Atkins Now Revises Fat Advice--NYTimes

[RoseTattoo]

January 18, 2004--The New York Times
Make That Steak a Bit Smaller, Atkins Advises Today's Dieters
By MARIAN BURROS

fter advising dieters for years to satisfy their hunger with liberal amounts of steak, eggs and other saturated fats, the promoters of the Atkins diet now say that people on their plan should limit the amount of red meat and saturated fat they eat.

Responding to years of criticism from scientists that the Atkins version of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat regimen might lead to heart disease and other health problems, the director of research and education for Atkins Nutritionals, Colette Heimowitz, is telling health professionals in seminars around the country that only 20 percent of a dieter's calories should come from saturated fat. Atkins Nutritionals was set up by Dr. Robert C. Atkins to sell Atkins products and promote the diet.

An Atkins spokesman said Ms. Heimowitz has been giving these seminars for five years, but that they do not represent a departure from the original premise of the diet.

Atkins representatives say that Dr. Atkins, who died last year, always maintained that people should eat other food besides red meat, but had difficulty getting that message out. There has been a revision in expressing how the diet should be followed, not in the diet itself, they say.

But officials have not made the revision clear to consumers, and Atkins is widely known as the diet that lets you eat all the meat you want.

Dr. Atkins did more than anyone else to popularize the idea that dieters could eat fat and lose weight. As millions followed his advice, sales of red meat soared and steakhouses grew in popularity. His book "Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution" has sold 15 million copies. Atkins Nutritionals reported $100 million in revenues for 2002.

The change comes as Atkins faces competition from other popular low-carbohydrate diets that call for less saturated fat. A book on one such plan, the South Beach Diet, came out in April 2003 and has sold more than five million copies. Atkins representatives made the revision, Ms. Heimowitz said, because "we want physicians to feel comfortable with this diet, and we want people who are going to their physicians with this diet to feel comfortable."

The Atkins regimen remains a high-fat diet. But Atkins officials are specifying the amount that should be saturated — the kind that comes from meat, cheese and butter — and the amount that should be unsaturated — the kind that comes from most vegetable oils and fish. The revision places more emphasis on fish and chicken.

Paul D. Wolff, the chief executive of Atkins Nutritionals, said the company is trying to get its message out clearly. "The way the book was promoted was, here's the program that is counterintuitive," Mr. Wolff said. " `You can eat a lot of bacon and steak.' It was the marketing of the book. The media saw it as a sexy story."

"Perhaps what was communicated in the past was unclear," he said. "We would agree with that."

So why not tell people straight out that you can't eat all the steak and eggs you want, Mr. Wolff was asked.

"Interesting question," he said as he hung up to catch a plane.

The clarification came as a surprise to Atkins dieters who were interviewed. "A lot of people will be totally shocked," said Ellen Bain, a graphic designer in Brooklyn. The message she said she had taken away from reading Atkins books and Web sites was: "The fat in the diet is very good for you; it doesn't make any difference what kind of fat it is. There are no limits of any kind in the meat department, like steak and eggs for breakfast, a burger for lunch and beef stir-fry for dinner."

Ms. Bain, who said she has lost 48 pounds on the Atkins diet since July 1, said, "Is it possible that now they are revising their thinking?"

Beef, pork, lamb and butter were on the list of "foods you may eat liberally" in "The New Diet Revolution," first published in 1992; its update is No. 1 on the New York Times advice, how-to and miscellaneous paperback best-seller list.

"Atkins for Life," the newest book written by Dr. Atkins and published a few months before his death last year, says: "You should always eat a balance of different types of natural fat." The precise proportion of saturated and unsaturated fat was unspecified, Ms. Heimowitz said, because "trying to tell consumers to do math is futile."

Russ Klein, a marketing executive, who has been on Atkins since Dec. 21, interpreted the phrase "foods you may eat liberally" to mean "eat until you are full." And, he added, "I think it's probably true you can eat all the red meat you want."

Ms. Heimowitz said people read the phrase "eat liberally" as a license to gorge on red meat. "Not making a distinction between one kind of protein and another, that was a mistake," Ms. Heimowitz, "and that is why we had to write another book, to get the story straight."

But, she added, "Even in the old book it says `eat until you are satisfied but not stuffed.' "

Total fat in the revised Atkins diet remains much higher than other diets recommend: 60 percent of the calories are still derived from fat, which is twice the level recommended by the Agriculture Department. Of that, one-third can be saturated fat — also twice the level recommended by the department. The rest should be poly- and mono-unsaturated fats.

That means that a person who eats 1,500 calories a day could eat a 17-ounce strip steak every day, according to Mindy Hermann, a registered dietitian. After the first phase of the diet, the amount of fat allowed drops to 55 percent, but the percentage of saturated fat stays the same.

Dr. Atkins said that carbohydrates caused obesity and eating fat helped regulate levels of insulin, which helps produce body fat. Ms. Heimowitz said, "Saturated fat isn't as much of an issue when carbohydrates are controlled; it's only dangerous in excess when carbs are high."

But Dr. Frank M. Sacks, a professor of cardiovascular disease prevention at the Harvard School of Public Health, scoffed at those scientific claims. "What they are saying is ridiculous," he said. The revision, he added, " has nothing to do with science; it has to do with public relations and politics."

The medical establishment largely disputes Dr. Atkins's reasoning and says that high levels of saturated fats are dangerous.

Dr. George L. Blackburn, associate director in the division of nutrition at Harvard Medical School, said the diet's new version is "definitely healthier," but that "all of the studies we have on Atkins are based on the Atkins of the 1970's: eat all you can as long as you keep carbs out."



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

[RoseTattoo]

This is surprising--what do you all think?

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=160227

[Zuleikaa]

I think it's just marketing. I think it's also setting the stage for all the new lc products.

[cmcole]

It's always good to maintain a variety in your diet, and choose foods from many sources.

I think, perhaps, people only thought "beef" when they thought protein (or meat), and forget that there are many choices to be made. If you look at any of the list of "acceptable" foods from Atkins, you'll see lots, besides beef.

However, it seems like people always need a "new" angle on things. As someone else said, it's possibly marketing - make Atkins seem "new" again.

[tofi]

I think that Dr. Atkins is gone and the company is thinking more of its market share than almost anything else.

I think it is trying to combat the worst of the "nutritionists" objections to the 'eat all you want' concept - which was NEVER true. How may people can or even tried to eat a pound of bacon at a sitting or a huge steak? And don't you eat more veggies and salad now than ever?

It may be positioning itself to introduce even more new products. I wish that there would be more emphasis on eating REAL FOOD and less on finding substitutes for the high carb foods. That might help more in changing our eating patterns than using substitutes that are "lower Carb" but not as good as real food.

Grumble, grumble, grumble. Why doesn't Dr. A. come back and haunt them?

[Bonzlee]

I agree with Tofi. It sounds like PR crap to me. It even says in the article that they're changing their tune because:
"we want physicians to feel comfortable with this diet, and we want people who are going to their physicians with this diet to feel comfortable."

I have a strong suspicion this would not have happened if Dr. Atkins was still alive. This is really sad because it adds fuel to the fire of criticism that has haunted Atkins in recent years.

I'm not changing the way I'm eating because of this. This is working for me! Anybody else?

[Kristine]

I'm confused. The Atkins folks sound about as clear as mud.

If they were referring mainly to the people who start out on Atkins with four bacon double cheeseburgers a day, and no other sources of fat, I'd agree with them. Let's face it - people have to kind of be pushed into grinding flaxseeds and gulping fish oil.

But they seem to be emphasizing limiting the saturated fat, rather than increasing the other fats. Are they caving to the pressure? Are they trying to push the sale to mainstream doctors?

[nursey15]

I agree too. But I should be fine. I eat beef maybe once a week if that, I love chicken and always have, I have chicken probably 4-5 times a week, and pork 1-2 times a week. Beef, hardly ever. I'm getting old- beef is hard to chew :lol:

[tholian8]

I think both, in addition to good old fashioned CYA...just in case the anti-sat-fat folks push a lawsuit some day.

Emily

[doreen T]

The fat that comes packaged by Mother Nature in red meats and poultry is not pure saturated fat. In fact it's less than 50% saturates, and nearly 45% monounsaturates. Unfortunately, most people don't realise that .. they think animal fat is pure saturates.


Doreen

[VALEWIS]

I think it is truly sad that Atkins Co are bowing to the anti-sat fats pressure. I have still not read any good science showing that sat fats are bad for you except when consumed with bad carbs. I think there are enough folks around the world who eat largely sat fats to show that the human body can adapt well to that, but that eating too many processed carbs leads to bad health.

Val

[potatofree]

Why do you assume they're bowing to outside pressure? Just being the devil's advocate here, but maybe they're revising the guidelines because they've learned more? I don't think it's THAT far-fetched to say it's better to eat a variety of natural fats....

[tofi]

It's so silly. To quote Doreen T's post in another thread:

The fat that comes packaged by Mother Nature in red meats and poultry is not pure saturated fat. In fact it's less than 50% saturates, and nearly 45% monounsaturates. Unfortunately, most people don't realise that .. they think animal fat is pure saturates.

[Lisa N]

maybe they're revising the guidelines because they've learned more?

Perhaps, but then why not come out and say that further research has indicated that it's better to eat less saturated fat instead of what Ms. Heimowitz said:

Atkins representatives made the revision, Ms. Heimowitz said, because "we want physicians to feel comfortable with this diet, and we want people who are going to their physicians with this diet to feel comfortable."

This indicates to me that it has nothing to do with any new knowledge that they may have come across, but making the Atkins approach "more palatable" to mainstream medicine.

[potatofree]

..and if this gets more doctors to put their patients on Atkins, how could it be a bad thing?

[TarHeel]

The way the book was promoted was, here's the program that is counterintuitive,"

I'm sorry. Can you run that by me one more time?

I believe in the Atkins approach to eating. I have been very disappointed in the Atkins Nutritional Center site. I once sent them an email, and the response was a canned response from their FAQ area which did not address my question even remotely. Business is business, folks.....

Doesn't make this WOl less effective and enjoyable,

Kay

[Lisa N]

..and if this gets more doctors to put their patients on Atkins, how could it be a bad thing?

