ATKIN LIED IN HIS BOOK, Read here.. impossible

[mikeroger]

Atkin said in his book dandr that they compared 3 different diets

one 90% fat , one 90% protein , one 90% carbs of 1000 calories for 10 days.

THey said the one with 90% carbs gained weight, the one with 90% protein lost weight and the one with 90% fat lost the most.

Now we both know that the one with 90% fat lost alot of muscles cuz of not enough protein. However what about the 90% protein , can the human body burn fat fat stores without dietary fat coming in and just protein and 0 carbs?

Also doesnt the body go into auto starvation mode and conserves all body fat when its at 1000 calories per day?
So how did they lose body fat if its such a low calories?

Atkin also said they compared a TOTAL FAST of 10 days(no eating for 10 days)

subjects lost 7pounds of fat, 14 pounds of muscle . ok understandable, they first lost fat then no protein= bye bye muscles.

THen he said they did a 1000 calorie limit , 0 carbs (but he didnt say how much protein or fat, so the subjects were given their daily protein intake and the rest was fat) And he said for 10 days they lost 14 lbs of pure fat with 0.5 lbs of muscles.

So in other words why didnt the body go into starvation mode at 1000 calories but getting ample protein/fat but such low calorie despite any amount of protein/fat doesnt it make the body go into auto starvation and conserve every ounce of fat?

thast what i dont understand with the atkin compairason of metabolic advantage in his book.

doesnt ANYTHING low in calories= automatic body conservation of fat?

Even if the body gets enough protein to meet its daily needs? and the rest compromised of fat?

maybe these subjects were small people with small needs?

[agonycat]

Mike,

I highly doubt you are qualified enough in the professions of nutrition or medical to state that Doctor Atkin's lied in any of his studies.

I would caution you on making false statements to which you have no research to base your conclusions. Your opinions could be termed slanderious and could be proscuted under state or federal laws.

Unless you have scientific proof that he lied I would highly recommend you withdraw your accusal of him.

If you have such a beef against Dr Atkin's why do you keep posting on these forums? You should be taking your complaints directly to a board sponsored by his clinics.

This forum is run by people of all walks of life and not in anyway affiliated with any diet program we support here.

Do you understand what I have posted above? Simple yes or no answer will suffice in this.

Regards,
Janet

[mikeroger]

sorry i ddint mean to offend anyone, i just said that in his book, he contradicted himself.

or maybe there was a typing error in his book but it didnt make sense how someone getting 90% fat at 1000 calories would not lose muscle tissue.

and anything at 1000 calories doesnt it force the body into fat conservation ? And what about the 0 grams of carbs, wont the body convert the protein into glucose hence all protein intake is lost into glucose. Or maybe the subjects took in more protein than the minimum requirement to compensate for the conversion of protein to glucose for the brain

[agonycat]

www.atkinscenter.com



Not sure how many times I have to post this. That is *HIS* website that you can ask all the questions you have concerning any of his research or study materials. *WE* do not have the inside track on his materials or his thought process behind them.

You would be better off posting your questions on his site and getting one of his paid staff members respond as to the "whys" or "hows" he came up with his materials.

:)

[suze_c]

Mike, I agree with Agonycat, those are some pretty serious accusations to be throwing about. First of all, if Dr. Atkins did not have valid proof for his studies, he could not publish it as such. And IMHO, I think that anyone who undergoes a strict 1000 calorie diet, would at first lose weight, BEFORE their body goes into a starvation mode...think about it. MOST times, make note, that I did say most, not all... when there is a initial reduction in calories, the body will lose some weight... the key is the individual. How many times have they yo-yoed diet,or screwed up their metabolism by it? What other health factors need to be taken into consideration. These are all things that help determine the success of weight loss. There are LOTS of ppl on this forum who have extreme success with Dr. Atkins program & w/o/e, I don't think that bashing him by calling him a liar is a good thing to do here~ no offense to you~ but think about what has been said.

[MayLisa]

I'm beginning to get the impression that MIKEROGERS just likes to stir things up and get attention. When my child does this, I IGNORE HIM.

[KatieB]

I agree with you, MayLisa. This is the last time I'll read anything posted by this person.

Katie

[DDMariana]

I will not click on his name again, nor will I read anything by "infuriator" who is in the same business of butting into a group so he can convert everyone to his own regime. Little do they know that most of us come from their camp, and are no longer there because we've done our OWN research.

Everyone...please boycott these intruders and let them fade away.

:wave:

[JerseyDon]

Mikeroger,

Why are you here? If you think Lc'ing is BS why do you bother with this site? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[fromagina]

I could be wrong, but my interpretation of the "problem" you presented, mike, actually supports Dr. Atkin's theory.

The people who ate 90% fat at 1000 calories lost adipose tissue, not necessarily muscle tissue, because what they took in was used for energy first, then the body converts adipose tissue for fuel if there is still an energy defecit.
If the body runs out of adipose tissue to burn, it then resorts to muscle.

Unless these people were exercising at a marathon-level pace during the study, it's unlikely that a significant amount of their loss was from muscle.

