A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why Bad Diets Are Bad?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 14th, 2011, 08:46 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On 14/08/11 2:27 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Who_me? wrote:

The high
incidence of kidney problems alone among those who rigidly adhere to Atkins
should be enough to warn most people off.


I considered a larger point by point reply but the above is all that
really needs to be addressed. There are a handfull of signs that
someone is here just to troll.


If disagreeing with those who have a closed minded viewpoint is trolling
then yes, I am trolling.

One is confusing the ketosis of a
successful hunter with the ketoacidosis of a diabetic.


One isn't at all.

One is lying
about Dr Atkins being overweight when he slipped on the ice and broke
his skull.


Who mentioned Atkins death?

One is mention of kidney problems. One is competitive body
builders or marathoners complaining that a plan that is explicitly not
for them is somehow flawed because it's beneficial for the other 99%
of the population because they think what works for 1% must be good
for the other 99%.


Think carefully about something. This is NOT an Atkins newsgroup, it is a
low carb newsgroup and there are all degrees of low carb. I am a low card
enthusiast, I blame the ubiquitous high carb food availability for most
obesity, most people eat far too much of it. That does not mean that the
reverse must apply. A diet that is much lower in carbs, one that avoids
processed carbs and only accepts carbs from healthy amounts of fresh foods
and vegetables is sufficient to allow for a healthy body mass and
sufficient energy to maintain fitness.

You do not need to go into Ketosis, is gains you nothing in a real sense.



In the 1970s when the Atkins plan well new the AMA went after him about
kidney damage. His defense was simple - Show even one single case of
new kidney damage by a person who did not have previous kidney damage
who followed the directions in his books.


It was a defence that didn't work, there were and still are a great many
people who have suffered damage that could have been avoided if they had
not dropped to a dangerous level of carb intake. Claiming that they already
had some degree of damage is disingenuous as all people have varying
degrees of kidney efficiency loss, particularly those who have no cared for
their health with regard to diet and exercise. When was the last time that
you had a full work-up?

Three decades later Dr Atkins
slipped on the ice walking to work, at a weight that was arguably
somewhere between ideal or a bit below ideal for his height and build,
broke his skull, and died as a result of brain damage from that fall.
He died with his medical license current because the AMA never did come
up with a single case. Not one single case in three decades. Your
claim of kidney problems is nonsense.

So I call BS on you two ways. Falsehoods about kidneys.


Kidney problems on low carb diets are well known and discussed. It is not a
falsehood at all, it is a risk and one that is much higher if a person who
already has a small degree of kidney failure goes low carb. The only
bull**** here is from people like you who are in denial about Atkins who
think taht he was some type of miracle worker. He didn't develop "his"
diet, he just promoted it for financial reward. Diets like it have been
around since the eighteen hundreds.

Also, Atkins WAS fat when he died, there had been a degree of controversy
when photos showing him to be overweight surfaced in the months before he
died. Not so unusual - have you seen the fat photos of Jenny Craig?

Irrelevancies about competitive body builders.


Why irrelevant? It isn't just people who are fat who look for optimum diets
- people like me are just as relevant as people like you. If a diet is
damaging to an athlete of any type, then it is not a good long term idea
for anyone.

In fact plenty of competitive body builders use a cycle process of 5-12
days of lower carb than the Atkins process would have them at and 2
days of reversed low fat low carb. The very low carb because it
reduces body fat without muscle mass loss and because it keeps water
retention low.



Body builders only drop carbs immediately before competition to increase
definition, they don't do it while training. Get your facts right.

  #12  
Old August 14th, 2011, 02:04 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Aug 14, 3:46*am, Who_me? wrote:
On 14/08/11 2:27 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:

Who_me? wrote:


The high
incidence of kidney problems alone among those who rigidly adhere to Atkins
should be enough to warn most people off.


I considered a larger point by point reply but the above is all that
really needs to be addressed. *There are a handfull of signs that
someone is here just to troll.


If disagreeing with those who have a closed minded viewpoint is trolling
then yes, I am trolling.

* One is confusing the ketosis of a

successful hunter with the ketoacidosis of a diabetic.


One isn't at all.

One is lying
about Dr Atkins being overweight when he slipped on the ice and broke
his skull.


Who mentioned Atkins death?

One is mention of kidney problems. One is competitive body
builders or marathoners complaining that a plan that is explicitly not
for them is somehow flawed because it's beneficial for the other 99%
of the population because they think what works for 1% must be good
for the other 99%.


Think carefully about something. This is NOT an Atkins newsgroup, it is a
low carb newsgroup and there are all degrees of low carb. I am a low card
enthusiast, I blame the ubiquitous high carb food availability for most
obesity, most people eat far too much of it.