I think that's the heart of it, actually; they want doctors to put their patients on Atkins (and of course recommend Atkins products and books), not South Beach or some similar plan not tied to the Atkins products. Not because they've learned anything new about saturated fats, but because they fear loss of $$ if they don't change their position on them. In my view, it's no longer about what's right and healthy for the body, but the corporate bottom line.

All the time Dr. Atkins was alive, he refused to back down on his position on saturated fats because he believed that they were not harmful when eaten in combination with a lower carb intake. Now that he's gone, the corporation that bears his name is in effect doing just that in response (as I see it) to a competing plan that limits saturated fats.

[MyJourney]

this whole thread just makes me sad

[VALEWIS]

Potatofree has made a good point, but I too feel sad about this turn. Those of us who have not bought the anti sat-fats argument will feel slightly 'betrayed.'

Val

[gotbeer]

Atkins CORPORATION (not Dr. Atkins) is doing the "smart" thing economically: bowing to the ascendant South Beach in hopes of engaging it, compromising with it, and hence, curtailing it.

The problem is this: South Beach exploits the popular but unsubstantiated pseudo-science about sat-fat. Atkins engages the truth: sat-fat, despite the pr, has little or no actual science against it.

BE STRONG! Cleave to the actual science - and ignore Post-Atkins crap just like you would low-fat, until they can prove their silly lies with actual results.

[Dean4Prez]

How many of us are going to have to have the "saturated fat" conversation with friends or relatives again? Looks like crow is back on the menu, boys!

[VALEWIS]

Probably not too many...especially if you trot out the argument that meat fats are only half unsaturated, and that some sat fats are necessary for dealing with vitamins. The you get into the anti trans fats and pro mono fats and you've got them.

Val

[ItsTheWooo]

This is depressing. It seems pretty obvious to me what is going on here; the folks running the Atkins empire are giving the diet a makeover to make it more attractive to potential users. They want doctors to be comfortable with it, as comfortable with it as they are with south beach. They want more money and don't really care about truth or health.

Everyone thinks saturated fat is evil, and rather than be a pioneer for truth like Dr. Atkins they are yeilding to pressure for profits.

Sadly, the Atkins name or brand really can't be trusted any more now than any other company as far as I'm concerned.

[ItsTheWooo]

..and if this gets more doctors to put their patients on Atkins, how could it be a bad thing?
Or look at this from another angle. If the profit seekers who are in charge of the atkins empire keep this attitude up... how long will it be until Atkins resembles south beach, where people are advised to eat as little sat fat as possible?

How long until we are told total carbohydrate intake and type of carbohydrate isn't that important?

How long until Atkins is changed to look more like the zone... and then weight watchers so physicians are "comfortable" with the plan?

Sorry but no sale here. If Dr. Atkins took this kind of cowing before establishment attitude so many decades ago, I would be 300 pounds right now.

[potatofree]

(shrug) I guess I have the perfect ammunition for Atkins followers who bash Dr Phil for being a hypocrite...

[ItsTheWooo]

How many of us are going to have to have the "saturated fat" conversation with friends or relatives again? Looks like crow is back on the menu, boys!

That's another thing... Dr. Atkins told us all saturated fat, a natural fat, posed no particular danger when insulin and blood sugar was stabilized. We put our personal credibility behind the validity of this statement because we all had faith in Dr. Atkins knowledge of nutrition, since he helped us all in individual ways. He had seen thousands people come through his private practice, I think if he found sat fat to be dangerous he himself would have recommending us moderating intake of it.

However now the profit seekers are bastardizing his approach to compete with south beach (the low carb diet which preys on peoples fear of BOTH saturated fat and refined carbs), which not only shames the late Dr. Atkins, but people like you and me as well who have to hear about how "they were right" from our anti-sat-fat families and friends.

[ItsTheWooo]

(shrug) I guess I have the perfect ammunition for Atkins followers who bash Dr Phil for being a hypocrite...
It would be true, except for the fact this wouldn't have happened if Dr. Atkins was alive, whereas Dr. Phil still has control over the actions of his company(s)...

[potatofree]

They started churning out high-priced frankenfoods while he was alive.... who knows?

[NYorker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/nyregion/18DIET.html?hp


And I just came home from eating a giant filet wrapped in bacon too.

[ICountToo]

Anybody seen anything new about how they expect us to break stalls? Is the fat fast no longer used? Is there going to be a new book?

I'm not changing anything until the rules are clarified.

[Grimalkin]

Anybody seen anything new about how they expect us to break stalls?

Um, what do you bet they'll tell you to just "to eat fewer calories and exercise more"?

[katwoman]

I'm not changing anything regardless of new rules. I believe in this plan, as written by Dr. A.

[mle_ii]

I plan on sticking with what Atkins last wrote. That is unless there is a substantial amount of evidence saying that eating Sat fat while eating low carb is bad.

I think that it is a shame if the Atkins company has caved in to those who have no real evidence to back their claims up and changed the diet for financial reasons and not health reasons. Though they might make money on this in the short term in the long term they will lose out.

This will, I believe, cause those who have used Dr Atkins diet in its current form to not support Atkins Nutritionals any more. As others have said they have gone down the bad path with their sale of frakinfoods and this will cast even more bad light on the company.

They had better come out with the study that demonstrates the reason why they changed the diet, otherwise I will no longer support their company in any way, shape or form.

[MayMay]

And I thought I was confused b4??????? All I DO know is that EVERYTHING I tried b4, and I've tried them all, DID NOT WORK. THIS DOES, whether it has the Atkins name on it or not, IT WORKS!!!!!!, SO, I will continue. If I keep the weight on, I die. If I find a way to take it off, maybe, just maybe, I'll be around a little longer. If not, then I won't have to worry about the weight issue any longer. Hang in there troops. They just have so many famous folks loosing on South Beach, they want to compete. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$

[Nancy LC]

Also point out that plant based saturated fats might in fact be very healthful. Drop the word "medium chain triglycerides" and that'll probably stop any further debate. :p

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/coconut_oil.html

What are some of the contradictions to the hypothesis blaming saturated fat?
Recently, an editorial by Harvard's Walter Willett, M.D. in the American Journal of Public Health (1990) acknowledged that even though


"the focus of dietary recommendations is usually a reduction of saturated fat intake, no relation between saturated fat intake and risk of CHD was observed in the most informative prospective study to date."

Another editorial, this time by Framingham's William P. Castelli in the Archives of Internal Medicine (1992), declared for the record that

"...in Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol... the opposite of what the equations provided by Hegsted at al (1965) and Keys et al (1957) would predict..."
Castelli further admitted that

"...In Framingham, for example, we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least, and were the most physically active."

[Nancy LC]

Oh wow! I happened to buy a jar of coconut oil on a whim, then I looked up coconut oil to see why this oil was supposed to be good (it's about 100% saturated fats) and finding a lot of stuff about it. I'm thinking the saturated fat thing is another example of junk science.

Here's an excerpt, which slams CSPI
http://www.apcc.org.sg/special.htm
III. ORIGINS OF THE ANTI-SATURATED FAT AGENDA
The coconut industry has suffered more than three decades of abusive rhetoric from the consumer activist group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), from the American Soybean Association (ASA) and other members of the edible oil industry, and from those in the medical and scientific community who learned their misinformation from groups like CSPI and ASA. I would like to review briefly the origins of the anti-saturated fat, anti-tropical oil campaigns and hopefully give you some useful insight into the issues.
When and how did the anti-saturated fat story begin? It really began in part in the late 1950s, when a researcher in Minnesota announced that the heart disease epidemic was being caused by hydrogenated vegetable fats. The edible oil industry's response at that time was to claim it was only the saturated fat in the hydrogenated oils that was causing the problem. The industry then announced that it would be changing to partially hydrogenated fats and that this would solve the problem.
In actual fact, there was no change because the oils were already being partially hydrogenated, and the levels of saturated fatty acids remained similar, as did the levels of the trans fatty acids. The only thing that really changed was the term for hydrogenation or hardening listed on the food label.
During this same period, a researcher in Philadelphia reported that consuming polyunsaturated fatty acids lowered serum cholesterol. This researcher, however, neglected to include the information that the lowering was due to the cholesterol going into the tissues, such as the liver and the arteries. As a result of this research report and the acceptance of this new agenda by the domestic edible oils industries, there was a gradual increase in the emphasis on replacing "saturated fats" in the diet and on the consuming of larger amounts of the "polyunsaturated fats." As many of you probably know, this strong emphasis on consuming polyunsaturates has backfired in many ways: the current adjustments being recommended in the U.S. by groups such as the National Academy of Sciences replace the saturates with monounsaturates instead of with polyunsaturates and replace polyunsaturates with monounsaturates.
Early promoters of the anti-saturated fat ideas included companies such as Corn Products Company (CPC International) through a book written by Jeremiah Stamler in 1963, with the professional edition published in 1966 by CPC. This book took some of the earliest pejorative stabs at the tropical oils. In 1963, the only tropical fat or oil singled out as high in saturated fats was coconut oil. Palm oil had not entered the U.S. food supply to any extent, had not become a commercial threat to the domestic oils, and was not recognized in any of the early texts. An observation by the editorial staff of Consumer Reports noted that

"...in 1962...one writer observed, the average American now fears fat (saturated fat, that is) 'as he once feared witches.'"
In 1965, a representative of Procter and Gamble told the American Heart Association to change its Diet/Heart statement, removing any reference to the trans fatty acids. This altered official document encouraged the consumption of partially hydrogenated fats. In the 1970s, this same Procter and Gamble employee served as nutrition chairman in two controlling positions for the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute's Lipid Research Clinic (LRC) trials and as director of one of the LRC centers. These LRC trials were the basis for the 1984 NIH Cholesterol Consensus Conference, which in turn spawned the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). This program encourages consumption of margarine and partially hydrogenated fats, while admitting that trans should not be consumed in excess. The official NCEP document states that "...coconut oil, palm oil, and palm kernel oil...should be avoided..."
In 1966, the U.S. Department of Agriculture documents on fats and oils talked about how unstable the unsaturated fats and oils were. There was no criticism of the saturated fats. That criticism of saturated fat was to come later to this agency when it came under the influence of the domestic edible fats and oils industry, and when it developed the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. These Dietary Guidelines became very anti-saturated fat and remain so to this day. Nevertheless, as we will learn later in my talk, there has started some reversal of the anti-saturated fat stance in the works in this agency in 1998.
In the early 1970s, although a number of researchers were voicing concerns about the trans fats, the edible oil industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were engaging in a revolving-door exchange that would (i) promote the increasing consumption of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, (ii) would condemn the saturated fats, and (iii) hide the trans issue. As an example of this "oily" exchange, in 1971 the FDA's general counsel became president of the edible oil trade association, and he in turn was replaced at the FDA by a food lawyer who had represented the edible oil industry.
From that point on, the truth about any real effects of the dietary fats had to play catch-up. The American edible oil industry sponsored "information" to educate the public, and the natural dairy and animal fats industries were inept at countering any of that misinformation. Not being domestically grown in the U.S., coconut oil, palm oil, and palm kernel oil were not around to defend themselves at that time. The government agencies responsible for disseminating information ignored those protesting "lone voices," and by the mid-1980s, American food manufacturers and consumers had made major changes in their fats and oils usage -- away from the safe saturated fats and headlong into the problematic trans fats.
Enig and Fallon (1998/1999) have reviewed the above history in "The Oiling of America" published in the Australian magazine Nexus. The magazine has placed this review on the internet and it can be viewed or downloaded from the Nexus website. The internet addresses for the websites are http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/OilingAmerica.1.html and http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/OilingAmerica.2.html

