Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Atkins

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Stacy - 28 Jul 2005 18:40 GMT
Why do people still support this Atkins diet craze?

He keeled over with a heart attack from all that fat and meat and his
financial empire tries to cover it up.

He looked terrible for years. You could tell he was eating too much meat
just by looking at his skin. Yet there are still people who swear by this
nonsense!

(And he wasn't exactly slim either)
Enrico C - 28 Jul 2005 19:04 GMT
> Why do people still support this Atkins diet craze?
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> (And he wasn't exactly slim either)

I am not into Atkins, so I don't want to be the defense counsel for him or
his diet.
Though, I saw some more "official" nutritionists who don't look slim and
helthy either. :)
Susan - 28 Jul 2005 19:07 GMT
>>Why do people still support this Atkins diet craze?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Though, I saw some more "official" nutritionists who don't look slim and
> helthy either. :)

I'm not an Atkins fan, either, but he was very slim in all the pics
taken just weeks before his death, and in all the years before.  An
interviewer who'd met with him weeks before his death said he was very thin.

He had no blockages in his arteries at autopsy.  He did have some stable
plaque, which makes sense, since he didn't low carb til his 30s, and had
been fat before then.

Two year olds on autopsy have plaque, which isn't a problem unless
there's blockage or instability.

Susan
Stacy - 28 Jul 2005 19:12 GMT
Who's to say. Is there an official proven medical reports. There was a
conspiracy to cover it up. Did it finally get out? And a heart attack is a
heart attack. Thin before he died? Lot of people lose a lot of weight when
something goes wrong suddenly with their health and just before dying.

I saw him in some interviews about 2 years before his death and he was
overweight. He was not slim. AND he looked unhealthy.

Mayor Bloomburg of N.Y. also noticed it and his off the record comments were
highly publicised.

| x-no-archive: yes
|
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
|
| Susan
OmManiPadmeOmelet - 28 Jul 2005 19:25 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Susan

He also did not die of a heart attack...
Where the hell did you read that?

Dr. Atkins slipped on a patch of ice on a sidewalk while out walking.
He died of a severe head injury.

Cheers!
Signature

Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Susan - 28 Jul 2005 19:28 GMT
> He also did not die of a heart attack...
> Where the hell did you read that?

Go back and re-read the thread.  I never said that.

> Dr. Atkins slipped on a patch of ice on a sidewalk while out walking.
> He died of a severe head injury.

No sh.t.

Susan
Stacy - 28 Jul 2005 19:36 GMT
No, I said that. And I may be wrong.

But I heard that the ice patch story was a cover up for what really killed
him.

One of my neighbors crashed his car into a telephone poll and was
pronounced dead on the scene. However it was not the crash that killed him
but the heart attack that caused him to drive into the telephone poll.

Can't say that's what happened to Dr. ATkins but there is the story out
there.

| x-no-archive: yes
|
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
|
| Susan
Susan - 28 Jul 2005 19:43 GMT
> No, I said that. And I may be wrong.
>
> But I heard that the ice patch story was a cover up for what really killed
> him.

That was slander spread by the PETA folks.  The actual doc who did the
autopsy said otherwise.

Susan
OmManiPadmeOmelet - 28 Jul 2005 19:59 GMT
> No, I said that. And I may be wrong.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Can't say that's what happened to Dr. ATkins but there is the story out
> there.

There are a lot of Dr. Atkins haters out there... :-(
It's so very sad as he has helped SO many people!

I'd suggest you read his book "Atkins for life" before you judge the
dietary guidlines too harshly! Clear the myths from your conceptions.

It's very close to the paleo-type diets. :-)

Lots and lots of fresh organic foods! Meat, fruit and veggies. No high
starch processed or high sugar crap that the political lobbies of the
sugar and wheat cartels like to push on us.

Fresh natural foods created by mother nature, unaltered.

Ugh! End of rant, thanks! <lol>
Signature

Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Enrico C - 28 Jul 2005 20:28 GMT
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:59:59 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote in
<news:Omelet-0AA6A8.13595928072005@corp.supernews.com> on sci.med.nutrition

>> No, I said that. And I may be wrong.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> It's very close to the paleo-type diets. :-)

Which paleo-type diet? This one?