Think carefully about this. Atkins is probably the most widely known,
widely used and studied LC diet. It has been proven to both work
and be safe. So, coming into a LC newsgroup and calling it
ludicrously unhealthy and not expecting to be challenged on it
makes you either a troll or an idiot.



That does not mean that the
reverse must apply. A diet that is much lower in carbs, one that avoids
processed carbs and only accepts carbs from healthy amounts of fresh foods
and vegetables is sufficient to allow for a healthy body mass and
sufficient energy to maintain fitness.


That may be true for some people. For others, trying to just cut
back on carbs that way, without following the Atkins plan starting
with induction, will
lead to hunger, cravings and failure with the diet. Snobs like
you then look down on those people as failures due to lack
of willpower. Why, it worked for me.... Anyone for who that
doesn't work is just a weak person.

Also if that's sufficient and healthy, why does the Dukan diet,
which you endorse and claim is essentially what you do,
start as PURE PROTEIN?


In the 1970s when the Atkins plan well new the AMA went after him about
kidney damage. *His defense was simple - Show even one single case of
new kidney damage by a person who did not have previous kidney damage
who followed the directions in his books.


It was a defence that didn't work, there were and still are a great many
people who have suffered damage that could have been avoided if they had
not dropped to a dangerous level of carb intake.


What pure BS. Atkins has been around now for 40 years. Millions
of people have done it. If that were true, there would be plenty of
documented evidence of it. There were plenty of Drs and groups
out to get Atkins and if there was solid documented evidence,
we would have seen it by now. The fact that there is not, speaks
volumes.


Claiming that they already
had some degree of damage is disingenuous as all people have varying
degrees of kidney efficiency loss, particularly those who have no cared for
their health with regard to diet and exercise. When was the last time that
you had a full work-up?


Are you really that stupid? Accounting for those people who already
had kidney damage prior to doing Atkins is disingenuous? In fact, it
would
be dishonest NOT to account for that.




So I call BS on you two ways. *Falsehoods about kidneys.


Kidney problems on low carb diets are well known and discussed. It is not a
falsehood at all, it is a risk and one that is much higher if a person who
already has a small degree of kidney failure goes low carb. The only
bull**** here is from people like you who are in denial about Atkins who
think taht he was some type of miracle worker. He didn't develop "his"
diet, he just promoted it for financial reward. Diets like it have been
around since the eighteen hundreds.


And what did your boy Dukan do that's different? Looks to me like
he's doing the same thing with his diet that Atkins and everyone
else that's come up with a diet plan has done. And while we're
on Dukan, I call BS on you big time.
No further proof is needed to completely discredit you. You claimed
your personal diet was like his:

" I developed a diet that has kept me fit for decades, and
recently I have seen that it is very similar to the much vaunted Dr
Dukan's
diet. Strange thing that. "

It sure is strange. And I noticed that in my prior reply covering
this, you just completely edited it out. I can understand why,
because it exposes you as a fool. So, one more time let's
see what this Dukan diet is all about:


"http://www.dukandiet.com/The-Dukan-Diet/4-Phases


"Phase 1 - ATTACK
The Attack phase consists of pure protein and creates a kick-start
to
the diet. During this phase, you can eat 68 high-protein foods that
produce immediate and noticeable weight loss."

So, as I asked before, what the hell is up with that? You're
here advocating a diet which starts out with PURE PROTEIN.
Atkins starts out with unlimited protein and fat and 20g a day
of carbs. So, how can Atkins be causing kidney damage,
while Dukan is not?

Are you a troll or just stupid?



Also, Atkins WAS fat when he died, there had been a degree of controversy
when photos showing him to be overweight surfaced in the months before he
died. *Not so unusual - have you seen the fat photos of Jenny Craig?


Just like Doug thought, here we go with more lies about Atkins.
I saw Atkins many times on TV over the years. He was never
obese. He always looked good. He admitted that like many of
us he put on an additional 10 or 15 lbs at times. When he did
he'd restart induction and take it off.

The lies about him being overweight are based on his weight
at death after having been hospitalized, experiencing organ
failure, accumulating fluid and dying. Trolls like to try to spin
that into a slam against the Atkins diet. Hello troll.




*Irrelevancies about competitive body builders.


Why irrelevant? It isn't just people who are fat who look for optimum diets
- people like me are just as relevant as people like you. If a diet is
damaging to an athlete of any type, then it is not a good long term idea
for anyone.


Total nonsense. What you're claiming is that the Atkins diet
causes kidney damage, it's dangerous. All Doug pointed out
is that Atkins or any diet may not be appropriate for some people.
Endurance athletes may need 4000 calories a day. Does that
mean that is what's right and appropriate for the rest of us?
Does it make eating 2000 calories "ludicrously unhealthy"?

