Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 21:36
ICountToo's Avatar
ICountToo ICountToo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 384
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 291/283.0/160 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 6%
Location: Ohio
Default

Potatofree

Don't leave - we are all here to learn. I think this topic is important for all of us who are concerned with our health and there is nothing wrong with trying to understand, especially when things are up in the air like this.

All the new media hype has shaken a lot of things up and we will be hearing about it for a while now. Tonight on my local news - I heard them make some mis-statements in an effort to do timely reporting.

Hooray for you wanting to understand!

Onward....
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 21:55
tamarian's Avatar
tamarian tamarian is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 19,506
 
Plan: Atkins/PP/BFL
Stats: 400/223/200 Male 5 ft 11
BF:37%/17%/12%
Progress: 89%
Location: Ottawa, ON
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by potatofree
I understand it's not a debate of which plan is right. I'm trying to understand what the fuss is about, not pick petty fights!

I'm not stupid, just asking for clarification and trying to understand other people's point of view.

My comment about being reprimanded was to give some background as to why I might be tring to understand people's reaction, and why I'm asking the questions I am!

The reaction to this news item is clearly not just from Atkins followers. Even non low carbers, like the journalist from NYT, know what this means, and recognized its significance, and so do many of us.

This is quite different from diet zealots who may have bashed your choice of LC plan. Which is why I suggested you start a new thread to discuss that issue if it interests you, such as diet zealots, bashers and bashing, and which plan's followers will have "egg on their face" due to marketing changes, etc.. It's an interesting topic, as each plan (Atkins, Low-Carb, Paleo, WW, Dr. Phill, Simmons etc.) has it's bashers and nay sayers. Chance are, the Atkins Diet gets bashed the most.

Wa'il
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 22:09
catfishghj's Avatar
catfishghj catfishghj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 428
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 330/217/190 Male 70 in
BF:?/30/less than 20
Progress: 81%
Location: Tucson, AZ
Default

This is very bad because some people may switch from healthy saturated fats to very unhealthy fats such as canola oil. If you want to learn about fats from a true expert, go here:
http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/skinny.html
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 22:15
cc48510 cc48510 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,018
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 320/220/195 Male 6'0"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Pensacola, FL
Default

Here's my information from Fitday:

12/02 -- 2144 kcal; 43% Fat; 19% SFA; 17% MUFA; 164g CHO
01/03 -- 1259 kcal; 60% Fat; 26% SFA; 24% MUFA; 4g CHO
02/03 -- 1320 kcal; 50% Fat; 23% SFA; 18% MUFA; 20g CHO
03/03 -- 2108 kcal; 72% Fat; 29% SFA; 30% MUFA; 14g CHO
04/03 -- 2071 kcal; 66% Fat; 30% SFA; 25% MUFA; 13g CHO
05/03 -- 1754 kcal; 64% Fat; 27% SFA; 25% MUFA; 20g CHO
06/03 -- 2093 kcal; 60% Fat; 27% SFA; 23% MUFA; 17g CHO
07/03 -- 2131 kcal; 58% Fat; 25% SFA; 22% MUFA; 22g CHO
08/03 -- 1834 kcal; 58% Fat; 23% SFA; 21% MUFA; 33g CHO*
09/03 -- 1907 kcal; 60% Fat; 23% SFA; 24% MUFA; 18g CHO
10/03 -- 1949 kcal; 59% Fat; 23% SFA; 23% MUFA; 19g CHO
11/03 -- 1919 kcal; 59% Fat; 21% SFA; 26% MUFA; 22g CHO
12/03 -- 2141 kcal; 56% Fat; 22% SFA; 23% MUFA; 30g CHO
01/04 -- 1959 kcal; 58% Fat; 21% SFA; 25% MUFA; 32g CHO

*Blood Pressure Before Atkins: 140s/90s

**Cholesterol: 175; Triglycerides: 96; Blood Sugar: 84; Electrolytes: Normal; Blood Pressure: 120/70; Kidneys/Liver: Working Just Fine

My Saturated Fat has been just over 20% for 13 months now...and in fact was just coming off its highest levels when I had my Lipids Checked. I see no reason to change my WOE.
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Sun, Jan-18-04, 23:50
Grimalkin's Avatar
Grimalkin Grimalkin is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 741
 
Plan: PP
Stats: 160/149/125 Female 66 in.
BF:
Progress: 31%
Default

The big deal to me is TRUST. All of my life I've been listening to the big fat lies that made me sick and overweight. Mainstream nutritionists tell me they care about me, yet their advice clearly doesn't work and they refuse to change their tune.

