New Atkins Book

wrote:

I'd love to hear from someone who's read the book if there is anything
new from a practical standpoint on how to do Atkins.

My wife says she ordered it yesterday. In a couple of months I will
have read it, made notes in it and such.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I'd love to hear from someone who's read the book if there is anything
new from a practical standpoint on how to do Atkins.

My wife says she ordered it yesterday. In a couple of months I will
have read it, made notes in it and such.


My wife read it and is on induction. She's never been able to do low
carb, and feels that this method is more reasonable. Controlled portions
this time, and a more varied diet.


--
JK Sinrod
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

JK Coney wrote:

My wife read it and is on induction. She's never been able to do low
carb, and feels that this method is more reasonable. Controlled portions
this time, and a more varied diet.

I've started reading the "The News Atkins Diet for a New You" book.

Much of it is unchanged from previous books. That is what it tells you
to do is unchanged and that's the core. The way science works is when
you do the repeatable stuff and it works, that's the start of the
science. The explanation part follows the experimental part. So sure
the science is there but the science isn't the thing. What to do is the
thing and what to do is close to unchanged.

There are some errors I've already encountered. There's a statement
that the body can not manufacture its own fat using the energy from
burning fat. It's an ineffecient process but it does happen. It's why
only certain types of fatty acids are essential. Types can be converted
and some saturated types can be created. It's not the only error but so
far all such errors I've encountered have been small ones.

The changes I've encountered so far have been small. Net carb counts
got added shortly after the 2001 edition so this is the first book to
include it. A cup of coffee now counts as liquid intake based on
comparative results.

There's a lot that's completely unchanged except for wording that is
easier to understand. Veggies are mandatory and sure enough they point
out that's been true since the 1972 edition, but at least now there
isn't going to be a debate on the point by folks who dig their heels
into every single point of bad writing on the part of Dr A.

I'll read the book through over the next few weeks then see if my wife
wants to read it. At some point I might go back and make notes in my
copy. I did that with my 2001 edition and 1999 edition but not with my
1993 or 1972 editions.

Susan wrote:

Other low carb site reviewers are calling this book a "major overhaul"
and vastly improved over Atkin's own published books.

Some folks think that the same directions written in a different style
is a major overhaul. It's a valid point of view that fails to consider
what the directions are.

Not the least of which is the inclusion of 50 research studies to
support claims made in the book,

Directions are orthagonal to any justification for those justifications.
This is a point you've never agreed with and you'll never agree with.

1) Keep putting gas into your car whenever the gauge says it's low. The
reason is because the car starts if you don't.

2) Repeat buying petrol for your vehicle when the meter says it's
nearing empty. The reason is a gigantic list of studies about fuel
consumption, mechanical engineering and traffic safety rules.

The two statements are operationally the same because they both tell you
to do the same thing. The two statements have very different
justifications that have nothing to do with the directions.

and an emphasis on higher vegetable consumption.

Which was present in the plan since 1972, as it points out in the second
chapter.

On Apr 20, 12:29*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
JK Coney wrote:

* *My wife read it and is on induction. She's never been able to do low
carb, and feels that this method is more reasonable. Controlled portions
this time, and a more varied diet.

I've started reading the "The News Atkins Diet for a New You" book.

Much of it is unchanged from previous books. *That is what it tells you
to do is unchanged and that's the core. *The way science works is when
you do the repeatable stuff and it works, that's the start of the
science. *The explanation part follows the experimental part. *So sure
the science is there but the science isn't the thing. *What to do is the
thing and what to do is close to unchanged.

There are some errors I've already encountered. *There's a statement
that the body can not manufacture its own fat using the energy from
burning fat. *It's an ineffecient process but it does happen. *It's why
only certain types of fatty acids are essential. *Types can be converted
and some saturated types can be created. *It's not the only error but so
far all such errors I've encountered have been small ones.

The changes I've encountered so far have been small. *Net carb counts
got added shortly after the 2001 edition so this is the first book to
include it.

The 2002 edition of DANDR discusses at length deducting fiber carbs
from the total carb count. He didn't actually use the term "net
carbs", instead calling it "the carbs that count when you do Atkins."
The simpler name likely came later.

wrote:

The 2002 edition of DANDR discusses at length deducting fiber carbs
from the total carb count. He didn't actually use the term "net
carbs", instead calling it "the carbs that count when you do Atkins."
The simpler name likely came later.