You claim to have a library full of books on dieting and health.
You even claim to have one by Gary Taubes. Funny though,
when Billy suggested you read one of Taubes works
you replied "Not interested, as everyone has their version of
what is good or bad. " Now call me crazy, but I would think
a person that knew who Taubes was and had his book
would have replied "I've read Taubes and...." So, I call BS
on you again.

About the only thing I do believe is that you may write
articles for the mainstream media. I believe that because
the lies, distortion and ignorance that you have demonstrated
here regarding LC and Atkins in particular is very typical in
the media.
  #13  
Old August 14th, 2011, 05:27 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On 14/08/11 11:04 PM, wrote:


Think carefully about something. This is NOT an Atkins newsgroup, it is a
low carb newsgroup and there are all degrees of low carb. I am a low card
enthusiast, I blame the ubiquitous high carb food availability for most
obesity, most people eat far too much of it.


Think carefully about this. Atkins is probably the most widely known,
widely used and studied LC diet. It has been proven to both work
and be safe. So, coming into a LC newsgroup and calling it
ludicrously unhealthy and not expecting to be challenged on it
makes you either a troll or an idiot.


Atkins is widely known, and widely disputed, pilloried and slammed by not
just people like me but by the medical profession - Atkins peers - by
research organisations like Harvard, by Government bodies, by nutritionists
and media. It always has been, right from his very first book release. If
you aren't aware of that then you must be living in a cave.



That does not mean that the
reverse must apply. A diet that is much lower in carbs, one that avoids
processed carbs and only accepts carbs from healthy amounts of fresh foods
and vegetables is sufficient to allow for a healthy body mass and
sufficient energy to maintain fitness.


That may be true for some people. For others, trying to just cut
back on carbs that way, without following the Atkins plan starting
with induction, will
lead to hunger, cravings and failure with the diet. Snobs like
you then look down on those people as failures due to lack
of willpower. Why, it worked for me.... Anyone for who that
doesn't work is just a weak person.


Yep. That is EXACTLY what I think. Many people are weak willed. Even people
who I love and care about number among them. My approach is to work on that
will, not take away the temptation with diets that kill appetite. Why not
have your taste buds lasered off?


Also if that's sufficient and healthy, why does the Dukan diet,
which you endorse and claim is essentially what you do,
start as PURE PROTEIN?


Because it doesn't stay that way, and it varies during the week.



In the 1970s when the Atkins plan well new the AMA went after him about
kidney damage. His defense was simple - Show even one single case of
new kidney damage by a person who did not have previous kidney damage
who followed the directions in his books.


It was a defence that didn't work, there were and still are a great many
people who have suffered damage that could have been avoided if they had
not dropped to a dangerous level of carb intake.


What pure BS. Atkins has been around now for 40 years. Millions
of people have done it. If that were true, there would be plenty of
documented evidence of it.


There is, and Atkins had to fight it. The Atkins group's response was that
the damage already existed and that the diet only exacerbated it, it didn't
cause it. That is true, but no overweight adult has perfect kidney
function, so in effect that response is disingenuous.

There were plenty of Drs and groups
out to get Atkins and if there was solid documented evidence,
we would have seen it by now. The fact that there is not, speaks
volumes.


You are unlikely to see anything if you don't want to look for it.


"Phase 1 - ATTACK
The Attack phase consists of pure protein and creates a kick-start
to
the diet. During this phase, you can eat 68 high-protein foods that
produce immediate and noticeable weight loss."

So, as I asked before, what the hell is up with that? You're
here advocating a diet which starts out with PURE PROTEIN.


I am not advocating it. I simply noted that the ongoing diet, the
stabilisation stage is nearly identical to my own. I have not tried it,
though I have read copies of all the books - even the original French.

Atkins starts out with unlimited protein and fat and 20g a day
of carbs. So, how can Atkins be causing kidney damage,
while Dukan is not?


It is the duration. Read more about Dukan.


Are you a troll or just stupid?


Neither. I am a Mensa member and disagreeing with someone is not trolling.



Also, Atkins WAS fat when he died, there had been a degree of controversy
when photos showing him to be overweight surfaced in the months before he
died. Not so unusual - have you seen the fat photos of Jenny Craig?


Just like Doug thought, here we go with more lies about Atkins.
I saw Atkins many times on TV over the years. He was never
obese. He always looked good. He admitted that like many of
us he put on an additional 10 or 15 lbs at times. When he did
he'd restart induction and take it off.

The lies about him being overweight are based on his weight
at death after having been hospitalized, experiencing organ
failure, accumulating fluid and dying. Trolls like to try to spin
that into a slam against the Atkins diet. Hello troll.


Do you take gullibility pills? If that was the case, why don't all corpses
of people who die after hospitalisation gain weight over their initial weight?

The controversy started BEFORE he died, before he went into hospital after
a photo of him was circulated showing a huge weight gain. The Atkins group
claim that it was a Photoshopped image. Maybe it was, but his autopsy
photos weren't.




