Not sure if this belongs here...

[Chefjen]

this article is the icing on the cake of ignorance...

http://www.sugarvine.com/rant/therant.asp?rant=69

[costello22]

The man is clueless. He has no idea what he's talking about. He thinks he knows the "common sense" way to lose weight, which all of us "spineless and weak-willed" low-carbers also know but refuse to follow. He won't take the time to educate himself, because he believes he knows all there is to know on the subject of weight loss.

Just because you say something in a rude, aggressive manner, it doesn't make you right. It just makes you look like more of an ass when you don't have your facts straight.

[PokerPoet]

Even shouted ignorance becomes a faded whisper with no echo to the informed.

What a papsmeartasitc rant.

[KarenJ]

this article is the icing on the cake of ignorance...


Heroic ignorance!

[kaypeeoh]

Quote:
"It’s predicated on two radical new concepts – eating less and exercising more." He's rude and that gets him more attention than being 'PC'. But he's right. Eat less, exercise more.

[costello22]

But he's right. Eat less, exercise more.

He is not right. His claim is that the Atkins diet is wrong, that it will clog your arteries and damage your heart. ("Yes, you might lose weight but think of your cholestorol levels, your heart, your intestines.")

It isn't necessary to exert willpower and make yourself "eat less," if you're on a low-carb diet. I eat less now, because my insulin levels are under control so I'm not as hungry. If I were to follow this fool's advice, I'd no doubt be on a "balanced" diet so full of carbs I'd be ravenous. And I'd still be gaining.

And exercise? May be good for you in many ways. Not necessary for weight loss. Exercise will simply increase your appetite to make up for the calories used. Have a look at Taubes' GCBC.

The "advice" dished out by this jerk is the opposite of what works for me and what is healthiest for me.

[costello22]

Here's what the fool has to say (with my comments):

"No, it’s not the latest page-turner from Robert Ludlum, it’s the most recent and successful in a long line of diet fads targeting fat, neurotic women and gay men."

Atkins is a fad diet? And I'm neurotic? I'm willing to bet this guy is far more neurotic than I am.

"Hang on a minute, it’s worse than that, this one has been adopted by the average Joe in the street -- you can tell because there’s a lot more people walking around with severe halitosis (yes, you do stink)."

This guy is so disrespectful toward overweight people. Here he criticizes people on Atkins because they "stink." My guess is he uses equally disrespectful language when he sees a fat person eating ("You're stuffing your face.") or sitting down ("You're a lazy slob.")

"For those of you who have been living on Planet Zog, the Atkins is a meat- and fat-intensive, carb-free diet which turns the traditional concept of a healthy meal on its head."

Mischaracterizes the Atkins diet, then let's us know that the "healthy meal" is the opposite of Atkins.

"Real men now have a licence to eat the crap they always have done and feel good about themselves."

Suddenly we're talking about "real men"? In the first sentence he told us that the diet was targetted at "fat, neurotic women and gay men."

And what "crap" is he talking about? Whole foods? The version of DANDR I own doesn't allow crap, which, IMO, is the frankenfood most Americans eat.

"It’s bad enough that this quackery has raked in millions for the genius who conceived it."

The Atkins diet is not quackery, and Atkins did not "conceive" of the low-carb diet. He found it by doing research in medical texts and journals. Something this guy has clearly never done. He offers no real information to support his views. We're to understand that "common sense" would tell us that the Atkins diet is not safe.

I question whether it raked in millions for Atkins, but if it did, so what? Atkins was right, his diet works. He did the research, he wrote the book. Our capitalist society hopes to encourage people to provide useful services to others by rewarding them for their efforts.

"But what’s worse is that this sort of mass self-delusion is starting to have a knock-on effect in the restaurant game. Some high-end establishments now offer Atkins fine dining menus and there’s even a greasy spoon near me that has Atkins-friendly options."

Why does he care what other people order in restaurants? How is he hurt if a restaurant offers me a choice that I find acceptable? How can anyone get worked up about this at all? Talk about neurotic!

"How anyone can seriously think that eating lots of fat and red meat is good for them is completely beyond me."

Because the science seems to support that point of view? God forbid we actually inform ourselves before we hand out advice!

"Yes, you might lose weight but think of your cholestorol levels, your heart, your intestines."

I've thought about them. I've researched the topic. I'm satisfied that Atkins is better for me than the "sensible, balanced diet" touted by public health officials.

"Like all fads, Atkins is going to fade away and as sure as lard is lard, you’re going to get fat again."

