Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004
NYT Atkins Article Untrue - Per Atkins
|
|
Thread rating:  |
J Costello - 20 Jan 2004 04:27 GMT I received the following update from Atkins Nutritionals regarding the latest article in NYT:
http://atkins.com/about/recentnews/AtkinsHasNotChanged.html
If you can't link to the above, the complete news is below:
Atkins Has Not Changed
"Make That Steak a Bit Smaller, Atkins Advises Today's Dieters," published in the January 18th edition of The New York Times--and the subsequent publicity--is yet another dramatically inappropriate example of the media reporting on the media and perpetuating a false report on Atkins. This is a great disservice to the millions upon millions of Atkins followers who have been benefiting from this nutritional approach for more than 30 years. The accusation in the media, which claims that Atkins is retreating from its long-held position on the consumption of fat is simply wrong. It is a false premise created by members of the media themselves, based on input from "experts" who apparently have neither read any of Dr. Atkins' books, nor even casually browsed this Web site.
Atkins has not changed. The basic tenets of the Atkins Nutritional ApproachT (ANA), consistent since 1972, are to control the intake of carbohydrates, avoid refined carbs (like sugar and white flour), eat a balance of fats (including saturated fat but not trans fats) and consume a variety of protein sources, such as red meat, fish, poultry and tofu. Saturated fat remains a valuable part of the ANA. There is absolutely no scientific research to support any claims that eating red meat and saturated fat as part of your Atkins program is anything other then beneficial. These protocols have been consistently reinforced as safe, effective and beneficial and have been further supported by 17 studies released over the last three years.
Equally as important, and terribly troubling to all of us at Atkins, is the attempt once again by critics of Atkins to ignore fact, science and the clear messages stated in Dr. Atkins' own words over the past 32 years, in order to sensationalize the ANA as the "all-the-steak-you-can-eat" approach to weight loss and good health. This has never been true and the millions of individuals doing Atkins, along with the health care professionals who have read Dr. Atkins' books, clearly understand this. We would urge anyone who is confused, including the media to simply read Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, Atkins For Life or The Atkins Essentials, or review this site, rather than interpret Atkins on the basis of sensational reports manufactured on hearsay and mischaracterization.
Even in the original 1972 edition of Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution, Dr. Atkins explained, "fat allows for enormous variety in your diet; that vital and best of all, it keeps you from feeling deprived. Of course, you aren't confined to steak, you can have almost any kind of meat, fish or fowl." He continued, "One of the biggest reasons this diet works so successfully is because you eat protein and fat.."
Dr. Atkins made no secret of the fact that his methodology evolved over time as scientific discoveries added new and useful information. He rewrote his original 1972 book three times, exactly because he felt it was his responsibility to keep people up to date when it came to the most recent and relevant information on controlled carbohydrate nutrition and health. In the 2002 edition of Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, he wrote, "Eat either three regular-size meals a day or four to five smaller meals. Eat liberally of combinations of fat and protein in the form of poultry, fish, shellfish, eggs and red meat, as well as of pure, natural fat in the form of butter, mayonnaise, olive oil, safflower, sunflower and other vegetable oils. Adjust the quantity you eat to suit your appetite, especially as it decreases. When hungry, eat the amount that makes your feel satisfied but not stuffed.."
By providing individuals doing Atkins with a life-long strategy, including exercise and meal plans (at various carb thresholds) incorporating a wide range of foods, as explained in Atkins for Life, Dr. Atkins believed he would finally put to rest the misconception that his approach was based on eating only red meat. His simple goal was that people would come to understand how to incorporate his controlled carbohydrate nutritional approach as the first step in gaining control of their nutritionally out-of-control lives.
Millions of individuals who benefit from doing Atkins understand that the ANA is a very effective four-phase approach to healthy eating. The ANA focuses on moving people away from diets loaded with refined carbohydrates like sugar and white flour to a lifestyle centered around eating whole foods and nutrient-dense carbohydrates like leafy greens, and finding a balance in the consumption of proteins and fat.
Roger Zoul - 20 Jan 2004 04:38 GMT :: http://atkins.com/about/recentnews/AtkinsHasNotChanged.html :: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: :: "Make That Steak a Bit Smaller, Atkins Advises Today's Dieters," Refreshing.
Frank Lynch - 21 Jan 2004 18:52 GMT >:: http://atkins.com/about/recentnews/AtkinsHasNotChanged.html >:: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Refreshing. FWIW, the Atkins response says it hasn't changed (which is what the NY Times article says), and doesn't address the 20% of the calories from saturated fat point. The Atkins response says "yet another dramatically inappropriate example of the media reporting on the media and perpetuating a false report on Atkins." I didn't get the impression that the Times article was a case of the media talking about itself -- I thought it was talking about Atkins.
As a press release, I thought this was poorly written. It has that unclear self-referential thing "media reporting about the media" up front, and doesn't address the central point of the Times article.
Frank Lynch The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page is at: http://www.samueljohnson.com/
Pat Paris - 21 Jan 2004 22:38 GMT >FWIW, the Atkins response says it hasn't changed (which is what the NY >Times article says), and doesn't address the 20% of the calories from [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >unclear self-referential thing "media reporting about the media" up >front, and doesn't address the central point of the Times article. I thought the same thing when I read it. I'm no fan of the NY Times, but I think this was one case where they actually got it right. I suspect the folks at AN were not prepared for the response they got and that they are the ones now trying to blow some smoke.
| I thought the same thing when I read it. I'm no fan of the NY Times, | but I think this was one case where they actually got it right. Pure unadulterated ignorannce.
