KFC: We do Chickens Wrong!

[RGA]

Audio is a wonderful hobby, listening to tunes, listening to music or ruffling a few feathers on audio forums.

The summer time is a wonderful season to have some buddies over to and during our listening sessions we may get a little hungry and decide to order in for some lunch or dinner. I would like to make the case that you make your choice of NOT choosing KFC.

I am not an activist -- no not even for Audio Note :D ) -- but it bothers me to see companies, or individuals, engage in unnecessary cruelty.

This article is probably nothing new to many of you but sometimes we need a kick in our complacency. I always try and place my old Cats in the scenario. It's easier to feel compassion for that whom we know than those with whom we do not.

There are many responsible corporations out there and so many choices. Choose the ethical companies - they deserve our business in audio, to cola producers, to fast food chains. http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/index.asp

[Resident Loser]

...long enough, we really shouldn't be eating animals at all...not that I'm a Veggie, but...there ARE other ways to get the required nutrients in your diet.

When I look into my dog's eyes and realize in some quarters he'd be the blue-plate special, it kind'a makes ya' wonder...

jimHJJ(...I have tried to minimize my intake to one or two meat meals a week, but the blood-lusting carnivore is still lurking...)

[kexodusc]

C'mon guys, we don't know what those chickens said to those slaughterhouse employees...maybe they had it comin'?

On a serious note, the more I read into the practice of eating meat, the more I realize how much our diets are "industry driven". I've since lost the link, but maybe someone here has seen it too? Basially, some reputable scientist in the US have finalized years of research proving that even good ol' Milk isn't actually "good" at all for us. The harms far outweigh the benefits, and the benefits have been grossly exaggerated by the lobbyists and industry people with large vested interests...makes sense too...name 2 other animals on earth that drink milk in their natural diets beyond infancy?

I have a real weakness for bacon and steak (or baken wrapped steak...droooooollll). But I'm starting to believe that maybe we don't need to be killing everything to sustain ourselves. There's something not right about these massive meat farms - Chickens, pigs, cows - they're not animals anymore, they're made, cultivated, grown, harvested - sounds more like a vegetable to me.

I worked at a hog processing plat as a teenager (basically shoveling pig shi----nevermind)...it was years before I could eat any pork again, and if everyone saw how it was really done, not the typical PG rated tour-guide demonstration of operations, you'd never eat pork again...

[ericl]

Funny, I'm in the same position as you guys. In theory I think we shouldn't be eating animals, but I can't bring myself to stop!

I did try it for a short while when I first moved into the hippie co-op i lived in while attending US Santa Cruz. I ate huge amounts of rice and beans, plenty of tofu, nuts, corn, vegetables etc. and I was still always hungry. I had ok energy, but never felt sated (is that word ? or is it satiated?). One day I just started fantasizing about burgers. "I want a burger... with bacon... and bbq sauce... and onion rings... and fries.. and a milkshake!!!" I couldn't get stop thinking about it and I finally went down to fosters freeze and got exactly that. God, I was never so sick!!

[BillB]

I'll stick with Chick-Fil-A.

Bill

[MomurdA]

Chik fila might be worse than kfc, imo. Personally, I dont eat red meat much anymore, not since first us case of mad cow. I will occasionally eat a huge new york strip, but burgers no way. I try not to eat pork, but damn does bacon taste good with eggs, waffles, and lots of butter and syrup and a huge glass of milk.. Pork chops taste good, but a pig's a filthy animal.... haha just kidding. chicken and seafood is what i mostly eat(well chicken mostly, i dont want to start smelling like fish) and i only buy 'organic' chicken. Dont know if this is better for me or not but i buy it. I also tried the veggie only thing, and I was always hungry. I mean always. I can eat salad all day long, and still have to eat more. Plus hummus doesnt taste very good, neither do hearts of palm. I also only eat fast food once a month, when im too hungover or tired to cook.

[RGA]

I was not saying we should all become vegitarians. Though that is a valid choice for people. I follow the Atkins program and theoretically you could be a vegitarian on that diet (though you'd NEVER know it from the incredibly biased media reports. Though Atkins was big on organic foods and free range precisely because of the chemicals and the growth hormones injected into chickens etc.

Meat, red meat, is an appetite suppressant. And I too find it difficult to feel full on salads.

I think we as people are designed to eat meat, I just don't think it is necessary to treat animals that poorly.

I notice the Peta is on side with McDonalds who is doing something...KFC is pretty sorry excuse for a corporate citizen

[MomurdA]

Well, The Colonel doesnt run the show. I believe kfc is owned by pepsico, which owns other places such as taco hell.

[RGA]

Well I've already boycotted coca-Cola for their evil practices over seas and dumping practices -- so if pepsi owns KFC then that's the other major cola company I'll have to boycott.

Luckily I like A&W RootBeer. --- Please say they are OK!!

[Woochifer]

Well, The Colonel doesnt run the show. I believe kfc is owned by pepsico, which owns other places such as taco hell.

Old information. KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut got spun off into an independent company at least four or five years ago (the A&W drive-thrus and Long John Silver's are now part of that company's holdings). Pepsico was losing market share with fountain drink sales because other fast food franchisees did not want to go with Pepsi so long as Pepsico owned competing chains. So, Pepsico spun off its restaurant holdings so that they could compete on a more equal footing in the fountain drink business.

http://www.yum.com/

[Woochifer]

I've read PETA's allegations as well. As much as I support the goal of ethically treating animals, even those that we will eventually meet for the first time at the receiving end of a carving knife or frying pan, I think that PETA as an organization tends to engage in a lot of sensationalism and take aim at high profile targets in order to promote itself. (At one point, they were telling people to boycott Wheaties because a bass fisherman was featured on the box cover, and in their view that meant that Wheaties was glorifying cruelty to animals.)

KFC's got a huge bullseye by virtue of their ubiquity, but they're not the ones who are farming the chickens and raising them in deplorable conditions. PETA happened to get a hidden camera into one of the supplier company's facilities. But, how do you know that this is something that's isolated to KFC's suppliers? What I know of chicken processing, there are all kinds of common practices that would make most of us puke if we saw it first hand.

So, if you boycotted KFC, what does that amount to in the end? Are you then going to go to the grocery store and buy chickens that might have been raised under identical conditions? The only way that you can know for sure that you're eating "ethically" treated chickens is to buy organic and "range fed" chickens from a grocery store. For all of the different processed food offerings, a lot of them tend to share suppliers. If these objectionable practices are happening with chickens supplied to KFC, I would guess that these abused chickens are getting supplied to other vendors as well. So, even if you boycott KFC, how do you know that whatever other chicken products you divert your spending towards don't have similar practices?

If PETA really wants to do something, why not take aim at the chicken processing industry in general, or the supplier companies in particular? By targeting KFC specifically, they are really after publicity for themselves since they know that they can raise their own profile by going after the biggest target.

If PETA was really about ethical treatment of bass, why did they start a Wheaties boycott? Why not take aim at the sportsman's associations that support and sponsor the activity? Because they know that Wheaties is the more well known target, and taking aim at it guarantees publicity.

[dean_martin]

If PETA was really about ethical treatment of bass, why did they start a Wheaties boycott? Why not take aim at the sportsman's associations that support and sponsor the activity? Because they know that Wheaties is the more well known target, and taking aim at it guarantees publicity.

Hey Wooch!

I agree with you in general regarding high-profile targets for publicity, but at the same time I'm trying to imagine the effectiveness of a PETA-led boycott of Bass Pro Shops or BassMasters and I just don't think the people associated with those entities would give a damn. I don't think a PETA protester would last 2 seconds at a bass tournament or in a Bass Pro Shop! I know a little about these folks because where I live, if you don't have a bass boat, you ain't sh*t.

[BillB]

Anyone ever seen the pictures of the little Chinese kids in sweatshops making NAD electronics??

Just kidding but really, where does it end. If we all were to boycott things not made "the right way" we'd be paying out the arse or simply wouldn't have them to buy at all.

That's not to say KFC's wrong but unfortunately I think 99% of the general public could give a crap.

Bill

[FLZapped]

I've read PETA's allegations as well. As much as I support the goal of ethically treating animals, even those that we will eventually meet for the first time at the receiving end of a carving knife or frying pan, I think that PETA as an organization tends to engage in a lot of sensationalism and take aim at high profile targets in order to promote itself. (At one point, they were telling people to boycott Wheaties because a bass fisherman was featured on the box cover, and in their view that meant that Wheaties was glorifying cruelty to animals.)

If PETA was really about ethical treatment of bass, why did they start a Wheaties boycott? Why not take aim at the sportsman's associations that support and sponsor the activity? Because they know that Wheaties is the more well known target, and taking aim at it guarantees publicity.


I find it rather ironic that an organization that supposedly seeks the protection of animals against unecessary violence will resort to acts of violence against people and privately held property. Especially when those prople are not breaking any law in the first place.

They get a zero in credibility for being hippocrits in my book.

-Bruce

[Woochifer]

Anyone ever seen the pictures of the little Chinese kids in sweatshops making NAD electronics??

Just kidding but really, where does it end. If we all were to boycott things not made "the right way" we'd be paying out the arse or simply wouldn't have them to buy at all.

That's not to say KFC's wrong but unfortunately I think 99% of the general public could give a crap.

Bill

Well, that's part of the difficulty of these consumer boycotts. There are plenty of companies out there that directly or indirectly support an activity that we are individually not cool with. If you got a bank account, do you really know where your bank's investment portfolio goes? If you buy food from a neighborhood grocery store, how do you know whether or not their office supplies come from a third world sweatshop?

What it boils down to for me is focusing on the things that mean the most to me in choosing which companies I give my money to. My problems with PETA are that they've cried wolf so many times already, targeted companies that are sometimes only tangentally involved in the cruelty that they allege, and their history of sensationalism and camera-ready publicity stunts detracts from their credibility in my view.

I've got my own list of companies that I don't do business with, and those are for my own reasons. I don't go trumpeting all of the companies that I avoid giving money to because different people might have different priorities than the ones that I focus on. One person might focus solely on labor practices, while others might not be down with companies with holdings in gaming or alcohol or tobacco, or ties to the nuclear industry, or product testing involving animals, or unsound environmental practices, or just annoying advertisements, etc.

Generally, I focus on what the companies' actual practices are, rather than anything that their suppliers might be doing. One boycott I've supported for the last 23 years has been the Nestle boycott. I support it because the focus has been on the company's third world infant formula marketing practices, which were directly sanctioned by the corporate hierarchy, and verified and condemned by UNESCO. The boycott has been effective because it targets the entire company's family of products, and holds the entire company responsible for the unethical practices of one subsidiary. (not only Nestle labeled products, but their other subsidiaries as well including Stouffer's, Carnation, Arrowhead/Black Mountain, Purina, etc.)

If PETA is really about changing industry practices rather than chasing publicity, they need to target everything down the chain. Start with the suppliers and all of the brands that use their products, and then target the entire family of restaurants that Yum Brands owns -- KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Long John Silver's, A&W drive-ins, etc. Are they trying to effectively bring change to an industry, or are they more after the headlines?

[BillB]

I boycott Hewlett Packard because the relocated my family (due to my dad working there) knowing they were going to lay him off in the next three months and outsource his entire department. What a crap move. Now they're expected to lay off another 5,000-25,000 people...

Bill

[MomurdA]

I also boycott hewlett packard. Not for personal reasons but because they build the worst personal computers i have ever seen. Everytime a customer calls me saying there comp is messed up, i ask what kind it is. Id say at least half the time they say 'hp' and then i just sigh. sorry thats kind of off topic Their printers have many issues as well, and im sure they contribute to the cruelty to farm animals indirectly, somehow.

[RGA]

Actually i think Peta is going after the place people know. people don't know XYZ chicken farm but they DO KNOW KFC!. The only people able to put any REAL pressure on chicken farms is the company who is the number one buyer ion the US of chickens. You put the pressure on the retailer who then puts the pressure on the chicken farm. It's easier for average Joe to get on side when average Joe has a TARGET.

Seems to have worked for George W. Bush -- give them a target even if it's the wrong one.