Irrelevancies about competitive body builders.


Why irrelevant? It isn't just people who are fat who look for optimum diets
- people like me are just as relevant as people like you. If a diet is
damaging to an athlete of any type, then it is not a good long term idea
for anyone.


Total nonsense. What you're claiming is that the Atkins diet
causes kidney damage, it's dangerous. All Doug pointed out
is that Atkins or any diet may not be appropriate for some people.
Endurance athletes may need 4000 calories a day. Does that
mean that is what's right and appropriate for the rest of us?
Does it make eating 2000 calories "ludicrously unhealthy"?


Then why are you trying to convince me that it is good? If it is bad for a
person in good health, one who lives a healthy lifestyle with lots of
exercise, how can it be good for someone who is effectively a walking heart
attack, a diabetic or pre-diabetic (as many if not most overweight people
are), someone who is weak physically?

Why do you ignore research that challenges Atkins. Research such as the
tests on huge increases in methylglyoxal levels in people who are in
ketosis? Those increased levels do damage to blood vessels and to nerve
tissue.

Most research in Atkins concludes that low carb increases health, but not
when low enough to cause ketosis.

Why does the American Heart Association warn that Atkins style diets
increase the risk of heart disease?


You claim to have a library full of books on dieting and health.
You even claim to have one by Gary Taubes. Funny though,
when Billy suggested you read one of Taubes works
you replied "Not interested, as everyone has their version of
what is good or bad. " Now call me crazy, but I would think
a person that knew who Taubes was and had his book
would have replied "I've read Taubes and...." So, I call BS
on you again.


You can call all you like, in fact sing and yodel if that pleases you. Gary
Taubes is just one among several hundred, and did not rate highly with me.
Not because it was so bad, but because it was all old hat. there are only a
few that I rank highly, either for good value and real reporting of proper
research, or for nonsense and distortion and wild claims.


About the only thing I do believe is that you may write
articles for the mainstream media. I believe that because
the lies, distortion and ignorance that you have demonstrated
here regarding LC and Atkins in particular is very typical in
the media.


Atkins did a lot distortion of facts, he didn't invent the diet, he tried
it in order to manage his own weight, was initially successful and wrote a
book about it.


BTW, if Atkins is still as popular as you claim, why did the Atkins group
file for bankruptcy protection six years ago? They claimed at the time that
the diet and the sale of products relating to it had fallen to almost zero.
In your world are they are wrong too?

I know a lot of people who are eating some variation of a low carb diet, I
don't know any who are still using Atkins. That seemd to die out several
years ago. There are lots of healthier options that are just as effective.
Dukan is just one of them. The Dukan diet is not new, it has been around
since the eighties, it is just new outside France.

  #14  
Old August 15th, 2011, 07:20 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Harold Groot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:27:46 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

Do you take gullibility pills? If that was the case, why don't all corpses
of people who die after hospitalisation gain weight over their initial weight?

The controversy started BEFORE he died, before he went into hospital after
a photo of him was circulated showing a huge weight gain. The Atkins group
claim that it was a Photoshopped image. Maybe it was, but his autopsy
photos weren't.


According to the official hospital records (released by his widow), he
weighed 195 when he was admitted to the hospital on 4/8/2003. At 6
feet tall, that may not be the absolute optimum but it's certainly a
quite reasonable weight.

According to the official death certificate, he weighed 258 at the
time of his death on 4/17/2003 (after having been in a coma for more
than a week). This is consistent with kidney failure and fluid
accumulation. You had IV fluids going in (with nutrition and
medicines to try to keep him alive) and no fluids coming out. Of
course a person gains weight when that happens. A fluid in a 2-liter
IV bag weighs a bit over 4 pounds. If he gets only 2 IV bags per day,
that's over 8 pounds/day. In a week that's over 56 pounds. Get the
picture?

Why don't all people who die after hospitalization gain huge amounts
of weight? Gee, do you think it might have something to do with the
fact that the great majority do NOT go through kidney failure and get
kept alive for a significant amount of time in that state?

You might want to consider how many gullibility pills YOU have been
swallowing.

  #15  
Old August 15th, 2011, 09:08 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On 15/08/11 4:20 PM, Harold Groot wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:27:46 +1000,
wrote:

Do you take gullibility pills? If that was the case, why don't all corpses
of people who die after hospitalisation gain weight over their initial weight?

The controversy started BEFORE he died, before he went into hospital after
a photo of him was circulated showing a huge weight gain. The Atkins group
claim that it was a Photoshopped image. Maybe it was, but his autopsy
photos weren't.


According to the official hospital records (released by his widow), he
weighed 195 when he was admitted to the hospital on 4/8/2003. At 6
feet tall, that may not be the absolute optimum but it's certainly a
quite reasonable weight.

