Talk:Atkins diet/Archive 2

message: This article seems to be very heavily pro-Atkins. It goes so far as to call information about fat "propaganda", and the entire tone of the article seems to be heavily Atkins positive. I think this article really needs to be revised in order to maintain Wikipedia's impartial nature.
 Cyberman has missed that the mention of "propaganda" is in the section titled "Views in Favor of the Diet." The organization of this article is problematic, as I have written before, but, from my perspective, the article is neither pro nor anti-Atkins, overall. Rather, it reports much material from both sides that is argumentative, and some of it simply amounts to this or that "expert" saying, for example, that the Atkins diet is dangerous. None of this is objective or impartial, yet it *is* true that people say those things about the Atkins diet and, to return to the point here, it *is* true that there is a great deal of information in our environment repeating the idea that fat is bad for you, and especially saturated fat, and, in the serious absence of scientific evidence proving this, the term "propaganda" does seem specially appropriate. None of which proves or disproves Atkin's thesis that saturated fats aren't a problem. --Abd
Could put something about how atkins revolutionaries thought the FDA food pyramid should be changed. --Cyberman 05:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy Bias 

message: Is ketosis harmful to one's health? Maybe the headaches are just temporary until one is accustomed to 
this metabolic state. Are there any animals living in ketosis? What about carnivores? --DenisDiderot 12:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ketosis]] 

message: Removed this:
:Dieting Strategy -- Stop Diet Drop Out
:Diet drop out, a significant problem for all types of diets, requires a new dieting strategy. Exchange it...and watch diet drop out rates plummet. 
--Anchoress 15:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needed a lot more than that. I removed around 75% of the links. They were mostly spam. --GraemeL (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed plug and link to commercial site 

message: Someone added a disputed neutrality tag to this article. The tag *says* to go to the talk page to discuss it; whoever added the tag should justify the addition with examples/comments on the talk page.--Anchoress 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality tag? 

message: Referring to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid which I read each point:
I feel that links to support forums should be allowed. Granted, there are some sites that sell items on their site ala Atkins Diet Bulletin Board but they sell low-carb food, snacks and books. 
--- heh ... or like atkinsalltheway who sells a line of atkinsalltheway products: 
www*cafepress*com/aatw 
  (disabled link for spam prevention  --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links Discussion - Asking for inclusion in this article 

message: OK ... was looking into this whole thing a bit further ... and here you go:
This is another piece of the puzzle :
BrianZ got his site removed because people thought it was spam
I guess he is bitter about a few things.  So basically he had all of the legitimate sites removed because he wasnt allowed to spam his site all over the place.
-----------------------------------------
This is my last edit on this particluar discussion (the one below was made earlier):
Tom, I can't believe you excluded my site from the list of legitimate sites for Atkins support. That may be your opinion. But it's a low blow trying to make me look like a marketing tool selling a site and using wiki just for SEO. I run an Atkins site and I follow Atkins to a tee. I'm not at all what you think I am. Please read your email. If you choose not to then I'll just let you make an ass of yourself here alone from now on. BrianZ 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more on brianz 

message: this is the link for external link rules:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links
which rule does the atkins diet bulletin board FAQ site break?
I'm not sure who wrote this, but I was told by several admins that adding your own site commercial or not to Wikipedia is not tolerated and is considered spam. 
--- I am inserting here ... Tommac2 -- I did not add my own site #1 it was added by others #2 it is not a commercial site .... please stop removing valid links! 
I was also told this includes forums. Once I understood Wikipedia's stance, I actively monitored the article for these links. I have received kudos for my work in maintaining theAtkins article. Therefore, I know I'm not doing anything wrong. My inital discussion points are based off the above article as a way to convince editors of this article to change their views for all support forums. For some reason, it was turned into a big argument. I am all for adding support forum links to the article but Wikipedia admins do not allow it. 
--- Brain,  who exactly is not allowing it.   You are the only one removing these links.  
I do, however like tommac2's idea of having a seperate page. Hopefully , this will remain and not be deleted by others.
I assume this issue is resolved. Please do not add links to the main Atkins Nutritional Approach article anymore.  BrianZ 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rules on external links 

