the last 30 years
was built on the AVOIDANCE of researching low-carb, not by researching
it. Low fat research is based upon ridiculously high levels of carb
consumption. It is scientifically unsound to assume that all high-carb
dietary research proves what will happen on low-carb diets. But that
is what you and almost every doctor has assumed for 30 years.

I'm offering something that
has worked for me for over 8 years and shows no signs of failure. It's
not a fad,

Low-carb diets have been around throughout the world for 130 years.
Low-fat has been around for 30 years. Which is the fad??

it follows recommendations from the American Cancer Society
and the American Heart Association and it's free.

And they should be highly respected because of the drastic decrease in
heart and cancer death in the last 30 years. ? Anyone out there think
that cancer occurence is less prevalent now than 30 years ago? Anyone
think that heart attacks happen less? These are informational
societies--highly political highly money oriented. Science takes a
back seat. LIke we see in most organizations (coporations, religions,
governments)--a well-established organization becomes more important
than the purpose for which it was intended.

Most low-carbers see this with Atkins Nutritionals Inc. It is the
normal way for things to progress.

185max(1993)25%BF/140min(1996)12%BF/155(2004)10%BF/160goal(2006?)10%BF

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/276/Jul-269/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint.-70 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/276/Jul-269/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint.-70 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)

Rob wrote:

Vic wrote:

They all died from heart attacks and exploding kidneys.

You can't be this stupid, can you?

Why do you think I'm stupid?
Because I believe this diet is too hard to follow long term?
Because I believe the people in the 70s started out with the same mind
set and determination that this room is full of today?

I'm a realist. If the majority failed to blend with society or caved in
to peer pressure or carb cravings or whatever it was that caused them to
fail in the 70s, not enough has changed about his latest book to prevent
it from happening again.

If there were 30 year success stories , this is where I'd find them, right?

I don't know anyone alive who was significantly overweight/obese and
lost it for thirty years through diet or exercise. My own mother is
much lighter than she was most of my life but that was due to illness.
And its only been 10 years and she has put some weight back on.

Does anyone know of anyone who became thin for THIRTY years on any
plan of any type? Richard Simmons looked somewhat pudgy the last time
I saw a picture of him.


I'm just not hearing about people that have been successfully on Atkins
since the 70s. What I'm hearing is stories of quick fixes.

--
Vic
258/184/175
Since 3/24/04
Photos - http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/vicsprogress

"Rob" wrote in message
...
: Low carbohydrate diet regimens have been in existence for decades. Dr.
: Atkins published his first book back in the 70's based on the same
: concepts as his current book. If these plans worked in the long run,
: the release of new diet books wouldn't even be necessary. The followers
: would have actually been capable of maintaining weight loss by
: eliminating high carbohydrate foods for over 25 years. Their long term
: weight loss success stories would have spread worldwide as the cure to
: obesity. Paradoxically, as more and more diets appear, the weight loss
: industry continues to get richer, and America continues to grow fatter.



DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/276/Jul-269/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint.-70 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)

Rob wrote:

Vic wrote:

They all died from heart attacks and exploding kidneys.

You can't be this stupid, can you?

Why do you think I'm stupid?
Because I believe this diet is too hard to follow long term?
Because I believe the people in the 70s started out with the same mind
set and determination that this room is full of today?

I'm a realist. If the majority failed to blend with society or caved in
to peer pressure or carb cravings or whatever it was that caused them to
fail in the 70s, not enough has changed about his latest book to prevent
it from happening again.

If there were 30 year success stories , this is where I'd find them, right?

I don't know anyone alive who was significantly overweight/obese and
lost it for thirty years through diet or exercise. My own mother is
much lighter than she was most of my life but that was due to illness.
And its only been 10 years and she has put some weight back on.

Does anyone know of anyone who became thin for THIRTY years on any
plan of any type? Richard Simmons looked somewhat pudgy the last time
I saw a picture of him.


I'm just not hearing about people that have been successfully on Atkins
since the 70s. What I'm hearing is stories of quick fixes.

--
Vic
258/184/175
Since 3/24/04
Photos - http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/vicsprogress

"Rob" wrote in message
...
: Low carbohydrate diet regimens have been in existence for decades. Dr.
: Atkins published his first book back in the 70's based on the same
: concepts as his current book. If these plans worked in the long run,
: the release of new diet books wouldn't even be necessary. The followers
: would have actually been capable of maintaining weight loss by
: eliminating high carbohydrate foods for over 25 years. Their long term
: weight loss success stories would have spread worldwide as the cure to
: obesity. Paradoxically, as more and more diets appear, the weight loss
: industry continues to get richer, and America continues to grow fatter.



DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/276/Jul-269/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint.-70 carbs/day (CCLL=50-60)

On 8/3/2004 7:17 PM, Ignoramus7404 wrote:
In article , Rob wrote:

I'm saying it was a fad diet 30 years ago that didn't work "long term"
and it's still a fad diet 30 years later that won't work "long term".
It's a quick fix with stories all over about people who have lost, then
gained, then lost again, then gained everything back plus more.

