One more quick thing. As I was reading through the "War" forum (a truly entertaining collection of threads - some people just can't argue and be civil...), I did notice that someone brought up something about a person named Phil Kaplan who was attacking Atkins and was promoting his own product. (Note, since he is attacking Atkins here, I'm just hopping along for the ride - my original intent is not focusing on Atkins alone - rather on general ketogenic dieting)

I glanced through PK's article and noted some interesting points, then came back to the intial thread that talked about the article. The basic responses were that PK was a "quack" and that he was out to sell his own product, but I didn't see anyone attacking his article. I'm guessing he probably makes points that everyone here disagrees with, but at the same time, is his information factually incorrect? One of the items that caught my eye was:

"1. Extended periods of ketosis affect the chemical composition of the blood in such a way that you increase risk of cardiac incident (blood ketoacidosis)."

I understand ketoacidosis is not ketosis, and that it's much worse than ketosis, but is it true to say that sustained ketosis increased the chances of progressing to ketoacidosis?

There were also some items about kidney stones being formed by many people on the Atkins diet. I'd have to some research on kidney stones, but wouldn't the presence of kidney stones indicate some deeper issues, or just an initial resistance to the diet? PK didn't pursue the issue of the stones much further, so not all of my questions were answered by his article.

It would seem questionable to just declare him a quack and discard his article because he's selling a competing product, IF he brings up any valid points. Even quacks might have good points. Any particular reason he's a quack besides that he's anti-low-carb?

- Jonathan