So glad to be off Atkins!

What prompted me to respond to Diablo post was his answer that eating the proper mixture of carbs and protien was wrong when the person has a condition where that is necessary. And the fact that you spammed the whole forum with that is stupid and wrong, I know not your words but that was the feeling I get from your posts. I agree that some of the information might be kind of out there but there is also a lot of ways to reach the same goal we are all striving for and better ways to express your disagreement. Also I don't think that 99% of people have no medical issues like diabetes, hpyoglacima, high cholestrol or allergies. I wish that was true. I also agree that you could help people with your advice and experience that are in the same situation as you are, just be a little more selective in your advice giving.

Diablo... your name means Devil. Take your sarcasm somewhere else please. I'm glad that you found something that works for you. It doesn't work for me, OK? I found something that works for me, OK?

Discussion over.

Wow. Krazy post! Live and let live everyone. Share experiences. Don't judge. Move on. Happy Friday!!

My username is also a cars model name......

A calorie deficit doesn't work? Certain foods provide more calories than what packaging indicates? Maybe we should send all of our junk food to starving countries since obviously they provide the most weight gain per calories. You see how insane that sounds?

If you do not want to partake of certain foods, fine, but don't try to say that a calorie deificit does not work for certain people as if certain foods can break the law of thermodynamics.

How did this professor accomplish this? http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

How is a forum with thousands of members endorsing this? http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=149661773

For what it's worth, I read something once written by a guy who had Type II diabetes and went on Atkins. He felt that a person with Type II should stay on the induction phase until their diabetes had stabilized. He stayed on it for 2 years, and apparently did stabilize.

That seems like a lot more dedication than it should take. I can understand Atkins (many who have never read the book don't realize that it requires consumption of plenty of vegetables), but I think the "fat loading" we see is unnecessary and possibly will make it harder to continue the diet for some people. Atkins works by tricking people into eating fewer calories because it is more satisfying not to restrict fat, and it is indeed possible to consistently eat too many calories, if that is your natural tendency. I think moderation in fat is the best strategy.

The connection between overweight and Type II diabetes is more nebulous. It is very likely that the same metabolic problems that cause the diabetes are a factor in gaining weight. But it is also a possibility that a diet very high in carbs (which many Americans eat, by deliberately restricting foods they think are BAD, like fat and animal protein) can be a factor. Especially wheat, which has immuno issues for many people, can cause autoimmune issues in many and "wheat belly" in others. Consumption of wheat is correlated with overweight in a way that rice or other carbs are not.

It is true that the "science" behind nutrition is inconsistent and does not agree with itself. The "effect" they are looking to find, while statistically significant, is generally so small it may be entirely explainable by bias of the study. The truth is that researchers often set out to prove something. They may need to have their research support the agenda of the funding agency or group, which is not looking for results that do not fit the dominant paradigm. A researcher who gets the wrong results may never get funded again.

If you read some of the basic studies you see, you will find the research sometimes shows something very different from what was said in the press release.

I am thinking of a study promoted not long ago by Dean Ornish. It supposedly proved vegetarians are healthier than Atkins dieters. Of course, the study included not a single vegetarian or Atkins dieter. The lowest carb intake of any of the participants was over 100 grams a day. Some of the participants who were classified as "vegetarians" ate more meat than some of the "meat-eaters", due to the bizarre scale they constructed. The nutrition information was based on a single questionnaire full of confusing questions about exactly what participants ate every week for 6 months, as though people eat exactly the same thing every week in their lives. Then they came back years later to see how healthy they were, without checking to see if they were still claiming to eat that way. Even better, in the paper, the researchers wrote that the data did not support anyone changing their diet, especially not giving up meat. But it the conclusion, they said everyone should eat less meat.

I've seen unquestioning articles based on press releases that completely misrepresented the study they were supposedly about.

There is an unbelievable amount of shoddy research out there.

This is why I go by peer reviewed scientific studies. I also put the information to the test myself with great results. Observational studies can be flawed.