http://channels.netscape.com/ns/hom.../dangerousdiets

what are your thoughts?

Above: My Fitday Nutrition Report for the Last Month (w.o ANY Supplements). My Vitamin K is higher than Fitday shows, because they don't let you list the Vitamin K and Selenium in Custom Foods. All my salads (best sources of Vitamin K) are custom Foods and thus show as 0 Vitamin K, instead of the 100%+ that is really in them. [SARCASM]I must be doing this wrong...as my Calcium (and Vitamin D) are both close to 120%RDA.[/SARCASM]

Let's get this Straight. During Induction (first 2 weeks), you are allowed:

4 oz. Cheese -- 82%RDA (Ca), 164% if you eat Double Calcium Cheese (I found it at Wal-Mart). Just go for the 24 packs, not the 16 as the 16 packs are made with a higher percentage of Skim Milk and have more carbs.

I get my Vitamin D (not mentioned in the article, but essential to bone health) from Shrimp.

I know..the person who did the research for that study is ignorant. We eat soo much cheese and take vits to keep the calcium up. It just ticks me off when ppl relese reports like that...they never read any of the books or anything...

I think I am sort of like this, at least to a point.

It's like when you achieve success on a particular plan, you automatically think that that plan will work for everyone.

This works in many areas of life. Just last week I was talking to a neighbor about the water problem I have in the house when it floods. He used some watersealer paint on his basement, but it has done nothing for my water problem in the basement. He just says "you must have done it wrong", "must have not done it exactly the way you said".

Sound familiar?

Same things these nutritionists push on us. If you didn't achieve success on thier plan, "you must have done it wrong" or "you must be lying", after all everyone knows that every human being has the same metabolism as every other human being .

I probably push this on other people too. Since it has worked for me, I feel it will automatically work for everyone else, which just isn't the case. And if it doesn't, I feel they are doing it wrong. That's probably not true for them either.

Don't worry about the naysayers, they are too closeminded to be of any use to you, just don't let the same thing happen to you. Take those calcium supplements that will cost you $5 for a 90 days supply

Later,
wsgts

Blatant anti-low carb and pro-dairy! I'm really mad too, Vpeach. There are TONS of ways to get calcium other than in milk. Dark green veggies like broccoli and bok choy (very low in carbs) have way more calcium than milk does, *and* they're low-carb. However, that's not even getting to the root of the problem. It's a common fallacy that osteoporosis is caused by not getting enough calcium. The problem isn't getting enough calcium, it's preventing calcium *loss*. Boron, another part of the bone matrix, is good for this. Guess where boron is found? Leafy vegetables and nuts, like lettuce and almonds. And the "weight-loss potential" of low-fat dairy was attributed entirely to calcium. So stock up on kale, and you'll get the same effects -- without the lactose.

Honestly. Was this article funded by the National Dairy Council? Low-carb scare tactics make me VERY angry.

(And one other thing that I never understood: if a diet that "cuts out" one entire food group is bad, according to the article, why is low-fat somehow okay?)

Here is something else to munch on...I read that sugar blocks the absorption of Calcium. Without alot of sugar in your Diet, alot more of your Calacium gets absorbed. Those on the AHA's High-Sugar diet may be getting alot of calacium (though, I doubt it)...but, they probably aren't absorbing it.

My son is on Body for Life, he's gone from 12% to 8% body fat,and packed on 7 lb.s of muscle. I have never seen anybody eat as many calcium bearing vegetables, or take in as much dairy as he is doing, and he's following all the recommendations. This article is just lining for the bottom of the birdcage.

Just to correct a few misperceptions:
The study which found the Atkins Diet to be calcium-deficient (among other vitamins/minerals) used a sample daily menu from Dr. Atkins book New Diet Revolution. So they did read the book. Obviously, there are workarounds and different foods one can eat to ensure proper amounts of nutrients, but I would wager that most in this forum are more savvy in that regard than the average person who simply picks up the book and uses a sample menu and doesn't monitor nutrient intake. I don't perceive the study as saying "this bad, this good" as simply saying "if you do this plan, you may want to pay attention to these nutrients to ensure you're getting enough".

Green leafy vegetables contain oxalic acid, which hinders calcium absorption. I am not aware that carbohydrates hinders alcohol absorption - are you referring to carbohydrates or to table sugar? BTW, fat *will* hinder calcium absorption. This doesn't mean that you can't do low-carb, it just means that a calcium supplement (or ensuring that you exceed the RDA) is a good idea.