message: BrianZ,
Stop removing the external links again. 
ADBB is not a commercial site!  and this site was not added by me.  This site is 100% legit. 
It is exactly what is supposed to be added in the External Links section. 
Regards,
Tom 
Tommac2
:I don't agree. I think bullatin boards should not go in. There must be hundreds, we can't include them all, so why should we include this one in particular? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on External Links 

message: The issue is currently in content dispute.   Brianz, Can you please leave it alone until a ruling comes through. 
It is in the admins hands now.   You can back off and lets see what happens. 
Please stop removing links? 
Also did you remove the link to the Bulletin Board page? 
Regards,
Tom 
Tommac2
:Tommac2, please see the history of the article to see who deleted it. Even though there is no "content dispute" per se, I agree that this article has become unindated with drivel. Let's use common sense here: The best way to resolve this for now is to remove all support forum links until the "dispute" is resolved. If the Admins decide in your favor then we can add our support forum links and everyone else's. If they follow policy, then the article is fine as is. I will continue to delete your links until an admin tells me to ignore policy. If that happens, then I will add my support forum link as well. It has become clear to me that the reason you are continuing to spam your site is because you are unable to use Wikipedia's history feature and see that we are not in an edit war. You are in an edit war with Wikipedia policy. Thank you BrianZ 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, how is the issue in admin hands? Has an RFC or an RFM been filed? If so, you should link the relevant page back here on Talk so that the interested parties can contribute.--Anchoress 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 100% cool, but just to be clear, Xyrael is not an administrator.--Anchoress 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The issue is currently in content dispute.  

message: Is the right thing to go to mediation or should I go to an admin?
At this point I am not sure which is best?  If so who is an admin that would hear this issue? 
Regards,
Tom 
Tommac2
:As I said above, in a reply to a previous question of yours (a few screens up), Admins don't really 'rule' on issues like this. You're doing the right thing getting a mediator, but you must understand that the mediator will not be 'ruling' on who is 'correct', s/he will be trying to achieve a middle ground of agreement between you and BrianZ. If mediation fails, if one or both of you has not been suspended for 3rr or anything else, then the issue will have to go to arbitration. Please check above for the longer post I made on the issue earlier today.--Anchoress 16:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the right thing to go to mediation or should I go to an admin? 

message: It would seem that a number of anon IP's have decided to come here and edit this article and add the disputed likn back in. They are clearly either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. We can't have this kind of shenanigens so I've semiprotected the article. (I reverted an anon first as adding the link was his only edit here on wikipedia).  Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: strange goings on

message: :Fellow Wikipedians, please disregard Tommac2's attempts to make me look poor. I will no longer address this issue here (You're Welcome :)) and will answer all questions about my length of membership at Wikipedia, My discussions with Graemel, and anything else you'd like to ask there. Please see the following link to the Mediation if you truly are interested in this matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04_Atkins_Diet#Summary_of_Evidence
Again, I'm sorry for this discussion page becoming what it is and I realize that there is no place for such drivel.
BrianZ 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For further information, please communicate via the current mediation 

message: All,
Sorry for breaking my last post promise but this is more of a query than a statement. 
I am creating a proposal to resolve this dispute the proposal is listed at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04_Atkins_Diet#Brian_latest_solution_for_Mediation_-_Do_you_think_this_is_fair.3F
I would like to propose that a third party police the External Links section. 
My proposal would be for BrianZ and I to step away from this issue.
The proposal that would be suitable on my end would be the following. 
1) BrianZ stops deleting the External Links section. 
2) Another unbiased member comes in and will police the External Links section for spam.  They can delete as they wish for things that break Wikipedia rules. 
Would any of you be interested in volunteering?
Please let me know as this may speed up or mediation. 
Regards,
Tom
--Tommac2 14:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution to edit war - proposal 