According to the official death certificate, he weighed 258 at the
time of his death on 4/17/2003 (after having been in a coma for more
than a week). This is consistent with kidney failure and fluid
accumulation. You had IV fluids going in (with nutrition and
medicines to try to keep him alive) and no fluids coming out. Of
course a person gains weight when that happens. A fluid in a 2-liter
IV bag weighs a bit over 4 pounds. If he gets only 2 IV bags per day,
that's over 8 pounds/day. In a week that's over 56 pounds. Get the
picture?

Why don't all people who die after hospitalization gain huge amounts
of weight? Gee, do you think it might have something to do with the
fact that the great majority do NOT go through kidney failure and get
kept alive for a significant amount of time in that state?

You might want to consider how many gullibility pills YOU have been
swallowing.


People in hospital who have kidney failure are on dialysis, conscious or in
a coma. There would have been no massive fluid retention. Better swallow
some more pills, reality is sneaking up on you.
  #16  
Old August 15th, 2011, 11:26 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Harold Groot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:08:15 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

On 15/08/11 4:20 PM, Harold Groot wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:27:46 +1000,
wrote:

Do you take gullibility pills? If that was the case, why don't all corpses
of people who die after hospitalisation gain weight over their initial weight?

The controversy started BEFORE he died, before he went into hospital after
a photo of him was circulated showing a huge weight gain. The Atkins group
claim that it was a Photoshopped image. Maybe it was, but his autopsy
photos weren't.


According to the official hospital records (released by his widow), he
weighed 195 when he was admitted to the hospital on 4/8/2003. At 6
feet tall, that may not be the absolute optimum but it's certainly a
quite reasonable weight.

According to the official death certificate, he weighed 258 at the
time of his death on 4/17/2003 (after having been in a coma for more
than a week). This is consistent with kidney failure and fluid
accumulation. You had IV fluids going in (with nutrition and
medicines to try to keep him alive) and no fluids coming out. Of
course a person gains weight when that happens. A fluid in a 2-liter
IV bag weighs a bit over 4 pounds. If he gets only 2 IV bags per day,
that's over 8 pounds/day. In a week that's over 56 pounds. Get the
picture?

Why don't all people who die after hospitalization gain huge amounts
of weight? Gee, do you think it might have something to do with the
fact that the great majority do NOT go through kidney failure and get
kept alive for a significant amount of time in that state?

You might want to consider how many gullibility pills YOU have been
swallowing.


People in hospital who have kidney failure are on dialysis, conscious or in
a coma. There would have been no massive fluid retention. Better swallow
some more pills, reality is sneaking up on you.


I'm quite familiar with Kidney failure and dialysis, thank you very
much. My mother is currently on dialysis, and I help her with it. But
there can be reasons why a person would not be put on it. If other
organs are already failing, for example, the person would probably not
be a candidate for dialysis (even the emergency sort performed with no
prior preparation). Dr. Atkins died of "multiple organ failure", so
it would seem reasonable likely that that was the case with him. But
not having the full case files, it's rather hard to prove anything.

You still haven't explained the official hospital record showing his
weight WHEN HE WAS ADMITTED to be 195. Do you think that that
official record is just part of some vast conspiracy?


  #17  
Old August 15th, 2011, 02:57 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On 15/08/11 8:26 PM, Harold Groot wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:08:15 +1000,
wrote:

On 15/08/11 4:20 PM, Harold Groot wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:27:46 +1000,
wrote:

Do you take gullibility pills? If that was the case, why don't all corpses
of people who die after hospitalisation gain weight over their initial weight?

The controversy started BEFORE he died, before he went into hospital after
a photo of him was circulated showing a huge weight gain. The Atkins group
claim that it was a Photoshopped image. Maybe it was, but his autopsy
photos weren't.

According to the official hospital records (released by his widow), he
weighed 195 when he was admitted to the hospital on 4/8/2003. At 6
feet tall, that may not be the absolute optimum but it's certainly a
quite reasonable weight.

According to the official death certificate, he weighed 258 at the
time of his death on 4/17/2003 (after having been in a coma for more
than a week). This is consistent with kidney failure and fluid
accumulation. You had IV fluids going in (with nutrition and
medicines to try to keep him alive) and no fluids coming out. Of
course a person gains weight when that happens. A fluid in a 2-liter
IV bag weighs a bit over 4 pounds. If he gets only 2 IV bags per day,
that's over 8 pounds/day. In a week that's over 56 pounds. Get the
picture?

Why don't all people who die after hospitalization gain huge amounts
of weight? Gee, do you think it might have something to do with the
fact that the great majority do NOT go through kidney failure and get
kept alive for a significant amount of time in that state?

You might want to consider how many gullibility pills YOU have been
swallowing.


People in hospital who have kidney failure are on dialysis, conscious or in
a coma. There would have been no massive fluid retention. Better swallow
some more pills, reality is sneaking up on you.


