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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Net Carb
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message om... Chet Hayes wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Think about why Atkins added fiber subtraction to his counting method late in his life. Mostly it is because Protein Power did that ... Partially it is because many folks stay on Induction and it increases the carbs eaten on Induction and that's generally good since more carbs generally lead to fewer stalls. ... Now think about what the original Atkins approach to fiber deduction was. Insoluble fiber really isn't digested and really can be deducted. A close inspection of the carb counts listed in the early editions of his books show this stance. But solution fiber IS in fact digested by our intestinal bacteria. That's why eating high-soluble-fiber beans cause gas. The trouble with only deducting insoluble fiber is labels list all fiber not soluble and insoluble separately, so only deducting the insoluble part is impractical. At first Dr A didn't recommend deduction but in the end he switched to deduction because the competition had chosen that option. Seems you're confused about the difference between thinking and mind reading. Or did Dr. Atkins discuss his motives and reasoning process on fiber with you personally? And your extrapolation is nothing but pure unfounded speculation. The part about why he originally chose against fiber deduction is discussed in the 1972, 1993 and 1999 editions of the book in dicussions of soluble vs insoluble fiber. The part about why he changed his mind is correctly called speculation but if you feel it is unfounded feel free to offer a better reason than combining beating the competition with the observation that folks eating more veggies tend to do better on Induction. Could it have simply been that more of the science regarding the role of fibre became known and was better understood? I can see how the Atkins process evolved over time and see the changes as a result of a better understanding of the science involved. I see something similar in further refinements in Atkins for Life regarding the glycemic index. It was mentioned in DANDR and certainly the types of foods allowed in DADR and DANDR were naturally low glycemic without people really knowing what the glycemic index/load was. As the science and understanding evolved it gained in significance in Atkins for Life as AGR. Sid... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Net Carb
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message om... Chet Hayes wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Think about why Atkins added fiber subtraction to his counting method late in his life. Mostly it is because Protein Power did that ... Partially it is because many folks stay on Induction and it increases the carbs eaten on Induction and that's generally good since more carbs generally lead to fewer stalls. ... Now think about what the original Atkins approach to fiber deduction was. Insoluble fiber really isn't digested and really can be deducted. A close inspection of the carb counts listed in the early editions of his books show this stance. But solution fiber IS in fact digested by our intestinal bacteria. That's why eating high-soluble-fiber beans cause gas. The trouble with only deducting insoluble fiber is labels list all fiber not soluble and insoluble separately, so only deducting the insoluble part is impractical. At first Dr A didn't recommend deduction but in the end he switched to deduction because the competition had chosen that option. Seems you're confused about the difference between thinking and mind reading. Or did Dr. Atkins discuss his motives and reasoning process on fiber with you personally? And your extrapolation is nothing but pure unfounded speculation. The part about why he originally chose against fiber deduction is discussed in the 1972, 1993 and 1999 editions of the book in dicussions of soluble vs insoluble fiber. The part about why he changed his mind is correctly called speculation but if you feel it is unfounded feel free to offer a better reason than combining beating the competition with the observation that folks eating more veggies tend to do better on Induction. Could it have simply been that more of the science regarding the role of fibre became known and was better understood? I can see how the Atkins process evolved over time and see the changes as a result of a better understanding of the science involved. I see something similar in further refinements in Atkins for Life regarding the glycemic index. It was mentioned in DANDR and certainly the types of foods allowed in DADR and DANDR were naturally low glycemic without people really knowing what the glycemic index/load was. As the science and understanding evolved it gained in significance in Atkins for Life as AGR. Sid... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dr Bernstein's Clinic (Canada) IS NOT Low Carb! | Abby Walker | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 8 | September 5th, 2005 06:13 AM |
Latest "Net Carb" Scam? | Jenny | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | June 26th, 2004 07:00 PM |
Learning How To Get Back On Track | Jenny | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 31 | January 14th, 2004 07:57 PM |
news segment on low carb diets | Jenny | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | November 19th, 2003 08:20 PM |
La Tiara Taco Shells - Important Update | Damsel in dis Dress | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 23 | November 3rd, 2003 12:34 AM |