I think any kind of outfit like Peta is going to have to "market" and go for the emotion ploy. They can't go to the intelligent viewer because to put it bluntly they are in the vast minority of North Americans and even some of the smarties are apathetic unless you club them over the head in shmaltzy guilt trips.

My friend worked as a clean-up person at a chicken plant -- they called it a plant - and after 6 months they offerred him a management position which he declined. He gags just looking at chicken.

No question there are others buying chickens from the same plants. Peta is simply going after the buiggest two buyers KFC and McDonalds. No point in going after some small time outfit because the chicken farm could easily ignore them...But I don;t know if they could ignore KFC and McDonalds.

McDonalds has been pressured into change in the past by their customers...I don;t see why KFC as a customer to their supplier can't put the pressure on. These places actually hold more power because they can't replace KFC. If everyone in the world completely did not go to a single KFC on the planet for an entire month -- either KFC goes under or by second day the chicken plant is completely changed.

It's bad enough the hormones are disasterous on human health and the heart clogging quality of their food but on top of that they knowingly support companies who are cruel to animals. It's just so evil -- and people are worried about some terrorists -- man who sticks up for the chickens. Hmm maybe it's because I saw Chicken Run not long ago.

Free Range purchasing is what I try to do on any meat purchase. yes it's more expensive which means I get an OTO instead of a Soro -- but I can live with that better than the lame excuse that my grocery buill is an extra 10% I'm healthier for it too.

[Woochifer]

Actually i think Peta is going after the place people know. people don't know XYZ chicken farm but they DO KNOW KFC!. The only people able to put any REAL pressure on chicken farms is the company who is the number one buyer ion the US of chickens. You put the pressure on the retailer who then puts the pressure on the chicken farm. It's easier for average Joe to get on side when average Joe has a TARGET.

With all of the corrupt corporate practices out there where you CAN make a one to one correlation between a company's direct actions and harm that they cause, I think that PETA's approach of targeting companies for practices that do not occur directly under their watch speaks volumes for the self-serving aspect of their actions. PETA has time and time again gone for the sensationalist stunts that make the evening news, rather than try to focus their campaigns on the actual parties that need to be held responsible and directing their responses in ways that make the best difference. Right, vandalizing department stores and antagonizing shoppers who aren't even shopping for mink coats is the best way of stopping animal cruelty by mink trappers and producers.

If anything, the "average joe" looks at PETA as a joke, and if anything, their antics have done more damage to their cause than any good. A talk show (and it's not a right wing show if you need to know) that I listen to makes a mockery out of just about everything that PETA does, and when PETA put out the call for a KFC boycott, the response by most of the callers was to say that they would buy an extra bucket of chicken at KFC to let PETA know what they think. If PETA thinks they're "educating" the average Joe, then their "educating" has only turned the public against the cause of humane treatment of animals.


Seems to have worked for George W. Bush -- give them a target even if it's the wrong one.

So by supporting PETA's stance, are you then saying that Bush's approach is the correct one?


I think any kind of outfit like Peta is going to have to "market" and go for the emotion ploy. They can't go to the intelligent viewer because to put it bluntly they are in the vast minority of North Americans and even some of the smarties are apathetic unless you club them over the head in shmaltzy guilt trips.

It seems that you respond to the sensationalist, rather than the rational. You still don't get that organizations like PETA who try this approach aren't trying to change things, so much as they are calling attention to themselves. I can't think of too many campaigns that they've started that have actually been successful.

The tone of this paragraph is the type of arrogant "I know better than you do" attitude that frankly turns off most people. If people want to be apathetic, or if they have other priorities in deciding on which companies they support, then that's their choice. The problem with clubbing people over the head with "shmaltzy guilt trips" is that they will not necessarily react the same way that you do, and just because you're a "smarty" does not change the fact that people will make their own choices based on what they focus on.

How different is this than the shock tactics that anti-abortion activists use in harassing doctors and patients? They feel that clubbing people over the head with gruesome images and calling doctors "baby killers" will spur the average Joe into supporting their cause as well.


No question there are others buying chickens from the same plants. Peta is simply going after the buiggest two buyers KFC and McDonalds. No point in going after some small time outfit because the chicken farm could easily ignore them...But I don;t know if they could ignore KFC and McDonalds.

If the goal of PETA's campaign is public education about corporate practices, then the informaton needs to be put out there about the facilities engaging in the abuse, and letting the public know where those chickens go. At that point, if the abuse is so agregious in the view of customers that they feel the need to take action, then they will on their own accord. For PETA to take this information to launch into an attack on KFC guarantees publicity, but does nothing to change the practices that so purportedly revolts them.


McDonalds has been pressured into change in the past by their customers...I don;t see why KFC as a customer to their supplier can't put the pressure on. These places actually hold more power because they can't replace KFC. If everyone in the world completely did not go to a single KFC on the planet for an entire month -- either KFC goes under or by second day the chicken plant is completely changed.

Right, and those were letter writing campaigns that were supported by their customers. When a group of environmentalists made note of McDonalds using nonbiodegradable styrene packaging, they encouraged customers to write to McDonald's and put pressure on them to change. That approach worked -- they now use recycled paperboard. Oh, and that campaign worked without the threat of a boycott.

Seems like PETA found abuse at a chicken processing facility, and responded not by encouraging customers to let KFC know that the company should do something about it. Their response was to start making inflamatory proclamations and start a boycott of one company, even though these practices affect a much broader cross-section of the industry. Doesn't do any good if people stop going to KFC and go to Church's or Popeye's instead, when those companies might use the same chicken suppliers.

Wheaties put a bass fisherman on their box cover, and PETA's response was to start a boycott. Does going to the boycott card and sensationalizing the issue do anything in the end? I suggest you look to results rather than presumptions about how people will react once they are "educated" about a subject.


It's bad enough the hormones are disasterous on human health and the heart clogging quality of their food but on top of that they knowingly support companies who are cruel to animals. It's just so evil -- and people are worried about some terrorists -- man who sticks up for the chickens. Hmm maybe it's because I saw Chicken Run not long ago.

And there's the rub. Some people just don't give a crap about animal cruelty or where their food comes from. You might view it as evil and make posts about it, but if people don't care, then in the end, all the criers calls don't amount to much. I might care that Wal-Mart engages in unionbusting tactics and predatory pricing, but for someone else, they might just see the low prices and not give a crap about the other external costs.


Free Range purchasing is what I try to do on any meat purchase. yes it's more expensive which means I get an OTO instead of a Soro -- but I can live with that better than the lame excuse that my grocery buill is an extra 10% I'm healthier for it too.

And that's your choice, just as others make their choices.

[RGA]

actually I was not supporting Peta but playing devil's advocate as to why they would go about the tactics they go about. Fahrenheit 9/11 IMO was the best film last year and it presented largely fully known information geared to people not up to what was going on. And even then it ultimately proved to be a film that merely preached to the choir. There is a way to be heavy handed that Michael Moore makes work and where Peta has been unsuccessful.

Peta and Green Peace and msot of these big outfits I'm not a "supporter" of because they become or can become corrupt self-serving entities. As you note with their sensational 6 o'clock news casts trying to spread the Peta organization name rather than focussing on the cause you're fighting.

Peta or a group like then has done some disengenuous things. When Robert Atkins died there were several downright LIES about his death thrown out there in order to get people to stop eating meat. This is why such organizations lose credibility and it's hard to regain it later. Michael Moore was hindered by his previous films and his grandstanding is hilarious but not if you're a stodgey stick up the ass right winger when it comes across as anti-American.

Peta I think somewhere down the line had a good idea. But it's commercialized. There is one other animal rights group which is more credible anyway I believe called WSPA

[FLZapped]

Peta or a group like then has done some disengenuous things. When Robert Atkins died there were several downright LIES about his death thrown out there in order to get people to stop eating meat. This is why such organizations lose credibility and it's hard to regain it later. Michael Moore was hindered by his previous films and his grandstanding is hilarious but not if you're a stodgey stick up the ass right winger when it comes across as anti-American.



HAHHAHAHHAHHAA....Michael Moore was hindered by his propensity to lie. No different than what happeneed with Atkins.

[RGA]

Atkins was lied about not the other way around. Michael Moore's latest film has a few errors which is not the same as a lie. It's funny how there was a holocaust survivor who said he was in the Bergen Belson camp and recounted that they were afraid of being gassed ... there was no gas chamber that facility and so some people use that to claim that the Holocaust was a lie. Moore may have one or two facts wrong but what about the 87 he gets right? Chucking out all the facts or the forrest for one dead tree is idiotic.

For instance Atkins has been blasted by many pundits -- few of whom have actually bothered to read what he has to say -- for instance I doubt too many people know that you can be a vegitarian and be on the Atkins plan...no what you see on CNN is a big greasy burger fried up in a pan with the title this could be dangerous. What is media presented and what is the truth is not the same thing. And the medical practitioners who got on his case interestingly enough have no REAL evidence of their own. The biggest scam in the United States today is all and any drug and the media fear tactics on cholesterol and to a further extent fat content of foods.

Atkins believed in and was a big supporter of buying Organic foods, meats without nitrates, free range, vitamin suppliments (because the foods were overprocessed and lossed much of the nutrients) avoidance of high sugar foods and white flour carbohydrates and white rice. Gee not a whole lot different than most nutritionists.

The food pyramid has been advertised on tv recently saying to have more grain foods and there is a kid holding a box of Lucky Charms because this is the new healthy government approved diet that kids should be eating -- Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms? Sorry but there are BILLIONS of dollars at stake and your health is the LAST thing on the minds of the drug and nutrition industry.

[Woochifer]

Atkins was lied about not the other way around. Michael Moore's latest film has a few errors which is not the same as a lie. It's funny how there was a holocaust survivor who said he was in the Bergen Belson camp and recounted that they were afraid of being gassed ... there was no gas chamber that facility and so some people use that to claim that the Holocaust was a lie. Moore may have one or two facts wrong but what about the 87 he gets right? Chucking out all the facts or the forrest for one dead tree is idiotic.

Leave it up to you to turn a topic that started with you urging people to boycott KFC, and spin it into the ground with Michael Moore, the holocaust, and your worship of Dr. Atkins.


For instance Atkins has been blasted by many pundits -- few of whom have actually bothered to read what he has to say -- for instance I doubt too many people know that you can be a vegitarian and be on the Atkins plan...no what you see on CNN is a big greasy burger fried up in a pan with the title this could be dangerous. What is media presented and what is the truth is not the same thing. And the medical practitioners who got on his case interestingly enough have no REAL evidence of their own. The biggest scam in the United States today is all and any drug and the media fear tactics on cholesterol and to a further extent fat content of foods.

Atkins believed in and was a big supporter of buying Organic foods, meats without nitrates, free range, vitamin suppliments (because the foods were overprocessed and lossed much of the nutrients) avoidance of high sugar foods and white flour carbohydrates and white rice. Gee not a whole lot different than most nutritionists.

Sure, it's possible to be a vegetarian and on the Atkins plan. That doesn't make it a healthy or balanced diet. My wife is a research biologist and the people that she works with (including university medical researchers) to a person think that the long-term health risks resulting from the Atkins regimen of carb deprivation and protein loading will become evident in the years to come, irregardless of whether people have been interpreting Atkins to mean indulging in high protein foods loaded with saturated fat and cholesterol. Problem with Atkins is that it eliminates the carbs that nutritionists consider a part of a balanced and healthy diet (complex carbs, dietary fiber, etc.). Atkins is an effective way to lose weight, but the nutritionists I know certainly don't view the imbalances inherent in that diet as a healthy lifestyle. Ever hear of eating a balanced diversity of foods in moderation, and exercising? That seems to be the only "diet" that has outlived all the various fads that have come and gone over the past 30 years.

If you think that the "biggest scam" is "all and any drug" then are you telling me then that next time you get a staph infection, you're going to instruct your doctors not to give you any antibiotics? Or if you get an organ transplant, you're going to do without the anti-rejection drugs? Of if you're diagnosed with HIV, you'll "cure" yourself without any medications, because "all and any drug" is just a scam? Blanket statements like the one that you made are the stuff of infomercial and Scientology conspiracies, not science and not reality.