message: :Due to the fact that you weaseled your way by having the last edit before the article was locked, Policy has been averted in this case. It's a wonderful victory for spammers like you and I applaud you for being able to stick it out and find a way around common sense. I will continue to edit Wikipedia articles. However, external links on any page will never be something I take care of again. I have been completely and utterly victimized by the Wikipedia community that tells me it's good to police spam, yet I get blocked for protecting an article's honesty.
:I still have faith in editors like me, that stand up for Policy on Wikipedia. I just wish them Godspeed in fighting spammers like you. I guess they are going to need it, because I know you will never, ever stop vandalizing Atkins Nutritional Approach, South Beach diet and Low-carbohydrate diet. You will never stop the multiple account spamming and telling your friends to post your link on the article, you will never stop deleting people's edits on talk pages and interrupting them making them unreadable. Maybe I just don't have the time or the fortitude to fight these massive battles against Vandals and spammers. From now on, I prefer to stick to the high ground and not let individuals like you drag me down to your level.
:It's going to take a very long time for me to build trust in Wikipedia again, but I have seen many pluses, as a writer, for being here. They still outweigh the individuals with hidden agendas like you and I'll be damned if I let you dictate which sites I visit.
BrianZ 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I guess I'm left with no choice here. Congratulations on getting your advertisement listed on Wikipedia 

message: Please replace the weaselly text
:(These products seem to have been little more than marketing gimmicks designed to capitalize on carb-consciousness. Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, both of which have been available for decades, contain no carbohydrates.)
with
:Unlike the sugar-free soft drinks Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, which had been available for decades, these new drinks used a blend of traditional sweetener with the diet drinks' artificial sweeteners to offset some of the allegedly inferior flavor of artificial sweeteners. These "half and half" drinks declined in popularity as soft drink makers learned to use newer sweeteners to mask the flavor of aspartame (or completely replace it) in reformulated diet drinks such as Coca-Cola Zero and Pepsi ONE.
--Damian Yerrick (☎) 04:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  C2 and Edge weren't just gimmicks 

message: I renamed :Category:Diet and Food fads into :Category:Diet and food fads to comply with capitalisation conventions, but I am not able to move this article into the new category since it is protected. I would appreciate if an admin would do it for me. Thanks. Haakon 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I've done that to facilitate the deletion of the category.--Commander Keane 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please switch category 

message: This is the second time in 2 days that I have had to come in here and clean up the spam on this page.  I know many of you think that this is just a talk page....but the rules still apply.  So after all the links were restored....I decided to come back and leave the links, but just disable them, so no one could click on them.  Please dont revert back to the changes.  As it is, this page is already way too long and needs to be condensed and/or archived to save bandwith.  But to put back those sites will only bring me here to clean up again, so lets try to leave it where it is, a happy medium.  And if you still think it doesnt matter beause its a talk page, please go over Wikipedia's rules on spam.
--Ownlyanangel 10:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point out where to find this specific Wikipedia rule? The closest I could find is: Wikipedia:External_links which explains what is acceptable on article pages. It also explicitly says: If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.. Han-Kwang 11:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam Clean-up 

message: No - Low-Carb Revolution (television show) is not solely about the Atkins Diet. The article should be expanded and not merged into this one. --BrianZ(talk) 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the mergefrom tag from the article. There has been no discussion on this merge, other than my emphatic "no", and it has been up for 7 days. (I said in my edit summary it had been 21, but it was a mistake.) BrianZ(talk) 22:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Discussion 

message: I am doing a project on the Atkins diet in Biology class can anyone help me here?
:What do you need to know that's not in the article? Frankg 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankg, the author of the question is the vandal that placed the "Afterlife Maintenance" phase in the article. I think if he was serious he wouldn't have vandalized the page. --BrianZ(talk) 15:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, I didn't even catch that. I was the one who reverted the afterlife thing too! :) Thanks. Frankg 16:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atkins Diet 

message: Currently, the last paragraph in the Criticism subsection says that Asians "show similar rates of heart disease" and "a huge percentage of Orientals suffer from anemia". Can anyone give a source for these claims? Rosemary Amey 01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a bit of research and found that heart disease is less prevalent in Asia (citation added to article) and sumo wrestlers fatten up on a flesh-based stew called chankonabe, not rice. Rosemary Amey 06:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone substantiate claims about Asians?

