Guest guest Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 We should already be aware of the difficulty in judging any dietary regimen based on the anecdotal evidence from one individual, albeit a highly visible figurehead. Allow me to speculate that any diet that suggests macronutrient ratios are somehow more important than energy balance is wishful thinking and doomed to failure. Humans are always searching for easy answers to life's challenges. This is just another example. People have always profited from pandering to this desire and today's " snake oil " diet is low carb. The reality is that both quantity and quality of nutrition, matters. We should just accept that and focus our efforts on the reality of maximizing nutrition while minimizing calories. Macronutrient ratios will ultimately be a function of adlib consumption of energy after nutritional needs have been filled or how we choose to meet those nutritional needs, the ratio has little significance compared to nutrition and energy balance. Note: the nutrition part of that balance is still IMO incompletely defined. Food choices based on macronutrient targets may inadvertently skew poorly understood nutrient levels. JR PS: My favorite TV commercial these days is for a new exercise machine that gives you " a full workout with almost no effort " , sounds great for CRONies worried about exercise requiring increased caloric load :-). -----Original Message----- From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:50 AM support group Subject: [ ] Atkins (again) The debate between the Atkins people and the group questioning his weight and health (the group is supposedly a front for PETA) is really getting ludicrous. The Atkins people are claiming that he gained more than 60 pounds because of fluid retention during the eight days he was in a coma before he died. Is this even possible? To gain 60 pounds in 8 days? The Atkins empire stands to lose big money if the diet is proven to be unhealthful. OTOH the vegetarian group has their own axe to grind. If anyone finds a source that has no agenda, and has a scientific basis for their findings, by all means please post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 : a superb post! Thanks. I'm tempted to add it to the Atkins vs. CRON file. on 2/11/2004 11:36 AM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote: > We should already be aware of the difficulty in judging any dietary regimen > based on the anecdotal evidence from one individual, albeit a highly visible > figurehead. > > Allow me to speculate that any diet that suggests macronutrient ratios are > somehow more important than energy balance is wishful thinking and doomed to > failure. > > Humans are always searching for easy answers to life's challenges. This is > just another example. People have always profited from pandering to this > desire and today's " snake oil " diet is low carb. > > The reality is that both quantity and quality of nutrition, matters. We > should just accept that and focus our efforts on the reality of maximizing > nutrition while minimizing calories. Macronutrient ratios will ultimately be > a function of adlib consumption of energy after nutritional needs have been > filled or how we choose to meet those nutritional needs, the ratio has > little significance compared to nutrition and energy balance. > > Note: the nutrition part of that balance is still IMO incompletely defined. > Food choices based on macronutrient targets may inadvertently skew poorly > understood nutrient levels. > > JR > > PS: My favorite TV commercial these days is for a new exercise machine that > gives you " a full workout with almost no effort " , sounds great for CRONies > worried about exercise requiring increased caloric load :-). > > -----Original Message----- > From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...] > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:50 AM > support group > Subject: [ ] Atkins (again) > > > The debate between the Atkins people and the group questioning his weight > and health (the group is supposedly a front for PETA) is really getting > ludicrous. The Atkins people are claiming that he gained more than 60 > pounds because of fluid retention during the eight days he was in a coma > before he died. Is this even possible? To gain 60 pounds in 8 days? > > The Atkins empire stands to lose big money if the diet is proven to be > unhealthful. OTOH the vegetarian group has their own axe to grind. > > If anyone finds a source that has no agenda, and has a scientific basis for > their findings, by all means please post. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 At the risk of making sick to his stomach :-)), I agree that Atkins is just one individual and the whole subject is merely amusing (to some) and not meaningful. But his heart problems, high BP etc. are suspiciously appropriate to the diet he espoused, regardless of the rationale being given by his adherents. on 2/11/2004 11:36 AM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote: > We should already be aware of the difficulty in judging any dietary regimen > based on the anecdotal evidence from one individual, albeit a highly visible > figurehead. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 And still more! Atkins Schmatkins: U.S. Eating More Carbs Americans' Calorie Count Up Because of Carb Craving By DeNoon Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD on Thursday, February 05, 2004 WebMD Medical News Feb. 5, 2004 -- Atkins schmatkins: Americans are eating more carbs than ever. The U.S. CDC reports that Americans are eating more than ever before. And most of this increase in calorie consumption comes from carbs. The report, in the Feb. 6 issue of the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, paints a picture of excess. In 1999-2000, American calorie consumption was significantly greater than in 1971-1974: American men increased their total calories from 2,450 to 2,618 per day. American women increased their total calories from 1,542 to 1,877 per day. Carbs made up 49% of men's total calories and 51.6% of women's calories. The percentage of calories from fat went down. " The increase in energy intake is attributable primarily to an increase in carbohydrate intake, with a 62.4-gram increase among women and a 67.7-gram increase among men, " the CDC report notes. Where are we getting all these carbs? The CDC says we get them: From eating out From eating more salty snacks From drinking more soft drinks From eating more pizza From eating larger portions Meanwhile, a second MMWR report shows that one in four American's gets zero leisure time exercise. This number is actually an improvement: In 1989, one in three of us were couch potatoes. >From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> >Reply- >< > >Subject: Re: [ ] Atkins (ad nauseum) >Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:48:10 -0500 > >At the risk of making sick to his stomach :-)), I agree that Atkins is >just one individual and the whole subject is merely amusing (to some) and >not meaningful. But his heart problems, high BP etc. are suspiciously >appropriate to the diet he espoused, regardless of the rationale being >given >by his adherents. > >on 2/11/2004 11:36 AM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote: > > > We should already be aware of the difficulty in judging any dietary >regimen > > based on the anecdotal evidence from one individual, albeit a highly >visible > > figurehead. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 Hi Folks: Although I have not seen the evidence myself, people here have posted (and not been contradicted) that it really doesn't much matter what your allocation is between protein, carbohydrates and fats. Just so long as those you do eat, of each type, are 'high quality', and your TOTAL CALORIES from all sources are 'restricted' - however you want to define 'restricted'. I welcome being contradicted on this point, should anyone feel in the mood to weigh in on it. (Talking of which, where is theo2000 these days?) ; ^ )) Rodney. --- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...> wrote: > We should already be aware of the difficulty in judging any dietary regimen > based on the anecdotal evidence from one individual, albeit a highly visible > figurehead. > > Allow me to speculate that any diet that suggests macronutrient ratios are > somehow more important than energy balance is wishful thinking and doomed to > failure. > > Humans are always searching for easy answers to life's challenges. This is > just another example. People have always profited from pandering to this > desire and today's " snake oil " diet is low carb. > > The reality is that both quantity and quality of nutrition, matters. We > should just accept that and focus our efforts on the reality of maximizing > nutrition while minimizing calories. Macronutrient ratios will ultimately be > a function of adlib consumption of energy after nutritional needs have been > filled or how we choose to meet those nutritional needs, the ratio has > little significance compared to nutrition and energy balance. > > Note: the nutrition part of that balance is still IMO incompletely defined. > Food choices based on macronutrient targets may inadvertently skew poorly > understood nutrient levels. > > JR > > PS: My favorite TV commercial these days is for a new exercise machine that > gives you " a full workout with almost no effort " , sounds great for CRONies > worried about exercise requiring increased caloric load :-). > > -----Original Message----- > From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@e...] > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:50 AM > support group > Subject: [ ] Atkins (again) > > > The debate between the Atkins people and the group questioning his weight > and health (the group is supposedly a front for PETA) is really getting > ludicrous. The Atkins people are claiming that he gained more than 60 > pounds because of fluid retention during the eight days he was in a coma > before he died. Is this even possible? To gain 60 pounds in 8 days? > > The Atkins empire stands to lose big money if the diet is proven to be > unhealthful. OTOH the vegetarian group has their own axe to grind. > > If anyone finds a source that has no agenda, and has a scientific basis for > their findings, by all means please post. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 My guess is that a major reason for the proportionate increase in carbohydrate consumption, noted below, is the huge shift in the past ten years away from 'high fat' foods. Since most people in the general population associate (incorrectly) 'high fat' foods only with animal products, which often contain only fat and protein - zero carbohydrate - likely they have shifted away from the animal products that they believe contain the fats. So both fat and protein will have been reduced in this shift, relative to carbohydrates. Since the calorie total percentage must add up to 100%. If fat and protein percentages have been reduced then by definition carbohydrate must have increased, even if nothing particularly notable has happened to carbohydrate consumption. I doubt 'carb craving' (quoted from below) has been a significant factor for the overall population. Rodney. > And still more! > > Atkins Schmatkins: U.S. Eating More Carbs > Americans' Calorie Count Up Because of Carb Craving > > By DeNoon > > > Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD > on Thursday, February 05, 2004 > WebMD Medical News > > > > > > Feb. 5, 2004 -- Atkins schmatkins: Americans are eating more carbs than > ever. > > > The U.S. CDC reports that Americans are eating more than ever before. And > most of this increase in calorie consumption comes from carbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 Hi All, I believe that the big changes in American diets have been in a shift from things such as red meat and high-fat yogurt to things such as poultry, low-fat high-sugar yogurt and surgar in soda. I forgot about the long hospital stay of Atkins in my previous post. Oops is correct. Cheers, Al Pater --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > My guess is that a major reason for the proportionate increase in > carbohydrate consumption, noted below, is the huge shift in the past > ten years away from 'high fat' foods. Since most people in the > general population associate (incorrectly) 'high fat' foods only with > animal products, which often contain only fat and protein - zero > carbohydrate - likely they have shifted away from the animal products > that they believe contain the fats. So both fat and protein will > have been reduced in this shift, relative to carbohydrates. > > Since the calorie total percentage must add up to 100%. If fat and > protein percentages have been reduced then by definition carbohydrate > must have increased, even if nothing particularly notable has > happened to carbohydrate consumption. > > I doubt 'carb craving' (quoted from below) has been a significant > factor for the overall population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 Hi folks: Of course, the simplest way to fool consumers once they have finally started to pay attention to the 'fat calories percent total' number on the package, is simply to add sugar. That way the fat calories as a percent of total on the label declines without reducing the grams of fat the item contains, or the taste characteristics provided by the fat. Rodney. --- In , " old542000 " <apater@m...> wrote: > Hi All, > > I believe that the big changes in American diets have been in a shift > from things such as red meat and high-fat yogurt to things such as > poultry, low-fat high-sugar yogurt and surgar in soda. > > I forgot about the long hospital stay of Atkins in my previous post. > Oops is correct. > > Cheers, Al Pater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.