Dr. Atkins told what HE believed was the truth... as do the Eades, the Hellers, Schwarzbein, etc. ad nauseum. Yes there are some differences between their plans but they seem to be sincere in their science, and at least they reference their literature heavily with research as well as their practical experiences. We choose to trust that they actually have our best interests at heart and are really trying to help us (and would like to sell some books, of course).

After this sudden switch on sat fats for no apparent good reason (except marketing goals), I guess I just don't trust AN anymore, and they are making me feel as if they might tell me anything to get me to buy more bars and shakes now...
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-04, 05:04
EvelynS EvelynS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 118
 
Plan: high fat low carb
Stats: 215/152/150 Female 5ft 5in
BF:
Progress: 97%
Location: england
Default

"fat as polyunsaturates (hope I quoted you right, Doreen). "

I think that's monounsaturates, Rose. If it was polyunsaturates, I wouldn't be eating it. Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-04, 06:07
Lisa N's Avatar
Lisa N Lisa N is offline
Posts: 12,028
 
Plan: Bernstein Diabetes Soluti
Stats: 260/-/145 Female 5' 3"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Michigan
Default

Quote:
This is very bad because some people may switch from healthy saturated fats to very unhealthy fats such as canola oil.


That's certainly a valid concern. I find myself wondering how many low carbers will hear the "reduce your saturated fat to 20% or less" message and switch to very unhealthy fats such as margarine in an effort to comply without doing any research on what healthy fats are and in the process cause themselves far more damage than a saturated fat intake higher than 20% ever would have (none when combined with low carb!). Face it; how many people actually look into the science behind low carb and fat intake for themselves or even read that portion of the book?
I also wonder how many will simply quit low carb completely and go back to a low fat/high carb plan due to interpreting what AN has said as "fats are bad" instead of "lower your saturated fat intake". For that matter, this may very well have the unintended effect of driving more of their customers in the direction of South Beach since their plan as it is currently written gives no practical guidelines for how one goes about limiting their saturated fat intake on low carb and South Beach does. That's not necessarily a bad thing since South Beach is also a carb restricted plan, but it's not the effect that I think they were looking for with this.

Quote:
I don't mean to be overly sensitive, either, but I got reprimanded by a few people when I switched from Atkins to CAD


I can imagine that you didn't like and/or appreciate that. However, think about how millions of Atkins followers are going to feel when they are now reprimanded by their friends, family, co-workers and doctors regarding their saturated fat intake unnecessarily. Think they're going to feel confused and/or betrayed? I do.
As far as having egg on our faces; that might be true if AN was actually correct in their recommendation since "having egg on your face" implies that you were wrong and are now having to eat a healthy (low carb) serving of crow. There's nothing wrong with recommending a balance of healthy fats, but to single out saturated fat as somehow deserving of being limited without the science to back them up causes them to lose a great deal of credibility in my eyes.
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-04, 06:58
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 35,568
 
Plan: DANDR '92
Stats: 236/179/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 59%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa N
I also wonder how many will simply quit low carb completely and go back to a low fat/high carb plan due to interpreting what AN has said as "fats are bad" instead of "lower your saturated fat intake".
Lisa, that's my worry too. People will think it means that TOTAL fat intake should be limited to 20% of the day's calories. Or .. as I noted earlier .. they'll confuse "saturated fat" to mean "animal fat" and sharply limit their intake of meat proteins and eggs in the mistaken belief that the fat is pure saturates, which it's not (less than 50%). Even virgin olive oil is 13.5% saturated fat.


Doreen
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-04, 07:55
Flintstone's Avatar
Flintstone Flintstone is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 154
 
Plan: protein power
Stats: 245/236/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 13%
Location: Flint, MI, USA
Default

What an incredible thread. Thank you to all that have posted the great links.
Whereas I tend to get a little lost in all the medical jargon, I've learned an awful lot from Dr. Atkins and PP about what I put in my body and how it is affected. "Healthy and Natural" eating is what its all about. I lost faith in the Atkins Corp when they began marketing their "frankenfoods". I don't buy them and will continue to not buy them as it goes against what I believe Atkins intended. If Atkins Corp goes bankrupt....then so be it! I know this WOL is best for me and I refuse to change ANYTHING! Yes...I truly believe Atkins Corp is changing their opinion for the almighty $$$$...but I agree with Potatofree...if this gets more people to LCing...then its not a bad thing. I truly believe each person needs to find the "right" plan for them...be it SB, CAD, PP, etc...they are all simply modifications of Dr. Atkins original plan.
I'm kinda happy about this uproar....maybe now beef prices will come down some and I can reap the benfits and I continue my "HIGH-FAT" WOL!!
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-04, 07:59
Sheldon's Avatar
Sheldon Sheldon is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 411
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 174/163/163 Male 5 feet 7 inches
BF:21.1%/18.5%/18.5%
Progress: 100%
Location: Conway, AR
Default Don't panic

Regarding sat fat, I suggest that everyone looks here, here, and here. The question isn't, what does the Atkins Center say? It's, what does the best science say? The anti-sat-fat hypothesis is full of wholes. By the methods of good science, it should be discarded. See the links.