Harrumph! It gets worse:

VII. COMPARISON OF SATURATED FATS WITH THE TRANS FATS
The statement that trans fatty acids are like saturated fatty acids is not correct for biological systems. A listing of the biological effects of saturated fatty acids in the diet versus the biological effects of trans fatty acids in the diet is in actuality a listing of the good (saturated) versus the bad (trans).
When one compares the saturated fatty acids and the trans fatty acids, we see that
(1) saturated fatty acids raise HDL cholesterol, the so-called good cholesterol, whereas the trans fatty acids lower HDL cholesterol (Mensink and Katan 1990, Judd et al 1994);
(2) saturated fatty acids lower the blood levels of the atherogenic lipoprotein [a], whereas trans fatty acids raise the blood levels of lipoprotein [a] (Khosla and Hayes 1996, Hornstra et al 1991, Clevidence et al 1997);
(3) saturated fatty acids conserve the elongated omega-3 fatty acids (Gerster 1998), whereas trans fatty acids cause the tissues to lose these omega-3 fatty acids (Sugano and Ikeda 1996);
(4) saturated fatty acids do not inhibit insulin binding, whereas trans fatty acids do inhibit insulin binding;
(5) saturated fatty acids are the normal fatty acids made by the body, and they do not interfere with enzyme functions such as the delta-6-desaturase, whereas trans fatty acids are not made by the body, and they interfere with many enzyme functions such as delta-6-desaturase;
and
(6) some saturated fatty acids are used by the body to fight viruses, bacteria, and protozoa, and they support the immune system, whereas trans fatty acids interfere with the function of the immune system.



My thought at this point is people are trying to manipulate the food industry and government to force us to eat what is most profitable to them. So my gut instinct is to disbelieve everyone until there are better studies done that aren't sponsered by industry.

So... I eat what I think is right: A mixture of fats that I think are healthful and tasty. That includes lots of saturated fats, coconut oil, butter and try to get omega's in my diet too. It's sort of like praying to all the gods and hoping that one of them is listening. :p

[Grimalkin]

I agree: it's all about profit and the bottom line, marketing a diet as you would an article of clothing to the public. Throw away the science and make it fashionable so it sells!

As for the science, combine the above two articles with the one Gotbeer posted about peer review and all you have left is a lot of junk. It makes perfect sense in a way: eating cheap foods profits many food industries, and the resulting diseases profit the pharmaceutical industries. I believe they care nothing for our health. They also represent a major source of funding for the sorts of studies that villify or vindicate saturated fats; the results tend to be predictable.

[CindySue48]

I'm not changing anything regardless of new rules. I believe in this plan, as written by Dr. A.

You got that right!

[Turtle2003]

He must be spinning in his grave.

[daninmidmo]

From a paleo viewpoint, if you get grass fed (and grass finished) meat and dairy, it should be 100% healthy to eat it all. There are studies that the sat fat from grain feeding (known as the secondhand carb effect) causes problems, not animals fed as by nature they would eat.

I use unhydrogenated coconut oil for cooking and olive oil for cold uses. The coconut oil does not break down on heating like other high omega 3 oils. (olive oil breaks down when heated)

-my info is from www.mercola.com

[daninmidmo]

err www.mercola.com

[catfishghj]

The saturated fats are great for your health. What is not good for you are all the soy based products that Adkins sells.

[lasert]

Nah..........more marketing strategies.
Just like the foolishness with the Atkins nutritional bars where today's bar has a huge label (Net 3 Carbs) on the front but the ingredient label on the back shows the 20+ carbs that Dr. Atkins originally said were to be avoided.
Frankly, this stuff sickens me. The way a corporation greedily changes stride in mid-race in order to jump on or off another bandwagon based on what they are selling or trying to sell.
At some point there will probably be an Enron-type scandal to boot because the bean counters are once again out in full force.
What matters to me is I am losing weight fairly steadily and feel better than I have in years..........plus whatever downside there may be to this diet will take more years to show up than I plan to be on this planet since I am already 63.

[RCFletcher]

The mercola site was interesting I couldn't find the reference to saturated fats??

[K Walt]

If Atkins (the faceless corporation, at least) wants to be politically correct about sat fats, they'll need to delete or ignore a LOT of research posted on their site.

Go to the Atkins site (atkins.com) and enter 'Saturated Fat' in their search box.

You'll get a looong list of summaries of scientific papers very positive (or at least neutral) about sat fats. . . . Increase HDL, make LDL more buoyant (less harmful), improve glucose levels compared to monos, NO adverse effect on lipids, NO relation to breast cancer, improved glycemic control in diabetics. . . on and on.

I guess they now have to pretend this science doesn't exist, just like the mainstream nutritionists do.

Too bad.

[daninmidmo]

Try this one RCFletcher-

http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/17/saturated_fat1.htm

[FrecklFluf]

I just went to the Atkins website and submitted this comment to them:

Today, the NY Times published an article (Make That Steak a Bit Smaller, Atkins Advises Today's Dieters) that said that Colette Heimowitz, Atkins nutritionist, has been saying that only twenty percent of a dieter's calories should come from saturated fat.

I looked in the "Science Behind Atkins" section of the site, but I couldn't find any studies to back that up. The only studies I've seen suggest that saturated fats are not dangerous when combined with a low-carb diet. Yes, Dr. Atkins suggested getting your fat from a variety of sources, but where did you get the figure of twenty percent?

To be blunt, the impression this is leaving among dedicated Atkins followers is that this new suggestion has more to do with marketing than with health, and also that it's something Dr. Atkins would not have agreed with. We believe in the work Dr. Atkins did during his lifetime because it was based on real data and not swayed by the "diet of the minute"; that's why we follow this lifestyle. It's also why we support the Atkins company by purchasing the low-carb products available.

If there is a valid scientific reason to limit saturated fat intake to twenty percent of your calories, the supporting study or studies should be listed on your website. If it is listed and I somehow missed it, please send me the link.

[vaporgirl]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/nyregion/18DIET.html?pagewanted=1&hp

I've always modified my Atkins to make a little less heavy on the saturated fats so this was an interesting read. It requires registration but that's free.

"After advising dieters for years to satisfy their hunger with liberal amounts of steak, eggs and other saturated fats, the promoters of the Atkins diet now say that people on their plan should limit the amount of red meat and saturated fat they eat.

Responding to years of criticism from scientists that the Atkins version of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat regimen might lead to heart disease and other health problems, the director of research and education for Atkins Nutritionals, Colette Heimowitz, is telling health professionals in seminars around the country that only 20 percent of a dieter's calories should come from saturated fat. Atkins Nutritionals was set up by Dr. Robert C. Atkins to sell Atkins products and promote the diet.

An Atkins spokesman said Ms. Heimowitz has been giving these seminars for five years, but that they do not represent a departure from the original premise of the diet.

Atkins representatives say that Dr. Atkins, who died last year, always maintained that people should eat other food besides red meat, but had difficulty getting that message out. There has been a revision in expressing how the diet should be followed, not in the diet itself, they say."

It's about two pages online.

cb

[FrecklFluf]

That was a very interesting article, daninmidmo.

[kyrasdad]

You know, it seems to me that Atkins shouldn't need to change its approach to fat for marketing reasons, if that's why they did it. In fact, it could be the worst thing they have ever done, if they don't have science to back it up.

Consider the metaphor of two blockbuster summer movies: One is heavily hyped and marketed, with scads of CGI effects--but little substance or storyline. It doesn't work. It draws in crowds, but over time, the word of mouth kills its legs and it doesn't make money like its producers wanted. It's, say, The Incredible Hulk.

The other movie is based on a good story; it's a Big Fat Greek Wedding, say. The movie has little hype or marketing, but everyone loves it and as time goes by it makes tons of money.

Diets work that way, too. South Beach or other psuedo-low-carb diets have Bill Clinton on them; they get the hype. They have great packaging. You just don't know that they have the word of mouth that the core Atkins plan has.

The Atkins people have just taken a HUGE risk. They've in effect altered the script of their movie. They're hoping that sexing the script up will break down some dogmatic barriers to a target audience of mostly doctors. But they are now altering a cornerstone of their movie, a movie that was getting sensational word of mouth. It didn't have Princess Fergie or Bill Clinton pimping it, but that didn't matter. Their movie continued to sell tickets.

Now, if they change the script, who knows whether it's a Greek Wedding or a Hulk; they won't know until people stop coming to the movie.

By the way, there is some interesting fat research here: http://nasw.org/mem-maint/awards/01Taubesarticle8.html

[marchbaby]

Thank you for posting the article, I've put it into my favorites.

[ellemenno]

I could have sworn there was something in DANDR as well as AFL mentioning fats and which were good and fats which were not. There still should be some caution when eating fatty foods, since different fats affect the body in different ways. I believe he even went so far as to say himself that this wasn't all about bacon and beef.

I do believe (or at least am hopeful) one thing this article might do is encourage people to learn more about the foods they're consuming and what these foods do to their bodies.

[katrine77]

One thing that really irks (sp?) me about all this debate is that there are other low carb plan creators out there who don't seem to be coming to the fore. Where are the Eades' when we need them? Why don't THEY get on Larry King Live and take the reins? They have a whole chapter in PPLP called "The Fat of the Land" which goes into great scientific detail about fat. The bottom line still seems to be that it doesn't matter how much fat you eat as long as you are getting it as naturally as possible.

