Originally Posted by scrapgirl
Great point N2L...we are all dealing with our own issues/limitations and each individual has to tailor the plan to their individual needs and what works for them. There really is no 'one size fits all'. Perhaps we (ME) should be less closed minded and judgmental.
I agree scrap girl -- we must each personalize our plan to meet our special needs. If 40 gm net carbs works for some and 20 grams works for others, then use the plan that meets the need.
Most of the critical comments seem to be directed at a suspicion that this might be a marketing ploy for the Atkins products and not a valid Atkins evidence- based approach.
The suspicion is based upon the use of the term "net carbs" rather than total carbs. The description of 'net carbs' as Teaser has said, is based upon subtracting sugar alcohols and fiber from total grams. Now as far as I know (please correct me), Atkins product labels are the only nutrition labels that list sugar alcohols. So this is one factoid that gives rise to suspicion.
Second, net carbs is also derived by subtracting fiber. The problem with this is that they are treating all fiber as indigestible fiber -- which it is not. So the fiber grams are off.
NAFNY, for this reason, suggest dealing with total carbs rather than net carbs.
So when this new Atkins 40 plan shows up on our doorstep, we should not just accept it without questioning the scientific basis upon which it was created. As Jey remarked, it smacks of 'Atkins Made Easy' which is essentially a guide on how to diet using only Atkins products.
The basic concept of starting at 40 grams of carbs for those having 40 pounds to lose is not new. NAFNY makes this same recommendation. They are very clear that not everyone needs to start (or maintain) at 20 carb grams and they have a section discussing why. Why do we need a whole new book on it unless it is going to be filled with recipes of Atkins products?
So the questions raised, although critical, are not necessarily negative regarding the concept that those having little to lose can start at OWL rather than Induction. IMO.