Hi!
It is amazing in our society how we have forgotten to use our intellict and we simply follow what the media and the others do.
Here is an interesting story for you.
Atkins Was Grossly Overweight and Sick
But the Media Loves the Dead Guy
On Tuesday, February 10, 2004 the fall of the Atkins Empire began with the publication of a medical report on Atkins’ body by the Office of Chief Medical Examiner, the City of New York. This report was obtained legally and without deception by Richard Flemming, MD, a cardiologist from Omaha, Nebraska. The report was then sent to Neal Barnard, MD, of the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine. This organization gave the report to the Wall Street Journal and they made these findings public with an added note from the Journal that with a weight of 258 pounds and a height of 6 feet he would be properly classified as “obese.” That week I appeared on several national TV and radio shows, and was quoted in newspapers worldwide, including the New York Times – taking the position that his medical report was fair game because he was an icon in the diet industry, and the lessons learned from his poor health would save lives.
Atkins Medical Report
Since I am a friend of Dr. Barnard and a diametrically opposed opponent of the Atkins philosophy, it was natural for me to take the position that these findings are important and should be public. They are important because the health and appearance of this diet guru reflect the merit of his advice. The man was grossly overweight for all of the 10 years that I knew him and I had met with him personally on several occasions. He looked very unhealthy to me every time we met – and his medical reports and the history that has been released by his organization confirm this. At the very least he suffered from severe heart damage known as cardiomyopathy. The Atkins organization says this was due to a virus – this is possible, but is an extremely rare cause for this condition. The most common reason for this severe loss of heart muscle is coronary artery disease due to a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet. In April of 2002 he suffered a cardiac arrest and almost died. Information from the Atkins web site tells us that he had coronary artery disease and suggests he recently had an angioplasty. His history also includes congestive heart failure and hypertension. The medical examiner’s report says he had a heart attack also – but I have no other history to confirm this. He is reported to have died from head injuries from a fall on the ice.
The Atkins organization denies he was grossly overweight and claims he weighed between 180 and 195 pounds. They say his medical records indicate he weighed 195 pounds just before he entered the hospital at the time of his death. They claim the additional weight, totaling 258 pounds reported by the medical examiner, was from fluid accumulation during his 9 days of hospitalization prior to his death. That would mean 60 to 80 pounds of fluid, equal to 8 to 10 gallons of water, would have been added to his body. Any medical doctor who allowed this much fluid accumulation in a patient in 9 days should have his medical practices reviewed.
Michael Fumento of Scripps Howard News Service obtained the records that reported on Atkins’ weight of 195 pounds. He wrote, “The ‘records’ were merely part of a page from an echocardiogram report, not admittance documents as one might expect. Conspicuously, the blood pressure numbers were covered.”… “The echocardiogram report did show Atkins' weight at 195, but the head of the echocardiography laboratory told me they don't even have a scale. ‘Sometimes we get the weight from ER, and sometimes we don't and don't put anything down,’ he said. ‘Do you ever just estimate?’ I asked. ‘Yup,’ he replied.”
See complete Fumento Article
At the present time the media coverage of this story is largely in defense of Atkins. Some of the press has labeled the release of the report of his poor health as a “Vegan Agenda,” and Mrs. Atkins, on Dateline (TV show), Friday, February 20, 2004, said those speaking against her husband are the “vegetarian Taliban” and “they’re nasty.”
No harm is intended for the Atkins family, but all this controversy is an opportunity to save countless lives of people who fail to understand the truth about human nutrition, and especially those who have been mislead by Dr. Atkins and his organization. If people keep talking about the science behind low and high carbohydrate diets, then the evidence will eventually come out. My hope is that the fight escalates. For those of you who think maligning a dead man is in bad taste – think again – Atkins’ image is alive and well on TV, radio, newspapers, fast food restaurant menus, and supermarket shelves – making $100 million a year for Atkins Nutritionals Inc., selling people worldwide a program that results in short term weight loss (at best), is nearly impossible to follow, and eventually causes extremely poor health – the diet’s founder, Dr. Atkins, is one important piece of the proof. When the Atkins business stops promoting him, I will stop criticizing him.
Big G.
One person isn't proof.
If everyone on the Atkin's diet's heart exploded, that would be a different matter.