If you think that cholesterol is just a "media scare tactic" then I'm sure you'll have to now educate all the actuarials who have been using cholesterol counts in their risk factor assessments for issuing life insurance policies. They'll be glad to know that a person with high cholesterol is no likelier to die from a heart attack than someone with a low cholesterol count, and their stockholders will be glad too because there will be no bottomline impact on their claims by eliminating the cholesterol count as a criteria.

For all the talk that you make about what you intrepret as media scare tactics, your statements certainly don't come across to me as rational or well informed either. Right, all of the medical research out there is nothing more than a scare tactic. Pharmaceutical companies are out to make a buck, but at the same time, I doubt that even you would do without their products in their entirety.


The food pyramid has been advertised on tv recently saying to have more grain foods and there is a kid holding a box of Lucky Charms because this is the new healthy government approved diet that kids should be eating -- Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms? Sorry but there are BILLIONS of dollars at stake and your health is the LAST thing on the minds of the drug and nutrition industry.

Oh brother, here you go again with the food pyramid. In the past, you've made quite a few erroneous references to what it actually means. Here's the rub -- the original four food groups approach was written in 1916 when the one of biggest health issues in the U.S. was malnutrition. As food technology evolved and increased yields and food production efficiencies, malnutrition has waned as a public health issue. The evolution into the new food pyramid occurred because obesity has supplanted malnutrition as the bigger health risk.

Those commercials you mentioned are pretty laughable when the high sugar cereals are included. Indeed they have whole grains, which is good and healthy, but they are loaded with plenty of processed sugar and simple carbs as well, which are linked to obesity.

But, what does the "drug and nutrition industry" have to do with the new food pyramid? It's pretty much self explanatory -- differentiating between different kinds of fats, more emphasis on high fiber foods, more vegetables, more whole grains, etc. I don't see where these BILLIONS of dollars fit into the picture (well, maybe there is that much to be made, just look at all of the Atkins licensed food products that have flooded the market in the past couple of years). Or do you see conspiracies here too?

[Resident Loser]

...how many out there remember the Stillman Water Diet(70s?)...

Eat all the protein you can(and little else) and consume copious amounts of water. If you weren't consuming animal flesh you were p!$$!ng your brains out. As I recall, it was for short-term use only as it disrupted too many digestive/chemical balances.

jimHJJ(...or something like that...)

[FLZapped]

Atkins was lied about not the other way around.

You are correct, I worded that improperly.


Michael Moore's latest film has a few errors which is not the same as a lie.


No, he lied.

-Bruce

[RGA]

Well I lost my reply due the server and don;t want to type it all back in. Europe has a different take on cholesterol and note there is zero evidence to the Americans' claims -- lots of faith based guessing that is all.

Atkins has more scientific support than scientifically preoven detraction. Lots of detrators wioth no evidence and guesses but that is all. Dr. Dean Ornish is the biggest detractor and has no evidence.

Atkins on the other hand has plenty of independant research done on his plan -- all of which supports what he says and all from the major medical communties.

A very brief list of what I could provide

McAuley, K.A., Hopkins, C.M., Smith, K.J., et. al., “Comparison of High-Fat and High-Protein Diets with a High-Carbohydrate diet in Insulin-Resistant Obese Women,” Diabetologia, 48(1), 2005, pages 8-16.
view summary

Brehm, B.J., Spang, S.E., Lattin, B.L., et. al., “The Role of Energy Expenditure in the Differential Weight Loss in Obese Women on Low-Fat and Low-Carbohydrate Diets,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 90(3), 2005, pages 1475-1482.
view summary

Boden, G., Sargrad, K., Homko, C., et. al., “Effect of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet on Appetite, Blood Glucose Levels, and Insulin Resistance in Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 142(6), 2005, pages 403-411.
view summary

Aude, Y. W., Agatston, A.S., Lopez-Jimenez F., Lieberman, E.H., Almon, M., Hansen, M., Rojas, G., Lamas G.A., Hennekens C.H., "The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat," Archives of Internal Medicine,164, 2004, pages 2141-2146.
view summary

Klein, S., Sheard, N.F., Pi-Sunyer, X., et al., "Weight Management through Lifestyle Modification for the Prevention and Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Rationale and Strategies: A Statement of the American Diabetes Association, the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, and the American Society for Clinical Nutrition," Diabetes Care, 27(8), 2004, pages 2067-2073.
view summary

da Veiga, G.V., da Cunha, A.S., Sichieri, R., "Trends in Overweight among Adolescents Living in the Poorest and Richest Regions of Brazil," American Journal of Public Health, 94(9), 2004, pages 1544-1548.
view summary

Zhuo, X.G., Melby, M.K., Watanabe, S., "Soy Isoflavone Intake Lowers Serum LDL Cholesterol: A Meta-Analysis of 8 Randomized Controlled Trials in Humans," Journal of Nutrition, 134(9), 2004, pages 2395-2400.
view summary

Meksawan, K., Venkatraman, J.T., Awad, A.B., et al., "Effect of Dietary Fat Intake and Exercise on Inflammatory Mediators of the Immune System in Sedentary Men and Women," Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 23(4), 2004, pages 331-340.
view summary

Yaffe, K., Blackwell, T., Kanaya, A.M., et al., "Diabetes, Impaired Fasting Glucose, and Development of Cognitive Impairment in Older Women," Neurology, 63(4), 2004, pages 658-663.
view summary

Novotny, R., Daida, Y.G., Acharya, S., et al., "Dairy Intake Is Associated with Lower Body Fat and Soda Intake with Greater Weight in Adolescent Girls," Journal of Nutrition, 134(8), 2004, pages 1905-1909.
view summary

Happonen, P., Voutilainen, S., Salonen, J.T., "Coffee Drinking Is Dose-Dependently Related to the Risk of Acute Coronary Events in Middle-Aged Men," Journal of Nutrition, 134(9), 2004, pages 2381-2386.
view summary

Miya****a, Y., Koide, N., Ohtsuka, M., et al., "Beneficial Effect of Low Carbohydrate in Low Calorie Diets on Visceral Fat Reduction in Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Obesity," Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 65(3), 2004, pages 235-241.
view summary

Furberg, A.S., Veierod, M.B., Wilsgaard, T., et al., "Serum High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, Metabolic Profile, and Breast Cancer Risk," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96(15), 2004, pages 1152-1160.
view summary

German, J.B., Dillard, C.J., "Saturated Fats: What Dietary Intake?," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 80(3), 2004, pages 550-559.
view summary

Nammi, S., Koka, S., Chinnala, K.M., et al., "Obesity: An Overview on Its Current Perspectives and Treatment Options," Nutrition Journal, 3(1), 2004, page 3.
view summary

Erkkila, A.T., Lichtenstein, A.H., Mozaffarian, D., et al., "Fish Intake Is Associated with a Reduced Progression of Coronary Artery Atherosclerosis in Postmenopausal Women with Coronary Artery Disease," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 80(3), 2004, pages 626-632.
view summary

Pehleman, T.L., Peters, S.J., Heigenhauser, G.J., et al., "Enzymatic Regulation of Glucose Disposal in Human Skeletal Muscle Following a High Fat, Low Carbohydrate Diet," Journal of Applied Physiology, 2004.
view summary

Morris, M.C., Evans, D.A., Bienias, J.L., et al., "Dietary Niacin and the Risk of Incident Alzheimer's Disease and of Cognitive Decline," Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 75(8), 2004, pages 1093-1099.
view summary

Rutter, M.K., Meigs, J.B., Sullivan, L.M., et al., "C-Reactive Protein, the Metabolic Syndrome, and Prediction of Cardiovascular Events in the Framingham Offspring Study," Circulation, 110(4), 2004, pages 380-385.
view summary

Eisenberg, M.E., Olson, R.E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., et al., "Correlations between Family Meals and Psychosocial Well-Being among Adolescents," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 158(8), 2004, pages 792-796.
view summary

Thorpe, L.E., List, D.G., Marx, T., et al., "Childhood Obesity in New York City Elementary School Students," American Journal of Public Health, 94(9), 2004, pages 1496-1500.
view summary

Brown, M.J., Ferruzzi, M.G., Nguyen, M.L., et al., "Carotenoid Bioavailability Is Higher from Salads Ingested with Full-Fat Than with Fat-Reduced Salad Dressings as Measured with Electrochemical Detection," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 80(2), 2004, pages 396-403.
view summary

Bo, M., Raspo, S., Morra, F., et al., "Body Fat Is the Main Predictor of Fibrinogen Levels in Healthy Non-Obese Men," Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental, 53(8), 2004, pages 984-988.
view summary

Zhang, M., Bi, L.F., Fang, J.H., et al., "Beneficial Effects of Taurine on Serum Lipids in Overweight or Obese Non-Diabetic Subjects," Amino Acids, 26(3), 2004, pages 267-271.
view summary

Gordon-Larsen, P., Adair, L.S., Nelson, M.C., et al., "Five-Year Obesity Incidence in the Transition Period between Adolescence and Adulthood: The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 80(3), 2004, pages 569-575.
view summary

Schulze, M.B., Manson, J.E., Ludwig, D.S., et al., "Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Weight Gain, and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Young and Middle-Aged Women," Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(8), 2004, pages 927-934.
view summary

Romieu, I., Lazcano-Ponce, E., Sanchez-Zamorano, L.M., et al., "Carbohydrates and the Risk of Breast Cancer among Mexican Women," Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 13(8), 2004, pages 1283-1289.
view summary

Feinman, R.D., Fine, E.J., "'A Calorie is a Calorie' Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Nutrition Journal, 3(1), 2004, page 9.
view summary

Sharman, M.J., Volek, J.S., "Weight Loss Leads to Reductions in Inflammatory Biomarkers after a Very Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diet in Overweight Men," Clinical Science (London), 2004.
view summary

Husain, A.M., Yancy, W.S., Jr., Carwile, S.T., et al., "Diet Therapy for Narcolepsy," Neurology, 62(12), 2004, pages 2300-2302.
view summary

Manninen, A.H., “High-Protein Weight Loss Diets and Purported Adverse Effects: Where is the Evidence,” Sports Nutrition Review Journal, 2004, 1(1), pages 45-51.
view summary

Visscher, T.L., Rissanen, A., Seidell, J.C., Heliovaara, M., Knekt, P., Reunanen, A., Aromaa, A.,”Obesity and Unhealthy Life-Years in Adult Finns: An Empirical Approach,” Arch Intern Med, 164(13), 2004, pages 1413-20.
view summary

Lambert M., Paradis G., O'Loughlin J., Delvin E.E., Hanley J.A., Levy E., "Insulin Resistance Syndrome in a Representative Sample of Children and Adolescents From Quebec, Canada," International Journal of Obesity, 28(7), 2004, pages 833-841.
view summary

Nickols-Richardson, S.M., Volpe, J.J., Coleman, M.D., “Premenopausal Women Following a Low-Carbohydrate/High-Protein Diet Experience Greater Weight Loss and Less Hunger Compared to a High-Carbohydrate/Low-Fat Diet,” Abstract Presented at FASEB Meeting on Experimental Biology: Translating the Genome, April 17-21, 2004, in Washington, D.C.
view summary

Westman, E.C., Yancy, W.S., Hepburn, J., et al., "A Pilot Study of a Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet for Obesity-Related Polycystic Ovary Syndrome," Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(1S), 2004, page 111.
view summary

Yancy, W.S., Foy, M.E., Westman, E.C., "A Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus," Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(1S), 2004, page 110.
view summary

Kossoff, E.H., "More Fat and Fewer Seizures: Dietary Therapies for Epilepsy," Lancet Neurol, 3(7), 2004, pages 415-420.
view summary

Bischoff-Ferrari, H.A., Dawson-Hughes, B., Willett, W.C., et al., "Effect of Vitamin D on Falls: A Meta-Analysis," Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(16), 2004, pages 1999-2006.
view summary

Hedley, A.A., Ogden, C.L., Johnson, C.L., et al., "Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity among Us Children, Adolescents, and Adults, 1999-2002," Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(23), 2004, pages 2847-2850
view summary

Mozaffarian, D., Pischon, T., Hankinson, S.E., Rifai, N., Joshipura, K., Willett, W.C., Rimm, E.B., “Dietary Intake of Trans Fatty Acids and Systemic Inflammation in Women,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79, 2004, pages 606-612.
view summary