message: ok, i'm doing a project in health class about diet plans.
so all of you people that are disscusing give me your final decision.
Good or bad, expensive or worth it.
:You can find various testimonials on the Web from people for whom the diet worked, and for whom it didn't work. That would probably be a good place to start. Frankg 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  good or bad  

message: The material about how net carbs are calculated is outdated and partially incorrect, so I have removed it. Atkins Nutritionals never claimed that sugar alcohols are not absorbed; they said that they have a "minimal impact on blood-sugar levels." More importantly, Atkins is now well into transitioning to a different, and more scientific, method of counting net carbs. From their website:
:Until recently, Atkins used the subtraction method on its package labeling. New science has shown that this old method provided accurate results in most, but not all, cases. Many other manufacturers started using similar net carb terminology while using different calculations and formulations with different types of carbohydrates and failed to validate their numbers, which led to speculation about the validity of net carbs in general. In order to evaluate the real-life effects of foods on blood-sugar levels, Atkins has pioneered a new clinical method to determine the Net Atkins Count. The new Atkins testing method has confirmed that the vast majority of Atkins products will carry the same carb count information as before.
:Here’s how it works: A group of people who have fasted have their baseline blood-sugar levels measured. They all eat a certain food product and each subject’s response is tracked. The data reports actual measured increases in individuals’ blood sugar. An average blood-sugar response across the group of people is then obtained. This is the Net Atkins Count, which expresses this clinically validated number and distinguishes it from terms previously used, such as net carbs.
:Atkins products are presently in the process of shifting to this new system; during the rollover, some labels may still show the old net carb icon.
Also, contrary to what the deleted text said, the nutritional information label on all Atkins snack bars consider the bar to be one serving, not multiple servings. — Walloon 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Net Carbs to Net Atkins Count

message: Here's a list of expert opinions critical of Atkins:
Given the controversy over this lucrative diet marketing, the criticism section really should have more links.--Shtove 12:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shtove. The link you provided is to atkinsexposed.org. This is a site created by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) the PCRM are a group of vegetarian doctors, funded by PETA to dismiss the Atkins diet due to the false idea that Atkins is all red meat. These are the kind of biased anti-Atkins edits that have made this article incorrect in the past. If people who know about the Atkins diet and are Pro-Atkins can't really edit this article so that it remains neutral, then groups like this should be treated the same. I don't care how many links you find that are anti-Atkins, I can find the same, if not more, that are Pro-Atkins. Should we include them all? No, it would make this article ridiculous. I'm not yelling at you, just setting you straight. Not many people are aware of the PETA fronted organization called PCRM and the fact that the justice department has a file on them due to their tactics of posting their agenda in a medical fashion so as to make people believe they are legit. BrianZ(talk) 14:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a link of my own  Do yourself a favor and look at about us on atkinsexposed and you'll the head of PCRM runs the site. These bastards are tricky. Here's a link to Wikipedia's entry for PCRM Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. "PCRM features on the Quackwatch list of questionable organisations." hmmm :) Do we really want their opinion included? BrianZ(talk) 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I've sourced Eckel's comment and given it proper prominence. Since I'm a believer in balanced diet and exercise, I won't get into this article. My view is that this diet is simply a marketing trick of telling people what they want to hear: assure them the food they love is healthy, the food they hate is harmful. Music to the ears of everyone who grew up hating vegetables. Not so funky though when that person suffers from diabetes, weak heart and damaged kidney and liver.--Shtove 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can tell by your statements that you've not done your research on the diet, That's okay really, as I used to be a guy against the diet completely too until I did my research and realized that 3/4 of the myths are completely untrue. Like most people, you are unaware of many ideas of the diet including the fact that most of your carbs each day should be from vegetables, and when done properly, the Atkins diet includes exercise at the minimum of 4 days a week, etc. But I digress. I've been following the lifestyle for 4 years and my health numbers and blood tests do not lie. I'm a staunch supporter of the diet and quite possibly a danger to sway the article away from neutral, which is why I refuse to add my slant to it. But I do try to ensure that the opposite view does not damage it's encyclopedic nature. Forgive me for being so abrasive. I don't mean to sound attacking, really. I just can't stand when misconceptions created by PCRM and PETA among others turn an unknowing public into people against this diet. I apologize ahead of time for any offense you have taken. I just figure that if I can motivate one more person to read the book to actually read for themselves and not really on items taken out of context by PCRM and baking indutries, then I'm doing a good thing.BrianZ(talk) 
04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offence taken, and you're not abrasive at all. WP is good for getting opponents together. In fact, I understand your enthusiasm, since I've had a diet revelation myself and have become a fan of Sandra Cabot.--Shtove 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert opinions 