On the BBC Horizon program they used research from various sources and all of these sources reached the same conclusion: there is no evidence that the Atkins diet leads to unhealth.
On the matter of cholesterol they even found that diet only marginally influences it.
I've read Atkin's book. And it is a pile of manure.
Probably because he was given such bad press for so long he felt like he had to defend himself to the point he starts preaching.
No one, however, can deny (well you can if you want, see if I care) that carbohydrates have something to do with retaining weight.
And what with all the poison they spray on all foods these days and the GM crops and the anti-biotics they feed the live-stock, I don't think it really matters anyway. We're all gonna die horrible deaths.
Originally posted by jimmyb270i dunno about that. you never see Kasparov out jogging, and you never hear of Spassky or Alekhine working out at the gym. we chess nerds don't have time for all that - it takes too much time to learn new openings, variations, tactics and so on. i guess this kind of indicates i don't have a life. actually it's not as bas as all that - i don't spend too much time on chess. on the other hand, i don't seem to be getting any better, so maybe i should😕
Bah, all these damn crazy get slim quick schemes. Do some bl**dy exercise you lazy gits!
Originally posted by shavixmirHello,
One person isn't proof.
If everyone on the Atkin's diet's heart exploded, that would be a different matter.
On the BBC Horizon program they used research from various sources and all of these sources reached the same conclusion: there is no evidence that the Atkins diet leads to unhealth.
On the matter of cholesterol they even found that diet on ...[text shortened]... the live-stock, I don't think it really matters anyway. We're all gonna die horrible deaths.
Actually i know of many people directly and indirectly who have gotten very very sick on the Atkins diet...after about a year many people end up being hospitalized...they especially have kidney problems.
In short, eating a large amout of meat and very little fruits and veggies creates imbalances in your body. What happens is that your body goes through a process called ketosis, where it eats away at it's own fat resources (like what happens when you don't eat for days.) The reason being is that the Atkins diet is so depleted in vitamins and minerals, it's like you are starving yourself, and your body starts to eat away at it's own resources (which is why it appears to be an affective weight reducing diet.)
You say that carbohydrates lead to weight gain...actually it is animal muscle that leads to weight gain. If you look at the China Study from Cornell University (the largest population study ever done- they had over 100,000 people participate!) People in rural China who ate no animal products were free from cancers, heart problems and obesity. Surprisingly, it was in the cities where the diet was much like ours in the US that we saw diseases and obesity sky rocket! The conclusion of the study awakened the medical profession to the real causes of disease; since then more and more doctors are promoting a low fat vegetarian diet as the healthiest dietary choice.
Lastly, you say we are all going to die horrible deaths anyway...i think that this sort of thinking is very detrimental to yourself, and I truly hope that you were only kidding.
Why not lead a life full of quality, so when it is time to go, you can do so with a certain amount of dignity. I for one am not planning on leaving kicking and screaming...but knowing that I lived a rich life full of service and integrity. I sincerely hope the same for you.
😏
People in rural China who ate no animal products were free from cancers, heart problems and obesity. Surprisingly, it was in the cities where the diet was much like ours in the US that we saw diseases and obesity sky rocket!I don't disagree with much of what you said, but was this really the conclusion form the study, that increased cancer, heart disease & obesity in the cities was puerly to do with the difference in diet? What about the difference in lifestyles, with rural people doing more manual work? Did they concider the elevated polution levels people in cities are exposed to? Is it not true that people in rural China have shorter life expectancies because of illness, injury and poorer medical assistance, reducing the numbers of heart problems and cancers because they don't live long enough to develop them? I'm not saying that diet doesn't play a part but I don't see how they can say it is the major factor.
nb. 'animal products' is a very broad term. Other studies have shown that populations with high proportions of fish in their diets have vastly reduced cancer & heart disease too.
I don't eat vegetables anyway.
But this is besides the point.
What animals do we resemble most, digestive track-wise?
The chimpansee.
What do chimps eat? Fruit, nuts...and meat.
No vegetables. What so ever. None. No turnips, no beetroots and certainly no Brussel sprouts! None.
They might chew on an occasional root, but they don't eat vegetables. And they certainly don't eat rice, pasta, potato or bread.
Seriously, stop the internal bickering, I'm right. Chimps don't eat pasta or bread.