Yep. I'm lard. I'm not deserving of respectful treatment. Clearly, since I'm so fat, I'm stupid and neurotic and I'll be fat for life.

"So you might want to start thinking about the next big thing – the Muir Method. This is a revolutionary new diet plan I have spent years developing and testing on assorted rats and primates. It’s predicated on two radical new concepts – eating less and exercising more."

I'll try to avoid thinking about Muir or his method.

"So if you’re the kind of moron that sits in front of the TV watching ‘Friends’ all night with a family pack of Doritos and a litre bottle of Coke and you are serious about losing weight, please send me a cheque for £500. I’ll get back to you right away with my 10-Step Program of common sense platitudes that you already knew but were too spineless and weak-willed to do anything about."

Well, he has me diagnosed and he hasn't even met me! I'm fat so I must be a glutton and a slob! And a moron, to boot!

In fact, I watch very little TV, I don't eat chips or drink sodas. And I'll keep my money thanks.

[poindexter]

He just shows his ignorance by mentioning only red meat.
Obviously he hasn't read the Book, where it says (only about 50 times) Beef, FISH, FOWL, etc...

[shortstuff]

I think I'll take a little poll of my male friends who are gay and see how many of them are following the Atkins WOE and how many of them think I'm neurotic.

[Daisymaiz]

Quote:
"It’s predicated on two radical new concepts – eating less and exercising more." He's rude and that gets him more attention than being 'PC'. But he's right. Eat less, exercise more.
No, he's not right. If it were that simple I don't think most of us would be here.

He's an idiot.

[FatFreeMe]

Anyone know when that was posted? Im just curious.

I'm also curious.. How many emailed back a rant in reply? :lol:

[Chefjen]

http://www.sugarvine.com/rant/therant.asp?rant=85 heres another interesting one!

[ruthla]

Suddenly we're talking about "real men"? In the first sentence he told us that the diet was targetted at "fat, neurotic women and gay men."Then I guess he considers gay men to be the only "real men" around? :lol:

You know, if "eating less and exercising" was all it took to lose weight, none of us would be here in the first place.

[waywardsis]

Never mind that carbohydrate-restricted weight loss diets have been in (successful) practice since, oh, the late 1800's, and low-fat has been around for, oh, 30 years or so?

Kaypeeoh, have you read Taubes at all?? For some of us, it aint that simple :)

If "eat less and exercise more" was the solution to obesity (and therefore eating more and exercising less was the cause, as this implies) then people suffering from malnutrition in poor, developing nations wouldn't be suffering from obesity right along with us.

[kaypeeoh]

Yes, I have read Taubes. I pre-ordered the book from Amazon months before it's release. I agree with everything in the book but I feel it's weak on exercise. His only take on exercise was from looking at office workers and factory workers. He showed studies that proved the physical exercise from factory work did not make them leaner than office workers. And that's because the factory workers ate MORE to compensate for the expended calories. I think it proves what sugarvine says: You need to eat less and exercise more in combo to lose weight.

I also read Atkins and saw him on the Donahue show. I was as fervent an acolyte as any newbie around here. I went from 210 to 170 but my cholesterol went from 160 to 280. Lowcarb is fine for someone grossly obese (ie 300+) but the jury is still out on whether hypercholesterolemia is benign. CV says its not.

Fat does not magically appear on anyone's body. YOU put it there by a lifetime of ingesting more calories than the body needs.

I'm outta here for the rest of the weekend; I'm running a marathon in colorado, my 40th I think.

[LessLiz]

His only take on exercise was from looking at office workers and factory workers. He showed studies that proved the physical exercise from factory work did not make them leaner than office workers. And that's because the factory workers ate MORE to compensate for the expended calories.Why do you think they ate more? Because they said "I do all this exercise therefore I burned extra calories and I can be more gluttonous?" Or because they were more hungry?

Anyone can lose weight while being hungry. Anyone. All one must do is figure out how to live with constant hunger. That's a snap, right? Just takes a little will power. Taubes addressed that issue, too.

I had the willpower to spend 12 hours a day on my feet working in a lab to do the research to get an advanced degree, while in intense pain. At the end of that stretch I could barely walk. After a few months I was in continuous pain, but I finished 3 years worth of research and got the degree. Somehow, though I had enough willpower to do that, I found it impossible to live in constant hunger without eating.