message: The article, and the tagged sections in particular, have NPOV problems in both directions (which is a good thing by comparison to the alternative!).  The statement, "An analysis conducted by Forbes magazine found that the Atkins Nutritional Approach (the boxed retail food product created by Atkins to facilitate the Atkins diet) is one of the five most expensive diet plans of the ten plans Forbes analyzed," is only saying that Atkins is in the top 50%, in terms of expense, of diets looked at, yet it does so in a very-harsh tone.  Similarly, "In fact it should be seen as evidence that a diet high in vegetables, and not meats or dairy, will actually improve heart health," is some bizarre combination of OR, NPOV, and weasel, all wrapped up in one sentence.
My main beef with the "Misconceptions" section is probably the sentence, "Many people who try Atkins have reported eating more vegetables while on the plan than they ever did before."  Jouster  (whisper) 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely needs some work from a POV persepctive. I've made a start, and will try to do more.  Dreadstar † 07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've taken care of the pov concerns, and removed the tag.  Feel free to replace it if not.  Dreadstar † 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - August 2007 

message: :Image:AtkinsLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AtkinsLogo.jpg

message: I don't have it with me, but the "helped 10000 patients" statement is definitely in "Atkins New Diet Revolution." Subsolar (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  10,000 patients 

message: :Image:AtkinsDietBook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AtkinsDietBook.jpg

message: Hello,
The intro section lists the publishing date of Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution as 1998. The book was first published in 1972.
Sincerely,
OgreJ (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The date of the first book is wrong. 

message: Is to clearly list the foods that are allowed on the Atkins diet.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.254.65 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What we should do.. 

message: I first went on Atkins when I was a very obese 225 lbs in 2000 - months later, I weighed in at 175! My triglycerides were normal, and my cholesterol was down {BAD NEWS for a certain cardiologist who put me on Lipitor with a 204 count at the age of 35 that did not reduce the count and a better DR. that I had warned me off it before I tore my liver up (Kingston, NY).
I faded from the diet and started enjoying the usual fast food slop, and wound up celebrating the new year of 2008 at 212 pounds.
Enough was enough, and I commited to Atkins again- on 1/23 I was at 208 Lbs. Now, I am still overweight, but down to 196 - an 11 pound drop!
I will continue until I get back to my "fighting weight" of 175........ and I am a 47 year old man.... feeling better every day!
GBU DR.A!!!!! 
Vito  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.25.138 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  let Dr Atkins rest in peace- he helped me once....going on twice 

message: Yo, Y'all.  Weighed 227 on 68" frame. Big bones they use to say.  Jumped on Atkins bandwagon in 2002, and got down to my Airborne weight of 180 in 4 weeks.  Felt like a million bucks.  Cholesterol 160, donates blood to up to like 10 gallons then and upwards of 13 by now, and all's good.  MD say, Atkins "no good".  So, off the Atkins, and in 2007, hadda have a stent stuck into my otherwise good body.  Heart doc says Atkins is what caused it. OK, that would be fully 5 years almost to the date of "going normal".  Now, with all kinds blood thinners and other kinds of pills, I'm 227 again, even though I walk 6 miles a week, work hard, don' smoke- don' drink.  Weekends I ride my bicycle 10 miles or so.  Don't watch TV very much, eat small protions 4-5 times a dsy.  No junk.  I ask MD for help, and the stock answer is, get more excercise.  Hell, I'm 64.  Whaddaya want ?  Now, I'm scared to death to try it again.  My former MD told me to quit smoking back in '80 and I gained 30 lbs in 53 weeks.  He says that the weight won't hurt.  He died at 56 from a coronary.  He was like 300 pounds !  There you go.
My question is, what in the world does one do?  I work circles around 20-30 year olds in the oilfields of California, and I just keep getting "bigger boned".  Geez.
Who, out there, has some simplistic answers, should there be any?
Perfesser@aol.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.226.151 (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atkins good - my bad -my MD's ???? 

message: Are there more books than what are mentioned? If so, what are their ISBN.143.216.49.250 (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only add books created by Atkins. Nasnema  Chat  05:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books? 

