Nature of the Diet
"Although Atkins claimed that ketosis helped the body burn fat more easily, nutritionalists are quick to point out that the body will burn stored fat for energy whenever the calories taken in are less than those burned."
I'm thinking about cutting this argumentative statement out entirely: first of all, ketosis *is* burning fat, so, uh, burning fat helps the body to burn fat? The point is that when the body does not get enough carbohydrates for its energy needs, it starts to burn fat, either dietary fat or stored fat or both. That's not controversial at all.
And what are the nutritionists pointing out? "calories taken in" is not a good description of what the body does. We don't take in calories, we take in substances which, if burned to completion, will generate so much heat, i.e., so many "calories" (kilocalories, really, but that's usage for you.) So the nutritionists are saying that the body will burn *stored* fat whenever the food taken, as effectively digested, provides fewer calories than generated by all the various processes in the body which turn food into energy. But why is this considered an argument against what Atkins is saying? Yes, I've seen nutritionists be "quick to point out," as if it were some brilliant point, but this seems to be part of the discredited argument that "a calorie is a calorie," as if the body was a bomb calorimeter that reduces everything, including fiber, to carbon dioxide, water, and ash, as if the various processes that the body uses to generate energy from oxidation were equally efficient. Atkins claims that fat has a "metabolic advantage," i.e., so many "calories" of fat are *not* equal to so many calories of carbohydrates, that the fat is, effectively, less fattening. Whether this is true or not, it is not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, as I have seen claimed by 'experts' who should know better. Abd ulRahman Lomax 28 June 2005
the Views sections
I'm taking out part of another critical claim: "In a study funded by Dr. Atkins himself, 70% of the people that could stick with the diet lost the ability to have a normal bowel movement." This statement is not supported by the evidence given. Losing an ability to have a normal bowel movement implies quite a bit more than a mere increase in the reported incidence of diarrhea and constipation in a population. I'm leaving the substantial information in, at least for the time being, even though it is not clear what it means: any change of diet can produce temporary diarrhea or constipation.
What we now have in the Views section is a mixture of views, facts, citations. What I just took out, if true, would not have been a "view," it would simply have been a fact that someone might use in a criticism. Abd ulRahman Lomax 5 Apr 2005
I've started hacking away at the Views Critical section; I removed two particularly egregious comments. The first was a speculation about Atkins and kidney damage. The article cited did not establish anything more than a speculative inferential connection between the Atkins diet and kidney problems. The second was the report re Atkins death, which if I were not charitably inclined, I'd call a lie. If we are going to allow lies in the articles, at least they should be attributed!
Frankly, I don't like the Views sections at all, which have become an excuse to include highly controversial claims without any balance. There are arguments against the Atkins diet in the Views Critical which have become quite weak in the light of recent research, and that section seriously overstates the degree of "scientific consensus" against Atkins. The Mar. 15 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, for example, includes "the only study of the Atkins diet to have been conducted in the strictly controlled environment of a clinical research center where every calorie eaten and spent was measured. "In addition to the calorie reduction and weight loss, subjects experienced markedly improved glucose levels and insulin sensitivity, as well as lower triglycerides and cholesterol." On what do all those experts base the claim that Atkins is risky to heart health, if it lowers triglycerides and cholesterol? (This result is not isolated, other studies have shown similar results.) See http*//www*temple*edu/news_media/AtkinsDiabetes*html
(disabled link to clean up spam --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))Rather than Views for and against sections, which is reductionist, we should have an examination of the issues, with a statement, for each individual issue, of common views, attributed, together with evidence. However, fixing this is not just a matter of an easy edit, and I don't have time for more at the moment. Abd ulRahman Lomax 3 Apr 2005
I've edited the Views In Favor section to remove extreme POV-ness. I don't think the diet has been "proven safe," there simply is not enough evidence to make that statement. There is anecdotal evidence from Atkins' practice and the practice and experience of others, and there is now *some* scientific evidence, but this does not rise to the level of proof. In particular subtle effects and long-term dangers could easily have escaped notice. (By the way, I'm betting my life on the diet, but I'm also monitoring my condition; I've had one cardiac CT scan and will have another after perhaps a year.) Abd ulRahman Lomax 3 Mar 2005
I find the Views In Favor and Views Opposed sections a bit irritating. They seem to be full of unsubstantiated claims. Is being in a Views section an excuse for being (1) unsubstantiated and (2) not attributed, not even passively -- i.e., as it would be if it were said "it is claimed that ...."? An example:
The Atkins website and many proponents claim that there is no link between the Atkins Diet and kidney damage; however, the following peer-reviewed studies and other reputable sources contradict this claim:
c. People in affluent societies commonly lose about 30 percent of their kidney function by their 80’s (J Gerentol 31:155, 1976). And the amount of protein typically consumed in the American diet, 12% to 15% protein, is probably a partial cause. (New Eng Jrnl Med 307:652, 1982) Atkins Dieters, as illustrated in the research referred to in letter (b), often get even more protein than that.