http://www.pcngcincinnati.org/2001/features.htm#1_9
Urology. 2001 Apr;57(4 Suppl 1):31-8.
2001_9    September 26, 2001
Donald S. Coffey: Similarities of Prostate and Breast Cancer: Evolution,
Diet, and Estrogen
[...]
Approximately 7 million years ago humans evolved from a common ape
ancestor, with our closest relative being the pigmy chimpanzee called the
bonobo. Like the other great apes, the bonobo eats primarily fruit and
vegetables and no meat. ... Even in humans, highly effective hunting was
not the major source of high meat caloric intake until later in human
development. When early hominoids such as "Lucy" came down from the trees 4
million years, ago and began to roam the savannas, they picked up the
ability to become hunter-gatherers.
     This hunting was still at the most primitive level until
approximately 12,000 years ago when the dog was brought into the human
hunting society, which tremendously increased the ability to catch animals,
owing to the dog's speed and olfactory abilities. The dogs chased and
corralled the game at bay for the human to subsequently kill, and the human
then shared the kill with the dog. ... This sharing of diet between human
and dog allowed the dog to be domesticated and trained to herd animals.
This major shift in food style occurred only about 10,000 years ago, when
humans became farmers and domesticated both plants and animals.
    The technology quickly evolved into a tighter focusing of human diets
from wild fresh vegetables and fruits to an eating pattern toward limited
plants that could be domesticated and grown in great quantities and stored,
like wheat, rice, barley, corn, potatoes, and other tubers. This resulted
in approximately 20 plant types rapidly replacing the high diversity of
>3,000 .plants and fruits that were earlier eaten fresh as they came into
season and were gathered from the wild. With large-scale domestication and
breeding of cattle came a high meat intake, and this was combined with
storage, curing, drying, and cooking as well as a propensity to use milk
and cheese from dairy processing. Cooking, burning, and smoking produce
high levels of heterocyclic molecules, many of which make adducts to DNA,
and are carcinogens. Since separating from the great apes and chimpanzees
approximately 7 million years ago, humans evolved into Homo sapiens sapiens
that are very similar to our present form in as little as 150,000 years.
However, we dramatically changed to a Western-style diet only in the very
recent past (ie, 15,000 years) ---at a pace much faster than we could
biologically evolve. This Western diet consists of high meat and fat; dairy
products; stored, processed, and cooked meats; and low fruit and fiber
intake, along with a more sedentary lifestyle.
[...]


> Lots and lots of fresh organic foods! Meat, fruit and veggies.

> No high
> starch processed or high sugar crap that the political lobbies of the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Ugh! End of rant, thanks! <lol>
OmManiPadmeOmelet - 28 Jul 2005 20:57 GMT
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:59:59 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote in
> <news:Omelet-0AA6A8.13595928072005@corp.supernews.com> on sci.med.nutrition
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Which paleo-type diet? This one?

This one:

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/

Fresh meat and fresh produce. No processed foods.
This is pretty much the way I and my housemate have been eating now for
the past 2 years and both of us feel better now than we ever have in our
lives!

we're not perfect, we still eat a few other items from time to time, but
fresh "living" foods comprise the bulk of our diet now.
Signature

Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 28 Jul 2005 21:12 GMT
> Lots and lots of fresh organic foods! Meat, fruit and veggies. No high
> starch processed or high sugar crap that the political lobbies of the
> sugar and wheat cartels like to push on us.
>
> Fresh natural foods created by mother nature, unaltered.

COMMENT:

What say you read just 10 pages on the history of agriculture, and get
back to us.

There's not a thing you can buy in the grocery store that "is as it was
created by mother nature, unaltered."  Even the bottled springwater's
been filtered.

SBH
OmManiPadmeOmelet - 28 Jul 2005 21:21 GMT
> > Lots and lots of fresh organic foods! Meat, fruit and veggies. No high
> > starch processed or high sugar crap that the political lobbies of the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> SBH

Oh for pity sake!!!

What I mean is sh.t like packaged pizza, canned raviolis, pop tarts,
white bread, polished rice, bleached flour and white sugar products,
overcooked frozen dinners...

You know, the crap that is the bulk of the (S)tandard (A)merican
(D)iet!!!

There is a fine line, but the line is there!!!!!!
Signature

Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 30 Jul 2005 01:01 GMT
> > > Lots and lots of fresh organic foods! Meat, fruit and veggies. No high
> > > starch processed or high sugar crap that the political lobbies of the
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> There is a fine line, but the line is there!!!!!!

COMMENT:

Sorry, can't see it. There's no doubt that the more you do to meat and
fruit and vegetables and less they look like what muscle and plants.
But so what?  Pound, grind, mix--- that's what your teeth and stomach
does, and it doesn't look like what went in by the time it hits your
duodenum, either. Cooking?  Is that your problem? Cooking releases
vitamins from a lot of vegetables as the cell walls pop--- in some ways
they're often more nutritious cooked than raw.

As for bleaching and polishing flour and rice, it's a non-issue. It
makes them all less nutritious, but evolutionarily they're recent foods
anyway.

If you want to eat a lot of "whole" foods that your ancestors survived
on, I would suggest you learn to dig roots (not the starchy ones you
find in the stores, either), and eat various kinds of bugs. As for
fruit, our modern kind are bred to be bags of simple sugars. Sour or
small wild berries like chokecherries and huckleberries for you, my
friend. Hawthorne fruit, yum. Small bitter limes. Otherwise, don't talk
to me about it.  A modern produce aisle is about as natural as a
Pomeranian.