Thanks for the correction. My 2002 edition is heavily annotated but I
have not referenced it in several years.

If you look closely at carb counts in the various editions of the books
you'll see signs of a net count as early as the 1972 edition. Some of
the entries in his tables in that book are net so they are wrong if you
look them up and compare them to the USDA site. Early on he discussed
deducting insoluble fiber as a more accurate method but labels never
seem to list fiber by type so doing that would require a separate
counter book with all ingredients listed - Far too much work to be
practical.

He endorsed net carb counts in the last years of his life. I have never
seen a source giving his reasons. I have several theories that I think
explain why he decided that but there's no way to confirm such a theory.
Somewhere along the way I lost my Ouiji board so I don't have the means
to ask him.

On Apr 22, 11:54*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

The 2002 edition of DANDR discusses at length deducting fiber carbs
from the total carb count. * He didn't actually use the term "net
carbs", instead calling it "the carbs that count when you do Atkins."
The simpler name likely came later.

Thanks for the correction. *My 2002 edition is heavily annotated but I
have not referenced it in several years.

If you look closely at carb counts in the various editions of the books
you'll see signs of a net count as early as the 1972 edition. *Some of
the entries in his tables in that book are net so they are wrong if you
look them up and compare them to the USDA site. *Early on he discussed
deducting insoluble fiber as a more accurate method but labels never
seem to list fiber by type so doing that would require a separate
counter book with all ingredients listed - Far too much work to be
practical.

He endorsed net carb counts in the last years of his life. *I have never
seen a source giving his reasons. *I have several theories that I think
explain why he decided that but there's no way to confirm such a theory.
Somewhere along the way I lost my Ouiji board so I don't have the means
to ask him.


He explained it in Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution, 2002, pages 74-78.
He stated that fiber was not digestible, had no impact on blood
glucose levels, and hence could be deducted from carb counts.

wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

He endorsed net carb counts in the last years of his life. *I have never
seen a source giving his reasons. *I have several theories that I think
explain why he decided that but there's no way to confirm such a theory.
Somewhere along the way I lost my Ouiji board so I don't have the means
to ask him.

He explained it in Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution, 2002, pages 74-78.
He stated that fiber was not digestible, had no impact on blood
glucose levels, and hence could be deducted from carb counts.

That explains accepting a net carb count. Given that he'd gone with
total carb counts inconsistantly at least as far back as 1972 it does
not explain why he switched.

Because the Atkins Nutritional Approach uses the body's reactions to the
food eaten to determine carb intake levels the actual food eaten during
the stable parts of the plan are the same no matter how you chose to
count. That makes net versus total counts not a matter of the food to
be eaten during those times.

Susan wrote:

The problem with net carb counts is that we digest and react to about
half the calories in fiber,

Early on DR Atkins suggested deducting insoluble fiber but not soluble
fiber. Not being termites humans do not get any calories from
digestible fiber. Having intestinal bacteria that does digest soluble
fiber humans get roughly half of the calories from soluble fiber. But
labels do not give the partial counts of the two types.

so deducting them often gives worse results,
at least glucose meters seem to think so.

A lot of folks say that because the fiber is digesting into "short chain
fatty acids" and thus are not converted into carbs. I thought the
fiber got digested to lactic acid not a fatty acid so I never got what
the statement meant. Your meter readings mean more than such
statements I say.

Do you suggest counting half of fiber calories as carb or carb-alike
because of your meter readings? Meter readings are hard data on the
topic.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Susan wrote:

The problem with net carb counts is that we digest and react to about
half the calories in fiber,

Early on DR Atkins suggested deducting insoluble fiber but not soluble
fiber. Not being termites humans do not get any calories from
digestible fiber. Having intestinal bacteria that does digest soluble
fiber humans get roughly half of the calories from soluble fiber. But
labels do not give the partial counts of the two types.

so deducting them often gives worse results,
at least glucose meters seem to think so.

A lot of folks say that because the fiber is digesting into "short chain
fatty acids" and thus are not converted into carbs. I thought the
fiber got digested to lactic acid not a fatty acid so I never got what
the statement meant. Your meter readings mean more than such
statements I say.

Do you suggest counting half of fiber calories as carb or carb-alike
because of your meter readings? Meter readings are hard data on the
topic.

Fiber: fatty-acids, proteins? I thought fiber was like cellulose,
insoluble glucose chains.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html