I am disappointed in the Atkins corporation and I doubt very much that Dr. Atkins would support this.

k

[katrine77]

Ok, I just went to the Eades website and they are going to the the keynote speakers at a Low Carb Convention in Denver this month. Also, they will have an article in the NY Times in February. Whew......I was beginning to feel abandoned.

[CindySue48]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/nyregion/18DIET.html?pagewanted=1&hp
There has been a revision in expressing how the diet should be followed, not in the diet itself, they say."
cb

What is the difference between revising the diet and revising how people should follow it? Isn't "how to follow" a part of the diet?

I mean if WW said eat 50% of you calories from carbs, that's the diet instructions. If the instructions are then changed to say that 50% of your calories should come from carbs with no more than 20% from refined sugars, that's changing how the diet is followed.....AND changing the diet itself. Right?

Anyway, what REALLY bothers me most about this whole thing is that Dr A's name is tied to this and it's HIS name and beliefs that are going to be dragged thru the mud. People are going to say "Atkins has changed the diet recomendations" not "the program promoted by Atkins Nutritionals, founded by Dr Atkins, but sold to a corproate giant, has changed the diet recomendations."

All of the work he's done is at risk of being undermined by the changes promoted by Atkins Nutritionals. Dr Atkins always promoted eating natural and healthy foods and noted convenience foods should be kept to a minimum. Atkins Nutritionals, on the other hand, promotes choosing their products. Remember those commercials we thought were so cute? I wonder if they only showed up after his death because he refused to air commercials that promoted the food products rather than the plan it'self?

Well, maybe we should all hold on tight to our books! It may be the last you see of Dr Atkin's teachings. :cry:

[songwritur]

I too am sick over the people who have taken over Atkins Nutritionals since Dr Atkins death. It's disgusting and a disgrace. First they start this Net Carb crap just to sell more products to stay under Dr Atkins 20 carbs a day theory. now this to compete with the Southbeach diet which is lower in fat than atkins they now hypocritically tell the NY times that they now say you should only eat 20% fats when if you look at their damm latest book which I have Atkins Essentials every recipe in their sample menus contain 50% of all the grams are fat exactly about 1/2 of the protein count. they said they wanted to appeal to doctors to make this diet more mainstream. But by waffling like this they are now open to ridicule by the media and doctors just at a time when atkins WAS becoming acceptable to the masses and mainstream. Who ever made this awful decsison at atkins nutritionals ought to be fired.It's the biggest blunder I ever heard of in corporate America. and is already being ridiculed in the media. I am so disgusted and am thinking about going of this diet or at least following dr atkins original plan and not counting so called NET carbs but whole carbs. and I will never buy anything from atkins nutritionals but find my own carbless products

Daryll Bruno

[ellemenno]

I too am sick over the people who have taken over Atkins Nutritionals since Dr Atkins death. It's disgusting and a disgrace.
Net Carbs were discussed by Dr. Atkins himself in DANDR and AfL. Net Carbs are nothing new. It actually is helpful to people, allowing them to better understand just which carbohydrates are "good" to eat.

First they start this Net Carb crap just to sell more products to stay under Dr Atkins 20 carbs a day theory.
Also, the "20 carbs a day theory" is only for induction. Granted, induction can last as long as one likes, but there is no rule that anyone following the Atkins plan needs to stay to less than 20 carbs a day. That's absolutely insane for some people since they'd be losing weight far too rapidly.

I am so disgusted and am thinking about going of this diet or at least following dr atkins original plan and not counting so called NET carbs but whole carbs. and I will never buy anything from atkins nutritionals but find my own carbless products
"Carbless" is not the way to go, as there are many foods with carbs in them that are quite healthy, such as green vegetables. Fiber does not count as a carb since your body can not actually process it the same as other carbs. That's one of the numbers that can be removed to reach the Net Carb total.

I think the main thing here is to follow the LC plan that works best for you, and encourage people to do as much reading and research about LC as possible, and then follow the plan that works best for them. There is a lot of healthy advice contained in many of the plans, even in low-fat plans, that a lot of people will scoff because it doesn't have a certain stamp of approval.

Far too many people jump into the LC WOL without being informed and this is what turns good health plans such as Atkins into crazy fads. People wind up making up their own rules or misconstruing information they've heard from other uninformed individuals.

[RCFletcher]

Thanks for the article daninmidmo.

[Lisa N]

First they start this Net Carb crap just to sell more products to stay under Dr Atkins 20 carbs a day theory.

The "net carbs" or "effective carb count" has been part of the Atkins plan for quite a while (established by Dr. Atkins). All that means is that fiber (which you can't digest unless you are a ruminant animal) can be subtracted from the total carb count and what's left are the carbs that can actually impact blood sugar and insulin production and should be counted towards your daily total. This can be a good thing in that it allows a person to eat more veggies, nuts and fruits than if they were counting the fiber towards their daily total as well. Where is gets questionable is whether or not sugar alcohols and glycerin behave in the same manner as fiber (which the promotors of the bars that contain them maintain) and can be subtracted the same as fiber. That part becomes a YMMV (your mileage may vary) type of thing since some people seem to be able to eat them without impact and others can't and the only way to know which camp you fall in is to try them and see what happens with your weight loss.
Going off low carb because you don't like what Atkins Nutritionals has done with the plan is a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face, IMO.

I have Atkins Essentials every recipe in their sample menus contain 50% of all the grams are fat

50% of the calories may be fat, but are 50% of the calories saturated fat? That's the only part that they are now changing to make it more palatable to doctors and nutritionists; they're not recommending less fat, but less saturated fat (something I don't agree with BTW).

[ItsTheWooo]

I could have sworn there was something in DANDR as well as AFL mentioning fats and which were good and fats which were not. There still should be some caution when eating fatty foods, since different fats affect the body in different ways. I believe he even went so far as to say himself that this wasn't all about bacon and beef.

I do believe (or at least am hopeful) one thing this article might do is encourage people to learn more about the foods they're consuming and what these foods do to their bodies.
The intent is in the wording.

You know, if they really were trying to get people to eat a wide variety of fats, I would be happy with this message. People should eat a wide variety of fats and foods. If they presented it like "AT LEAST 45% of your daily calories from mono and unsaturated fat sources", I would have had no problem what so ever with this statement.

However, by saying "NO MORE than 20% of your daily calories from saturated fat", they are clearly cashing in on the prevailing notion that saturated fat is something evil that needs to be limited. What they are saying here is that there should be a tollerable upper level intake limit on saturated fat of 20% calories, since in excess it is deletarious to health. This is, of course, patently false and Dr. Atkins personal practice and weight loss program bare the evidence. Atkins followers lose more weight and improve their heart disease markers to a greater degree than dieters restricting fat and saturated fat. Fact.

[ItsTheWooo]

As for the argument re: Atkins Nutritionals and net carbs, as has been said the net carbs concept was created under Dr. Atkins and was originally used to describe carbohydrate sources that gave no energy and therefore did not affect blood sugar, such as fiber.

However it was soon changed to include carbs that did contain energy which can affect blood sugar, but were modified to be absorbed slowly. Personally I think the net carb concept is a little misleading when applied to sugar alcohols, because I do feel sugar alcohols affect blood sugar. Maybe not as much as real carbs, but to say a candy bar which contains 20 sugar alcohols is actually 0 carbs is just simply misleading. I personally can lose while eating these products in moderation, but some people seem to have problems with them.

Strictly applying the net carbs concept to sugar alcohols was irresponsible of Atkins Nutritionals, imo. What they should have done was count 4 grams of sugar alcohols as 1 real carb, or figure out a system like that which really works.

Lets face it, by saying a candy bar has 1 net carb people are going to think they can eat them every day and they will not lose weight. At the very least what they should do is put a warning on the bars which say they are to be eaten sparingly...

[songwritur]

thank you my fit day for pointing out the hypocrisy of the new 20% saturated fat waffling by the clowns now running turn over in his grave atkins company. To the other commenters, You are right about the net carb thing however I want to see scientific studies that fiber carbohydrates and be almost considered 0 carbs I just don't believe that and I don't think dr Atkins did either.

[songwritur]

As for the argument re: Atkins Nutritionals and net carbs, as has been said the net carbs concept was created under Dr. Atkins and was originally used to describe carbohydrate sources that gave no energy and therefore did not affect blood sugar, such as fiber.

I believe everything fitday is saying about ATKINS Nutritionals and Ill bet this waffling is going to bank rupt this company its a shame too just as mainstream doctors were coming on board

[Lisa N]

I want to see scientific studies that fiber carbohydrates and be almost considered 0 carbs I just don't believe that and I don't think dr Atkins did either.

http://www.medfriendly.com/dietaryfiber.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002470.htm
http://health.yahoo.com/health/encyclopedia/002470/0.html
http://www.henryfordhealth.org/13338.cfm

See also: Atkins For Life (which Dr. Atkins wrote), pp 36-37:

"When you do Atkins, fiber offers another bonus: it allows you to enjoy some extra carbs-without exceeding your ACE, your threshhold for carb intake without gaining weight. What's the secret? Net Carbs. Her's how they work: in the most simple terms, dietary fiber is nothing more than carbohydrates that the body cannot break down and convert to blood sugar."

[ellemenno]

I agree completely with ItsTheWooo about the sugar alcohols as that truly is a YMMV type thing. I try to stay away from sugar alcohols in a large quantity as some of them (haven't determined which as of yet) tend to wreak havoc with my stomach.

As for fiber, it has been widely accepted by many dieticians, including the entire ADA, as being a "good carb" and one that has fairly low impact (if any) on blood sugar levels. It is better to eat fruits and vegetables with a higher fiber content, as these normally tend to have more nutritional value and fewer empty or useless calories.

Then again, I'm no scientist...

;)

And... many thanks to Lisa N for such wonderful links and one of the many quotes I was trying to remember!!

[potatofree]

Please bear with me..I feel like such a slow learner...but the net carb concept is in my DANDR book, including the info on sugar alcohols....and it was published BEFORE his death..so how could he NOT have approved it?

[MyJourney]

I think the most controversial thing about Atkins is the theory that you can eat saturated fat and decent amounts of it and it wont kill you. In fact it is healthy and beneficial to do so.

