...: http://www.ravnskov.nu/THINCS.htm

From the title:


None of us argue that there are many statements and misconceptions, personal opinions and the like on various views, pro and anti- low-carb.

You need to focus on scientific research and scientific studies, that's where it counts. We can all come up with statements and opinions....

Wa'il

Nutri-Nut-

You may also wish to look up an associated press article by Daniel Q. Haney, "Is Atkins Right?". The article is a discussion of some short term studies done by mainstream researchers that yielded suprising (at least suprising to them) results. There is an interesting quote by the same physician that the article calls the "senior author" of the AMA's statement you refer to. He states, "There are many principles in the Atkins diet that go against what we know. It keeps people away from staples of the diet that we know are associated with less heart disease."

I am begining to question what it is that he knows. It is the case that these "staples of the diet" are simply associated with "less heart diease" because they are combined with fat restriction plans? Is it, in fact, when the "staples of the diet" are COMBINED with high fat consumption that contributes to heart diease? In other words, you must mitigate the damage done by these "staples" with fat restriction. Does he really know if fat consumption ALONE, in the absense of the so-called staples, is associated with heart disease?

Dr. Gary Foster, an obesity researcher with the University of Pennsylvania, states, "I'm a part of the obseity establishment. I've spent my life researching ways to treat obesity and 100 percent of them have been low-fat and high-carb. Now, I'm beginning to think, it isn't as it has appeared." Thankfully, there are true scientists out there like Dr.Foster and his colleagues, Drs. Samuel Klien James Hill, the current and past presidents of the North American Association for the Study of obesity, who the article refers to as the "premier professional group", who are willing to look at the evidence and change their thinking if necessary. Dr. Foster even admitted that he and his collegues has set out to "show it dosen't work" but that "the consistency of the results across the studies is compelling in a way that makes us think we should investigate further."

I am much more impressed with a physician who is willing to examen his or her assumption in the face of imperical evidence than one who clings to tradition.

Its what got us washing hands ect.. someone questioning the status quo of things.
And its about time that someone thinks WHY if the standards are guaranteed to make us slim and healthy why the heck aren't they?

That article exhibits an almost complete lack of understanding of the principles behind the modern low carbohydrate diet. And it ignores millions of years of homo sapiens evolutionany development. It is written in technical language, but in essence, says little that is relevant to recent research on the low carbohydrate princples.

The Atkins diet, with which I am most familiar, is not a long-term, high fat diet. It allows reasonable amounts of fats to start the plan; but over the long term, the fats are reduced in both percentage and volume, until one is eating quite a balanced diet, sans heavy starches and carbohydrates, which are not natural components of an evolutionarily historical homo sapiens diet. The article ignores this important fact altogether. We did not evolve eating massive percentages of processed starches. They are not natural to our physiology.

I detected a distinct knee-jerk reaction in the article. We must remember, that if the high protein/low carb principle is proven to have positive long-term effects, these same people are suddenly thrust into a position of no longer being the authorities. They must suddenly reverse years of dietary dogma, and "eat some crow"; which they seem to resent along with other proteins.

When I started on Atkins, the only significant change I made to my diet was to forgo starches, in breads, potatoes, rice, flour, corn meal, and of course sugar. My percentages of proteins and fats rose instantly; but over about a month, my actual volume of these foods decreased. And I have lost 50 pounds, and various painful, disturbing sytmpoms that accompanies those pounds.

I have been on low fat/high carb diets for years, trying to control a metabolism wrecked 26 years ago. I've lost weight by starving but I've always gained it back. I've been under the care of the colleagues of some of the people who contributed to that article. Now what is better? Being chronically overweight for 20 years? Or losing that weight in less than one year? That is my goal.

I believe the people who wrote that article are so biased, and scared that they fail to even take that concept into consideration in their mad scramble to preserve their egos and status.

Just because people have letters after their names doesn't mean they are actually smart. The majority are merely parrots, squawking out ideas they memorized to get their degrees. I have little respect for the masses of them.

Good Luck with your own efforts

The AHA, American Heart Association, Dr. Atkins likes to point out that they give their seal of approval to Pop-Tarts.

danny