Re: Re: Atkins (was Kenyon)

[Guest guest]

> His end weight gain was hospital induced edema - that is at least one point

long ago divulged:

> http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-02-10-atkins_x.htm

Dr Atkins wife herself, released a statement soon after he died, that was later

removed form his website. It admitted to his excess weight, his

atherosclerosis, his heart condition and the treatment he was undergoing.

While his wife may deny it, much of it was due to his diet and not

cardiomyopathy.

Also, no hospital will allow a patient to gain 63 pounds (195 to 258) within

that short of a time period, from edema without intervening. Thats almost 33%

of his original weight in 9 days.

> it does not undo the valuable contribution that he made to advancing our

knowledge of how diet interacts with our bodies,

>

What knowledge is this exactly that Atkins is responsible for us and the world

of science now knowing that we did not know before him?

I can't find one shred of knowledge in any textbook on biochemistry, nutrition,

or in any NIH, NAS WHO paper that attributes any knowledge to him.

> including and especially his work at attempting to expose the corruption and

lobbying between the grain industry, the physicians, and the government.

>

And what about the corruption and lobbying between the meat, dairy and the egg

industries and physicians and the government?

In December 1999, a lawsuit was filed against the USDA alleging that it

intentionally withheld information about advisory committee members (6 of 11)

who had “inappropriate ties to the meat, dairy or egg industries.” US District

Court Judge on ruled on October 2, 2000 that the USDA violated

federal law by hiding financial COI (conflicts of interest) among members of the

diet advisory committee. The USDA did not appeal the decision.

> I often find myself reminding skeptics that Atkins long ago recommended tons

of veggies with that animal protein

>

Possibly it looked like " tons " by visual perception but not as a percent of

calories in the diet.

Even the Atkins group has changed their guidelines and in the most recent study

that they did, they " emphasized plant sources of protein and vegetable fats "

I am sure Dr Atkins was turning in his grave over that one.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

The truth of that one rat anecdote doesn't matter all that much, other than a perverse human desire to catch him in some deception. Anyone with a passing knowledge of nutrition, which you will absorb by osmosis just lurking here, can tell from inspection that the stereotypical Atkins diet (high fat, high protein, low carbohydrate) is not very balanced or likely to be very healthy. The later versions after the entry phase of the diet introduced more complex carbohydrates and began to resemble a more zonish diet. But so what.. ALL WEIGHT LOSS DIETS are scams.. Diet is not some short term adventure, it is a life time eating pattern that delivers adequate nutrition while avoiding excessive energy balance beyond our needs. JRPS: it was nice to see the recent report about fish oil. I though fish being good was pretty old common knowledge. Maybe I need to share my salmon recipe that I have been eating for lunch for years. I published a recipe on the CRSOC site years ago using tuna (Tuna and Rice is nice), but I have changed it since then to use salmon instead if tuna, I eliminated the mushroom soup, and added more vegetables. I cook up a huge pot every two weeks or so and freeze small lunch sized portions, to micro-nuke daily. BTW while the new research may be supportive, I try not to read too much into any one study. I sometimes worry about eating too much fish, but in modest servings and using Salmon instead of tuna, it should be reasonably harmless. On Jan 20, 2010, at 4:03 PM, perspect1111 wrote: Hi : Thanks for your contribution on this topic. All we here are interested in, hopefully, is THE TRUTH of this matter. Whatever that truth is. However, what must be clear to almost all of us is that those who have been most responsible for obscuring the truth is THE FAMILY OF DR. ATKINS who, as I understand it (as usual I welcome correction) have refused to permit the details surrounding the circumstances of his death to be released, except in dribs and drabs of information that, as I see it, they felt might be spun in a way to exonerate his diet as a cause. Now surely, had the cause of death reflected well on the Atkins diet (i.e. had it not been a cause long associated by scientific evidence with diets high in animal fats) they would have been pleased to release it immediately, wouldn't they? Is it not obvious to you that the reason for their obfuscation was/is that they knew if the results were made public it would probably destroy the enormously profitable business Atkins had built up around his dietary recommendations? So, when you talk about people making unfair profits because of nefarious tactics (you mention the grain industry) do you consider the Atkins Diet Empire - and it was once hugely profitable I believe - exempt from similar criticism? And if you do consider it exempt, would you care to explain why, please? It seems to me the only conclusion that can be rationally drawn from the inadequate evidence I am aware of is that the Atkins family suppressed information because of the damage they were afraid it might do to the Atkins finacial empire if it was released. But I would be very happy to change that opinion if they were to reverse their position and release all the available information about his health immediately before death, the cause of death and any autopsy results regarding extent of atherosclerosis - especially carotid atherosclerosis. Since this group was formed by Francesca many years ago, the science that links heart disease with the ingestion of certain types of fats has been endlessly discussed. If you have reason to believe this science is wrong or severely flawed, please let us all know why. There is a simple way to do that, which would certainly be very acceptable here. Post references to the peer-reviewed studies published in serious scientific journals - preferably with PubMed ID numbers so that we can check them out - which show that people on a high animal fat, high animal protein diet are healthier and/or live longer than those on other types of diets. If that were done we could then at least have a two-sided conversation. I recall making such a suggestion here in a previous similar discussion - perhaps five years ago - but there was no response of the type (science-based evidence) this site requires to support claims made. Evidence of a similar kind in animals whose response to ingestion of high animal fat/high animal protein diets is similar to that in humans would also be acceptable. As for Dr Atkins cardio risk factors, I am not at all surprised, assuming he was actually consuming the diet he recommended. Rodney. > >