Right. Now we've got that established. There is a difference between Chimps and humans. There are various differences between chimps and humans, let's be honest. Here's the top 5 differences:
5. Chimps don't play chess
4. Chimps don't drive cars
3. Chimp females have hairy backs (okay...this one can be dodgy..)
2. Chimps don't eat pasta, bread, potato or rice
1. Chimps aren't fat.
Obviously, before ye all squeal, chimps get more excercise than the average human as well, which could attribute to some of the afore mentioned things.
Now.
Where was I?
Yes. Humans and chimps.
Right. So, we've established what chimps don't eat and we've established something else as well. I hope. Let's delve into humans...
I bet that humans, 25.000 years ago, didn't eat potato, bread or pasta. They didn't all die because their hearts exploded either. Did they?
The Atkins diet states you can eat vegetables (although I have established that you don't need to) and the Atkins diet suggests you can eat fruit.
The only things you really cannot eat, are things we didn't used to eat anyway.
So, I must still conclude, and at the same time agree with the BBC's Horizon, that the Atkins diet is not detremental for your health.
Originally posted by shavixmirhmmm, I see where you're coming from but I'd have to disagree with most of it. For a start, of course chimps don't eat bread or pasta because you don't find them growing on trees. You also don't get potatos and rice in the jungle, and most roots are hidden in the ground.
I don't eat vegetables anyway.
But this is besides the point.
What animals do we resemble most, digestive track-wise?
The chimpansee.
What do chimps eat? Fruit, nuts...and meat.
No vegetables. What so ever. None. No turnips, no beetroots and certainly no Brussel sprouts! None.
They might chew on an occasional root, but they don't eat vegetab ...[text shortened]... me agree with the BBC's Horizon, that the Atkins diet is not detremental for your health.
You do however find fruit hanging around, lots and lots sitting for the taking. They eat meat but as a rarity, either from opertunistic finds or rare occasions they hunt (often on other primates). I believe the Atkins diet says lots and lots of meat but only a tiny amount of fruit (if any?). I don't think the diets are as comparable as you suggest.
What says a chimps diet is 'healthy' anyway? Maybe if chimps ate pasta they'd grow bigger & live longer. And just because we are kind of similar doesn't mean we need and can do the same things - chimps can fall 50 feet onto their heads and walk away; do you want to try it?
Comparing us to humans 25,000 years ago is a bit odd also. They had a life expectancy much lower than ours (25?) so heart disease wasn't on th etop of the list of things that killed them. Starvation and getting eaten by chimps were probably bigger worries than clogged arteries.
The problem with what we eat today has been stated over and over - we eat too much rich food and don't do enough excersise. The simple reason for this is that for thousands/millions of years (depending on your beliefs, I don't want to get back into that one) the major problem was not getting enough to eat. We have developed to eat as much as we can and to desire foods that are high in calories. Just as we have 'developed' far enough to produce food in massive excess we have also got to the stage that we don't need to hunt to get it or trek to get water or use our internal energy supplies to keep warm so we're getting hit from both sides.
A couple of things:
1) No diet works for everyone. Even with those who follow Atkins explicitly (and by that I mean treating it as a way to eat for life, rather than a temporary "diet" ), only 80% are successful.
2) A lot of you in this thread seem to think, like most of the country, that Atkins requires you to eat meat and cheese almost exclusively, with comparatively little in the way of vegetables. If you read the book, you will know that this is absolutely untrue. Yes, the initial phase of the diet eschews carbohydrates altogether, but after ketosis (the point when your brain operates on ketones rather than sugars), carbs are gradually reintroduced into your diet. The key is MODERATION.
Atkins simply says that we, as Americans, eat too many carbohydrates. By cutting them out entirely and gradually reintroducing them in a reasonable amount (say two or three bread/rice/pasta/any complex carb servings per day rather than the six to eight that the FDA has advocated for years), you will be eating in a manner conducive to losing weight,as your body is designed to process carbs in these smaller amounts.
And, yes, I am aware that there is significant research that directly contradicts everything Atkins espouses. Just like there is research that contradicts every other diet.
EDIT (other than the numerous typos): Sangeeta, above, says "People in rural China who ate no animal products were free from cancers, heart problems and obesity. Surprisingly, it was in the cities where the diet was much like ours in the US that we saw diseases and obesity sky rocket!"