Even when you read articles that try to be positive they still have to mention something about all that yucky saturated fat. Those harmful saturated fats etc.

By Atkins nutritionals now changing their tune they pretty much said yes we agree saturated fats aren't good for you. All you skeptics were correct.

I feel betrayed in the sense that I have told so many about the benefits of fat and yes saturated fat.
Coconuts, meat, butter, cheese, mayonnaise, avocados etc. And people would look at me like I had 3 heads.

A friend of mine began Atkins a month or so ago. She read through the books and was doing well but was deathly afraid of fats, especially saturated. Her father had a very difficult time struggling with heart disease and all she remembers is cutting out all the fat in her diet as a child, especially saturated fat. She was so fearful of it. I finally got her to unlearn all that she was brainwashed to believe and she just started feeling better and eating more fats and all of a sudden this comes out and she is freaked out. She wants to know why the sudden limit on saturated fat. What makes saturated fats so evil now, and frankly, I would like to know too.


Ever since this article all I am hearing and will be for some time I suppose is you see, saturated fats aren't good for you. You see, Atkins says you shouldn't eat so much fat etc.

People want to hear negative, they want to hear negative about Atkins they want to hear fat is bad they want to be assured that saturated fat is really as horrible as they thought. That saturated fat is this artery clogging evil and the article was written to get just that type of reaction.

I get a variety of fats in my diet. I eat olive oil, avocados, chicken, meat, eggs etc. my saturated fat for the past week is around 31% I am sure there are weeks where its lower and weeks where its higher. I have no intentions of changing that.

I usually average 65-70% fat 25-30% protein and 5% carbs.

I have never felt better in my life and I am looking better with each day that passes.

[doreen T]

Please bear with me..I feel like such a slow learner...but the net carb concept is in my DANDR book, including the info on sugar alcohols....and it was published BEFORE his death..so how could he NOT have approved it?
Actually, the idea of subtracting fiber grams from the total carb count did not originate with the Atkins program. The Drs. Eades introduced the concept of "effective carbohydrates" with Protein Power, which was published in 1995. It wasn't until late in 2000 that Atkins officially sanctioned subtracting fiber grams from total carb counts .. Before that time, the old Atkins website (which had a complete overhaul in Dec 2001) simply stated to count total carbs, end of story.

It was within that same time period that the FDA and food label regulators began making the move to more accurate nutrition labels, and that included listing fiber as a separate entity from the total carbs. In addition, the FDA also cracked down on manufacturers of SF candies and protein bars, because sugar alcohols and glycerine weren't appearing in the nutrition data at all. They were just being listed as an ingredient

IMO, the effective/net carbs concept is definitely accurate as far as fiber is concerned. As for s/a's and glycerine .. it's a good theory in principle, but in practise it's still YMMV. :daze:


Doreen

[SummerYet]

..and if this gets more doctors to put their patients on Atkins, how could it be a bad thing?


Because they are giving misleading and untrue information, selling out, and totally alienating all of us who have followed this diet before it became a "FAD"?? Just a thought...

~Michelle

[RoseTattoo]

But here's a funny thing. I decided today I'd see exactly what percentage of sat fats I normally eat. I tracked everything in Fitday, which I usually don't bother to do, and ate my usual foods. I'm on maintenance and exercise very vigorously, so I allow myself 60 or more grams of carbs a day.

The surprising thing was that while I ate about 55% of my calories as fat, only 15% were from sat fat, and that was without trying to change anything.

I think that what Doreen wrote earlier is worth underlining--even red meat has about 40% of its fat as polyunsaturates (hope I quoted you right, Doreen). :) Cheese, heavy cream--both contain a sizeable proportion of polyunsaturated fat. So you'd have to eat an awful lot of those in order to amass a whole lot more than 20% of your calories as sat fat. By the time you get to the later phases of Atkins, it shouldn't be much of a problem at all, I would think.

[potatofree]

...and that would affect the changes in their health and welfare HOW, though?

I hear a lot of talk here about it being wrong and unrue, and how others are going to point and laugh at those who know sat fats aren't evil... but if the new guidelines make it friendly to more doctors, who put more patients on it, saving their LIVES....I don't see a crime being committed!

When push comes to shove, it's going to be a good, healthy plan either way.

There was likely the same kind of abject horror among the followers of the '72 plan when Atkins added more veggies and updated his plan. (And I know most of you will keep pointing out to me the fact that "he" didn't have control of this change, and that's a fact. )

I'm sorry that I don't understand how horrible this is. I'm just glad more people might be given the lifesaving gift of low-carb, even if it means they don't eat all the red meat they want.

[tamarian]

I hear a lot of talk here about it being wrong and unrue, and how others are going to point and laugh at those who know sat fats aren't evil... but if the new guidelines make it friendly to more doctors, who put more patients on it, saving their LIVES....I don't see a crime being committed! Simple. Doctors are not idiots. They have more access to the research data than we do.

The fact is, many doctors already put their patients on low-carb, particularly Atkins.

Those doctors who already have negative opinions on Atkins, won't change their minds based on new marketing spin. Most likely it will make them even more suspicious.

You can't "trick" people into doing things all the time :)

Wa'il

[Samuel]

The smallest pack of heavy milk cream contains 48 grams of saturated fats.

If you are currently consuming 1500 calories daily, 20% of that means 300 calories. Since each gram of fat gives 9 calories, your limit of saturated fats/day should be 33.3 grams.

So you can't consume one pack of cream in one day.

[Lisa N]

The fact is, many doctors already put their patients on low-carb, particularly Atkins.

Those doctors who already have negative opinions on Atkins, won't change their minds based on new marketing spin. Most likely it will make them even more suspicious.

Not only that, but with the current AHA recommendations being no more than 10% of your daily fat intake be saturated fat, those doctors that feel Atkins is too high in saturated fat and follow AHA protocol still won't recommend it to their patients so I really can't see this influencing more doctors, especially those that have a negative opininon of Atkins already, to recommend it to their patients. Moreover, most of those doctors will still feel that Atkins is too high in fats overall (50%-65% of daily caloric intake) regardless of the saturated fat being 20%. So....what does that leave us with? A marketing tactic to win back those (dieters, not doctors) that may have chosen South Beach over Atkins because of the saturated fat issue. One that I feel may backfire on them worse than they ever imagined.
The fact is, there are many low carb plans from which to choose and one doesn't have to have a high saturated fat intake to follow any of them if you choose not to. Another fact is that those who choose to lose weight don't do it on the recommendation of their doctors, but word of mouth or seeing someone else being successful with weight loss or just deciding for themselves that they need to drop some weight. How many people actually see a doctor before beginning any weight loss plan despite recommendations to do so? Very few, I'd bet, unless they already have an existing health issue that requires regular visits to their doctor.

[MyJourney]

Today my Sat fat was 20% 3 days ago it was 33%

My calories that day were 1330

Total: 1330
Fat: 102 919 70%
Sat: 48 430 33%
Poly: 11 95 7%
Mono: 33 295 22%


My fat intake that day happened to be higher because I made ziplock baggie ice cream and had half a cup of cream

on top of that I had 2 slices of cheese, Mayo, olive oil a hamburger (extra lean) and boneless skinless chicken breast as my main sources of fat for that day.

it isnt about consuming one pack of cream in a day but a variety of foods.

[VALEWIS]

Wading in here...Potatofree, what you are saying boils down to the old "the ends justify the means" argument...so if in some Arab countries, by chopping off people's hands who offend, it does in fact stop thieving... yes, it works.

But there is an ethical question and worse, a credibility question that is involved here regarding the use of science to promote a diet that round counter to prevailing beliefs, and then not using it to make new statements. Its like the boy who cried Wolf...who is going to believe them when they answer criticisms in future, if they recant now? Many here feel betrayed and angry.

Val

[VALEWIS]

whoops, that should read "runs counter to"

Val

[TarHeel]

The smallest pack of heavy milk cream contains 48 grams of saturated fats.

What is a "pack" of cream?

I'm not changing anything.

Kay

[ItsTheWooo]

Simple. Doctors are not idiots. They have more access to the research data than we do.

The fact is, many doctors already put their patients on low-carb, particularly Atkins.

Those doctors who already have negative opinions on Atkins, won't change their minds based on new marketing spin. Most likely it will make them even more suspicious.

You can't "trick" people into doing things all the time :)

Wa'il
Excellent point. Drs who were against saturated fat to start with still won't think atkins is healthful, and they still wouldn't recommend it.

I'm sorry but I just can't see the good in this like potatofree. It seems to me like they are making an obvious grab for the poorly informed, yo-yo dieting mentality consumer... the type of person who will do whatever diet is hot at the minute but doesn't quite get that weight loss is about lifestyle changes. Currently southbeach diet is their diet of choice, since it preys on every dietary evil of the day (oooh carbs AND saturated fat... icky icky!) and has a sexy name (oooh la la "south beach" ... sure reminds you of lazy summer days and young people with hot bodies, doesn't it? :rolleyes: ). AN thinks by changing atkins slightly to look more like the sexier, trendier south beach they hope to gain some of that market share.

[potatofree]

I hardly think recommending fewer sat fats is in any way akin to chopping off someone's hand!!!

I'm trying to understand why it's seen as such a betrayal,and I'm sorry if I offended anybody. I obviously questioned something I shouldn't...

[VALEWIS]

Potatofree, yes it was an extreme example to make a point.. it is "akin" in the logic involved only...i.e. that the ends justify the means. The issue here that is making people angry is that Atkins Co will lose credibility with consumers and hence shoot themselves in the foot. It is bad enough to have to explain that it is OK to eat sat fats without having to now explain that Atkins Co have sold out to consumerville.

Val

[VALEWIS]

P.S. And don't feel bad, you did say you were playing devil's advocate after all, and you have generated some califying discussion as a result.

Val

[VALEWIS]

Good grief...that should read 'clarifying'...argh!

V.

[tamarian]

I'm trying to understand why it's seen as such a betrayal,and I'm sorry if I offended anybody. I obviously questioned something I shouldn't... I don't find what you're saying offensive.

But you're missing the point.

30 years of maintaining that saturated fats and natural animal fats are healthy and good for us. During that period, numerous studies confirmed this assertion. The man then dies, and a few months later, his company takes a 180 turn saying that saturated fats are not healthy, and should be reduced, that Dr. Atkins didn't really mean what he said.

