Talk:Atkins diet/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: There is so little "science" in standard nutritional practice that these unsubstantiated claims and counterclaims may be a fair representation of the state of affairs and perhaps should be left alone.  I doubt you will get anywhere with the protein/kidney damage hypothesis.  Most of the supportive research is in lab animals die of kidney failure in "old age" more often than humans do.  Despite the decline in kidney function with age (not conclusively linked to protein), it does not seem to be the weak link in human longevity, the lab animal problem with protein seems solved in humans.  In fact, even in end stage kidney failure,protein restriction is controversial.  In regards to the harmfullness of "fat" in the diet, while there is some evidence that some saturated fatty acids are harmful and some are beneficial, there appears to be no support for any generalization that fats are more harmful than their calories, although given the surplus of calories, an argument might be made that they are more harmful gram for gram, but calorie for calorie, non-fibre carbs are far more harmful.  Very few population studies reach the isocaloric standard.--Silverback 16:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: That was the wrong action. If you think the section is POV and non-encyclopedic (and I agree) then make the effort to clean it up. I will now put that section back, and practice what I preach by doing just that. Nickco3 15:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Many who practice Atkins on a regular basis are prone to a variety of unpleasant side effects such as bad breath, constipation, gas and bloating, and fatigue. It is very important to contact a doctor or nutritionist before making drastic dietary and lifestyle changes such as Atkins.
It was in the "views in favour of the diet" section, where it clearly doesn't belong. In addition it makes several unsupported generalizations and adopts an advisory tone that is at odds with the rest of the article and Wikipedia in general.
chocolateboy 17:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Views sections 

message: I've removed this paragraph.  Could someone please give a source (or sources) to back up this claim.
There are reports indicating that studies have shown benefits for heart/stroke as well as diabetic patients, and that many experts are already discussing a low carb nutrition for diabetic patients who may then be able to live their lives without any insulin.
AlistairMcMillan 17:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: citations of studies would be nice.  However, one the face of it the statements appear true.  I've been following the literature, the improvements in surogate markers, risk factors like low HDL or high triglycerides have been reported multiple times and are also an important markers of risk in diabetes.  Add to that, the law of small numbers of insulin dependent diabetic, it is easy to tritrate insulin and thus control blood sugar levels when the amounts of carbs are small, because when you are wrong, even by 50%, you are wrong by less because the numbers are small, there is a book on this, but I forget the name and author.  I can spot anything that doesn't fit, but don't have time to provide the references myself.--Silverback 23:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: BTW, that "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie" link, is actually a fairly good review of the current status.--Silverback 23:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Ouch!  I just realized the above link was too Dr. Bernstein's site, and the refreshed my memory that he was the author of the book that I had mention.  The article there is by someone else however.--Silverback 23:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits for diabetics? 

message: I'm having trouble understanding what this article is about. Is this article about the diet or is it about the company which promotes and sells products around the diet? Perhaps we should pull a google and split this into Atkins Nutritional Approach and Atikins Nutritional Company? Edits like this reflect the double meaning of this article. Thoughts? This link is Broken 19:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, the article is about the diet, as all the content as well as the title indicates.  However, there is some inconsistant use of the word "Atkins" throughout, in particular, the word is used to refer to Dr. Atkins as well as the diet itself.  I took the step of making all references to the man read "Dr. Atkins" and left the unadorned "Atkins" references for the diet itself, but perhaps there's a better solution? Kutulu 15:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporate distinction

message: When was the Atkins Diet developed? Did it have any precursors? Paul, in Saudi 08:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Introduction?

message: According to the main article, the National Weight Control Registry concluded that only 1 percent of its long time losers were confirmed to be on Atkins.  I googled around for the citation, and a bunch of web pages claim that the source for this statement is "Wyatt HR and others. Long term weight loss and very low carbohydrate diets in the National Weight Control Registry. Obesity Research 8(suppl 1):87S., 2000."
However, (1) Holly R Wyatt doesn't list this article in
www*uchsc*edu/nutrition/WyattJortberg/wyattbio*htm; and (2) Obesity Research magazine doesn't even list a year 2000 supplement on www*obesityresearch*org/contents-by-date*2000*shtml.
 (disabling link to clean up spam  --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re: NWCR citation