Active Low-Carber Forums - Opinions: DANDR vs Atkins 72

Active Low-Carber Forums (http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php)

- Atkins Diet (http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Opinions: DANDR vs Atkins 72 (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=347054)

Opinions: DANDR vs Atkins 72

It seems to me that I see a slight preference in folks recommending Atkins 72 over DANDR. I have only read posts where Atkins 72 Induction is described. I did just finish reading DANDR and think it rocks!

Is there a reason people seem to think the 72 plan is better than the latter plan?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locarb4mee

it is stricter and allows less choices. I did it back in the 70's but I like DANDR better for myself, however, as most people do, I have modified it to meet my needs.

I prefer DANDR too,I don't remember to much on the 72 one

Just as we need to find the diet that fits our lifestyle and works for us, we also much choose which Atkin's version to use. I can't do 72.. Well, I could, of course, but i don't like the strictness of it. I like the choices of DANDR, and I can't complain about the fiber deductions, lol, I feel like I can eat way more! But some people just can't do DANDR and get the results they want. So its all up to your body and mind, what works for you.

I use DANDR 2002. I don't think I'd care for the original version. It is my own opinion that Dr. A. very likely altered it because few people could follow it as a wol.

There are only a few people here who use 72. Not sure where you got that idea? Use the one that sounds best to *you!* ;)

Use what works for me.

I must use 72 as it seem to work best for me. I only count actual carbs, not net.

I've been doing Atkins on an off since the 70s, so I know it very well. Knowing a plan inside and out helps with your success. So what ever plan you decide on, learn it very very well.

By the way, I've done the other plans.. 2002 completely stalled me and I ended up quitting. YMMV

I think everyone should start out 2002. He changed the plan over decades for a reason. I can't think of any 72ers who aren't 'seasoned' LCers, and it seems some have unusual health challenges. 'Why make it harder than it needs to be, if it doesn't have to be?' is MHO.

What kind of health challenges, Kristine? I've only gotten healthier and so did my mother, so now I'm wondering what I don't know.

I thought he changed it just to make it a bit easier, but it works slower. Then when Atkins Nutritionals got involved, well... it was a sad day for low carbers.

I thought he changed it b/c people are people (Americans) and they demanded more food, more variety, more more MORE. People simply ate less in the early 70's and today people would not stand for a cup of lettuce with celery and radishes per day--even if it does mean all the meat and fat you need.

I'm sure there are some good things about 2002, the carb ladder comes to mind as something valuable, but for sure the increase in variety and higher carbs from the get-go does slow down the weight loss, and especially the bigger variety of foods can cause problems with people from Day one, IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElleH

Well said. That's what I feel happened too. He keeps giving in to people's whining (lol).

I find that I enjoy what I make. I'm happy as a clam eating what I eat. Plenty of ways to prepare foods.

Dr. A's Diet Revolution (Atkins 72) was promoted and marketed as a weight loss diet. His "New" Diet Revolution was intended for a broader audience, not just for weight loss but also as a corrective, therapeutic lifestyle program for a wide range of health problems, including obesity.

In his preface to DANDR 1992, he wrote ..

Quote:

... It was only after the Atkins diet made me famous that I moved to my life's work in nutrition medicine, using it to treat serious health problems. Why, then, am I writing another book on dieting?

Dieting is a crucial part of the health care I provide. Unless you eat right, you can't be healthy, and if you do eat right, then, generally speaking, you won't be overweight.

This is a basic truism that everything in my experience as a physician has reinforced.

Obesity and ill health, crankiness and exhaustion, sleepy days and sleepless nights - let me tell you, those are a familiar melody in the ears of any physician who has treated the fat, malnourished, ill-exercised modern American for long. Obesity is not an accidental accumulation of extra ounces, it is a basic metabolic disorder intimately related to ill health.

When I wrote my original bestseller, Diet Revolution, twenty years ago, I was chiefly concerned about showing people how to lose weight quickly, easily, and without much pain or bother. The principles I devised for doing that still hold. They are an effective way of discarding the excess pounds and inches, and keeping them off. Indeed, I strongly doubt that a more surefire and hunger-free method of dieting has ever been proposed.

But the principles I have been working on ever since my early days as a diet doctor are concerned with more than weight loss. They involve a commitment to complete wellness - the metabolic basis of richly satisfying well-being.

my favourite part

Quote:

Indeed, I strongly doubt that a more surefire and hunger-free method of dieting has ever been proposed.

Yeah, I forgot about that, but thought about it later, that 72 was basically a "Cosmo diet." I still think 02 is too liberal, however. 92 is the middle of the road one that has worked well for me! ;)

This should be in my siggy

Quote:

Unless you eat right, you can't be healthy, and if you do eat right, then, generally speaking, you won't be overweight.