The articles cited do NOT establish a link. They may establish a hypothesis only. I.e., Atkins may involve higher protein content than the typical American diet, and protein is speculated to be a partial cause of kidney function loss, therefore long-term Atkins may lead to kidney function loss. But no such connection has been demonstrated (to my knowledge). Properly, a study does not "contradict" anything; rather a study reports facts which may be interpreted by someone as a contradiction. Contradictions are a matter for conclusions, and are generally not a matter of information. Witness A may report that he saw John shoot Fred, and Witness B may report having seen John somewhere else at the time. These are not contradictory testimony! Rather, the *conclusion* that John shot Fred may *seem* to be contradicted. Either witness may have been in error as to the identification of John, or there is an error in the time, or there are other possibilities (besides perjury).
Much of the criticism of the Atkins diet seems to be based on such hypotheses. Just as there is little formal substantiation of the safety of the Atkins diet (i.e., through controlled studies), there is perhaps even less substantiation of its harm; rather there are many who claim, essentially, that it should be harmful based on common assumptions, such as the assumption that saturated fat, per se, is harmful. But what if saturated fat is only harmful within the context of a diet ample in carbohydrates? If this were true, there could be studies aplenty showing the harmfulness of "fat" -- as I think there are -- but still the Atkins diet, which creates a different context for fat, might not be harmful. What if, with respect to the kidney damage claim, a diet high in protein increases the risk of kidney damage, but not if the diet is also low in carbohydrate? Until this is studied, we do not know for sure. However, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that the diet is reasonably safe, and some controlled research about short-term effects. Because of the well-known problems with conclusions based on anecdotal evidence, it can only be said that there is little or no proof of long-term safety, just as there is little or no proof of harm.
So I'd like to address those sections, but think that some opportunity for discussion is appropriate before starting to hack away.... One idea is to tag, in the article, objectionable material as being allegedly POV, an intermediate step before removing them, allowing those with opposing opinions an opportunity to object and/or edit them. What do you think? Abd ulRahman Lomax
--
I moved the Misconceptions section to the talk page, it reads so POV. --Sgfhk321 19:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I replaced some of the Misconceptions section removed by Nicko3, and cleaned it up a bit, removing or editing most, I hope, of what was POV. Nicko3 had eliminated the material on the difference between ketosis and ketoacidosis, and my own observation of Atkins criticism has found that the confusion between the two is very common. Dr. Agatston (Cardiologist and author of the South Beach Diet) notes that there seems to be no evidence that ketosis, per se, is harmful; whereas the assertion that it is I find common in critical material. (And as was argued in the Misconceptions section, ketosis is a normal and necessary function of the body, and is indeed essential in any weight loss involv
How many calories in chinese food?
Find the calorie count for chinese food and 11,000 other foods ... Choosing the Right Diet The Atkins Diet South Beach Diet The ...
Chinese-Style Broccoli
Chinese-Style Broccoli (Phase 1) Makes 2 (1-cup) servings ... Recipe from The South Beach Diet Quick & Easy Cookbook. ... How It Works | Food & Recipes | Success Stories ...
Asian Food on the South Beach Diet - How to Choose Asian Food on the ...
Learn what menu options are best at Chinese, Indian, and Japanese restaurants if you are following The South Beach Diet.
South Beach Diet Recipes - Orangy Roughy in Scallion and Ginger Sauce
When considering Chinese food, there are many Chinese recipes that feature fish. This South Beach Diet™ fish recipe of Orange Roughy, fresh ginger sauce, scallion, and garlic is ...
Chinese Vegetables – Pictures of Chinese Vegetables
Chinese vegetables come in a variety of intriguing ... Asian Food on the South Beach Diet - How to Choose Asian Food on the South ... Chinese Cooking - Basic Tips For Cooking Chinese Food
How to do The South Beach Diet - Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 - Foods to ...
Chinese Food, Indian Food and Japanese Food on the South Beach Diet Learn what menu options are best at Chinese, Indian, and Japanese restaurants if you are following The South ...
South Beach Diet Log - Weeks 5-12
We both love Chinese food, and I really love rice! Although it was a cheat I agreed. ... of dressing), and broiled catfish (lemon-peppered Dessert - Jello Next: South Beach Diet ...
South Beach Diet – Vegetarian Chinese recipies? | Hypnosis Weight ...
arrgness asked: I really like Chinese food but im a vegetarian and on the south beach diet (phase one- no fruit or grains). Anyone know how to make really good food like the kind ...
South Beach Diet Diary - Entering Phase Two
The South Beach Diet book warns that MSG in Chinese food is a hidden carbohydrate. Day 16 Weight bumped up a few of ounces. Drat. I had the usual eggs for breakfast and packed along ...
Kalyn's Kitchen: Easy South Beach Recipes: Chinese Broccoli Salad
Fabulous Food Bloggers I've Met; Food Bloggers in ... Easy South Beach Recipes: Chinese Broccoli Salad ... and took medication before I went on the South Beach Diet.