Many of us here like eating naturally, and don't like trimming fats from meat, or using low-fat dairy. We like it natural. Dr. Atkins was an early champion of this view.

If you can't see the oddity in this, or that it's a big deal to Atkins followers, then it will be hard to explain it any further.

But either way, it's not offensive, just different points of view. You don't have to eat saturated fats, but many of us prefer not count and do the math to reduce anything, if there's no proof that we need to reduce it.

Wa'il

[potatofree]

So it's basically the fact that Atkins and some of it's followers will have egg on their face becaust the corporation sold out... I get it.

I still stand by my opinion, even though I know most of you feel I'm dead wrong, that if it gets more people to try a low-carb way of eating it's not a TOTAL loss.

I don't mean to be overly sensitive, either, but I got reprimanded by a few people when I switched from Atkins to CAD, almost as if I was some sort of traitor!! I'm trying to understand why some people take a food plan to the extreme of having a strong emotional reaction when they feel it's being criticized or held in a bad light. Kind of an anthropological thing...

I respect your various opinions, and I know you have the science to prove your point. I'm not saying you're wrong in any way either...I'm just trying to get a better handle on understanding the points expressed here.

[VALEWIS]

Someone here wrote to Atkins Co. How do others feel about doing the same? Can anyone suggest an email address?

Val

[VALEWIS]

"So it's basically the fact that Atkins and some of it's followers will have egg on their face becaust the corporation sold out... I get it."

No I don't think you do. I think Tamarian's post explains it better...all low carb dieters will now suffer (including the one you are on) because of loss of credibility no thanks to Atkins Co. and their backdown, which is not supported by science. We have to keep the science in front of the public, don't you see, in order to maintain credibility re this WOE. Saying it is better to restrict sat fats to a particular percentage is not supported.

Val

[Angeline]

Lets remember one thing. The clinic is closed. To me that says a lot. The only thing left is the corporate mentality that will push frankenfood for profit and will say anything to increase profits. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they have no crediblity left with me.

I think that Atkins pushed the enveloppe and because of this we have all won. We have won a new understanding of nutrition based on science and not marketing. We have learned to question what we hear and not accept blindly what the establishement says.

So basically now we are on our own. There is no one to tell us what to do. We must think for yourselves. And really, in a way, that's a good thing.

[tamarian]

I don't mean to be overly sensitive, either, but I got reprimanded by a few people when I switched from Atkins to CAD, almost as if I was some sort of traitor!!
I think you're in the wrong thread.

If you want to debate which plan is best, there are several available sub-forums here to discuss that, or you can start a thread in the war zone with whoever "reprimended" you.

This is not about CAD, or even which plan is right.

Wa'il

[potatofree]

I understand it's not a debate of which plan is right. I'm trying to understand what the fuss is about, not pick petty fights!

I'm not stupid, just asking for clarification and trying to understand other people's point of view.

My comment about being reprimanded was to give some background as to why I might be tring to understand people's reaction, and why I'm asking the questions I am!

Most of the posters here have been very understanding and generous in their tolerance of my questions, and as I already stated, the science backs up the original point of the people who are upset...that in the absence of excessive carbs, satfats are NOT harmful. I actually DO read what is posted for my education, since I'm here to LEARN.

So thank you for those who have tried to anwer me, even if my ignorance is frustrating. I'll go back to the "right" area now, and leave you alone.

[ICountToo]

Potatofree

Don't leave - we are all here to learn. I think this topic is important for all of us who are concerned with our health and there is nothing wrong with trying to understand, especially when things are up in the air like this.

All the new media hype has shaken a lot of things up and we will be hearing about it for a while now. Tonight on my local news - I heard them make some mis-statements in an effort to do timely reporting.

Hooray for you wanting to understand!

Onward....

[tamarian]

I understand it's not a debate of which plan is right. I'm trying to understand what the fuss is about, not pick petty fights!

I'm not stupid, just asking for clarification and trying to understand other people's point of view.

My comment about being reprimanded was to give some background as to why I might be tring to understand people's reaction, and why I'm asking the questions I am!
The reaction to this news item is clearly not just from Atkins followers. Even non low carbers, like the journalist from NYT, know what this means, and recognized its significance, and so do many of us.

This is quite different from diet zealots who may have bashed your choice of LC plan. Which is why I suggested you start a new thread to discuss that issue if it interests you, such as diet zealots, bashers and bashing, and which plan's followers will have "egg on their face" due to marketing changes, etc.. It's an interesting topic, as each plan (Atkins, Low-Carb, Paleo, WW, Dr. Phill, Simmons etc.) has it's bashers and nay sayers. Chance are, the Atkins Diet gets bashed the most.

Wa'il

[catfishghj]

This is very bad because some people may switch from healthy saturated fats to very unhealthy fats such as canola oil. If you want to learn about fats from a true expert, go here:
http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/skinny.html

[cc48510]

Here's my information from Fitday:

12/02 -- 2144 kcal; 43% Fat; 19% SFA; 17% MUFA; 164g CHO
01/03 -- 1259 kcal; 60% Fat; 26% SFA; 24% MUFA; 4g CHO
02/03 -- 1320 kcal; 50% Fat; 23% SFA; 18% MUFA; 20g CHO
03/03 -- 2108 kcal; 72% Fat; 29% SFA; 30% MUFA; 14g CHO
04/03 -- 2071 kcal; 66% Fat; 30% SFA; 25% MUFA; 13g CHO
05/03 -- 1754 kcal; 64% Fat; 27% SFA; 25% MUFA; 20g CHO
06/03 -- 2093 kcal; 60% Fat; 27% SFA; 23% MUFA; 17g CHO
07/03 -- 2131 kcal; 58% Fat; 25% SFA; 22% MUFA; 22g CHO
08/03 -- 1834 kcal; 58% Fat; 23% SFA; 21% MUFA; 33g CHO*
09/03 -- 1907 kcal; 60% Fat; 23% SFA; 24% MUFA; 18g CHO
10/03 -- 1949 kcal; 59% Fat; 23% SFA; 23% MUFA; 19g CHO
11/03 -- 1919 kcal; 59% Fat; 21% SFA; 26% MUFA; 22g CHO
12/03 -- 2141 kcal; 56% Fat; 22% SFA; 23% MUFA; 30g CHO
01/04 -- 1959 kcal; 58% Fat; 21% SFA; 25% MUFA; 32g CHO

*Blood Pressure Before Atkins: 140s/90s

**Cholesterol: 175; Triglycerides: 96; Blood Sugar: 84; Electrolytes: Normal; Blood Pressure: 120/70; Kidneys/Liver: Working Just Fine

My Saturated Fat has been just over 20% for 13 months now...and in fact was just coming off its highest levels when I had my Lipids Checked. I see no reason to change my WOE.

[Grimalkin]

The big deal to me is TRUST. All of my life I've been listening to the big fat lies that made me sick and overweight. Mainstream nutritionists tell me they care about me, yet their advice clearly doesn't work and they refuse to change their tune.

Dr. Atkins told what HE believed was the truth... as do the Eades, the Hellers, Schwarzbein, etc. ad nauseum. Yes there are some differences between their plans but they seem to be sincere in their science, and at least they reference their literature heavily with research as well as their practical experiences. We choose to trust that they actually have our best interests at heart and are really trying to help us (and would like to sell some books, of course).

After this sudden switch on sat fats for no apparent good reason (except marketing goals), I guess I just don't trust AN anymore, and they are making me feel as if they might tell me anything to get me to buy more bars and shakes now...

[EvelynS]

"fat as polyunsaturates (hope I quoted you right, Doreen). :) "

I think that's monounsaturates, Rose. If it was polyunsaturates, I wouldn't be eating it. Cheers.

[Lisa N]

This is very bad because some people may switch from healthy saturated fats to very unhealthy fats such as canola oil.

That's certainly a valid concern. I find myself wondering how many low carbers will hear the "reduce your saturated fat to 20% or less" message and switch to very unhealthy fats such as margarine in an effort to comply without doing any research on what healthy fats are and in the process cause themselves far more damage than a saturated fat intake higher than 20% ever would have (none when combined with low carb!). Face it; how many people actually look into the science behind low carb and fat intake for themselves or even read that portion of the book?
I also wonder how many will simply quit low carb completely and go back to a low fat/high carb plan due to interpreting what AN has said as "fats are bad" instead of "lower your saturated fat intake". For that matter, this may very well have the unintended effect of driving more of their customers in the direction of South Beach since their plan as it is currently written gives no practical guidelines for how one goes about limiting their saturated fat intake on low carb and South Beach does. That's not necessarily a bad thing since South Beach is also a carb restricted plan, but it's not the effect that I think they were looking for with this.

I don't mean to be overly sensitive, either, but I got reprimanded by a few people when I switched from Atkins to CAD

I can imagine that you didn't like and/or appreciate that. However, think about how millions of Atkins followers are going to feel when they are now reprimanded by their friends, family, co-workers and doctors regarding their saturated fat intake unnecessarily. Think they're going to feel confused and/or betrayed? I do.
As far as having egg on our faces; that might be true if AN was actually correct in their recommendation since "having egg on your face" implies that you were wrong and are now having to eat a healthy (low carb) serving of crow. There's nothing wrong with recommending a balance of healthy fats, but to single out saturated fat as somehow deserving of being limited without the science to back them up causes them to lose a great deal of credibility in my eyes.

[doreen T]

I also wonder how many will simply quit low carb completely and go back to a low fat/high carb plan due to interpreting what AN has said as "fats are bad" instead of "lower your saturated fat intake".Lisa, that's my worry too. People will think it means that TOTAL fat intake should be limited to 20% of the day's calories. Or .. as I noted earlier .. they'll confuse "saturated fat" to mean "animal fat" and sharply limit their intake of meat proteins and eggs in the mistaken belief that the fat is pure saturates, which it's not (less than 50%). Even virgin olive oil is 13.5% saturated fat.