Bray, G.A., Nielsen, S.J., Popkin, B.M., "Consumption of High-Fructose Corn Syrup in Beverages May Play a Role in the Epidemic of Obesity," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79(4), 2004, pages 537-543
view summary

Meckling, K.A., O'Sullivan, C., Saari, D., "Comparison of a Low-Fat Diet to a Low-Carbohydrate Diet on Weight Loss, Body Composition, and Risk Factors for Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease in Free-Living, Overweight Men and Women", Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 89(6), 2004, pages 2717-2723.
view summary

Weiss, R., Dziura, J., Burgert, T.S., et al., "Obesity and the Metabolic Syndrome in Children and Adolescents," New England Journal of Medicine, 350(23), 2004, pages 2362-2374.
view summary

Boden, G., Sargrad, K., Homoko, C., et al., "Effects of the Atkins Diet in Type 2 Diabetes: Metabolic Balance Studies," 64th session of the American Diabetes Association, #321-OR, June 8, 2004.
view summary

Goldstein, T., Kark, J.D., Berry, E.M., et al., "Influence of a Modified Atkins Diet on Weight Loss and Glucose Metabolism in Obese Type 2 Diabetic Patients," The Israel Medical Association Journal, 6, 2004, page 314.
view summary

Willett, W.C., "Reduced-Carbohydrate Diets: No Roll in Weight Management?," Annals of Internal Medicine, 140(10), 2004, pages 836-837.
view summary

Yancy, W.S., Jr., Olsen, M.K., Guyton, J.R., et al., “A Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet Versus a Low-Fat Diet to Treat Obesity and Hyperlipidemia,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 140(10), 2004, pages 769-777.
view summary

Stern, L., Iqbal, N., Seshadri, P., et al., “The Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Versus Conventional Weight Loss Diets in Severely Obese Adults: One-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 140(10), 2004, pages 778-785.
view summary

Yudkoff, M., Daikhin, Y., Nissim, I., et al., "Ketogenic Diet, Brain Glutamate Metabolism and Seizure Control", Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids, 70(3), 2004, pages 277-285.
view summary

Cunnane, S.C., "Metabolism of Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Ketogenesis: An Emerging Connection", Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids, 70(3), 2004, pages 237-241.
view summary

Cunnane, S.C., "Metabolic and Health Implications of Moderate Ketosis and the Ketogenic Diet", Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids, 2004, 70(3) , pages 243-251.
view summary

Layman, D.K., Baum, J.I., "Dietary Protein Impact on Glycemic Control During Weight Loss", Journal of Nutrition, 134(4), 2004, pages 968S-973S.
view summary

Meksawan, K., Pendergast, D.R., Leddy, J.J., et al., "Effect of Low and High Fat Diets on Nutrient Intakes and Selected Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Sedentary Men and Women," Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 23(2), 2004, pages 131-140.
view summary

Gross, L.S., Li, L., Ford, E.S., et al., "Increased Consumption of Refined Carbohydrates and the Epidemic of Type 2 Diabetes in the United States: An Ecological Assessment", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79, 2004, pages 774-779.
view summary

Volek, J.S., Sharman, M.J., Gomez, A.L., "Comparison of a Very Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diet on Fasting Lipids, LDL Subclasses, Insulin Resistance, and Postprandial Lipemic Responses in Overweight Women", Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 23(2), 2004, pages 177-184.
view summary

Sharman, M.J., Gomez, A.L., Kraemer, W.J., et al., "Very Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets Affect Fasting Lipids and Postprandial Lipemia Differently in Overweight Men," Journal of Nutrition, 134(4), 2004, pages 880-885.
view summary

Augustin, L.S., Gallus, S., Negri, E., et al., "Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load and Risk of Gastric Cancer", Annals of Oncology, 15(4), 2004, pages 581-584.
view summary

[Resident Loser]

don;t want to type it all back in.

jimHJJ(...Imagine if you did...)

[Woochifer]

You actually think that the scientific consensus is lining up BEHIND the Atkins approach? I guess the American Medical Association, American Kidney Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Dietetic Association, National Institutes of Health, and numerous other university organizations have all lined up behind Atkins, eh? Have you actually read these citations or are you just cutting and pasting from the Atkins website (http://atkins.com/science/researchsummaries/allresearchsummaries.html)? At least one of the journal articles that you listed was "supported by a grant from The Robert C. Atkins Foundation, New York, NY.". Here's a few links that say something quite different from what you regard as "all of which supports what he says and all from the major medical communities" ...

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/printer-friendly.html

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/SPC/content/SPC_1_A_Low_Carb_Diet_to_Prevent_Cancer.asp
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=11234
http://www.americanheart.org/downloadable/heart/5246_Professional.pdf

A short summary from the well respected UC Berkeley Wellness Newsletter
http://wellnessletter.com/html/wl/2000/wlFeatured0400.html

Another summary from the Mayo Clinic
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=NU00268

Another article with citations to the contrary about Atkins
http://outreach.missouri.edu/hesnutrnews/health7-12-02.htm

And here's Dean Ornish's online debate with a rep from the Atkins organization
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/63/71972.htm

Harvard's current thinking about cholesterol (not quite as simplistic or "zero evidence" a scenario as you make it out to be)
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html

And a few pointers about the benefits of fiber are needed, since Atkins cuts back consumption of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fiber.html

And more about the need for calcium, since Atkins eliminates potential calcium sources such as milk and yogurt.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html


Europe has a different take on cholesterol and note there is zero evidence to the Americans' claims -- lots of faith based guessing that is all.

So I guess that the 1,543 scientific studies in the MEDLINE database that link fat and cholesterol to heart disease constitutes "zero evidence" in your view? That's a lot of "faith based guessing" and I'm the sure the life insurance industry maintains profitability thru guessing and faith as well, since they rank body fat and cholesterol counts pretty high on their set of risk factors.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/May2002/frvol25i1c.pdf

[RGA]

Let's take your second link -- says nothing against Atkins diet http://www.cancer.org/docroot/SPC/content/SPC_1_A_Low_Carb_Diet_to_Prevent_Cancer.asp

This article and most start yapping about cancer based off the 1 week -2 week casrb cold turkey -- sorry but if any half wit believes they are going to get cancer for eating High Green vegetables and cutting all grain for AT MOST a 2 week time in their whole life then they are stupid and none of this is even remotely proven -- the first link is lame as well.

You then site a debate between Boston marathon Runner MD Traber who is now in charge of Atkins and Dean Ornish -- and so what??? Each side is going to preach to the choir on that one.

Then you produce articles by the wheat foods council (gee what a surprise they;d be against Atkin eh?) and there was no research priovided whatsoever.

The fiber article makes no sense since Atkins is fine with high fiber foods -- they effectively take out the effect of a carb. And vegetables have fiber.

And the calcium argument is also lame since since Atkins diet has a lot of calcium in cheeses and vegetables and he was always pro-suppliment. Take calcium suppliments.

Have you EVER read his book --- there is explamnation as to why for years he could not do peer-reviwed studies back int he day -- since he got all the information from the AMA he was surprised at the argument. If you look at the typical Atkins meals over the course of a Day day in day out and you can remotely think it's a bad diet that will kill you then I'd be surprised.

Typical day Omlette (three eggs with or without egg whites) with green peppers, onions mushrooms, cup of strawberries two slices of high fiber whole wheat bread water and or coffee cream.

Lunch: Spinach Salad, with any gree vegetable, coloured peppers, free range Chicken or Salmon or other fish, or Tofu, Cheese.

Dinner: Free range chicken, any fish, lean cut meat, some sort of green salad with nuts or without, Glass of wine, water or other non sugar drink. 1/2 to a full cup of blueberries with cream macadamia nuts blended.

Thanks but the links you provide do not the least bit impress me.

The issue comes down to the fact the naysayers keep saying it's bad because it's not a balanced diet...and that is fine -- Atkins didn;t believe the diet SHOULD be balanced. Maybe if you read his book as to the reason why and the support for his reason why and the evidence for the reason why some of which is subjective -- it may at the very least make LOGICAL sense as opposed to statistical study with problems sense.

I would get SOME of your information from European medical sciences as there is simply no REAL evidence for the cholesterol issues -- there are two forms of cholesteroal HDL good cholesterol and LDL bad cholesterol -- the studies on Atkins shows in all cases people's LDL drops and HDL rises.

My mother was a typical example of a person the doctors told should take diabetes treatments for the rest of her life and proposed a huge carb diet. (whcih leads to diabetes and has been proven as such). She went on Atkins and diabetes is gone, weight dropped, felt healthier with more energy, is more physically active because she's now able to be, Cholesterol dropped big time (and she ate bacon or ham and eggs every day) and STILL the cholesterol is down -- and no more heartburn, and arthritus gone. There are over 40,000 cases like this and they cannot be chucked out because some doctor tested 20 people and got at best non positive results.

The links I provided were real Journals conducted by scientists peer reviewed -- not inconclusiove debates and vagaries you posted by one doctor with no evidence. Red meat - well we are not vegitarians if we were it would not taste so damn good. Atkins said you can eat all the meat you want and lose weight - which true -- that however does not mean he said you SHOULD do that. Talking about healthy eating and JUST about weight reduction are not the same thing -- Dean Ornish merely attacks a straw-man -- and the stupid part is on 90%+ both sides are in total agreement -- he'd know that if he even read anything Atkins wrote -- and if you read carefully that debate it is VERY CLEAR he has not read it -- he speculates as to what is in the book.

This is not doctors against a bunch of uneducated herbal remdists -- it is a group of DOCTORS who went to harvard etc against other Doctors who went to Harvard etc. At the very least it certainly confirms what i already know about Medicine -- it is VERY far from a real science other wise there would not be the total polar opposite in viewpoints to most of these issues.

This is not the book I'm talking about but I would start reading the counter arguments to the cholesterol INDUSTRY in the united States. The money is what is driving the research. This is one of many -- the one I read from Europe I do not have the name of at the moment but it was reviewed and a body of opinion of support. maybe not available in any US Library.

http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/Ravnskov/index.html

The truth about choleserol -- maybe http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

[piece-it pete]

kfc, moore, atkins. Hmmmm.

The only thing I have to add about Moore is, even if he's telling the truth, it reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon I saw once:

Calvin: "Mom, I need to report a story for school. What are you doing?"

Mom: "Ok Calvin, I'm preparing fish for dinner."

Calvin, as he's writing: "Knife wielding mother hacks ickythoid! Family to devour victim! Grim melee evening ritual!!"

Everything can be twisted.

What really bugs me about PETA is: 1) they teach kids to be radicals (think about it), and 2) a chickens' life is NOT as important as a humans'.

I'd like to see chickens run free, yes I fully support chicken freedom.

If Julia Child says loosening up a chicken till it can sit unsupported makes it taste better I for one believe her.

And it's fine, but FORCING all chicken "manufacturers" (they really are, we've got some of the giant chicken plants downstate) to go to free range will increase the end user price appreciably. Fine with us more upward mobily-type folks. What about poor folks?

Pete

[Woochifer]

Let's take your second link -- says nothing against Atkins diet http://www.cancer.org/docroot/SPC/content/SPC_1_A_Low_Carb_Diet_to_Prevent_Cancer.asp

Are you saying that Atkins is not a "low carb diet"? The ACS link applies to all of those.


This article and most start yapping about cancer based off the 1 week -2 week casrb cold turkey -- sorry but if any half wit believes they are going to get cancer for eating High Green vegetables and cutting all grain for AT MOST a 2 week time in their whole life then they are stupid and none of this is even remotely proven -- the first link is lame as well.

Lame because it contains over 1,100 references, many of which link to scientific studies and medical journal articles? Or lame because it's at odds with your conception of the universe?


Then you produce articles by the wheat foods council (gee what a surprise they;d be against Atkin eh?) and there was no research priovided whatsoever.

Try looking up the sources cited in the article, and you'll see plenty of research that underlies it.


The fiber article makes no sense since Atkins is fine with high fiber foods -- they effectively take out the effect of a carb. And vegetables have fiber.

Fruit's also a source, and Atkins limits those. Atkins also restricts foods that are high in soluable fiber.