I just want to point out that people who live in cities, are much more prone to a sedentary lifestyle than those who are forced to farm their own food. They are also not subject to the same amount of pollution as urbanites. These may also be contributing factors in the results of that study.
Originally posted by belgianfreak
I don't disagree with much of what you said, but was this really the conclusion form the study, that increased cancer, heart disease & obesity in the cities was puerly to do with the difference in diet? What about the difference in lifestyles, with rural people doing more manual work? Did they concider the elevated polution levels people in cities are ...[text shortened]... ng that diet doesn't play a part but I don't see how they can say it is the major factor.
The findings of the China study are too numerous to state here…but suffice to say that in the words of the New York Times that this study is "The 'Grand Prix'...the most comprehensive largest study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease..."
Of course belgianfreak you make a great point that rural China doesn’t have the sedentary lifestyle like the folk in the cities, and that does have a great deal to do with health. However, the researchers here took all this and other factors into consideration and still concluded that rural China’s dependency on a plant-based diet is one of the main reasons for their superior health. (BTW: people in rural China don’t die earlier so as not to see the presence of disease etc.)
Also, on a similar note, I’d like to mention that the China study also followed nomadic Mongolian Tribes. These tribes didn’t live the sedentary lifestyle of the city dweller, and also the Mongolians ate a diet rich in animal fats-just as we do in the Western world. These tribes were plagued with the same diseases as we are plagued with in the US.
So although exercise, lifestyle and the air one breathes has tremendous impact on one’s health…still what we put into our bodies supercedes the rest of these factors. For more info please visit http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/chinaproject/
Originally posted by Poison GodmachineThough, I agree with you that this diet does not shun vegetables, and most people like to go to extremes with the diet and eat only meat, it is interesting to note that the biggest proponent of this diet, Dr.Atkins himself, may have been a victim of his own propaganda:
A couple of things:
1) No diet works for everyone. Even with those who follow Atkins explicitly (and by that I mean treating it as a way to eat for life, rather than a temporary "diet" ), only 80% are successful.
2) A lot ...[text shortened]... exclusively, with comparatively little in the way of vegetables.
On February 10, 2004, The Wall Street Journal published excerpts from the New York City Medical Examiner's report on Atkins' death. The report indicated that Atkins weighed 258 pounds at his death, making the diet-guru clinically obese, and that he had a history of heart disease, congestive heart failure, and hypertension. Was this caused by his diet? Did the Atkins' diet kill Atkins? Hmm…
Though you say that no diet works for everyone, it is interesting to note that in more recent times the McDougall Program and The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine are doing ground breaking work in reversing some of the most common diseases such as heart disease, arthritis, cancer etc., purely on a plant based diet. Perhaps this plant-based diet, as much unbiased research is now concluding, is the diet that even Einstein said that we would evolve towards.
If people want to know the truth about good nutrition, they simply need to look at the world picture. Populations following high-carbohydrate, low-fat, lower-protein diets, like those from traditional Asian and African countries are trim for a lifetime and avoid all the diseases common to people who follow the Western diet. The Atkins diet is simply an exaggeration of the unhealthy Western diet to a level that makes people sufficiently ill to lose their appetite.
If anyone is interested in the world-famous McDougal program and has a loved one suffering from disease visit www.drmcdougall.com for a truly life changing program that has benefited many people I know.
Originally posted by bigg
It is amazing in our society how we have forgotten to use our intellict and we simply follow what the media and the others do.
I find this statement a little ironic since it's been the media frenzy around dietary fats for the last 30 years that have kept everyone distracted while more and more research piled up that contradicted the medical establishments original assumptions.
Actually, the more they study it the more it looks like fat & (dietary) cholesterol have *nothing* to do with heart disease. It looks more like it is high homocysteine levels caused by a lack of certain B vitamins. Some genius figured this out in the late 60's and was, of course, immediately pilloried for going against conventional thinking. Looks like he might have been right all along (wish I could remember where I read this, it was recent).
And a low-carb diet is not only sound from an evolutionary perspective (abundant carbs in the form of cereal grains have only appeared in the last 10,000 years) it would be a hell of a lot better than the Standard American Diet. Can anyone argue that fruit, veggies and protein are not better than cookies, cakes, junk food, crackers, candy and denatured grains?