I'm quite familiar with Kidney failure and dialysis, thank you very
much. My mother is currently on dialysis, and I help her with it. But
there can be reasons why a person would not be put on it. If other
organs are already failing, for example, the person would probably not
be a candidate for dialysis (even the emergency sort performed with no
prior preparation). Dr. Atkins died of "multiple organ failure", so
it would seem reasonable likely that that was the case with him. But
not having the full case files, it's rather hard to prove anything.

You still haven't explained the official hospital record showing his
weight WHEN HE WAS ADMITTED to be 195. Do you think that that
official record is just part of some vast conspiracy?




I have been in hospital several times in my life, three time admitted with
illness or injury of a serious nature. I have attended when several other
people have been admitted. Not once have I, my wife, or those who I was
associated with been actually weighed on admission. Usually it is the
person who attends the admission, the friend or family member of the
patient who fills in the forms that ask - among other things - age, weight,
allergies, etc. I can still recall my wife's indignation when she was
admitted for kidney stones and I had given her weight as 110lbs when she
was actually 105.

Not doing too well so far - would you like to try harder?
  #18  
Old August 15th, 2011, 03:01 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
BlueBrooke[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:04:49 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

I do not provide "citations" to something
that is so well known and widely debated over two decades that only a
intransigent fool would not know about it.


"Well known and widely debated" is not equivalent to accurate. It's
pretty clear, now, why you're here and what your agenda is. Thanks
for clearing *that* up.
  #19  
Old August 15th, 2011, 03:08 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Aug 14, 12:27*pm, Who_me? wrote:
On 14/08/11 11:04 PM, wrote:

Atkins is widely known, and widely disputed, pilloried and slammed by not
just people like me but by the medical profession - Atkins peers - by
research organisations like Harvard, by Government bodies, by nutritionists
and media. It always has been, right from his very first book release. If
you aren't aware of that then you must be living in a cave.


I know there are plenty of Atkins bashers out there, including
you. But it is you who is living in a cave, because the same
people bashing Atkins say similar things about your boy
Dukan and his diet:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/shows/newy...118457184.html
Sounds a little gimmicky, what are critics saying?

France’s governmental National Agency for Food, Environmental and Work
Health Safety has identified it as one of 15 imbalanced and
potentially risky diets, and the British Dietetic Association branded
it one of the five worst diets of 2011.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/d...-review?page=2

The Dukan Diet: What the Experts Say
You'll certainly lose weight on The Dukan Diet because it cuts
calories drastically. The lack of carbs also helps keep hunger at bay.
But the bottom line, experts say, is that this eating plan does not
include all the nutrients you need for good health.

"A once-daily multivitamin will not compensate for the nutritional
goodness from fruits, whole grains and healthy fats that are
inadequate in The Dukan Diet," says Keri Gans, MS, RD, a spokesperson
for the American Dietetic Association.

She points out the health hazards of restrictive dieting. “When
dieters start losing weight rapidly, I worry they will continue the
restrictive phases longer than advised -- which puts them at risk for
nutrient deficiencies and kidney problems," says Gans.

Losing more than 1-2 pounds per week can promote gallstones and muscle
loss, she says: "It is unhealthy to lose weight so quickly because
you not only lose fat and fluids but precious muscle mass, which is
really hard to replace, especially as you get older."

Constipation, bad breath, dry mouth, and fatigue should be a red flag
that this is not a healthy diet, she says."





That may be true for some people. *For others, trying to just cut
back on carbs that way, without following the Atkins plan starting
with induction, will
lead to hunger, cravings and failure with the diet. * Snobs like
you then look down on those people as failures due to lack
of willpower. * Why, it worked for me.... *Anyone for who that
doesn't work is just a weak person.


Yep. That is EXACTLY what I think. Many people are weak willed. Even people
who I love and care about number among them. My approach is to work on that
will, not take away the temptation with diets that kill appetite. Why not
have your taste buds lasered off?


You really are an elitist snob aren't you? Must be nice to be you.
You fail to acknowledge there are a lot of people who's bodies
respond differently, who have different genetics, where if
they ate what you did they would feel hungry all the time and
hence be driven to eat. Hunger is one of the most powerful
forces in the body. Even scientists today do not understand
exactly what drives it and there is continuing research to
understand it. You, on the other hand, know it all and just
look down at those folks as being weak. You know
so much that you claim genetics does not play a role in
obesity. Talk about living in a cave, that is a classic.

Note that I'm not saying that's what's responsible for all
obesity. But to deny that a diet that greatly reduces
hunger is not an advantage because it's not needed is
just nuts. Apparently, it isn't enough for people to
just lose weight. They have to do it YOUR way and
you prefer they suffer as much as possible. Are
you a sadist?