message: Perhaps some reference to the inuit diet should be made here? It was shown to have no adverse effects and to be nutritionally sound. Much seems to be made of scientific research into the atkins diet or low carb diets specifically, yet the inuit diet has also been researched and shown to be healthy. As generations of inuit attest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.66.20 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do all Inuit lead short lives? Do all Japanese lead long lives? Unsubstantiated nonsense. Furthermore, are there any studies comparing Inuit populations that subsist on traditional foods like seal and whale, and Westernized populations who eat foods made from sugar and flour? The current state of knowledge of diet and metabolism is rudimentary. The current state of nutrition and diet research is not much better. Therefore it is impossible to make definitive, reliable, and objective statements about any dietary approach. The best we can do in an encyclopedia is to report the existing approaches and claims. David Spector (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inuit diet? 

message: The reference in the scientific studies section to the research discussing hazard ratios of the WHO diet, mediterenan diet, and a low-carb diet seems misleading. As far as I know, the standard used in that research for low-carb - 40% carbs, is not describing a low-carb diet (USDA's recommendations are a daily calorie intake of about 30 to 35 percent of fat, 15 to 20 percent protein, and the rest - 50% carbohydrates).  The comparison between a 40% carbohydrates based diet and real low-carb diets (whose variants begin, to the best of my knowledge, at the most carbohydrates generous base of around 20%) is misleading, if not worse, for it sheds a negative light on low-carb diets which should actually be aimed at a different form of a diet ! --Gil.shabtai (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem in the scientific part  

message: Many people believe that the Atkins Diet promotes eating unlimited amounts of fatty meats and cheeses.[55][56] This was allowed and promoted in early editions of the book. In the newest revision, not written by the now deceased Dr. Atkins, this is not promoted.
[...]
The director of research and education for Atkins Nutritionals, Collette Heimowitz, has said, "The media and opponents of Atkins often sensationalise and simplify the diet as the all-the-steak-you-can-eat diet. This has never been true"
Sounds like it actually was at one point. It doesn't sound like this is really a misconception. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Atkins organization really believes that "this has never been true." Their position is that those two statements are not contradictory, that the original advice was correct and the later advice clarifies it rather than contradicts it. I have made a change to that paragraph that hopefully better represents the context given in the cited source. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconception? 

message: I just ended up on this page, and the last paragraph of the introduction reads more like an ad than an encyclopedia entry, and it has no sources cited. I'm unsure what to do about this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.219.61 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Paragraph of Intro Reads Like Promotional Material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Atkins diet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150704043934/http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/centers_clinics/epilepsy/pediatric_epilepsy/ketogenic_diet.html to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/centers_clinics/epilepsy/pediatric_epilepsy/ketogenic_diet.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Isn't it true that Atkins himself died with (albeit not of) clogged arteries?  If so, that should be included in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he did not. That is a popular rumor that has absolutely no basis in fact. He slipped and fell on ice, hit his head, and died due to bleeding around the brain after spending over a week in a coma. --132 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, his heart problem was not a circulatory problem ('clogged arteries'), but a viral infection of the heart itself. This is a serious medical disease that cannot be caused or cured by diet. 16:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't Atkins Die with Clogged Arteries? 

message: maybe this article needs a side effects section? i've often heard reports of bad breath, decreased energy and increased flatulence, but this is not really mentioned in the article... i'd do it myself but wikipedia is the only site i can access from work.
: If you found five people who had these symptoms, that still would not be statistically significant. Diets involve many factors of daily life, and must be evaluated and criticized using real science, not opinions reported as facts. It is okay to have an opinion, but WP articles must at least have references to facts reported in reliable sources. Adding your unsourced opinions to an article, no matter how strongly you believe in them, will most likely result in their being deleted within a few minutes. This is an encyclopedia, meant to be as reliable as possible, not a source for opinions. It is okay to start with opinions, but then validate them by referencing books and the Web. David Spector (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side Effects of diet section? 