Ok... if you are really (and unnecessarily) phobic about fats, make it small amounts of lean protein and Omega-3 fatty acids.
At any rate, here are a few choice tidbits I've run across from respectable researchers:
"The idea that saturated fats cause heart disease is completely wrong, but the statement has been 'published' so many times over the last three or more decades that it is very difficult to convince people otherwise unless they are willing to take the time to read and learn what...produced the anti-saturated fat agenda." (Dr. Mary Enig, Consulting Editor to the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association, and noted lipids researcher.)
"Despite abundant evidence that dietary fat bears no relation to development of cancer of the breast, the NIH intends...to try once again to prove a link that is probably not there....Why then does NIH insist on spending $10 million on a study whose hypothesis seems to be little more than wishful thinking? Is it only because of the faddish infatuation with fat as the root of all dietary evil?" (Editorial in NATURE, Vol. 359, 29 October 1992.)
"The diet-heart hypothesis [that suggests that high intake of saturated fat and cholesterol causes heart disease] has been repeatedly shown to be wrong, and yet, for complicated reasons of pride, profit and prejudice, the hypothesis continues to be exploited by scientists, fund-raising enterprises, food companies and even governmental agencies. The public is being deceived by the greatest health scam of the century." (Dr. George V. Mann, participating researcher in the Framingham study and author of CORONARY HEART DISEASE: THE DIETARY SENSE AND NONSENSE, Janus Publishing 1993.)
"In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active." (Dr. William Castilli, Director of the Framingham Study. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1992.)
Originally posted by jhegeneri'm not sure why you say this. the amino acid homocysteine would appear to promote the buildup of the fatty clogging of the arteries (but the fat stuff has to get in there in the first place, doesn't it?):
Originally posted by bigg
Actually, the more they study it the more it looks like fat & (dietary) cholesterol have *nothing* to do with heart disease. It looks more like it is high homocysteine levels caused by a lack of certain B vitamins.
"Homocysteine -- Framingham investigations indicate that high levels of this amino acid may contribute to heart disease, stroke, and a reduced flow of blood to the hands and feet. Researchers believe that homocysteine may contribute to the buildup of fatty substances in the arteries, increase the stickiness of blood platelets (clotting), and make blood vessels less flexible, less able to widen to permit increased blood flow. Levels of the amino acid are related partly to a genetic mechanism and diet. The good news is that diet, especially one high in folic acid and B vitamins, favorably affects the levels of homocysteine."
(http://www.framingham.com/heart/4stor_02.htm)
the quote is from the framingham heart study (which you provide reference to through your quotes), specifically the emerging risk factors.
i am curious to know about Dr. George V. Mann and Dr. William Castilli, both apparently from that study. did they disagree with the conclusions of the study? these seem to be summarized as
"Since its inception in 1948, the Framingham Study has had a profound effect on our understanding of the major risk factors associated with developing heart and vascular disease and stroke. Perhaps as important, the work has stimulated numerous national awareness campaigns educating the American public to the "heart risks" tied to untreated high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels and the dangers of smoking."
(http://www.framingham.com/heart/backgrnd.htm)
also, is Dr. William Castilli recommending that people eat more saturated fat, more cholesterol, and more calories in order to ' lower people's serum cholesterol'?
in friendship,
prad
Weird...
I just started on the Atkins diet on Monday. This is the first time I've actually tried to follow a diet.
I did some research on the subject on the net and found basically equal amounts of for and against arguments for the diet. Always take what you read with a pinch of salt, innit? Proponents of one diet always try to discredit the other.
As stated before, you need to introduce the veggies and moderate amounts of carbs and fruits later on in the diet, but the 1st 2 weeks you abstain from any carbs, most veggies, fruits, dairy (except cheese), fibers and alcohol.
The diet clearly states that you should take vitamin and calcium supplaments and do lots of excercise.
I'm a very active guy:
I do a lot of walking
Squash at least 2 times a week
Action Cricket at least once a week
Golf and tennis once in a while over weekends
Because I'm so active I used to take in lots of carbs, but I just kept gaining weight, never losing any.
People hear that your going on a protein diet and then picture you gorging on legs of lamb like a feast at the end of an Asterix cartoon.
I'm sure if you only ate celery and tomatoes you'd get sick as well.
The key, as PG put it, is moderation.