Also if that's sufficient and healthy, why does the Dukan diet,
which you endorse and claim is essentially what you do,
start as PURE PROTEIN?


Because it doesn't stay that way, and it varies during the week.



Again, as BlueBrooke said, it's clear you don't even
understand Atkins. I'd add to that list the Dukan diet
which you are advocating. First, if you understood Atkins
you would know that it doesn't stay that way either.
Second, from what I can see online, the Dukan diet
does not vary during the attack phase either. It in
fact consists of almost pure protein:

Allowed Foods
*Lean beef, veal or rabbit (mince under 10%, avoid ribs)
*Chicken and turkey (except skin and outside part of the wings)
*Ham (low fat and lean)
*Beef, veal, or chicken liver
*Any fish (except canned in oil or sauce)
*Shellfish and crustaceans
*Eggs (up to two per day, unlimited egg whites but watch the yolks if
you have high cholesterol)
*Dairy products (low fat, below 5% fat)
*Sweeteners (except fructose based), vinegar, mustard, spices, herbs,
garlic, onion (as spice), lemon juice (only as spice, not for
drinking), sugar free natural ketchup (in moderation), sugar free
chewing gum

And guess what else they say:

"Another common problem is bad breath, although at the same time it
can be read as a sign of success as it indicates your body is in
ketosis. Again drinking water can help, as well as chewing sugar free
gum."

Got that genius? It says KETOSIS. Which of course is
what everyone would expect with a zero carb, high protein
diet. Yet, like a true troll, you come in here claiming that
the Atkins diet is dangerous for precisely the same reasons.
Why, your kidneys are gonna be damaged! What utter
lies and BS.




There is, and Atkins had to fight it. The Atkins group's response was that
the damage already existed and that the diet only exacerbated it, it didn't
cause it. That is true, but no overweight adult has perfect kidney
function, so in effect that response is disingenuous.


Kindly provide us with a reference for that ridiculous statement.
Should be easy to do. Show us a study that shows that no
overweight adult has perfect kidney function.





"Phase 1 - ATTACK
* The Attack phase consists of pure protein and creates a kick-start
to
the diet. During this phase, you can eat 68 high-protein foods that
produce immediate and noticeable weight loss."


So, as I asked before, what the hell is up with that? *You're
here advocating a diet which starts out with PURE PROTEIN.


I am not advocating it. I simply noted that the ongoing diet, the
stabilisation stage is nearly identical to my own. I have not tried it,
though I have read copies of all the books - even the original French.



First, you did NOT say that the ongoing Dukan diet is nearly
identical to your own. You just said the Dukan diet. I would
suspect that the ongoing phase of the Dukan diet is very
similar to Atkins. So, once again, you're twisting and
turning.



Atkins starts out with unlimited protein and fat and 20g a day
* of carbs. *So, how can Atkins be causing kidney damage,
while Dukan is not?


It is the duration. Read more about Dukan.


Dukan even says the diet is similar to Atkins. Where is the
part where Dukan says Atkins causes kidney disease and
his diet, which is similar, but actually starts at ZERO carbs
and pure protein, does not. You're the guy claiming to be
the Dukan expert, you provide it.






Also, Atkins WAS fat when he died, there had been a degree of controversy
when photos showing him to be overweight surfaced in the months before he
died. *Not so unusual - have you seen the fat photos of Jenny Craig?


Just like Doug thought, here we go with more lies about Atkins.
I saw Atkins many times on TV over the years. * He was never
obese. *He always looked good. * He admitted that like many of
us he put on an additional 10 or 15 lbs at times. *When he did
he'd restart induction and take it off.


The lies about him being overweight are based on his weight
at death after having been hospitalized, experiencing organ
failure, accumulating fluid and dying. * Trolls like to try to spin
* that into a slam against the Atkins diet. * Hello troll.


Do you take gullibility pills? If that was the case, why don't all corpses
of people who die after hospitalisation gain weight over their initial weight?


Many of them do. In particular those in a coma with organ
failure over weeks. Only an idiot would expect that there
be a requirement for all patients who die in hospital to gain
weight for it to be true that others, depending on their
illness, will.





The controversy started BEFORE he died, before he went into hospital after
a photo of him was circulated showing a huge weight gain. The Atkins group
claim that it was a Photoshopped image. Maybe it was, but his autopsy
photos weren't.



Then explain how the hospital records show hiss weight being
around 190 when he entered the hospital. He was around
6 ft tall, so where is this huge weight?







Why do you ignore research that challenges Atkins. Research such as the
tests on huge increases in methylglyoxal levels in people who are in
ketosis? Those increased levels do damage to blood vessels and to nerve
tissue.

Most research in Atkins concludes that low carb increases health, but not
when low enough to cause ketosis.