Doreen

[Flintstone]

What an incredible thread. Thank you to all that have posted the great links.
Whereas I tend to get a little lost in all the medical jargon, I've learned an awful lot from Dr. Atkins and PP about what I put in my body and how it is affected. "Healthy and Natural" eating is what its all about. I lost faith in the Atkins Corp when they began marketing their "frankenfoods". I don't buy them and will continue to not buy them as it goes against what I believe Atkins intended. If Atkins Corp goes bankrupt....then so be it! I know this WOL is best for me and I refuse to change ANYTHING! Yes...I truly believe Atkins Corp is changing their opinion for the almighty $$$$...but I agree with Potatofree...if this gets more people to LCing...then its not a bad thing. I truly believe each person needs to find the "right" plan for them...be it SB, CAD, PP, etc...they are all simply modifications of Dr. Atkins original plan.
I'm kinda happy about this uproar....maybe now beef prices will come down some and I can reap the benfits and I continue my "HIGH-FAT" WOL!!

[Sheldon]

Regarding sat fat, I suggest that everyone looks here (http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm), here (http://www.thincs.org/), and here (http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/know_your_fats.html). The question isn't, what does the Atkins Center say? It's, what does the best science say? The anti-sat-fat hypothesis is full of wholes. By the methods of good science, it should be discarded. See the links.

Sheldon

[OHGal1415]

Yep. We're buying a new chest freezer, to house the 1/2 SIDE OF BEEF we're buying. Yep, lots of steak, roasts and burgers for me. I'm even going to ask for packages of BEEF LARD!!!!

I think I'll keep a batch of the lard in the fridge and fry my EGGS in it. MMmmm....

[OHGal1415]

Thanks for the Ravnskov link. That was a new one for me.

On that same vein, if one wants to consume MORE cholesterol, then they should be eating LEAN meats. Since cholesterol is a basic building block for cells, LEAN meats contain more cholesterol than fattier cuts.

[maryc]

Wow uuum I thought the Canola oil was ok... I guess I just thought of it just like Vegetable oil.

[Archie]

It's quite amazing how much response this thread has generated.
While I'm glad to have discovered Controlled Carb eating and while I acknowlege that Dr Atkins gets credit for exposing me (and millions of others) to it I would never buy into it entirely. I always look for a balanced point of view. I always try to consider opposing points of view. It's amazing how often both sides are correct.
I'm afraid there are alot, maybe most, people who, when they find something they believe in entrench themselves around it and refuse to consider that it's not perfect. The good Dr. made us aware of the dangers of refined foods and sugars and has shown us a way to lose weight but we should not diefy him. There has actually been a thread entitled "Dr Atkins is a God". I know it wasn't meant literally but it still makes a point.
After reading "Fast Food Nation" I decided to lay off a lot of red meat....so what? I still follow a low carb program. I still lose weight. If you want to cut back your saturated fats (and I do) go ahead. If not don't. If you haven't read "Fast Food Nation" I suggest you do......and then make up your own mind....don't just by into a good argument without exploring all opposing arguments.
Keep an open mind.

[potatofree]

Okay, I think I understand. I'm glad I came back to finish reading the thread because I really think I "get it" at last. Grimalkin, you summed it up...it's a violation of trust, pure and simple. THAT, I understand. You put your trust in someone/something and they go and change horses mid-stream without good reason.

Archie-- I'm sure THOSE were the people "thumping" me....

Atkins (the corporation, not the plan) has lost my respect long ago.

Atkins, the PLAN, has my respect. As with anything, there are evangelists that put a person off a bit, but that has nothing to do with it being a sound plan. No matter the change, unfounded in science as it may be, it's a good plan, and is what helped me lose the bulk of my weight thus far.

Thanks to those who tried to understand the basis of my questions, and answered to the best of their ability. I feel like I do understand a bit better now.

[doreen T]

Um .. it seems the NY Times report got it all balled up. :daze: Atkins Nutritionals corp. has been misrepresented, and there really is NO LIMIT on saturated fat after all.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=115415 .. This PRN newswire was published in the UK earlier today.

The January 18 article in The New York Times and the subsequent publicity is yet another dramatically inappropriate example of the media reporting on the media and perpetuating a false report on Atkins. This is a great disservice to the millions upon millions of Atkins followers who have been benefiting from this nutritional approach for over 30 years.
Doreen

[OHGal1415]

So, who said the 20% thing?
Are they recanting that, as well? Or was this orchestrated by the media?

[doreen T]

So, who said the 20% thing?
Are they recanting that, as well? Or was this orchestrated by the media?
Apparently :q:

Here's the next paragraph of the newswire .. The accusation in today's media (January 18) claiming that Atkins is retreating from its long held position on the consumption of fat is simply wrong. It is a false premise created by members of the media itself based on input from "experts" who apparently have never read any of Dr. Atkins books, nor have even casually browsed the Atkins web site "Atkins.com".

Doreen

[potatofree]

Gee, In the words of Gilda Radner.."Nevermind...."

[doreen T]

The rebuttal is slowly making its way into North America ... it's now posted at Yahoo! business news .. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040119/nym053_1.html

Wonder how long before CNN picks it up .. and the big question??? What will the NY Times have to say about it?/


Doreen

[Archie]

In the words of an Uncle of mine....

"Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see".

[OHGal1415]

My favorite is "trust........but VERIFY".

[CindySue48]

"The January 18 article in The New York Times and the subsequent publicity is yet another dramatically inappropriate example of the media reporting on the media and perpetuating a false report on Atkins."

ok....so the Director of Research and Education says something in a seminar.....that is picked up by the NYT and that's perpetuating a false report?

OK...so when is this director loosing her job?

This sounds to me like trying to CYA and blame the media at the same time!

This woman is a representative of ANA. She made a statement that, according to the initial article was backed up by an unnamed "representative" of ANA.

Sorry...but I lost resect for ANA with the frankenfoods. I lost more respect after reading the NYT article. It really is a shame....they're undermining the befiefs and teaching of their founder. If they came out with new reasearch that indicates sat fat should be limited, fine.....but this is not the case.

ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH

And now, as I'm writing this I'm also listenting to the news...the ad for the next story? "Wait until you hear what the Atkins people are now saying about what you should eat" and "cut back on the fat....you've heard it before, but this time the advice is coming from the people who brought you the Atkins diet"

Lets see what the report actually says: To paraphrase:

1. For years Atkins dieters have been told they could eat all the red meat, eggs, and cheese they want to. Well now, they're being told to lighten up on saturated fats.
2. President of Atkins (NOT ATKINS NUTRITIONALS) is not commenting, at least for now.
3. The scientific community is saying "I told you so". Then a nutritionist was on saying that they "knew" that the diet was wrong for "promoting artery clogging, icky sticky saturated fats"
4. It remains to be seen if the new recomendations are going to be as successful as the original plan.

After the report, the in-studio reporter noted " Atkins has been shown to reduce cholesterol much better than traditional diets" (hmmmmI wonder if she's a LCer?)
Also, on the plus side, the dieters they showed were eating steak, chicken and fish.....no veggies, but at tleast there wasn't a slice of bacon in sight!

[katlynweb]

Just my 2 cents worth as a Newbie on this WOE.........BOY!!!!! AM I REALLY CONFUSED NOW!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :daze: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :daze: :daze:

[OHGal1415]

Boy, they REALLY blew it.

Why did they have to say ANYTHING AT ALL?????

[mollymom]

WHOA! Everyone take a deep breath. For a while there, reading this thread I felt like I was in the Low Carb War Zone, not the FORUM.

Here are my two cents (well, okay, $2.22) worth:

I don't know about in the States, but in many parts of Canada, LCing in any form has yet to gain great respect, which is why I don't discuss my WOE with many people outside of here, so loss of credibility isn't much of an issue for me. I just know I felt that I had a real EUREKA moment when I finally read DANDR, and some of the other research, and just plain looked at the results on here. I didn't bother discussing it with my doctor at all, he would look at me blankly and tell me to eat lettuce. I did suddenly "push the envelope" and eat things I hadn't eaten without guilt in years..prime rib, butter, bacon, full fat cheeses etc. and I probably overdid it. In any form, too much of a good thing is NOT a good thing in my opinion. I love chicken and fish, why suddenly was I buying beef like crazy? I am not say give up the beef, but as many said, isn't just eating a good variety of foods the best way anyhow? I am with Potatofree on many things, especially, if it gets LCing more respect..then great..let them "approve what we are doing" then eat as we always did...you can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time! :lol: I am sorry that, yes, it may suddenly seem like the DOC lost some credibility, but those who believe and know the truth just say the heck with it, this WOE isn't going away. Atkins was the pioneer, the rest have picked up on his research. No one WOE works for everyone. I don't know if Atkins is my WOE for forever, I too may find in time, I want to try CAD or CALP or any of the others if I feel as I get to know my body better, there is a better plan for me. Folks keep saying in many journal discussions and posts that you have to do what works for you, yet I can see that some people do treat others as traitors in they even mention something other than Atkins. Fanaticism of any kind scares me. I believe the U.S. Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, do uphold the rights to freedom of speech and opinion...as long as it doesn't hurt others (always have to add the responsibility after the right!)So..WOE's will come and WOE's will go, but the basic science remains the same. The media will continue to get it wrong...it requires a lot of understanding ( as in my goodness, I felt I needed a degree in Biochemisty to understand some of the arguments in this post)...and I learn every day. BUT...bottom line... IMHO if whatever LC plan you are following works for you, and you are happy, and your body is improving, along with your mood, your blood chemistries etc....just do it, and forget the misreporting, uneducated media who still think after thirty years it is a fad or a craze! There is enough bashing out there, we don't need to start in on each other.

PEACE :agree:

Margot

[gotbeer]

There is enough bashing out there, we don't need to start in on each other.

I have to agree - my anger is directed towards that bogus nutritionist who started this false rumor, and the publications that reported it uncritically.

I suggest writing the editor at each publication that reprinted the lie and demand a correction and an apology.

[kyrasdad]

You just expect better from the Times, even given its recent history.

[RoseTattoo]

A couple of things:

Whoever corrected me about meat containing mono vs poly fats (sorry, it was so many posts ago I've lost track, lol), you're absolutely right and I apologize for my error.

Second, the NYTimes has had a lousy track record regarding accuracy lately, under the editorship of Howell Raines and even into the current editorship of Bill Keller. It frequently has to run corrections of its pieces, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the reporter simply got things wrong. :rolleyes: (But because it is the NYTimes, people take it seriously and it's important for us to know what's out there.) This particular writer, Marian Burros, is a well-known low-fat advocate and would probably just LOVE to find the Atkins people eating crow. (Crow containing less than 20% of its calories as sat fat, of course. :lol: )

[gotbeer]

Burros has a cookbook out, "Cooking for Comfort", that emphasizes healthful fare like macaroni & cheese, pineapple upside-down cake, and sloppy joe sandwiches.

