Atkins Files for Bankruptcy.

And no one cares.....

*** 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. ***

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. ***

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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