And the calcium argument is also lame since since Atkins diet has a lot of calcium in cheeses and vegetables and he was always pro-suppliment. Take calcium suppliments.

Talk to a nutritionist and they will likely tell you that it's better to get your calcium and other nutrients from actual food sources rather than supplements. Cheese is high in fat, yet in the Atkins regime considered preferable to milk or yogurt.


Have you EVER read his book --- there is explamnation as to why for years he could not do peer-reviwed studies back int he day -- since he got all the information from the AMA he was surprised at the argument. If you look at the typical Atkins meals over the course of a Day day in day out and you can remotely think it's a bad diet that will kill you then I'd be surprised.

Typical day Omlette (three eggs with or without egg whites) with green peppers, onions mushrooms, cup of strawberries two slices of high fiber whole wheat bread water and or coffee cream.

Lunch: Spinach Salad, with any gree vegetable, coloured peppers, free range Chicken or Salmon or other fish, or Tofu, Cheese.

Dinner: Free range chicken, any fish, lean cut meat, some sort of green salad with nuts or without, Glass of wine, water or other non sugar drink. 1/2 to a full cup of blueberries with cream macadamia nuts blended.

And at what point in the diet does that menu become acceptable? Certainly not during the first stage where carbohydrate intake is limited to about 20 grams a day. The problem that underlies Atkins is the same issue that underlies ANY other fad diet. You lose the weight using an unbalanced diet which effectively shocks your system at the outset, keep the weight off for a while, and then once the weight starts coming back, then it's back to repeating the extremes in the first phase. Study after study has shown that yo-yo dieting in the end results in long-term weight gains, because big short-term weight losses put your body into a survival mode that triggers your cravings.


Thanks but the links you provide do not the least bit impress me.

I don't expect them to. Your almost religious devotion to the Atkins approach is evident, and it won't matter how much consensus there is behind more balanced approaches to diet and nutrition.


The issue comes down to the fact the naysayers keep saying it's bad because it's not a balanced diet...and that is fine -- Atkins didn;t believe the diet SHOULD be balanced. Maybe if you read his book as to the reason why and the support for his reason why and the evidence for the reason why some of which is subjective -- it may at the very least make LOGICAL sense as opposed to statistical study with problems sense.

The imbalances inherent in that diet are exactly why I view it in the same vein as any other fad diet. My wife is a research scientist and she works with medical researchers. To her, the Atkins approach or any other carb deprivation regimen is faulty for one simple reason -- your body NEEDS carbohydrates to function properly. If the diet does not include enough carbohydrates, then the carbohydrate needs will get drawn from the muscles and internal organs. You do lose weight via carb deprivation, but a lot of that comes through loss of muscle mass. Not exactly a prescription for good long-term health. The key is to cut back on the simple carbs and processed sugars. That's part of the Atkins plan, but it's also recommended by every other nutritionist out there.

To me, LOGICAL sense has nothing to do with losing weight, but with proper eating that ensures that all of your body's nutritional needs are properly met through the foods that you eat, rather than through inherent imbalances that require additional supplementation. Combine that with exercise, and guess what, you lose weight AND you don't otherwise compromise your body's nutritional needs in the process.


I would get SOME of your information from European medical sciences as there is simply no REAL evidence for the cholesterol issues -- there are two forms of cholesteroal HDL good cholesterol and LDL bad cholesterol -- the studies on Atkins shows in all cases people's LDL drops and HDL rises.

Actually, the studies showed that HDL does rise, but the LDL does not change (certainly not a drop "in all cases"). And in fact, a published study in the JAMA compared four different diets and found that Atkins was the only plan where the LDL did NOT drop.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-research/summaries/dansinger-diets.jsp

I don't know why you're on another pro-European kick on this subject. The HDL/LDL differentiation has been reported in American medical research for years now.


My mother was a typical example of a person the doctors told should take diabetes treatments for the rest of her life and proposed a huge carb diet. (whcih leads to diabetes and has been proven as such). She went on Atkins and diabetes is gone, weight dropped, felt healthier with more energy, is more physically active because she's now able to be, Cholesterol dropped big time (and she ate bacon or ham and eggs every day) and STILL the cholesterol is down -- and no more heartburn, and arthritus gone. There are over 40,000 cases like this and they cannot be chucked out because some doctor tested 20 people and got at best non positive results.

The biggest links with diabetes is simply being overweight and sedentary or family history. You lose weight and you exercise, your diabetic risk goes down. Doesn't matter what approach is taken. Lemme guess, your mom was eating bacon and ham and eggs every day before she went on Atkins as well. Your mom might be the only person I'm aware of who's gone on Atkins and actually "felt healthier with more energy." Everybody else I've asked about it pretty much tells me that they feel like crap and lethargic much of the time after going on Atkins, but they're fine with feeling listless so long as they lose weight.


The links I provided were real Journals conducted by scientists peer reviewed -- not inconclusiove debates and vagaries you posted by one doctor with no evidence. Red meat - well we are not vegitarians if we were it would not taste so damn good. Atkins said you can eat all the meat you want and lose weight - which true -- that however does not mean he said you SHOULD do that. Talking about healthy eating and JUST about weight reduction are not the same thing -- Dean Ornish merely attacks a straw-man -- and the stupid part is on 90%+ both sides are in total agreement -- he'd know that if he even read anything Atkins wrote -- and if you read carefully that debate it is VERY CLEAR he has not read it -- he speculates as to what is in the book.

You frankly have no idea whether those links are ALL valid peer reviewed studies, since you obviously just cut and pasted them from Atkins' website. At least one of the studies on that list was funded by the Atkins Foundation, and who knows what the agenda might be with the others.

The problem with Atkins or any other diet plan that has a big short-term diet imbalance at the outset is that people have to follow up in order for it to work. Nobody disputes whether Atkins is effective for short-term weight loss. My question and the question by plenty of other skeptics is the long-term efficacy of an unbalanced approach that excludes otherwise healthy foods like fruits, yogurt, milk, pasta, and vegetables that happened to have high carb counts. Irregardless of the health and science questions, the simple social aspect is whether or not it's reasonable to expect that people will adhere to the Atkins regimen long-term, or if they will slip up and end up in a pattern of yo-yo dieting. Considering how many foods are excluded from the Atkins regime, I would expect just as high a dropout rate as any other fad diet. And the rapidly shrinking Atkins section at my local supermarket seems to indicate as such.

For anyone who chooses to include exercise in their lifestyle, I highly doubt that carb deprivation is a healthy way to go. How many athletes do you know who are on a low carb diet? I roomed with three scholarship athletes in college, and if anything, all of them were on carb loaded diets structured around their workouts. With them, it was about decreasing body fat, increasing muscle mass, endurance, flexbility, and recovery. Their trainers and nutritionists were monitoring their caloric intake and loading them up on pasta, yogurt, fruits, and vegetables. Carb deprivation does not fit with any of those performance goals.

[RGA]

I know fourteen people off the top of my head that are on Atkins -- all of them including a research scientist here who has 2 PHD's and going for a third all of whom feel better all of whom have better numbers and all of whom have lost weight.

There is NO evidence for cholesterol

"your body NEEDS carbohydrates to function properly." Typical BS they've drilled into your brain. Have you ever heard of the inuit people of Northern Canada - they eat 90% fish zero percent carbohydrates -- and have the lowest rate of cardiovascular diesease per capita on the planet. Heart disease has skyrocketed since 1930's where the breakfast fdiet was bacon and eggs. That changed with Kellog and their ilk and now heart disease is very high.

As for athletes -- maybe you should read befotre you make assumptions as to who is on the Atkins diet. not just anyone can enter the boston Marathon -- you need to have a certain ranking for a start -- Trager is a marathon Runner tri-athlete and he has other tri-athletes who are on the diet.

The phase one part is a shock and it does havew a low carb count -- relative to the typical balanced diet it looks like depravation -- but THAT is relative if in fact the balanced diet is wrong to start with and you're in fact eating WAY too many carbs. If you are a high excercise individual then you can take more carbs because you will burn them - if you;'re a couch potato you are not going to burn carbs and you're going to be a beached whale. People WILL NOT EXERCISE. If they did they would not need to count carbs or calories or fat because as my Human Wellness course said Excercise is as close to the magic bullet as you can get. Obviously not meaning you can just eat chocolate cake every meal.

I will tell you that when I did the diet you get a huge energy boost -- I woke up earlier -- I needed less sleep and had way more energy.

The article I presented on Cholesterol shows it's not been proven and more to the point even if chiolesterol IS important the Atkis lifetime diet change lowers it. In every single "worry area" the Atkins diet in all the RECENT scientific papers related to it have shown that it worls to improve all of those areas - diabetese, heart disease, cholesterol etc. many of those you can view and get copies of from your local library. I wrote a paper on the diet before I ever tried for said Wellness class. The professor showed us the evils of eating meat and I felt it was a very one-sided class -- so I went ot look it up and dug through it and surprised him on things like Skim Milk versus 2%

having thousands of unrelated references and references that are WRONG mean little.

For instance there was anti-red Meat study done -- diet was Red meat rice and potato as a typical meal. People had high choleterol, gained weight, and had higher cardiovascular issues. What do they blame? the Red Meat. Nice science and control over variables. They did not even CIONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that it was the rice and or the potato. Luckily the new studies reveal the truth.

But I won't convince you and you won't convince me -- I'll take my "A" from the nutrition fitness expert and my own research to know I'm right. Good day.

[Woochifer]

I know fourteen people off the top of my head that are on Atkins -- all of them including a research scientist here who has 2 PHD's and going for a third all of whom feel better all of whom have better numbers and all of whom have lost weight.

And what was their research in? Was it in nutrition, medicine, physiology, or biology? Or psychology, or english, or some other non-related field. None of the people in the biotechnology lab where my wife works believe in low carb/high protein diets, and most of them are more into simply maintaining a balanced diet. Because most of them exercise, they don't bother with monitoring their weight or trying fad diets since they're eat right to begin with.


There is NO evidence for cholesterol

Like I said, there are at least 1,543 scientific studies out there that link fat and cholesterol to heart disease. Or are you now parsing the meaning of "NO"?


"your body NEEDS carbohydrates to function properly." Typical BS they've drilled into your brain. Have you ever heard of the inuit people of Northern Canada - they eat 90% fish zero percent carbohydrates -- and have the lowest rate of cardiovascular diesease per capita on the planet. Heart disease has skyrocketed since 1930's where the breakfast fdiet was bacon and eggs. That changed with Kellog and their ilk and now heart disease is very high.

BS? You mean to tell me that basic high school and college biology is wrong and Atkins has the answer to everything? Like I said, the human body has to have carbohydrates in order to function, because they are a primary energy source. (Remember? ATP to ADP gives you energy?) That's simple fact. If it's not coming from your foods, then it gets drawn from the muscles and internal organs, and most of the health professionals I know don't view this as good for long term health. Something tells me that you need to stop reading diet books, and get back to some actual science textbooks.

Just because you can cite some group of people who have low cardiovascular disease (and fish is low fat and loaded with Omega-3 fatty acids, which has tremendous health benefits), doesn't mean that their diet isn't fraught with other health issues (e.g. what other nutrients are they depriving themselves of?).


As for athletes -- maybe you should read befotre you make assumptions as to who is on the Atkins diet. not just anyone can enter the boston Marathon -- you need to have a certain ranking for a start -- Trager is a marathon Runner tri-athlete and he has other tri-athletes who are on the diet.

And I don't see Trager crossing the finish line before everybody else. In all my time being around intercollegiate athletes (some of whom have gone to the Olympics), none of them were in any kind of carb deprived diet plan. These are people who are in top physical condition, and if anything, their training regimen requires replenishment of carbohydrates in order to prevent reductions in muscle mass. All of my roommates had performance goals, and schedules for their workouts, meals, and tight guidelines on their caloric intake. Carbohydrates, in the form of pasta or yogurt or fruit, were a consistent part of their training table cards. Considering that they played on a top five ranked athletic team and two of them were all-conference, I would put a lot more credence in the carb loading schedule that their athletic trainers (most of whom had at least master's degrees in biology, kinesiology, or exercise physiology) were prescribing than the rantings of one author and his profit-motivated organization.