Show us that research. I've seen studies where they followed
people who were doing Atkins per the book for 6 months and
the results were all positive. PS, their kidneys didn't malfunction.




Why does the American Heart Association warn that Atkins style diets
increase the risk of heart disease?


Because they are anti-fat. You told us you're peachy keen
with high fat and that's how you eat. So, what they have to
say about Atkins goes for you too. You really must be a
troll to even bring this up.




You claim to have a library full of books on dieting and health.
You even claim to have one by Gary Taubes. *Funny though,
when Billy suggested you read one of Taubes works
you replied "Not interested, as everyone has their version of
what is good or bad. " * Now call me crazy, but I would think
a person that knew who Taubes was and had his book
would have replied "I've read Taubes and...." * So, I call BS
on you again.


You can call all you like, in fact sing and yodel if that pleases you. Gary
Taubes is just one among several hundred, and did not rate highly with me..
Not because it was so bad, but because it was all old hat. there are only a
few that I rank highly, either for good value and real reporting of proper
research, or for nonsense and distortion and wild claims.



Funny how you got caught, isn't it? Claiming to have Taubes book,
but when Billy brought up a Taubes work you just say, not interested,
don't care. A person who really had a Taubes book and knew who
he was would clearly have said, "I have his book, I've read it,
and...."
Liar.





About the only thing I do believe is that you may write
articles for the mainstream media. * I believe that because
the lies, distortion and ignorance that you have demonstrated
here regarding LC and Atkins in particular is very typical in
* the media.


Atkins did a lot distortion of facts, he didn't invent the diet, he tried
it in order to manage his own weight, was initially successful and wrote a
book about it.


There you go again. As far as distortion, it's you who is
continuing to do that. Actually he did invent the specific Atkins
diet,
with the 4 phases, the two weeks of induction, etc. He never
hid the fact that he did not invent LC.

What did your boy Dukan do? He has a plan very similar
to Atkins, it even has the 4 phases. Like Atkins it starts
you off in ketosis, likely because Dukan understands what
you do not. It's a huge plus because it sharply curtails
hunger. You, on the other hand, demand that people
suffer hunger pangs, do it your way. If they fail, why
then they are just weak.




BTW, if Atkins is still as popular as you claim, why did the Atkins group
file for bankruptcy protection six years ago? They claimed at the time that
the diet and the sale of products relating to it had fallen to almost zero.
In your world are they are wrong too?


Unbelievable. Perhaps you missed it, but about 10 years
ago there was a big frenzy of interest in LC where
suddenly many more people decided to try it. The Atkins
company responded to that demand with a variety of
products. So did many other companies. IF you knew
as much as you claim, you would never bring up this
foolish point. Just go into any food store and there is
but a fraction of the LC products today that were
available back then. That is a reflection on LC in
general, not Atkins specifically. How many people
are doing LC today, of any kind? Not many.
Hence, many of those companies failed. Simple.





I know a lot of people who are eating some variation of a low carb diet, I
don't know any who are still using Atkins. That seemd to die out several
years ago. There are lots of healthier options that are just as effective..
Dukan is just one of them. The Dukan diet is not new, it has been around
since the eighties, it is just new outside France.- Hide quoted text -


And then the ass brings up the Dukan diet again. So, one more
time, the Dukan diet starts you off at ZERO carbs. It starts you
off at PURE protein. It puts you in ketosis. It has 4 phases,
just like Atkins, where you introduce more vegetables, fruits
over time. Yet, Dukan is a
healthy diet, but Atkins is dangerous and sure to cause kidney
damage?. Again I ask, are you just stupid or a troll? Or is it
that you did not even really understand what the Dukan diet was
about and now, when proven that it is more radical than
Atkins, you're caught, left twisting, turning in the wind.
  #20  
Old August 15th, 2011, 04:59 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

Billy wrote:

At least Atkins has data.


Had data. In the 1970s he tried to have it published but was refused.
Medical journals did not want his tabular data. He stopped mentioning
that he kept tabular data after that. None was ever published.

What he has are studies that support the beneficial effect of several
variations of low carbing. These studies are based on data from the
scientists conducting those studies. Indirect data then.

Folks complain that Dr A's approach was not scientific. I remember him
staying that he wasn't himself a scientist. He was a clinician who used
the studies produced by scientists. The end result was an effective
system no matter that he wasn't a scientist.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
diets sweet&soft Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 May 13th, 2008 03:26 PM
Index of Popular Diets and Niche Diets cj General Discussion 0 April 13th, 2008 04:13 AM
Very-low-fat diets are superior to low-carbohydrate diets (***sigh!***) Roger Zoul Low Carbohydrate Diets 7 March 23rd, 2006 01:00 PM
Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets John WIlliams Low Carbohydrate Diets 27 October 7th, 2004 10:19 PM
Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets John WIlliams General Discussion 24 October 7th, 2004 04:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.