But, again, just like everyone else, my degree is not in medecine. It's important to keep a skeptical eye on anything being presented, but, in the end, you have to go with what works.

Atkins works.

[Omega]

Mike may have a point...


sci.med.nutrition post on Kekwick & Pawan studies (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Kekwick+group:sci.med.nutrition&hl=en&lr=lang_en&selm=55f47425.0203201819.1f3408a7%40posting.google.com&rnum=1)

[agonycat]

Omega,

I would say that link had a point but without knowing the background of the person giving the "review" as it be, it has no merit.

Who is the person giving their input? What creditials do they hold? Are they an expert? Or simply someone that happened to read medical studies and disagree with what they had read?

I would give this a thumbs down on proof that Atkin's lied about anything.

Sorry.

[suze_c]

I have been reading so many posts on this forum lately of ppl coming in and bashing Atkins, you'd think there was a Bash Atkins agenda out there :bash:
Sure it makes for an interesting debate... but here is the bottom line for me anyhow.... ATKINS WORKS FOR ME~! and it ALSO HAS WORKED FOR THOUSANDS MORE PPL THAN ME! And THAT is what I am going to go by.

[agonycat]

A better place to address the Atkin's lied issue is the forum that is sponsored by HIS staff.

Debating here while makes for some interesting discussions really gets no where. We are not affiliated with Dr Atkin's in anyway therefore debating what he might have ment or his thought processes on why he said this or that or why his studies made mention of different subjects is fruitless.

You want to discuss the issue and find out exactly what he ment or why go to www.atkinscenter.com

I personally wish this subject was dropped completely because it gets no where.

[drhaubi]

Hi Everybody,

There is something everybody is forgetting when talking about metabolism: any thing you eat is just a substrate in a vast and complex line of processes.

Sugars are converted to glucose and fructose, fructose is TOXIC and has to phosphorilized and will enter glycolysis just like glucose.

Starch will be converted to glucose, and glucose to something else because it is TOXIC.

Bacteria produce aminoacids during glycolysis to produce their own protein, we cannot anymore (too expensive, that´s why we became hunters)

Proteins will be degraded into amino acids and this can be used to produce glucose or for muscle building or for cell replication or for enzymes, etc.

Fats can be stored as such or converted into glucose and glycogen.

Glycogen can be used as glucose, and this again, to produce fat

As you can see, there thousands of metabolic pathways in the body. The only thing that cannot be synthesized by the body is what we call "essential nutrients", like the essential amino acids, vitamins and fatty acids.
Glucose is not essential, it can be metabolized from almost anything, so you do not need to eat it.

If you eat a calorie restricted diet low in protein and fats you are risking a severe health problem, but if you are doing an Atkins diet you have plenty of proteins and fats (the essential nutrients) to build anything you need. You will be lacking in energy, for that you have your fat reserves and your body will learn how to use them again.

Also, when the body goes into starvation it produces high levels of growth hormone which protects your protein and uses only fat as energy resource, it inhibits lipogenesis so that you do not build up new fat reserves from the newly available glucose produced by the gluconeogenesis.
In extreme cases, like in concentration camps, people used up even their muscle mass, but hey, remember, this is only muscle fibres, not muscle cells, you can fill them up later, once you restart to eat properly, and this protein catabolism is absolutely necessary for cell replacement and enzyme production, not for energy alone.

Adipose tissue (body fat) is not for energy conservation, it is a temporary energy depot, designed to be used in moments of need.
Use it!

[cricket56]

As for Atkins: The 2002 is not high fat but you need fat to lose weight. It encourages 30%+ protein. It also encourages 10-12% of your weight in calories to avoid the "starvation" mode that everyone is scared to death of. I lost 50 pounds eating 400 cal. a day, but that didn't teach me how to eat for life.
If Mike is not a troll, and really does not understand, then so be it. But that 1000 cal. isn't a worry. The USDA diet used to include a 1000 cal. weight reduction plan years ago.
I choose not to follow the new 2002 program any longer. I was on it for months and on that Official website board. Not bending at all, but you can get Atkins' nutritionist to answer questions like the one posted here.If you want to learn, go ahead and do it. It won't happen going back and forth here. I agree with the others. Go and learn before you contradict.

[Nancy LC]

That's the first I've ever heard of sugar being converted into fructose. Are you sure you're not getting confused with table sugar being 50% glucose and 50% fructose?

[KvonM]

the original post was made back in 2002. i knew something was suspect when a response pointed to atkins' website and mentioned asking him questions.

so, yeah... this is all a little outdated :).

[cricket56]

so it seems.

[Nancy LC]

Bleh, I hate it when I don't see how old threads are.

[kaypeeoh]

"Tue, Oct-01-02, 17:12"

That'll learn ya; all this vitriol directed against someone who's long gone. :-)

[cricket56]

LMAO>>> I only went by the recent post. DOn't know enough yet!...Oh well, nice to met you! :)

[kurt]

I love Atkins, It works!!!!!

[kurt]

QUOTE mikeroger---Atkins is a Liar!!!!!---QUOTE
You are amazing :q: Thanks for letting us know

[gryfonclaw]

The dead threads shall RISE AGAIN!