The NY Times article was misquoting a completely different interview from another source from an interview the day before. Exactly as the ANI said it was the media talking about the media. Apparently for some reason either you take pleasure in seeing Atkins bashed, or you really don't care about the facts.
 Signature Peter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo
Frank Lynch - 22 Jan 2004 02:41 GMT On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 02:26:00 GMT, in a clarity of expression
>| I thought the same thing when I read it. I'm no fan of the NY Times, >| but I think this was one case where they actually got it right. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >you take pleasure in seeing Atkins bashed, or you really don't care about >the facts. Perhaps you could pull your claws in -- I didn't look at the Times article as bashing in the slightest.
Frank Lynch The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page is at: http://www.samueljohnson.com/
Pat Paris - 22 Jan 2004 03:27 GMT >| I thought the same thing when I read it. I'm no fan of the NY Times, >| but I think this was one case where they actually got it right. > >Pure unadulterated ignorannce. Well, I'm certainly neither pure nor unadulterated.
>The NY Times article was misquoting a completely different interview from >another source from an interview the day before. I would be pleased to read the "different interview from another source from an interview the day before" if you would be so kind as to point me to it.
The Times said "the director of research and education for Atkins Nutritionals, Colette Heimowitz, is telling health professionals in seminars around the country that only 20 percent of a dieter's calories should come from saturated fat. "
The Times also said "An Atkins spokesman said Ms. Heimowitz has been giving these seminars for five years, but that they do not represent a departure from the original premise of the diet."
So the question is, has Ms. Heimowitz been saying this for five years or has she not? Nothing in the AN rebuttal refutes the Times on this point.
Atkins representatives also allegedly said, "There has been a revision in expressing how the diet should be followed, not in the diet itself, they say." Again, nothing in the AN rebuttal refutes this point.
Quoting the times again, "Atkins representatives made the revision, Ms. Heimowitz said, because "we want physicians to feel comfortable with this diet, and we want people who are going to their physicians with this diet to feel comfortable."
I see nothing in the AN rebuttal addressing whether Ms. Heimowitz said this.
Like I said, I'm no fan of the NY Times, but I find it impossible to believe that a story with so many direct, attributed quotes could be totally wrong. It seems very strange to me that AN simply bashed the Times without addressing the accuracy or veracity of the quoted material. This makes it look to me like AN is the one trying to do some damage control here.
>Exactly as the ANI said it was the media talking about the media. I really would like to see what "media" the NY Times was talking about.
>Apparently for some reason either you take pleasure in seeing Atkins >bashed, or you really don't care about the facts. I call it like I see it. Until I'm shown some compelling evidence to the contrary I'll stick with my assessment.
| I received the following update from Atkins Nutritionals regarding the | latest article in NYT: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | Atkins Has Not Changed ---------------- This is exactly what I and a couple of others have been saying in another thread about the original article that came out a couple of days ago. The Atkins spokesperson was misquoted by the media, and they publicized exactly the opposite of what she said. Atkins has not changed at all.
Thanks for posting this, J Peter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo
Roger Zoul - 20 Jan 2004 11:53 GMT :: J Costello wrote: ::: I received the following update from Atkins Nutritionals regarding [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: :: Thanks for posting this, J What thread?
||| J Costello wrote: |||| Atkins Has Not Changed ||| ---------------- ||| This is exactly what I and a couple of others have been saying in ||| another thread about the original article that came out a couple of ||| days ago
| What thread? The thread subject is, "What's This? Atkins Revises the Diet!", thread started on 1/18/2004 @ 1:08 a.m. by Witchy Way.
 Signature Peter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo
curt - 20 Jan 2004 17:37 GMT The problem is the damage has been done. I mean, people feel that Dr. Atkins was wrong in letting us eat too much red meat and so on. The only way the damage can be undone is if the media as a whole admits they are wrong. Will that happen? NO!
Curt
> I received the following update from Atkins Nutritionals regarding the > latest article in NYT: [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > and nutrient-dense carbohydrates like leafy greens, and finding a balance in > the consumption of proteins and fat. mcp6453 - 21 Jan 2004 13:59 GMT > The problem is the damage has been done. I mean, people feel that Dr. > Atkins was wrong in letting us eat too much red meat and so on. The only > way the damage can be undone is if the media as a whole admits they are > wrong. Will that happen? NO! Let people believe what they want to believe. I've lost 30 pounds (206 to 176) on this WOL and have no intentions of changing. Ever. My bloodwork is phenomenal. The only negative effect I've experienced is some numbness in my hands, feet, and spots on my face. Not one of three doctors is concerned about it, so I'm not either for now. One doctor casually mentioned that there are reports of such numbness in people who lose a lot of weight, that the numbness is benign, and that it is temporary. I sure hope so.
Anyone who relies on the media for information deserves what they get.
lbudney@pobox.com - 22 Jan 2004 03:47 GMT > The only negative effect I've experienced is some numbness in my > hands, feet, and spots on my face. Not one of three doctors is > concerned about it, so I'm not either for now... I wouldn't worry about it. Sounds like a simple case of Hansen's disease.
--Len.
|
|
|