I really don't know why anyone would take these articles so personally or get so worked up over them...

Hardly "worked up". Just annoyed that writers of articles like this are uninformed, but because it's in print, people believe it. Only very fresh spinach has enough oxalic acid to bind calcium, that why Frances Moore Lappe and others recommend adding another calcium source when eating it.

Our bodies are not designed to drink milk past infancy. We are simply returning to a natural state. I ont really eat much cheese and I've never really drank milk but my last full physical show my calcium levels were fine. so
Dark leafy vegges are just as good IMHO
Tash

Here is the problem...They are characterizing an entire diet by ONE possible menu. They state that you "will be deficient," not that you may be deficient...if you do Atkins. That is misleading. You can get enough Calcium...Just eat your Cheese and Veggies.



The only Vitamins and Minerals I focus heavily on getting enough of are Folic Acid, Magnesium, Potassium, Vitamin A, and Vitamin D. The rest (for the most part) aren't usually a problem...and as a result I don't focus too much on them.

I don't see most dieters simply following sample menus. Most eat what they want within the rules. A sample menu is not "eat this and only this." It is more like "you can eat this and still lose weight." I never even looked at the sample menus in fact. I read the book, and then ate what I felt like while adhering the rules of Atkins.



That's where we differ. When I read it, I see another article trying to paint Atkins as a "Dangerous" diet that noone should do. I see the pushing of LF Dairy as trying to push people away from Atkins and to the AHA Diet.



Never heard about green veggies. But, I know phyates and other compounds in grain, tubers, and legumes...will block quite a few nutrients. Not sure if Calcium is one of them. As I said, I read somewhere (a while back) that Sugar (such as in Colas) blocks Calcium absorption. Never heard that Fat blocks Calcium absorption.

They characterized all the diets based on their sample menus. They criticized the Ornish diet as being deficient in Vit E, B12, and zinc. The study made it clear that the comparison was based on sample menus from the books and included them in the study. They also made clear that careful food selection (on any of the diets) could eliminate the nutritional inadequacies.
I was mainly responding to Vpeach's comment about the researchers "not reading the book or anything".
Atkins (or his successor) could clearly solve this problem by reworking the sample menu in his book to something nutritionally balanced.



But obviously you pay attention to your nutrient intake. Does everyone? I don't know - I don't perceive myself to be the typical dieter. My limited anecdotal experience with other dieters is that some barely track calories, let alone macronutrients, let alone vitamin and mineral intake!! So, could someone simply "count carbs" and "eat within the rules" and get an inadequate nutrient intake? Absolutely. Again, I don't feel the average member of this forum represents the average person "on the street" - I think there's much more awareness of the full nutritional component of the diet, including adequate vitamin and mineral intake.



Are we talking the study or the article? I'm talking the study. Do I think the article accurately represents the study, and all the nuances of it? No, but how many news items do? It's called "dumbing it down", and it happens all the time. People still think the USDA recommended "don't eat fat"...they didn't, never did, they recommend a moderate-fat diet of 20-30% fat, but what happened? It got "dumbed down". People think Atkins says "don't eat carbs", too....

I refuse to get nutritional (or any other) guidance from a news blurb, simply because most of them are so simplified as to miss the main point involved.



For sodas, the phosphoric acid is what's blocking the calcium absorption. There's a balance between calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus - and too much phosphorus relative to calcium will block the absorption of the calcium. (The whole issue of mineral absorption and malabsorption and interaction with other nutrients is FAR too complicated for me to try and optimize mineral absorption in my diet - and I confess to being exceptionally anal retentive when it comes to charting and planning my food intake!! )

Fat will block calcium absorption, but it's something of a mixed blessing...the calcium will bind with the fats and block the absorption of the fats, too! It's believed to prevent colon cancer. So, six of one...half dozen of the other..

Fiona: thanks for the info on the oxalic acid. I didn't expect to see Frances Moore Lappe's name on this forum, though...

wsgts: to individual differences. "Twenty men crossing a bridge into a village are twenty men, crossing twenty bridges, into twenty villages."

I think I am getting more calicum than I was before.......I wonder which government agency paid for that study...

We are sournded by fools!!