SBH
OmManiPadmeOmelet - 30 Jul 2005 02:39 GMT
> > > > Lots and lots of fresh organic foods! Meat, fruit and veggies. No high
> > > > starch processed or high sugar crap that the political lobbies of the
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
> SBH

You are having WAY too much fun... ;-)
Signature

Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Enrico C - 30 Jul 2005 13:22 GMT
On 29 Jul 2005 17:01:01 -0700, Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote in
<news:1122680995.031496.149530@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on
sci.med.nutrition :

[...]
> If you want to eat a lot of "whole" foods that your ancestors survived
> on, I would suggest you learn to dig roots (not the starchy ones you
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> SBH

Not to mention milk, not available before the invention of farming. Before
that, I doubt there was large availability of meat, either.
Besides, I suppose  Paleolithic guys ate all the parts of the animals they
hunted, not just the meat, also the organs and glands, rich in vitamins.

George Cherry - 30 Jul 2005 18:16 GMT
> On 29 Jul 2005 17:01:01 -0700, Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote in
> <news:1122680995.031496.149530@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Besides, I suppose  Paleolithic guys ate all the parts of the animals they
> hunted, not just the meat, also the organs and glands, rich in vitamins.

Yeah, and I bet they gathered a hell of a lot more
than they successfully hunted. Try to bring down a
squirrel or rabbit, much less a bison, by hurling a
rock at it it. Their diets were probably largely plant
foods--since plants don't run away. If they were
luckly enough to get a critter--as you said-- they
probably ate every damn bit of it--except the nails,
teeth, and fur.

George W. Cherry
Stacy - 30 Jul 2005 18:31 GMT
Gross! But you're probably right.

Even today, a lot of country people eat just about every part of the cows &
pigs: pig feet, intestines, testicles, tongue, snout, just about everything.
You can smell them cooking miles away.

I guess if you're gonna kill it, you should be forced to eat it all....

| If they were
| luckly enough to get a critter--as you said-- they
| probably ate every damn bit of it--except the nails,
| teeth, and fur.
|
| George W. Cherry
Enrico C - 30 Jul 2005 19:01 GMT
> Yeah, and I bet they gathered a hell of a lot more
> than they successfully hunted. Try to bring down a
> squirrel or rabbit, much less a bison, by hurling a
> rock at it it. Their diets were probably largely plant
> foods--since plants don't run away.
[...]

On the other hand, as SBH reminded us, they also gathered insects...
And, probably, they also gathered other invertebrates, and "hunted"
amphibians and reptiles, not just mammals and fish...

Signature

Enrico C

RBR - 03 Aug 2005 22:46 GMT
>Yeah, and I bet they gathered a hell of a lot more
>than they successfully hunted. Try to bring down a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>probably ate every damn bit of it--except the nails,
>teeth, and fur.

In Europe and other regions to the North? What plant foods? They ate
meat out of necessity.

>George W. Cherry
George Cherry - 04 Aug 2005 03:25 GMT
>>Yeah, and I bet they gathered a hell of a lot more
>>than they successfully hunted. Try to bring down a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> In Europe and other regions to the North? What plant foods? They ate
> meat out of necessity.

Try reading Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Here's a bit of
his argument. (But human life did not originate in Eurasia. I was writing
above about the progenitors of the human beings in northern climes.)

A similar and perhaps less well-known effect occurred with respect to
domesticable plants. Eurasia was simply lucky in that its environment
provided a much larger stock of plants that lent themselves to
domestication, and plants that had better quality in terms of the nutrients
supplied, resistance to disease, ease of cultivation and so on. Botanical
wealth, constrained by the local flora, determined agriculture, agriculture
determined everything else, says Diamond. Eurasia won because the supply of
wild plants that provided the gene pool for domesticated crops was larger,
richer, and better. If you feel that this is a bit simplistic, read his
chapters on "How to Make an Almond" and "Apples and Indians." It is a
serious, informed, and well-thought out argument, and if in the end we are
not wholly convinced, thinking of how to refute Diamond will make us wiser
and better informed.

George W. Cherry
OmManiPadmeOmelet - 28 Jul 2005 19:38 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Susan

I know YOU did not, the OP said it!

My bad on the attributions, sorry!
Signature

Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Cubit - 29 Jul 2005 00:48 GMT
Low carb has a long history.  Atkins didn't start it.

Even if your PETA/Vegan based allegations against Atkins were true, it does
not prove or disprove the prudence of rejecting the grain based, high sugar
way of eating.

> Why do people still support this Atkins diet craze?
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> (And he wasn't exactly slim either)
Jeff - 29 Jul 2005 02:50 GMT
> Why do people still support this Atkins diet craze?

Because it works for some people.

> He keeled over with a heart attack from all that fat and meat and his
> financial empire tries to cover it up.

He died from a fall.

> He looked terrible for years. You could tell he was eating too much meat
> just by looking at his skin. Yet there are still people who swear by this
> nonsense!

And people are healthier because of it. I don't think it is a particularly
healthy diet, but, it is a lot healthier  than a high-calorie diet, even if
a smaller proportion of the calories are fat in the high calorie diet.

Jeff

> (And he wasn't exactly slim either)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.