Fad diets that require foods or food groups to be cut from the diet are
the most likely to fail. Wouldn't that make them the hardest diets?
Why do people that have failed already think they should try one of the
hardest diets?

Count calories. It's the only way to succeed, that's the bottom
line.


I count calories, and yet I eat somewhat low carb. Oneis not the
opposite of another.

When did you start counting calories on a daily basis? I know that you
have spot checked once or twice in the past but I thought that you had
said specifically that you do *not* count calories? Just curious.

--
jmk in NC

On 8/3/2004 7:17 PM, Ignoramus7404 wrote:
In article , Rob wrote:

I'm saying it was a fad diet 30 years ago that didn't work "long term"
and it's still a fad diet 30 years later that won't work "long term".
It's a quick fix with stories all over about people who have lost, then
gained, then lost again, then gained everything back plus more.

Fad diets that require foods or food groups to be cut from the diet are
the most likely to fail. Wouldn't that make them the hardest diets?
Why do people that have failed already think they should try one of the
hardest diets?

Count calories. It's the only way to succeed, that's the bottom
line.


I count calories, and yet I eat somewhat low carb. Oneis not the
opposite of another.

When did you start counting calories on a daily basis? I know that you
have spot checked once or twice in the past but I thought that you had
said specifically that you do *not* count calories? Just curious.

--
jmk in NC

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:13:11 -0400, jmk wrote:

On 8/3/2004 7:17 PM, Ignoramus7404 wrote:
In article , Rob wrote:

I'm saying it was a fad diet 30 years ago that didn't work "long term"
and it's still a fad diet 30 years later that won't work "long term".
It's a quick fix with stories all over about people who have lost,
then gained, then lost again, then gained everything back plus more.

Fad diets that require foods or food groups to be cut from the diet
are the most likely to fail. Wouldn't that make them the hardest
diets? Why do people that have failed already think they should try
one of the hardest diets?

Name one diet that doesn't require food groups to be reduced from the
diet? The food pyramid requires low fat. Personally, I find low carb
much easier to follow than low fat.



--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:13:11 -0400, jmk wrote:

On 8/3/2004 7:17 PM, Ignoramus7404 wrote:
In article , Rob wrote:

I'm saying it was a fad diet 30 years ago that didn't work "long term"
and it's still a fad diet 30 years later that won't work "long term".
It's a quick fix with stories all over about people who have lost,
then gained, then lost again, then gained everything back plus more.

Fad diets that require foods or food groups to be cut from the diet
are the most likely to fail. Wouldn't that make them the hardest
diets? Why do people that have failed already think they should try
one of the hardest diets?

Name one diet that doesn't require food groups to be reduced from the
diet? The food pyramid requires low fat. Personally, I find low carb
much easier to follow than low fat.



--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:13:11 -0400, jmk wrote:

On 8/3/2004 7:17 PM, Ignoramus7404 wrote:
In article , Rob wrote:

I'm saying it was a fad diet 30 years ago that didn't work "long term"
and it's still a fad diet 30 years later that won't work "long term".
It's a quick fix with stories all over about people who have lost,
then gained, then lost again, then gained everything back plus more.

Fad diets that require foods or food groups to be cut from the diet
are the most likely to fail. Wouldn't that make them the hardest
diets? Why do people that have failed already think they should try
one of the hardest diets?

Name one diet that doesn't require food groups to be reduced from the
diet? The food pyramid requires low fat. Personally, I find low carb
much easier to follow than low fat.



--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Rob wrote:

Low carbohydrate diet regimens have been in existence for decades. Dr.
Atkins published his first book back in the 70's based on the same
concepts as his current book. If these plans worked in the long run,
the release of new diet books wouldn't even be necessary. The followers
would have actually been capable of maintaining weight loss by
eliminating high carbohydrate foods for over 25 years. Their long term
weight loss success stories would have spread worldwide as the cure to
obesity. Paradoxically, as more and more diets appear, the weight loss
industry continues to get richer, and America continues to grow fatter.


Where are all the thin people from LOW FAT DIETS that have been
postulated for the last 40 years?

Ask yourself all the same questions as in your speech above.

Jim

Rob wrote:

Low carbohydrate diet regimens have been in existence for decades. Dr.
Atkins published his first book back in the 70's based on the same
concepts as his current book. If these plans worked in the long run,
the release of new diet books wouldn't even be necessary. The followers
would have actually been capable of maintaining weight loss by
eliminating high carbohydrate foods for over 25 years. Their long term
weight loss success stories would have spread worldwide as the cure to
obesity. Paradoxically, as more and more diets appear, the weight loss
industry continues to get richer, and America continues to grow fatter.


Where are all the thin people from LOW FAT DIETS that have been
postulated for the last 40 years?

Ask yourself all the same questions as in your speech above.

Jim