Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

NYT Atkins Article Untrue - Per Atkins

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.
- 22 Jan 2004 02:26 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.

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.
- 20 Jan 2004 06:06 GMT
| 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?
- 20 Jan 2004 23:48 GMT
||| 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.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.