The phase one part is a shock and it does havew a low carb count -- relative to the typical balanced diet it looks like depravation -- but THAT is relative if in fact the balanced diet is wrong to start with and you're in fact eating WAY too many carbs. If you are a high excercise individual then you can take more carbs because you will burn them - if you;'re a couch potato you are not going to burn carbs and you're going to be a beached whale. People WILL NOT EXERCISE. If they did they would not need to count carbs or calories or fat because as my Human Wellness course said Excercise is as close to the magic bullet as you can get. Obviously not meaning you can just eat chocolate cake every meal.

Not exercising, and adding an unbalanced diet to the mix. That sounds like yo yo dieting to me. The problem is that once people cannot maintain their weight, then they start all over with the phase one plan, whether it's Atkins or some other fad diet that comes along.


I will tell you that when I did the diet you get a huge energy boost -- I woke up earlier -- I needed less sleep and had way more energy.

And what kind of crap were you eating before you went on Atkins? Pretty much anything that eliminates processed sugars and junk foods and excessive caloric intake will make you feel better. The question is whether other approaches would do even better. If you were eating a balanced diet and exercising to begin with, do you still think that going on Atkins would boost your energy level? Please.


The article I presented on Cholesterol shows it's not been proven and more to the point even if chiolesterol IS important the Atkis lifetime diet change lowers it. In every single "worry area" the Atkins diet in all the RECENT scientific papers related to it have shown that it worls to improve all of those areas - diabetese, heart disease, cholesterol etc. many of those you can view and get copies of from your local library. I wrote a paper on the diet before I ever tried for said Wellness class. The professor showed us the evils of eating meat and I felt it was a very one-sided class -- so I went ot look it up and dug through it and surprised him on things like Skim Milk versus 2%

That JAMA paper that I cited indicating that Atkins was the only diet in the study that did NOT lower LDL cholesterol came out THIS YEAR. How much more recent do you want to get? Your defensiveness on and willingness to distort the body of work completed to date on this subject is quite amusing. No long-term studies have been completed on Atkins, so I would save all of your mournful boasts for a later date when the five-year studies start to come out comparing Atkins with other dietary approaches.


having thousands of unrelated references and references that are WRONG mean little.

Considering that you've not read all of them and you're not an expert in this field, you're in a poor position to comment on whether they're right or wrong.


But I won't convince you and you won't convince me -- I'll take my "A" from the nutrition fitness expert and my own research to know I'm right. Good day.

Oh, that's right I forgot. You're ALWAYS right about EVERYTHING.

[RGA]

Oh, that's right I forgot. You're ALWAYS right about EVERYTHING.

Finally you have come to realize this truth :D

[RGA]

Yes you've read all 1543 right?

The prof is in nutrition PE the multiple PHD is in Brain Cognition (Biology) and Education and I don't know the other.

Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, may be the most visible proponent of testing this heretic hypothesis[High protein high fat is better than Low fat high carb]. Willett is the de facto spokesman of the longest-running, most comprehensive diet and health studies ever performed, which have already cost upward of $100 million and include data on nearly 300,000 individuals. Those data, says Willett, clearly contradict the low-fat-is-good-health message ‘‘and the idea that all fat is bad for you; the exclusive focus on adverse effects of fat may have contributed to the obesity epidemic.’’

These researchers point out that there are plenty of reasons to suggest that the low-fat-is-good-health hypothesis has now effectively failed the test of time.

This article is basically from all the top medical nutritionists from the mosyt prestiguious medical school on the planet. If it ain;t good enough for you and your wiofe's friends of unknown origina are then so be it. If nothing else it illustrates how totally innacurate your branf of "I''m 100% right that Atkins will kill you my wife is right attitude" is misguided.
http://www.lowcarb.ca/articlesb/article344.html

[Resident Loser]

...any "diet" that eliminates whole food groups cannot be balanced IMHO...

jimHJJ(...that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!...)

[Woochifer]

Yes you've read all 1543 right?

No, and I never said that I did. I'm merely pointing out to you that 1,543 studies does not constitute ZERO evidence. Unless you can contradict all of them, then you're in no position to talk about ZERO evidence.


Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, may be the most visible proponent of testing this heretic hypothesis[High protein high fat is better than Low fat high carb]. Willett is the de facto spokesman of the longest-running, most comprehensive diet and health studies ever performed, which have already cost upward of $100 million and include data on nearly 300,000 individuals. Those data, says Willett, clearly contradict the low-fat-is-good-health message ‘‘and the idea that all fat is bad for you; the exclusive focus on adverse effects of fat may have contributed to the obesity epidemic.’’

Doesn't say anything about how the imbalanced low carb approach is great for long-term health either. A lot of the detractors of low-carb diets don't believe in excessively low-fat diets either. Your cells need fat because that's part of their structure, but that also doesn't mean that consuming an excessive amount of it is good for you.

Oh, and here's what Willett had to say about the Atkins diet in particular:

"I certainly don't recommend it" (found on p.3 of the newsletter linked below)


This article is basically from all the top medical nutritionists from the mosyt prestiguious medical school on the planet. If it ain;t good enough for you and your wiofe's friends of unknown origina are then so be it. If nothing else it illustrates how totally innacurate your branf of "I''m 100% right that Atkins will kill you my wife is right attitude" is misguided.
http://www.lowcarb.ca/articlesb/article344.html

You're joking, aren't you? Hmmm, and is it any coincidence that Gary Taubes, the author of that article which was originally published in the New York Times Magazine and not some medical or science journal, got a $700,000 advance on a book deal to write about the subject? Apparently, it's got all kinds of misquotes and distortions in it, and some of the doctors interviewed for that piece have stated as such. Plus, the Washington Post did its own investigation of the Taubes story and found holes galore in his arguments. Just because someone makes a universal proclamation does not make it universal truth.

The piece was written by freelance writer and Atkins advocate[45] Gary Taubes (who reportedly scored a book deal from it--and a $700,000 advance).[46] The Washington Post investigated his pro-Atkins article and found that Taubes simply ignored all the research that didn't agree with his conclusions.

Taubes evidently interviewed a number of prominent obesity researchers and then twisted their words. "What frightens me," said one, "is that he picks and chooses his facts.... If the facts don't fit in with his yarn, he ignores them."[47]

The article seemed to claim that experts recommended the diet. "I was greatly offended at how Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across as supporters of the Atkins Diet," said John Farquhar, a Professor Emeritus of Medicine at Stanford. When the Director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the Washington University School of Medicine was asked to comment of one of Taubes' claims, he replied, "It's preposterous."[48]

"He took this weird little idea and blew it up," said Farquhar, "What a disaster."[49]

"The article was written in bad faith," said another quoted expert. "It was irresponsible."[50] "I think he's a dangerous man. I'm sorry I ever talked to him." Referring to the book deal, "Taubes sold out."[51]

What the researchers stressed was how dangerous saturated fat and meat consumption could be, but Taubes seemed to have conveniently left it all out. "The article was incredibly misleading," said the pioneering Stanford University endocrinologist Gerald Reaven who actually coined the term Syndrome X. "I tried to be helpful and a good citizen," Reaven said, agreeing to do the interview, "and I ended up being embarrassed as hell. He sort of set me up... I was horrified."[52]
http://www.atkinsexposed.org/printer-friendly.html#11

Here's the source newsletter that has the reactions by the researchers whose quotes were distorted and misused by the Taubes story.

http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_02/bigfatlies.pdf

And a link to the Washington Post's investigation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A55532-2002Aug23&notFound=true

BTW, my wife works at Stanford (maybe you've heard of that place?) and has done joint research with UCSF (which is one of the top medical and life sciences schools in the world, and they are affiliated with UC Berkeley, which does not have a medical school). I'm more inclined to listen to her and her colleagues (some of whom are doctorates working with faculty members at the medical school) than some organization trying to sell me books and crappy tasting sugar-free ice creams.

[Woochifer]

All things in moderation ...
...any "diet" that eliminates whole food groups cannot be balanced IMHO...

jimHJJ(...that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!...)

Couldn't agree with you more. Seems that moderation, a balanced diet, and exercise is the only "diet" that hasn't been debunked, disproven, and deep sixed in the past 40 years.

[RGA]

...any "diet" that eliminates whole food groups cannot be balanced IMHO...

jimHJJ(...that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!...)

That is true -- but why do you presume it is logical to have a balannced diet in the first place. Take bread -- you can;t hunt a loaf of bread and nor do you pick a loaf of bread from the bread tree. It is processed. If you never ate a single cereal or bread for the rest of your life You would nto be lacking ANYTHING your body needs and anthropology and basic logic will tell you that. by the way the same thing goes for the entire dairy industry. you have to process in some fashion ALL of that food.

If all you do for the rest of you days is eat meat eat nuts and pick berries you will do just fine and there is zero real evidence to the contrary -- the site I produced further up on cholesterol shows WHY all the studies done are barkling up the wrong tree.

Moderation -- well if all you eat in moderation is bread you'll get fat. You can eat meat all day and do no excercise and you WILL lose weight. That at least everyone agrees. There is ZERO evidence that shows that high fat = death. -- there are a lot of studies by the cereal and interest groups of course but big deal.

[Woochifer]

That is true -- but why do you presume it is logical to have a balannced diet in the first place. Take bread -- you can;t hunt a loaf of bread and nor do you pick a loaf of bread from the bread tree.

And on average, what were the life expectancies of hunter/gatherers?


If all you do for the rest of you days is eat meat eat nuts and pick berries you will do just fine and there is zero real evidence to the contrary

And there's no evidence to the affirmative either, so you're just speculating.


the site I produced further up on cholesterol shows WHY all the studies done are barkling up the wrong tree.

Okay, one book that happens to get cited by all of these pro-Atkins websites is sufficient to debunk all of the research that came before? Here's a quote from one of "the top medical nutritionists from the mosyt prestiguious medical school on the planet" that was quoted/misquoted in that Taubes article that you cited.

John Farquhar of Stanford says this:
"Fifty years of research shows that saturated fat and cholesterol raise your LDL cholesterol, and the higher your LDL, the higher your risk of coronary heart disease."


Moderation -- well if all you eat in moderation is bread you'll get fat.

If moderation means taking in less calories than your body burns off, then there's no way to get fat.


You can eat meat all day and do no excercise and you WILL lose weight.

Not if you're eating 6,000 calories worth of meat everyday. Not only that, but you'll feel like crap too.

And more from another article (http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml) that disputes the claims in the Taubes article.

In a subsequent letter to the journal, three obesity research co-authors, including James Hill, director of the University of Colorado Center for Human Nutrition in Denver, noted, "What Taubes does not mention are the meta-analyses of intervention studies comparing ad libitum intakes of higher fat diets with low-fat diets that clearly show reduced caloric intake and weight loss on the low-fat diet."


There is ZERO evidence that shows that high fat = death.

And no one's saying that if you eat lots of fat, that you'll drop dead on the spot as if you were ingesting cyanide. So, if you're trying to conjure up yet another ZERO evidence argument, then you win this time. Of course, nobody's contradicting that kind of point either.

But, otherwise the long-term health consequences of a high fat diet (particularly if you're talking about one that includes an excessive amount of red meat and fatty dairy products) are well documented, and more quotes from those renowned experts in that article that was supposed to highlight just how inaccurate my "I''m 100% right that Atkins will kill you my wife is right attitude" is.

Here's your buddy Walter Willett, who by the way "certainly" does not recommend Atkins --
"You can't eat unlimited quantities of fat or you'll gain weight."
"The type of carbohydrate matters just as the type of fat matters."
"And I told Taubes several times that red meat is associated with a higher risk of colon and possibly prostate cancer, but he left that out."

And more from John Farquhar --
"We're overfed, overadvertised, and underexercised. It's the enormous portion sizes and sitting in front of the TV or computer .... It's so gol'darn obvious -- how can anyone ignore that?"

Barbara Rolls, who was also interviewed for the article --
"Most everyone agrees that we need to eat more fruits and vegetables, that our grains should be whole rather than refined, that our protein foods should be lean, and that our oils should come from plants or fish. To say that experts don't know what people should eat is deliberately misleading."