I'll happily agree that I ate the food that ended up making me grossly obese. I'll also happily state that you do not have a clue how utterly miserable life is when no matter how much you eat you find yourself hungry within an hour of eating. Nor do you know what it means to spend a great deal of your life trying to figure out not how to rid yourself of hunger, but how to keep it down to manageable levels.

You can point the big finger of guilt and blame, say "It's all your fault" and I have no issue with it. My response is "Hey, I'm only human." But having read GCBC, it would seem to me that the same person pointing the finger should realize that the whole processes was driven by the biochemistry of the human body, which makes the big pointing finger pretty pointless.

[costello22]

Yes, I have read Taubes. I pre-ordered the book from Amazon months before it's release. I agree with everything in the book but I feel it's weak on exercise. His only take on exercise was from looking at office workers and factory workers. He showed studies that proved the physical exercise from factory work did not make them leaner than office workers. And that's because the factory workers ate MORE to compensate for the expended calories. I think it proves what sugarvine says: You need to eat less and exercise more in combo to lose weight.

I also read Atkins and saw him on the Donahue show. I was as fervent an acolyte as any newbie around here. I went from 210 to 170 but my cholesterol went from 160 to 280. Lowcarb is fine for someone grossly obese (ie 300+) but the jury is still out on whether hypercholesterolemia is benign. CV says its not.

Fat does not magically appear on anyone's body. YOU put it there by a lifetime of ingesting more calories than the body needs.

I'm outta here for the rest of the weekend; I'm running a marathon in colorado, my 40th I think.

If you read GCBC, you clearly didn't understand it. You say you "agree with everything in the book," and yet you arrive at a conclusion - eat less, exercise more to lose weight - which is completely opposite of the logical conclusion of the evidence Taubes presents.

You say that "it proves what sugarvine says: You need to eat less and exercise more in combo to lose weight." What proves this? GCBC? The study with the factory workers?

If you exercise more, you'll be hungrier, and you'll eat more to put yourself back into balance. If you don't eat more, you'll either continue to be hungry or you'll move less during non-exercise times to make up for the caloric deficit. That's one problem with low-cal diets. Constant hunger and/or weakness. Very few can live that way forever. And why should they? Hunger is the body's signal you need food, just as fatigue is the signal for rest. You can't fight hunger forever anymore than you can fight sleep forever.

Exercise may have many health benefits, but losing weight isn't one of them. My personal experience of a low-calorie diet combined with exercise is that I'm always hungry and weak. And the weight loss isn't even that great!

Fat tissue is not metabolically inert. It isn't a garbage bag that extra calories are shoved into. As long as my insulin levels are raised in response to a high carb diet, my fat tissue will continue to store fat and be resistant to giving that fat up to be used as fuel for my body. I'm starving myself on a cellular level because my body has decided that I need to make fat and protect that fat tissue from loss. I can make up my mind that I'll lose weight, I can bring my force of will to bear, I can be as determined as I like, but it's a lot like wishing my hair would stop turning gray or my eyesight would improve. It's not my mind that's determining how the calories I eat are distributed. It's my hormones that are making that decision. My only hope is alter my hormonal balances by changing the macronutrients I eat. Less carb. Less insulin. Less fat tissue being formed. More energy being released from the fat tissue for use by the body. I could decide to continue consuming lots of carbs and fight my biological drive to eat and rest. Or I can work with my metabolism, and lose weight naturally. To me the choice is a no-brainer.

This is what I took away from GCBC. I really don't understand how anyone could read that book, "agree with everything" in it, and arrive at "eat less, exercise more to lose weight."

One thing I think we have to accept is that we're all different metabolically. My metabolism resembles that which Taubes portrays in his book. Perhaps yours is different.

[Chefjen]

Fat does not magically appear on anyone's body. YOU put it there by a lifetime of ingesting more calories than the body needs.

Ummmm Im gonna pretend I DIDNT read this.. Because i have a whole SLEW of things i could say

One being sometimes it doesnt matter if your a bloody salad eater daily you can still gain weight.. Sometimes its medical.. or thyroids or so many other reasons..

To say People get fat becuase they eat to much is a very sterotypical statement

[costello22]

One being sometimes it doesnt matter if your a bloody salad eater daily you can still gain weight..

Yep. I was a vegan for 3 or 4 years. Salads were lunch every day - and usually dinner too. That was the start of my weight gain. I went from 160 to 210 during that time.

People - skinny people - were always commenting on how healthy my diet was compared to their own. And the pounds just kept rolling on! It reminds me of the old joke: Doctor says "The operation was a success, but the patient died."