Another example of unbiased reporting
http://www.detnews.com/2003/health/...9/a15-63289.htm

36 people dropped out of Atkins versus 27 of the carb eaters. A difference of 9 people. Doesn't sound so stunning now does it. With such small study groups, your bound to have "Stunning" differences. The point is, the results are interesting, certainly deserving further study and funding.



Indeed, Atkins has pushed for impartial funding for 30 years, and even said if he funds it himself the result would be questioned, Ornish used to riducule him, saying that with all his money, Atkins should be able to fund a study, implying Atkins is just afraid of what the results would be. Atkins finally funds studies himself, and bam... they are critizied for that reason. Looks like Atkins was right again.

Talking about funding arrangements, want to guess who funds the author of this article?

The Hudson institute pays this the author of this article. The institute recieves it's money from donations from the likes of Monsanto, Noravtic Crop Protection, Zeneca, Global Crop Protection Federation and Union Carbide, major links in the carbohydrate production chain.

That was an interesting tip on his funding, Mr Frumble.

More web-scrounging reveals he's a lawyer and therefore(?) an expert on and proponent of pesticides, food irradiation, Ritalin, genetically-modified foods, and even Olestra. Of course, there's also his extensive body of research on obesity.

Man, if there's an issue with corporate or government backing that he's not in favor of, I can't find it. It's fascinating to look thru all his articles.

There was a link to respond at the bottom of the article, so I did:

This may be the funniest article I've read all year, and you weren't even trying. I can imagine the author reacting like a robot when he first read the study results ("Does not compute - must self-destruct"). It never ceases to amaze me that people treat nutrition like religion, instead of having an open mind towards an approach that could potentially help the millions of people in this country struggling with skyrocketing obesity and diabetes. This isn't about proving you and your food pyramid are correct, Reverend Fumento, so settle down and open up that humorous mind of yours.

I don't normally browse this section of the forum, mainly for my contempt of articles such as this written by people who have no first hand experience of the diet.

As we all know, and have experienced first hand, this diet is wonderful. My comments to a couple of issues raised in the article.

1) The high drop out rate of the Atkins diet may be due in part to the strict 'unbalanced' diet used in induction. True, it's a tough diet to start with, but this is the first stage of a 'cold turkey' type of detox. Going straight into a high carb/low fat diet that has an easier transition from the dieters previous way of eating is sure to be easier, ergo, less quitters!!!!

2) The emphasis I see commonly written about the diet is the induction phase. The 'non-believers' (as I like to call them) read about the diet and how to start and they only see the induction phase of the diet which does promote protein and fat consumtion (note, in not one place does the article mention protien). Sentences like "the famous high-fat, low-carbohydrate regime that lets dieters load up on pork rinds and Scrapple till grease oozes from every pore " does not reflect the ongoing weight loss and maintenance stages of the diet. This isn't a 'high fat' diet, it's a low carb diet.

I'd love to get one of these journalists/experts, preferably one who has a few pounds to loose and put him/her on the diet for 2 months. Let them loose 10+% of their body weight then ask them what they think of the diet.

OK,.......One of the many reasons I don't visit this section often, I'll have to have a walk to lower my BP (and burn some cals )

Thought I'd chime in though, this kind of stuff frustrates me .

duncan

This section of the forum really gets me infuriated. I do Atkins to offset hypertension and to lose weight, but reading crap like this sure doesn't do my blood pressure any good, that's for sure. Talk about slanted journalism!!!

Yup - It doesn't bother me that this clown is clueless, but that he probably convinced a dozen people today to not pursue it. It is one thing to have an obvious agenda with things like sports or politics, but not health.

You might want to read the rest of this forum, as ther are more positive, and scientific articles in support of low-carbing.

We simply want to track who said what, in regards to low-carbing, and when you read the whole picture, you should feel comfortable, as scientific research always support low-carbing, and the nay sayers rely on simplistic views based on their opinions and more media hype.

Wa'il

Sorry if some people were upset by the link I posted to the article. These things upset me as well. It is almost as if there is some sort of Carbohydrate-Industrial Complex conspiracy attempting to derail Dr Atkins efforts. Hopefully, it is all in my imagination.

Nope, that would be ostrich behavior. I'm glad you posted it.

We're glad you posted it, as this subforum is dedicated to tracking news about low-carb information in the media and in the scientific research circle, all such content is welcome here.

Wa'il

I am not sure I understand the authors point. Ok the retention rate of Atkins in his eyes was too low. Ok if some people cannot manage to stay on low carb, that does not affect the large percentage of us who do. His second point was the increase of cholestoral. The study showed cholestoral dropped, and he pointed out that shouldn't suprise us as it was just the result of losing weight. But the issue isn't why it dropped, the point is it did not rise as everyone predicted, but in fact was reduced. This is similar to the argument that low carb is just a low cal diet in disguise. Who cares... we are losing weight, we are not hungry. That should be enough. It is amazing how when their predictions do not come to fruition they try to justify why they still were correct, even if the facts don't agree with them.

I read that article and also sent a reply, research helps when talking about something you dont know... shame he didnt do any.