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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Atkins Files for Bankruptcy.
And no one cares..... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
They filed for chapter 11 on July 31, 2005.
http://www.newsday.com/business/sns-...-leadheadlines. I do use a few of their product line and nutritional supplements, but never paid the ridiculous prices- I wait for the stuff to go on sale-who wants to pay $6.00 for muffin mix! Also lets face it. If you truly are watching your intake of food and eating a good variety of fresh & whole foods- a box of "low carb" muffins yielding 10 muffins should last at least a week The only item I really will need to find a good substitution is the vitamins. I'm sure I'll find one. Chapter 11 is restructuring- they really did need this. Restructure back to the basic nutritional concept of eating low carb. Diane "Saffire" wrote in message .. . *** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- it's appearance in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. *** In article , says... And no one cares..... I haven't seen an official source for it yet, but since you are the third person who has mentioned it, I'll assume it's true. Why should we care about it unless we own stock or one of us works for them and, thus, our job is in jeopardy? It's not like we have to depend upon them as a food source. It's bad news because it usually IS bad news when any business declares bankruptcy. Bad for the economy and all. It also means that other manufacturers will be more likely not to venture into the low-carb market. Face it, though, the low-carb market went bust about a year ago as far as manufacturers were concerned, low-carb products have been disappearing from shelves right and left well before now. Does it mean that lots of people gave up on low-carb? Probably, especially if they never figured out that they didn't need to live on convenience food in order to eat low-carb. It also means that smart people who STAYED low carb or decided to go for it anyway figured out that they don't NEED to buy overpriced fake food in order to be successful at low-carbing. -- Saffire 205/134/125 Atkins since 6/14/03 Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333 *** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- it's appearance in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. *** |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Saffire wrote: I haven't seen an official source for it yet, but since you are the third person who has mentioned it, I'll assume it's true. Why should we care about it unless we own stock or one of us works for them and, thus, our job is in jeopardy? It's not like we have to depend upon them as a food source. It's bad news because it usually IS bad news when any business declares bankruptcy. Bad for the economy and all. It also means that other manufacturers will be more likely not to venture into the low-carb market. Face it, though, the low-carb market went bust about a year ago as far as manufacturers were concerned, low-carb products have been disappearing from shelves right and left well before now. Does it mean that lots of people gave up on low-carb? Probably, especially if they never figured out that they didn't need to live on convenience food in order to eat low-carb. It also means that smart people who STAYED low carb or decided to go for it anyway figured out that they don't NEED to buy overpriced fake food in order to be successful at low-carbing. -- Saffire 205/134/125 Atkins since 6/14/03 Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333 *** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- it's appearance in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. *** It's an actual news item; here's the Google News link of articles: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...ss/4733893.stm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Saffire wrote: *** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- it's appearance in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. *** In article , says... And no one cares..... I haven't seen an official source for it yet, but since you are the third person who has mentioned it, I'll assume it's true. Why should we care about it unless we own stock or one of us works for them and, thus, our job is in jeopardy? It's not like we have to depend upon them as a food source. It's bad news because it usually IS bad news when any business declares bankruptcy. Bad for the economy and all. It also means that other manufacturers will be more likely not to venture into the low-carb market. Face it, though, the low-carb market went bust about a year ago as far as manufacturers were concerned, low-carb products have been disappearing from shelves right and left well before now. Does it mean that lots of people gave up on low-carb? Probably, especially if they never figured out that they didn't need to live on convenience food in order to eat low-carb. It also means that smart people who STAYED low carb or decided to go for it anyway figured out that they don't NEED to buy overpriced fake food in order to be successful at low-carbing. Plus the vast majority of fad, commercial low carb food, wasn't low carb. ;-) The manufacturers were just too clueless for words!!!!!! -- Om. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
diane wrote:
The only item I really will need to find a good substitution is the vitamins. I'm sure I'll find one. Not difficult. I may have bought Basic-3 once. There are many brands of quality supplements out there. They range from $100 per month ones from MLM companies (Herbalife, Sunrider, you name it) through GNC brands through generics. I look for a generic marked "compare with Theragram-M" or I go to a less expensive GNC knock off shop. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Atkins deserved to fail because they invented the "let's pretend out
food doesn't have carbs" strategy that led to the emergence of hundreds of high carb "low carb" products that derailed millions of would-be low carb dieters. The products failed because they ruined the diet for many people who tried them. I would be rich if I had a buck for everyone I've met who has "tried a low carb diet but it didn't work" whose "low carb diet" included a couple "3 gram" Atkins bars each day with their 20+ grams of blood sugar-raising glycerin. My trusty blood sugar meter quickly ferreted out the truth about the "net carb" scam. Unfortunately, millions of consumers did not have access to that information and trusted the lying labels. How effective the phony Atkins sanctioned "net carb" crap has been in destroying the credibility of low carb dieting is obvious to anyone who looks at the daily traffic on this newsgroup and compares it to what we had a few years ago before the "net carb" products hit the market. And to those who argue that the newsgroup slowed because low carbing became mainstream, I say, "keep dreaming." This newsgroup was extremely active for a good 6 years while low carb bestseller after low carb bestseller hit the media and the diet became extremely high profile. It was only after the bogus low carb food plague hit--with Atkins Nutritionals Scarlet Letter on each package of diet-busting garbage that we saw the collapse. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Jenny wrote: Atkins deserved to fail because they invented the "let's pretend out food doesn't have carbs" strategy that led to the emergence of hundreds of high carb "low carb" products that derailed millions of would-be low carb dieters. The products failed because they ruined the diet for many people who tried them. I would be rich if I had a buck for everyone I've met who has "tried a low carb diet but it didn't work" whose "low carb diet" included a couple "3 gram" Atkins bars each day with their 20+ grams of blood sugar-raising glycerin. My trusty blood sugar meter quickly ferreted out the truth about the "net carb" scam. Unfortunately, millions of consumers did not have access to that information and trusted the lying labels. How effective the phony Atkins sanctioned "net carb" crap has been in destroying the credibility of low carb dieting is obvious to anyone who looks at the daily traffic on this newsgroup and compares it to what we had a few years ago before the "net carb" products hit the market. And to those who argue that the newsgroup slowed because low carbing became mainstream, I say, "keep dreaming." This newsgroup was extremely active for a good 6 years while low carb bestseller after low carb bestseller hit the media and the diet became extremely high profile. It was only after the bogus low carb food plague hit--with Atkins Nutritionals Scarlet Letter on each package of diet-busting garbage that we saw the collapse. So you are saying that Net carbs are bogus? -- Om. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
Jenny wrote: Atkins deserved to fail because they invented the "let's pretend out food doesn't have carbs" strategy that led to the emergence of hundreds of high carb "low carb" products that derailed millions of would-be low carb dieters. I would be rich if I had a buck for everyone I've met who has "tried a low carb diet but it didn't work" whose "low carb diet" included a couple "3 gram" Atkins bars each day with their 20+ grams of blood sugar-raising glycerin. I trimmed what I believe to be the applicable parts. I think "net carbs" in the form of subtracting *fiber* is valid. Folks do tend to viw the validity of fiber deduction (debatable as it is) and then jump directly to the conclusion that all of the claims about Net carbs" are true and it isn't the case. I think that "net carbs" in the form of subtracting glycerine is utterly and completely false. Glycerine is a form of glycerol and it is converted to glucose in the body at nearly 100% efficiency. That conversion is a part of fat metabolism that's been evolved into cells since before there were multicellular creatures evolved on Earth. The claim is that since the 100% gram-for-gram conversion to glucose happens slowly it doesn't need to be counted. If that's true, why are the carbs from brocolli to be counted when they are also absorbed slowly? Any claim about "net carb' deduction from glycerine is a flat out lie. Utter nonsense. I think that "net carbs" in the form of subtractions sugar alcohols is nonsense for a very different reason. Some people absorb none, some some, some all of the carbs in sugar alcohol. What's nonsense isn't that some can be deducted, it's the claim that it applies to everyone. It certainly does not apply to everyone. Anyone wishing to deduct sugar alcohol carbs is taking a wild guess unless they conduct some experiments on themselves. Believing a label just out of trust is a very poor experiment. The diabetes society gives conversion charts that show percentages deductible by SA types that's a much better wild guess than believing labels. For folks who have already conducted the necessary experiments, they know exactly how much SA they can deduct (err, one experiment tells 0% from 100%, two experiments gives 50%, the third down to 0/25/50/100% and so on so it takes 5 experiments to get to finer than 0/10/20/30...%). For folks who have not, they are guessing. Guessing based on a label's claim that it applies to everyone is guessing based on a lie. So you are saying that Net carbs are bogus? If you restrict your net deductions to fiber and only fiber, it's fine. There are labels that claim other deductions that are not fine. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Jenny wrote:
Atkins deserved to fail because they invented the "let's pretend out food doesn't have carbs" strategy that led to the emergence of hundreds of high carb "low carb" products that derailed millions of would-be low carb dieters. Oh, come on Jenny. "Derailed *millions* of would-be low carb dieters"? You know the history of lowcarbing. When Atkins came out in the '70s lots of people tried it then and probably less than a fraction of 1% stuck to it. Which products derailed them? The fact is, low-carbing requires significant changes for people accustomed to eating a high-carb western diet. Most people don't have the discipline, the flexibility, or the willingness to experiment and find out what tweaks make it work best for them. I'm no advocate for the Atkins products - most of them taste pretty nasty and the shake mix bloated me so much I could have been an extra in the Willy Wonka movie. But, that's not to say that low carb products can't be part of a low carb plan. I keep a box of strive bars in my cupboard - they're useful if I'm going to be out and need a meal on the run. The products failed because they ruined the diet for many people who tried them. I would be rich if I had a buck for everyone I've met who has "tried a low carb diet but it didn't work" whose "low carb diet" included a couple "3 gram" Atkins bars each day with their 20+ grams of blood sugar-raising glycerin. Yeah, and in the '70s people were using too much cream and thought they could eat as much steak as they could hold. The fact is, there are all sorts of ways for people to go off the rails. The problem isn't the steak or the faux-muffins - it's the people who aren't willing to understand that weight loss requires that fewer calories come in than go out. Martha |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Robin Smith | Low Calorie | 9 | October 15th, 2010 02:51 PM |
Cigarette Smoking, Atkins/Low Carb: learn from history.What cost Free Press. | Steve Randy Shilts Bayt | General Discussion | 23 | July 11th, 2004 12:38 AM |
Cigarette Smoking, Atkins/Low Carb: learn from history.What cost Free Press. | Steve Randy Shilts Bayt | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 23 | July 11th, 2004 12:38 AM |
AIDS, Anthrax, Atkins....Scarlett A's Part II | Steve Randy Shilts Bayt | General Discussion | 18 | July 8th, 2004 09:47 PM |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works | Jim Marnott | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 108 | December 12th, 2003 03:12 AM |