> > extended lifespan) and the logic behind it. Dr. Atkins most likely died of a massive stroke at a weight of 270 pounds. So I find it difficult to have much confidence in anything he ever recommended about diet. > > [/endquote] > > Rodney, if nothing else, please stop spreading this "most likely" false allegation about Dr. Atkins conditions at death. > > His end weight gain was hospital induced edema - that is at least one point long ago divulged: > http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-02-10-atkins_x.htm > > Did a heart attack and/or stroke cause him to slip and fall in the first place? I don't know. If the answer is yes, it does not undo the valuable contribution that he made to advancing our knowledge of how diet interacts with our bodies, including and especially his work at attempting to expose the corruption and lobbying between the grain industry, the physicians, and the government. > > Sorry for the soapbox, but I often find myself reminding skeptics that Atkins long ago recommended tons of veggies with that animal protein far in advance of our insatiable craving for "low carb" food substitutes. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_Atkins_%28nutritionist%29 > > Jim Fixx started life with a heart condition and it killed him, but he probably lived longer than he would have without exercising. The same goes for Dr. Atkins - he knew he had cardio risk factors - and that seems to be a perfectly logical reason to be interested in finding potential solutions for yourself and others as well. > > , in ABQ >

[Guest guest]

> It still sounds like there probably won't be easy to find proof of what

Atkins' physical condition was both in the months before his accident and even

after,

Actually, we have public copies of the external autopsy, his wife's admissions

of his health both at the time and in the recent years, we have the reports from

those who were there including paramedics who treated him. Everything else has

been sealed by the family, which as Rodney pointed out, says enough in and of

itself.

> but part of my point is that it doesn't necessarily matter.

The health of one of the nations most renowned diet doctors, who encouraged

millions to follow his recommendations, and said he did so himself, is of

importance to how well this regime did for him.

What you may not know is that in the 70s, we was on a TV show with

Pritikin and as a result, he sued Pritikin for a comment he made about

the potential negative effects of his diet. said that they both should

make a commitment that upon death, their autopsies should be public information.

s was done and published in the NEJM for all to see. Dr Atkins was

quickly cremated and hid as much as he could from the public.

>

> He *helped* to break the tenacious grip on the American public to their

fat-free food substitutes, and I do not see that as a bad thing.

Again, I do not see how he played any role in this at all. Most of the change

was from American's own awareness and frustration from these products

>

> I have (or had) a copy of his 1974 book and yes he did say eat bacon and

whatnot, but on top of non-starchy veggies as the foundation. You mention that

much later editions got this message back, but it seems like they lost their way

in the 80's and 90's with all of the low-carb junk out there.

So, how is it he was so influential in getting American's off the low fat junk

but could not stop his own followers off the low-carb junk?

> In the meantime, all I can say is: Atkins wasn't evil, and his diet wasn't the

worst thing you can tell someone to eat.

I am sure he only had the best intentions and believed in what he did.

Your right thought, it wasn't the worst diet someone could eat, I think the diet

of the Masai's is, though his was close.

Jeff