Yikes. No conflict of interest there.

[Flintstone]

a deluge of e-mail is warranted by this community to:

president~nytimes.com


I don't know why my "at" sign keeps coming out as a ~ no matter how many times I try to edit. Oh well....you get the idea.

[RoseTattoo]

Here is specific contact info for the NY Times:

"Letters must include the writer's name, address, and telephone numbef. Those selected may be shortened to fit the alloted space. Send e-mail to letters~nytimes.com, faxes to (212)556-3622 or postal mail to Letters to the Editor, 229 West 43rd St., NY, NY 10036-3959."

[doreen T]

I don't know why my "at" sign keeps coming out as a ~ no matter how many times I try to edit.
The database automatically changes the "at" symbol ;) This is to protect you and our site from spambots which rip through the posts looking for email addresses.

Doreen

[VALEWIS]

I just sent one.

I wonder what the real story behind that "20%" quote is...she could well have said that their findings are that most people on the diet only eat around 20% saturated fat....that sort of statement, taken out of context could have turned into what happened, for example. It will be interesting to hear any further news on all that...

Val

[cc48510]

Yep. We're buying a new chest freezer, to house the 1/2 SIDE OF BEEF we're buying.

And, what's wrong with that:

http://www.cs.uwf.edu/~ccarr/rib.jpg

I'm even going to ask for packages of BEEF LARD!!!!

I have a small container of Lard in my food closet. I don't use it very often. I use it mainly when a recipe calls for Shortening and I don't want a Buttery taste. Lard, just like most meats...is about 60% Unsaturated and 40% Saturated. The stuff is much better for you than Shortening [with its Trans-Fats] any day.

I think I'll keep a batch of the lard in the fridge and fry my EGGS in it. MMmmm....

Lard has less Saturated Fat than Butter, and only marginally more total fat...so under the Low-Fat dogma, it should be the better choice when compared to the more traditional Butter. That said, I use Butter.

[EvelynS]

I just sent one.

I wonder what the real story behind that "20%" quote is...she could well have said that their findings are that most people on the diet only eat around 20% saturated fat....that sort of statement, taken out of context could have turned into what happened, for example. It will be interesting to hear any further news on all that...

Val


On the news in England tonight Heimowitz said they analysed the fat in the recipes in the book (DANDR?) and 20% were saturates. She also said there was "no new science" and the diet hadn't been changed.

[Katy131]

From the Atkins website this evening:

Atkins Has Not Changed

"Make That Steak a Bit Smaller, Atkins Advises Today's Dieters,"
published in the January 18th edition of The New York Times--and the
subsequent publicity--is yet another dramatically inappropriate
example of the media reporting on the media and perpetuating a false
report on Atkins. This is a great disservice to the millions upon
millions of Atkins followers who have been benefiting from this
nutritional approach for more than 30 years. The accusation in the
media, which claims that Atkins is retreating from its long-held
position on the consumption of fat is simply wrong. It is a false
premise created by members of the media themselves, based on input
from "experts" who apparently have neither read any of Dr. Atkins'
books, nor even casually browsed this Web site.

Atkins has not changed. The basic tenets of the Atkins Nutritional
Approach™ (ANA), consistent since 1972, are to control the intake of
carbohydrates, avoid refined carbs (like sugar and white flour), eat
a balance of fats (including saturated fat but not trans fats) and
consume a variety of protein sources, such as red meat, fish,
poultry and tofu. Saturated fat remains a valuable part of the ANA.
There is absolutely no scientific research to support any claims
that eating red meat and saturated fat as part of your Atkins
program is anything other then beneficial. These protocols have been
consistently reinforced as safe, effective and beneficial and have
been further supported by 17 studies released over the last three
years.

Equally as important, and terribly troubling to all of us at Atkins,
is the attempt once again by critics of Atkins to ignore fact,
science and the clear messages stated in Dr. Atkins' own words over
the past 32 years, in order to sensationalize the ANA as the "all-
the-steak-you-can-eat" approach to weight loss and good health. This
has never been true and the millions of individuals doing Atkins,
along with the health care professionals who have read Dr. Atkins'
books, clearly understand this. We would urge anyone who is
confused, including the media to simply read Dr. Atkins' New Diet
Revolution, Atkins For Life or The Atkins Essentials, or review this
site, rather than interpret Atkins on the basis of sensational
reports manufactured on hearsay and mischaracterization.

Even in the original 1972 edition of Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution,
Dr. Atkins explained, "fat allows for enormous variety in your diet;
that vital and best of all, it keeps you from feeling deprived. Of
course, you aren't confined to steak, you can have almost any kind
of meat, fish or fowl." He continued, "One of the biggest reasons
this diet works so successfully is because you eat protein and
fat…."

Dr. Atkins made no secret of the fact that his methodology evolved
over time as scientific discoveries added new and useful
information. He rewrote his original 1972 book three times, exactly
because he felt it was his responsibility to keep people up to date
when it came to the most recent and relevant information on
controlled carbohydrate nutrition and health. In the 2002 edition of
Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, he wrote, "Eat either three regular-
size meals a day or four to five smaller meals. Eat liberally of
combinations of fat and protein in the form of poultry, fish,
shellfish, eggs and red meat, as well as of pure, natural fat in the
form of butter, mayonnaise, olive oil, safflower, sunflower and
other vegetable oils. Adjust the quantity you eat to suit your
appetite, especially as it decreases. When hungry, eat the amount
that makes your feel satisfied but not stuffed…."

By providing individuals doing Atkins with a life-long strategy,
including exercise and meal plans (at various carb thresholds)
incorporating a wide range of foods, as explained in Atkins for
Life, Dr. Atkins believed he would finally put to rest the
misconception that his approach was based on eating only red meat.
His simple goal was that people would come to understand how to
incorporate his controlled carbohydrate nutritional approach as the
first step in gaining control of their nutritionally out-of-control
lives.

Millions of individuals who benefit from doing Atkins understand
that the ANA is a very effective four-phase approach to healthy
eating. The ANA focuses on moving people away from diets loaded with
refined carbohydrates like sugar and white flour to a lifestyle
centered around eating whole foods and nutrient-dense carbohydrates
like leafy greens, and finding a balance in the consumption of
proteins and fat.

[Ursula]

[QUOTE=tofi] I wish that there would be more emphasis on eating REAL FOOD and less on finding substitutes for the high carb foods. That might help more in changing our eating patterns than using substitutes that are "lower Carb" but not as good as real food.

That is the wisest thing I've ever seen written about dieting. And, yes, I've been saying this for decades and I'm sure others have too, but I've never seen it written down.

[Flintstone]

Well, ABC News with Peter Jennings picked up the same exact story tonight as the NY Times. I'm just appalled that they would run that story without even checking into its validity!! They even had clips of interviews with Atkins reps...obviously edited to say what they wanted it to say....unless Atkins Corp is telling 2 different stories to make everybody happy. Hmmmm? :confused:
I guess I'm going to find ABC's e-mail address and send them off a nice little note also!!
I guess this is just more of the same un-researched, un-iformed journalism. Will Dr. A ever get a break?????

[CindySue48]

I'm registered on the Atkins site....and just received this email from them:

We want to assure you that when you follow the Atkins Nutritional Approach (ANA), the consumption of all forms of natural fat is perfectly safe. Let us also remind you that despite numerous studies that have supported the safety and efficacy of the ANA, the conventional nutrition community has no scientific research to back up its claims that consuming fat (including saturated fat) is bad for you in the context of a controlled carbohydrate lifestyle.

The fight goes on—and will no doubt continue. The latest attack comes in the form of an outrageous article in The New York Times, claiming that we at Atkins have changed our position on fat consumption. Loud and clear, with the notable exception of man-made trans fats (which Dr. Atkins long ago identified as dangerous), all fats are a healthy component of the Atkins lifestyle.

Atkins has not changed its basic tenets in more than 30 years. So what is new? Well, Atkins is changing the way people around the world eat and that should keep us in the headlines for years to come!

[kyrasdad]

Sigh. My local news station just reported it as fact. This will do tremendous damage, as the retractions, if there are any, won't be close to as loud as the original reports.

[ICountToo]

I was glad to open my mail box this morning and find Atkins official stance in print. Media sources often mis-report things in an effort to be "first".

When/if people want to inform me of the dangers of Atkins, I will be handing out copies of the Atkins report and will be glad to share with them. <ggg>

[hcomeau]

I heard a news report that all of the sat fat in Atkins is bad for us? The news suggested that people who live lo carb lifestyles should follow the south beach program?

[gilibel]

Here are some of the other threads about this issue so far:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=160227
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=160707
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=160359
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=160868

;)

BTW, seems like it all started with an article in NY Times that Atkins reps later have condemned as untruthful (official statement at www.atkins.com.)

[tofi]

Just because it gets in a newspaper doesn't mean it's true. Check out the main threads in the Media Watch area before posting new threads about this.

[adkpam]

I'm not worried...I follow the DANDR book, and everything Dr. Atkins said would happened, happened, and I feel fine.
I think they ARE trying to make the diet more palatable ): to the scientists who can't look a fact in the face and still carry on about too much fat, what kind, etc, when research seems to indicate it's transfats that are the problem.
Yes, they probably are trying to get a larger market share, and while it does get the word out, makes doctors more comfortable recommending the diet, I hate to see people lie in a good cause.
It's all about comfort zones and PR, not the science. So I'm going to just keep on doing what I'm doing. Besides, this could backfire on them...already I've been asked "What does it mean? Have I been doing it wrong? Was Dr. Atkins wrong?"
This is the kind of thing that makes me think they can't back down without looking stupid.

[adkpam]

Hey, right after my post I found out that the Atkins people say they didn't say that!
I'm glad.

[windy]

I found that out this morning also and I sent an e-mail to our local station telling them that and that maybe they would like to read on the Atkins site the real story and be among the first to repute the story. I will see if it works.

Linda

[JimR-OCDS]

Well if it is true that Colette Heimowitz, head of the Atkins Center, is telling people around the country that people on the Atkins Diet, should not consume more than 20% of saturated fat in their diet, then she should provide the new study that supports the change in the Atkins Diet plan, or she should be fired.

Dr. Atkins never promoted this way of eating according to ma