brookcove
Posted : 2/2/2008 8:24:09 AM
I think they say the maximum time to stay on Atkins would be 90 days?
People who I know who have tried the diet did lose weight and got the
other stuff under control like cholesterol.
Atkins himself in all his books pushed it as a lifestyle. I did it for about six or seven months, at the recommendation of my psychologist who saw me gain weight on some drugs I was on for mood modification. At the time, I thought I was doing great. I was not losing weight but I was a bit more fit and wasn't gaining any more either - but I had started going to the gym, too.
I stopped not because I stopped being committed to the lifestyle, but because I had a car accident. They sent my complete numbers to my GP, who I saw a couple weeks later to try to get a more effective pain me, and he mentioned the increased numbers to me and wanted to know what the heck I was doing. I had just had a physical nine months before - and I was always a bit of a star patient of his because of my low cholesterol, and low HP in spite of a genetic tendency to hypertension.
Because he wasn't 100% sure it wasn't stress-related, I tried it again last year. In October I went to the doctor and the same story - and I had in fact gained, not lost weight, in addition to the increased and unhealthy numbers.
I went on the internet and looked up the research - what factors lower LDL and keep it down, ditto BP. I greatly reduced animal sourced foods, added healthy oils, fiber, legumes, fruits high in antioxidants. I started following some of the principles of Weight Watcher's Core plan.
By the first of Jan, I went for another physical (I'm getting ready for a surgery end of this month) and my LDL was down, my BP was back to normal levels for me, which are much lower than most people, and I'd lost 17.5 pounds.
The point is, that following figures who make fantastic claims without the expertise to back it up, is never a good idea and is the main reason I'd hesitate from feeding this food (but only one of many). Too many times I've seen claims to scientific "fact" that are never properly annotated. This is a big red flag for me as a trained researcher. I don't understand why someone who completed an advanced degree would make such an error, over and over, unless there's something to hide.
Biochemistry is one of my hobbies. It's not a field where comparative studies (the kind you say are suspect because the researchers have an agenda) have much of a place - the reference material you need to see annotated in such discussions is objective in nature - works which show the reader the research behind a protein or lipid's structure, a synthesis, an energy transfer process. Biochemistry certainly is the foundation of animal nutrition, as it is for vet pharmacology, but I have not seen works from your Mr. A which even remotely resemble the scholarship I'd expect from someone in this field.
I am sorry, but you know I just can't buy this snake oil.