Sheldon
Reply With Quote
  #101   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-04, 08:04
OHGal1415's Avatar
OHGal1415 OHGal1415 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 387
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 270/225/145 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 36%
Default

Yep. We're buying a new chest freezer, to house the 1/2 SIDE OF BEEF we're buying. Yep, lots of steak, roasts and burgers for me. I'm even going to ask for packages of BEEF LARD!!!!

I think I'll keep a batch of the lard in the fridge and fry my EGGS in it. MMmmm....
Reply With Quote
  #102   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-04, 08:08
OHGal1415's Avatar
OHGal1415 OHGal1415 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 387
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 270/225/145 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 36%
Default

Thanks for the Ravnskov link. That was a new one for me.

On that same vein, if one wants to consume MORE cholesterol, then they should be eating LEAN meats. Since cholesterol is a basic building block for cells, LEAN meats contain more cholesterol than fattier cuts.
Reply With Quote
  #103   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-04, 09:00
maryc's Avatar
maryc maryc is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,144
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 286/219/130 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 43%
Location: Jonesboro, Arkansas USA
Default

Wow uuum I thought the Canola oil was ok... I guess I just thought of it just like Vegetable oil.
Reply With Quote
  #104   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-04, 09:05
Archie's Avatar
Archie Archie is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 518
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 236/202.5/159 Male 66
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: Vancouver Island, B.C.
Default

It's quite amazing how much response this thread has generated.
While I'm glad to have discovered Controlled Carb eating and while I acknowlege that Dr Atkins gets credit for exposing me (and millions of others) to it I would never buy into it entirely. I always look for a balanced point of view. I always try to consider opposing points of view. It's amazing how often both sides are correct.
I'm afraid there are alot, maybe most, people who, when they find something they believe in entrench themselves around it and refuse to consider that it's not perfect. The good Dr. made us aware of the dangers of refined foods and sugars and has shown us a way to lose weight but we should not diefy him. There has actually been a thread entitled "Dr Atkins is a God". I know it wasn't meant literally but it still makes a point.
After reading "Fast Food Nation" I decided to lay off a lot of red meat....so what? I still follow a low carb program. I still lose weight. If you want to cut back your saturated fats (and I do) go ahead. If not don't. If you haven't read "Fast Food Nation" I suggest you do......and then make up your own mind....don't just by into a good argument without exploring all opposing arguments.
Keep an open mind.
Reply With Quote
  #105   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-04, 09:35
potatofree's Avatar
potatofree potatofree is offline
Fully Caffeinated
Posts: 17,245
 
Plan: Back to Atkins
Stats: 298/228/160 Female 5ft9in
BF:?/35/?
Progress: 51%
Default

Okay, I think I understand. I'm glad I came back to finish reading the thread because I really think I "get it" at last. Grimalkin, you summed it up...it's a violation of trust, pure and simple. THAT, I understand. You put your trust in someone/something and they go and change horses mid-stream without good reason.

Archie-- I'm sure THOSE were the people "thumping" me....

Atkins (the corporation, not the plan) has lost my respect long ago.

Atkins, the PLAN, has my respect. As with anything, there are evangelists that put a person off a bit, but that has nothing to do with it being a sound plan. No matter the change, unfounded in science as it may be, it's a good plan, and is what helped me lose the bulk of my weight thus far.

Thanks to those who tried to understand the basis of my questions, and answered to the best of their ability. I feel like I do understand a bit better now.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weight debate pits good fat vs. bad fat tamarian LC Research/Media 3 Mon, Jan-20-03 11:44
The low fat/low cholesterol diet is ineffective--European Heart Journal Voyajer LC Research/Media 1 Mon, Aug-19-02 14:23
Current and Potential Drugs for Treatment of Obesity-Endocrine Reviews Voyajer LC Research/Media 0 Mon, Jul-15-02 18:57
Low fat myth exposed Jilly LC Research/Media 21 Mon, May-20-02 03:34


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:40.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.