-- there are a lot of studies by the cereal and interest groups of course but big deal.

And since Atkins too is an interest group, their studies are no big deal either.

[RGA]

I had to run out right after I posted last -- I want to thank you Woochifer for providing the "counter" link. Last night after I posted the article I read the date and was thinking that gee that article must be too good be true and your article showed that. Usually I double check by putting the author's name ona search to see what comes up and I did not on that article. See you should never rely on a web-site -- like they drilled into my head a bazillion times at University.

Now I think we have lost the point here along the way. You have to realise that ANY diet program low fat or low carb or whatever -- is nottruly geared for peiople who "in-shape." Most people unfortunately do not workout 4 times a weekl and do heavy excercixe like jogging 10 miles a night. They don't even do the basic 30 minute high heart rate 4 times a week with an hour or so of weights.

And the medical industry can talk all they like about what SHOULD be done -- it's great I agree -- and i'm glad my government is trying to force the issue in school by making grade 10-12 P.E. mandatory.

The problem is you need a back-up plan for those people who simply will not exercise. And the Atkins diet and those like it do something that goes beyond JUST doing the diet -- it can jump-start the confidence boost. A 400lb fellow may be ashamed of the way he looks and too embarrassed to go to the Gym - especially a co-ed gym. Where the diet works over the other ones is the speed of weight loss. He can within 6 months very easily get down to 200-230lbs - still overweight (assume 5'11) but he will feel better and will then very possibly have a chance to gain a great deal of confidence hit the gym do the exercise and become generlaly more active (then the good carbs come back but because he's working out all is good). There is a LOT od anecdotal evidence of people who have been on this lifetime plan for 30 years. it is long term evidence but it's not being used because it was not studied the entire time." Most of the articles that are current out of Duke and harvard say the diet in the 6 month to a year plan says it works - there is always a drop-out rate with any of these things and very hard when out and about you get a bit hungry for a snack and there is no snacks that are low carb -- vending machines are filled with chocolate bars and chips. It's also an expensive diet. Steak versus Macaroni on a student's budget - yikes.

According to Willett "Losing weight is so beneficial, if you're overweight to begin with, that weight loss can actually compensate for the adverse effects of all the saturated fat in the diet. Some people can improve their lipids (cholesterol and triglyceride levels) with the Atkins diet because the benefits of weight loss outweigh the adverse effects of all that saturated fat. Some people have dismissed the Atkins diet by saying, "Oh, it's just a lower caloric intake." Well, that's the only way we're going to produce weight loss-through lower caloric intake. If the diet can make it easier to control your caloric intake, that actually is a desirable characteristic."

The only real stumbling block he has is with the high animal fat. Which long term studies have not been done...but it clear that long term studies have resulted in a negative for low fat diets. Basically they do not know for sure. They are making guesses based on uncontrollable factors.

"The Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation, which is distinct from Atkins Nutritionals, helped to fund the research but had no involvement in the work. Writing in an editorial published in this issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine (2), Dr. Walter Willett, of the Harvard School of Public Health, stated, �Dr. Atkins deserves credit for his observations that many people can control their weight by greatly reducing carbohydrate intake and for his funding of trials by independent investigators.�

What he says and virtually everyone else is they just do not know what the LONG TERM affects will be if one stays on the low carb diets. The 6 month and 1 year trials done so far seem to indicate that at worst it's no worse than other plans -- but there is no evidence that if person A does atkins they will DIE ten years earlier -- and i don;t see how anyone can know that. So what do we do? Wait 50 years for the longitudinal study to say ohh yeah it's safe or no it's better you don't do it. The 400lb guy has to roll the dice and decide if in 10 years he'll still be alive at 400lb or if it's better to eat tons of meat for 2 weeks out of his life and then be 230lbs and in 6 months time be a salad man. For the last 30 years scientists all said low fat diets wetre safe and they are NOT. Skepticism starts when the people you trust keep getting it wrong.

There is a growing body of believers that you eat that which is available to you. We live in a society where I am shipped banana's to eat -- none grow here why do i NEED them. I don't. If I am living in the north my diet is 100% seal and fish -- no vegetable no fruit no grain EVER...and no problems.

The one major stumbling argument is the high animal fat issue and you just don;t need to eat animal fat at all on his program. Willett -- didn't like the food pyramid either. Ultimately the grain count should be the LEAST thing on the lsit -- it is not a hunter gatherer food. It should be meat and vegetable near the top -- meat is an appetite supressant so you need less of it to feel full. Vegetables and ideally berries next and the rest if you went the rest of your life never eating a single pastat, potaoto, milk (other than mom's) or GRAIN product of any kind for the rest of your days you'd be more than fine.

I should also say that there seems to have been a change in Atkins' plan over the years which allow for very high fiber foods. Fiber apparently knocks down an equivelant carb - so you can eat a 20carb whatever and if it has 17g of fiber then it nets out to three on the plan. So in fact you can have significantly more carbs than if you are having fiber -- there are other you may be more aware of than I -- but I have seen certain breads for example that would be excellent on their diet -- sounds like COMPLEX carbs to me.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Couldn't agree with you more. Seems that moderation, a balanced diet, and exercise is the only "diet" that hasn't been debunked, disproven, and deep sixed in the past 40 years.

Word on this. As a person DEEP into lifting weights and marathon running, this is what I have learned in class, and by at least 15 years experience running and lifting.

[Resident Loser]

but why do you presume it is logical to have a balannced diet in the first place.

...(in my best Jimmy Swaggart voice)...the Bible tells us so;-)

Let me preface by saying: daily aerobic exercise and limiting ALL food intake is the only reliable way to lose weight...keeping it off requires a complete change in lifestyle...and it ain't easy.

In my own case I lost close to one-third of my weight(nearly 100lbs.)over a two-year period, by following that precept. Two sessions on my Nordic Track totaling 70mins. per day, seven days a week. Tuesdays and Thursdays I ate cereal...Shredded Wheat, Chex, Grape-nuts...more whole grains...ate more fruits and veggies, cut way down on meats and cheese...On weekends I rewarded myself with nearly anything I wanted...as time went on I really learned "you are what you eat" and in the process there was a definite change in overall mindset.

There is NO quick fix, IMO all these "fad" diets or food gimmicks are just that...used to be they'd come and go, but nowadays(given the gullibility of the general public) they tend to become "cottage industries"(like wire)...There was a time in the late 50s-early 60s, diet gurus declared bread and potatoes verboten...They used to refer to them as "starches" just like fiber used to be called"roughage"...there is NOTHING new under the sun!

When oats were linked to lower cholesterol numbers, every product that even stood next to an oat hyped it up. Before you knew it everything from toothpaste to pillow stuffing was extolling the virtue of oats...

The low-fat thing came along and now nearly every product has some low-fat variant...it makes no difference that what they've come up with in the lab and substituted to give the same flavors or mouth feel is probably ten times worse than the fat they took out...people see " low-fat" and automatically assume thay can pig-out on it...net result: a bunch of fat b@astards eating tons of low-fat, chemically-enhanced, hamster chow...

Then of course there's Olestra...Well, another godsend for the too-lazy-to-get-off-their lard-@ss group...the less said about that little gem, the better...leakage? EEEKKK!!!

Soy? Can't swing a dead cat without runnin' into it...just like oats...'ceptin soy is high in Vitamin K which thickens the blood so all those who think soy will somehow make up for the daily visit to Col. MacWendybelle's are just a bloodclot away from knowin' the big secret...

Same with Atkin's...nearly overnight, every food company has at least a product or two that's Atkin's approved(sorta' like THX?)...Now what do we think this indicates?...to me it's simply profit, regardless of the "science" that supports it...

jimHJJ(...this way to the egress...)

[Duds]

Some good points. Daily exercise is extremely important to losing weight (fat). Why do people not understand this? And exercise shouldn't be limited to cardio exercise, but also weight training. One of the quickest ways to burn fat is to build muscle, which is accomplished by lifting weights. But it CANT be done just by lifting weights, you must feed your muscles protein, carbs, and also fat (EFA's) in the correct proportions.

People wanting to lose weight also need to be patient. One yahoo i work with is always trying the latest diets, weight training programs, etc but cant get the look he wants. Why? he tries them for a month, and then moves onto the next fad because he wants overnight results. Ridiculous.


...(in my best Jimmy Swaggart voice)...the Bible tells us so;-)

Let me preface by saying: daily aerobic exercise and limiting ALL food intake is the only reliable way to lose weight...keeping it off requires a complete change in lifestyle...and it ain't easy.

In my own case I lost close to one-third of my weight(nearly 100lbs.)over a two-year period, by following that precept. Two sessions on my Nordic Track totaling 70mins. per day, seven days a week. Tuesdays and Thursdays I ate cereal...Shredded Wheat, Chex, Grape-nuts...more whole grains...ate more fruits and veggies, cut way down on meats and cheese...On weekends I rewarded myself with nearly anything I wanted...as time went on I really learned "you are what you eat" and in the process there was a definite change in overall mindset.

There is NO quick fix, IMO all these "fad" diets or food gimmicks are just that...used to be they'd come and go, but nowadays(given the gullibility of the general public) they tend to become "cottage industries"(like wire)...There was a time in the late 50s-early 60s, diet gurus declared bread and potatoes verboten...They used to refer to them as "starches" just like fiber used to be called"roughage"...there is NOTHING new under the sun!

When oats were linked to lower cholesterol numbers, every product that even stood next to an oat hyped it up. Before you knew it everything from toothpaste to pillow stuffing was extolling the virtue of oats...

The low-fat thing came along and now nearly every product has some low-fat variant...it makes no difference that what they've come up with in the lab and substituted to give the same flavors or mouth feel is probably ten times worse than the fat they took out...people see " low-fat" and automatically assume thay can pig-out on it...net result: a bunch of fat b@astards eating tons of low-fat, chemically-enhanced, hamster chow...

Then of course there's Olestra...Well, another godsend for the too-lazy-to-get-off-their lard-@ss group...the less said about that little gem, the better...leakage? EEEKKK!!!

Soy? Can't swing a dead cat without runnin' into it...just like oats...'ceptin soy is high in Vitamin K which thickens the blood so all those who think soy will somehow make up for the daily visit to Col. MacWendybelle's are just a bloodclot away from knowin' the big secret...

Same with Atkin's...nearly overnight, every food company has at least a product or two that's Atkin's approved(sorta' like THX?)...Now what do we think this indicates?...to me it's simply profit, regardless of the "science" that supports it...

jimHJJ(...this way to the egress...)

[Woochifer]

People wanting to lose weight also need to be patient. One yahoo i work with is always trying the latest diets, weight training programs, etc but cant get the look he wants. Why? he tries them for a month, and then moves onto the next fad because he wants overnight results. Ridiculous.

I took a biological psychology class in college, which was taught by a team of five professors, each of whom had advanced degrees in both psychology and biology or medicine, and different areas of specialization. One of the professors was an expert in eating disorders, and a long-term study that he did agrees with the long-held conventional wisdom that diets emphasizing short-term weight loss generally don't work over the long-haul. His study found that people who go on diets that emphasize quick weight loss without accompanying lifestyle changes are more apt to gaining it back, and repeated yo yo dieting in the long-term results in net weight gains when the dust settles. Moral of his story is that if you're not going to make the lifestyle changes necessary to maintain a lower body weight, then you're better off not dieting at all because repeated short-term weight losses result in long-term weight gains.


I had to run out right after I posted last -- I want to thank you Woochifer for providing the "counter" link. Last night after I posted the article I read the date and was thinking that gee that article must be too good be true and your article showed that. Usually I double check by putting the author's name ona search to see what comes up and I did not on that article. See you should never rely on a web-site -- like they drilled into my head a bazillion times at University.

I just think that there's plenty of work yet to be done in this area of research. But, in the end, I don't think that any of the research on these diets is going to negate the more mundane adeges about limiting caloric intake, the need for food-based nutrients, and the need for exercise. The basics are all there, and there are any number of approaches to losing weight, it's just a matter of whether people will follow through. The problem with most diets is that they don't have an accompanying support mechanism that keeps people on track (and honest). For example, Weight Watchers might not have the most cutting edge meal plans, but it also has a far lower dropout rate than other diets because people on that diet attend regular meetings that provide both support and peer pressure.


When oats were linked to lower cholesterol numbers, every product that even stood next to an oat hyped it up. Before you knew it everything from toothpaste to pillow stuffing was extolling the virtue of oats...

Here's a quote from the package of Sunchips that I ate with my lunch:
Made with Whole Grains to Support Heart Health


The low-fat thing came along and now nearly every product has some low-fat variant...it makes no difference that what they've come up with in the lab and substituted to give the same flavors or mouth feel is probably ten times worse than the fat they took out...people see " low-fat" and automatically assume thay can pig-out on it...net result: a bunch of fat b@astards eating tons of low-fat, chemically-enhanced, hamster chow...

Pretty funny! I still remember the Snackwells cult that developed in the mid-90s where people desperate to lose weight were literally filling their shopping carts up with the stuff as the store clerks were opening the boxes. I can only imagine how little time it took them to polish off that dozen or so packages of chocolate covered marshmallow cake cookies. Yah, it's got no fat, but boy do you ever make up for it in sugar. All of these Splenda ice creams that I see now are at the opposite end of the Snackwells spectrum. Now, it's no sugar, but with about half of your daily allotment of saturated fats in a half cup serving.


Then of course there's Olestra...Well, another godsend for the too-lazy-to-get-off-their lard-@ss group...the less said about that little gem, the better...leakage? EEEKKK!!!

Just reading about that bioengineered crap scared the hell out of me. If I were an aspiring screenwriter, I would have made a pitch sorta like a sequel to Soylent Green. And that was BEFORE I started reading about the little "urges" that result after eating that stuff.


Word on this. As a person DEEP into lifting weights and marathon running, this is what I have learned in class, and by at least 15 years experience running and lifting.

I used to do dance classes up to five nights a week, and I always had much better endurance and consistent energy levels if I stuck with pasta (with or without meat) and a salad before class. Anything too heavy with not a lot of complex carbs, and I typically went down for the count early. (Of course, I would sometimes blow those health benefits to shreds by indulging in a burger or ice cream afterwards!)

Given that I'm now way out of dance shape, and since I've already enlisted your assistance in setting up my home theater, it's good to know that you also wear the personal trainer hat as well. I might have to take you up on that sometime ...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I used to do dance classes up to five nights a week, and I always had much better endurance and consistent energy levels if I stuck with pasta (with or without meat) and a salad before class. Anything too heavy with not a lot of complex carbs, and I typically went down for the count early. (Of course, I would sometimes blow those health benefits to shreds by indulging in a burger or ice cream afterwards!)

Given that I'm now way out of dance shape, and since I've already enlisted your assistance in setting up my home theater, it's good to know that you also wear the personal trainer hat as well. I might have to take you up on that sometime ...

Ooooooo.....another victim(as he rings his hands eagerly). My last one came to me wanting to look good for a wedding. After week two, she wanted to do the shower scene from the movie pyscho on me.

Before I start my daily workout, I usually consume some coffee and orange juice. Anything more than that and I find that I am sluggish, and have no endurance. With this combination, my strength increases over time.

Since I got back into drum corps, perhaps you can work with me on my dance, and I'll get you into marathon condition.....after a few beers!!

Oh and by the way everyone, LEAVE MY KFC ALONE.....Thanks!

[piece-it pete]

Oh and by the way everyone, LEAVE MY KFC ALONE.....

Hear hear!

Pete

[markw]

Extra crispy or original recepie?

'm a crispy kinda guy, in more ways then one I'm told. ;)

[dean_martin]

Since I got back into drum corps, perhaps you can work with me on my dance, and I'll get you into marathon condition.....after a few beers!!



Hey T! I saw the Cavaliers last night at the Trojan Summer Music Games in Troy, AL. The Cavs took first and although The Blue Devils were good it really wasn't close. The complexity and precision of the Cavs' drills were clearly superior. The two corps were closer in musicianship.

My son plays snare on his high school's drum line. I took him and some of his drummer buddies to the show. Everyone had a great time! One of these days we're going to make the World Championships. We got to see 8 corps last night, but the Cavs and Devils were in a league of their own. I would have loved to have seen a couple more of their caliber.

[bjornb17]

Are you a vegetarian, RGA?

[Resident Loser]

...looks as though Atkins may have bit off more than they could chew and may have to indulge in some belt tightening of their own...Since they (like so many companies) thought they had the the world by the love handles, they may have grown too fat, too fast...it seems they have found it necessary to declare bankruptcy as a result of underestimating the fickle nature of the American public re:fad diets...As one interviewee put it "...I've tried it so many times and lost weight, but put it all, and then some, back on..." Gives one pause, no?

I think the figure bandied about was $300 mil in the red caused by all those shelf-bound Atkins' products and the "been-there-done-that" attitude of the dieting public...who FWIW seem to now be interested in some variant of the "grazing" concept, the eating of multiple small meals every day...

jimHJJ(...hhmmm...food for thought?...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Extra crispy or original recepie?

'm a crispy kinda guy, in more ways then one I'm told. ;)

You go Mark with your bomb diggity self!!! LOL

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hey T! I saw the Cavaliers last night at the Trojan Summer Music Games in Troy, AL. The Cavs took first and although The Blue Devils were good it really wasn't close. The complexity and precision of the Cavs' drills were clearly superior. The two corps were closer in musicianship.

My son plays snare on his high school's drum line. I took him and some of his drummer buddies to the show. Everyone had a great time! One of these days we're going to make the World Championships. We got to see 8 corps last night, but the Cavs and Devils were in a league of their own. I would have loved to have seen a couple more of their caliber.

Dean,
When I started marching in the Cavs in 1980(I was the youngest to ever make the colorguard at 13y/o), we were at the bottom being trampled on regularly by the Blue Devils and everyone else. By the time I aged out, we were beating the socks off of everyone except the Cadets and Santa Clara. That kind of rise in seven years was nothing short of amazing back then. Since I aged out, the Cavs have become such a dominate force in drum corps its staggering to look back at were they came from. From a musical and show design perspective, they cannot be touched right now. Michael Gaines who is their drill writer is a design genius. They never stop moving, and seemingly run from one set to the next. The Blue Devils and Santa Clara Vanguard are having down years this year. The Blue Devils went to Europe this year, and didn't compete much in DCI sactioned shows. They are paying dearly for it, though I don't think they really care, they went to Europe!

I am going to Championships this year, the first time since 1995. I am only going because a bunch of us former Cavaliers are going to meet there this year.

I don't enjoy drum corps like I used to. It gotten just a little to much like marching band for my taste. I remember when high school marching bands use to emulate drum corps. Now in an attempt to keep drum corps active and alive it is starting to emulate marching bands. Not good for the activity IMO. Its losing its identitiy.

[Woochifer]

When I started marching in the Cavs in 1980(I was the youngest to ever make the colorguard at 13y/o), we were at the bottom being trampled on regularly by the Blue Devils and everyone else. By the time I aged out, we were beating the socks off of everyone except the Cadets and Santa Clara. That kind of rise in seven years was nothing short of amazing back then. Since I aged out, the Cavs have become such a dominate force in drum corps its staggering to look back at were they came from. From a musical and show design perspective, they cannot be touched right now. Michael Gaines who is their drill writer is a design genius. They never stop moving, and seemingly run from one set to the next. The Blue Devils and Santa Clara Vanguard are having down years this year. The Blue Devils went to Europe this year, and didn't compete much in DCI sactioned shows. They are paying dearly for it, though I don't think they really care, they went to Europe!

T -

I went to the San Jose drumcorps show a few weeks ago. Spur of the moment dash to the stadium -- I checked the schedule to see when the drumcorps shows were coming to the Bay Area, and it was that night. You've mentioned that you marched with the Renegades senior corps, but I got stuck in a really long ticket line and missed their set. (unfortunate because it sounded really good from outside)

You're right about the Vanguard having a down year. They did not look nearly as strong as they normally do, and this was probably the weakest performance I can remember seeing from them (of course, the last time I saw them live was probably 12 years ago). Phantom Regiment on the other hand, looked really good. I thought that the Gershwin arrangement that they've put together for this year's show is amazing. One of the people in my section was commenting about how this is the first time he'd seen PR do anything close to a jazz arrangement, and it's really sparked them.

Enjoy the finals. I seem to always catch it on PBS at these weird random times, but I'll look out for it this time.

[dean_martin]

I seem to always catch it on PBS at these weird random times, but I'll look out for it this time.

I think ESPN2 has picked up the finals. And, DCI has started showing competitions in select theaters. They may even be live. Go to www.dci.org for all the info. My son has me on the email update list so I get notices of all shows, events, etc.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think ESPN2 has picked up the finals. And, DCI has started showing competitions in select theaters. They may even be live. Go to www.dci.org for all the info. My son has me on the email update list so I get notices of all shows, events, etc.

No chance in hell we will ever see it live again. DCI is increasingly leaning on the money coming in from DVD sales. A live broadcast could be taped, which would dig into sales of those DVD's. At $98 the DVD's cost is just too high for me to pay when I have only a lukewarm feel for the show the corps are producing. I love the Cavaliers shows, but not $98 worth.

PBS is not covering DCI this year. DCI is going to show DCI quarterfinals at some Regal theaters, and I think DCI's run with PBS is over.

Just got back from the Allentown show that I was dragged to by my nephew who is a snare for his high school band. He going to audition for the Blue Devils next year.

The Blue Devils show is awful, but as a guard guy I am noticing a disturbing trend of less spinning of equipment, and more acting, emoting, and junk on the field. Phantom is just awesome this year. This corps has ALWAYS played classical music, every since I marched in the Cavaliers and before. Playing broadway is new for them, and they are pulling it off big time.

DCI is depressing me, DCA(which the Renegades are part of) is really starting to turn me on big time.

[RGA]

...looks as though Atkins may have bit off more than they could chew and may have to indulge in some belt tightening of their own...Since they (like so many companies) thought they had the the world by the love handles, they may have grown too fat, too fast...it seems they have found it necessary to declare bankruptcy as a result of underestimating the fickle nature of the American public re:fad diets...As one interviewee put it "...I've tried it so many times and lost weight, but put it all, and then some, back on..." Gives one pause, no?

I think the figure bandied about was $300 mil in the red caused by all those shelf-bound Atkins' products and the "been-there-done-that" attitude of the dieting public...who FWIW seem to now be interested in some variant of the "grazing" concept, the eating of multiple small meals every day...

jimHJJ(...hhmmm...food for thought?...)


Atkins Nutrionals - which Robert Atkins didn't run - has been introuble for several years due to an oversaturation of copy products in the market. It also didn't help their company that Robert Atkins noted that none of these products were at all necessary. I know some die hard bodybuilder types on the Atkins program who do not like the calculated net effect carb calculations done by the Nuritionals company. They prefer to stay under 20 carbs per day all the time -- they along with the person who teaches teachers phys-ed have done remarkably well on the program over the years - my once fat professor is looking quite slim these days as is the premier of the province of British Columbia (though he was not that heavy to stat with. The subjective numbers over the course of the year is that all participants following have better cholesterol numbers and lower body fat percentage increased muscle mass and not a single provable 'weak' area -- just like anyone else who has been on the diet. Constipation occurs about two weeks to one month in lasts for a few days and does not re-occur. There have been very few studies done by the professional establishments specifically on the Atkins plan and all of the professional medical bodies out of Harvard and Duke have come back with positive results.

More info on the bankruptcy -- it won;t change anything -- all thos suppleant bars and powders and all of that crap Atkins was never a big believer in though he liked the taste of some -- and half the crap that says low carb on the shelves and cost a bomb was no better than the non low carb stuff -- again a bunch of hosers who never read the book from a medical expert and Cardiologist would rather just buy a tin full of low carb powder and assume it would work. http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=2489

Also I am not saying anyone should go on it if they think it will be harmful to them -- i would only say to read the actual book instead of just those people attacking him who obviously have not read it. The Atkins diet can be mostly vegetables and fruit and no fatty meat whatsoever -- something the press and many so-called scientists never mention. And you can eat fruits and eat whole grain bread. Exercise and don;t eat sugar and things that convert to sugar and that's it.