message: There is a fair degree of redundancy between this article and the Low-carbohydrate diet. Since this article is a sub-topic of that one might I suggest
* Issues that are related to low-carb diets in general be discussed in the general article.
* Mainly focus this article on things that are unique to the Atkins diet. This is not to say that the broader issues should not be touched on but the details can be merged into the general article.
Granted the word Atkins gets used as a proxy for low-carb diets in general but to the extent that a given issue relates to most or all of these diet plans it seems the need to hash them out here instead of just moving them to the main article is questionable.
In particular I'm thinking
* Nature of the Diet: Cut most of this since it can be considered common to Low-carbohydrate diets in general. Focus mostly on the Atkins-specific details.
* Scientific Studies: Chop most of the details out of this section and list the Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets article as the main article. This section should quickly summarize the breadth of research that's out there without detail on any particular study.
* Controversies: Merge any missing content into the Low-carbohydrate diet article and remove almost all of this save perhaps a few nuggets about Atkins specifically (e.g. maybe talking about the controversy as to whether he died of his own diet).
* Misconceptions about the diet: The misconceptions regarding how the phases work are, of course, appropriate but the rest can be linked to the general article.
Comments?
--Mcorazao (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Oppose. The Atkins diet is only one low-carbohydrate diet. There are many others. If you are going to merge this article into its logical parent article, you would have to do the same with the tens of thousands of other WP articles that similarly have a logical parent. WP is structured the way it is because editors and readers generally prefer a hierarchical arrangement of articles. David Spector (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Partial merger with ''Low-carbohydrate diet'' 

message: Ellie07553 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an advice or general discussion page. This is a page for discussion of the article and how to improve it. David Spector (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is it exactly? How old do you have to be to take it?. I need to know for my health project. Please help!!!!! Everything about it. 

message: The text:
"Sugar alcohols contain about two calories per gram, although the American Diabetes Association recommends that diabetics not count alcohol as carbohydrates."
This text, from the source, means that alcohol in drinks like beer should not be considered as part of a meal; not that the carbohydrates in alcohol are irrelevant to diabetics, insulin must be taken for the carbohydrates in alcohol.
In the article, it is used incorrectly to explain that Sugar Alcohols are not to be counted as carbohydrates because the body does not process them, or something like that.
Either the text should be removed or another source should be used to explain what Sugar Alcohol actually is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonom (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading/Wrong Text about Diabetics 

message: Dr. Gardner's study (PMID 17341711) found that the Atkins diet was the only one that had significantly better results from the other diets studied (USDA recommendations, Ornish, Zone). The statement that there have been few long-term studies of the effects of low-carb diets is in the paper, but it's being used here in the effectiveness section to ultimately support the assertion that the diet is ineffective, which is not what the study found at all.
I think this article needs another major rewrite. Bananabananabanana (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Unreliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The PMID link is to a study the article cites. Are you asserting that that article is an unreliable source? If so, can you tell me why? Bananabananabanana (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a primary source. See WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. We should not use old primary sources especially when we have more recent secondary ones like . Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I suppose this supports my assertion that the article needs a complete rewrite, as all four sources for that statement are old primary sources. Bananabananabanana (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily, because the question of whether or not research is going on is not WP:Biomedical information and so not subject to WP:MEDRS. However, this seems like it might be original research and so could simply be deleted. That doesn't mean we need a major rewrite. Alexbrn (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes sense for the article to lead with the effectiveness section, and I think the paragraph is fair and even-handed. Out of thirteen sources, though, only three of them are secondary sources, and two of those go to medicinenet.com and WebMD. Not necessarily suspect, but not really respected either. Bananabananabanana (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation doesn't support claim 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Atkins diet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310215519/http://www.medicinenet.com:80/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56520 to http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56520
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051001002909/http://my.webmd.com:80/content/article/46/2731_1666 to http://my.webmd.com/content/article/46/2731_1666
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/04/06/cx_lrlh_0406costlycalories.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110064606/http://www.atkins.com/company/press-release/atkins-nutritionals-inc-emerges-from-bankruptcy to http://www.atkins.com/company/press-release/atkins-nutritionals-inc-emerges-from-bankruptcy
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the link:
* [http:// The Dukan Diet]
Based on a lack of clear relevance to this article. If the anonymous editor who placed this link wants to establish that it is proper here -- or anyone else -- , please respond here. The Dukan Diet, from a superficial examination of the web site, does not seem related to the Atkins diet, which is a high-fat, low carb diet, and the fat is very important to it, as is the low carb. Atkins is a moderately elevated protein diet as well, and that is about the only connection I could see.
This is an article on the Atkins Nutritional Approach, not every diet system that exists is relevant to it, nor, even all low-carb high-fat diets. If the Dukan Diet is "notable," it's possible it could have an article of its own.
--Abd 16:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed link to Dukan Diet 

message: I do not believe this article belongs in the Diabetes category in addition to the diabetes subcategory of Low-carb diets. The small two-week study on 10 hospitalized obeses Type 2 diabetic patients was falsely claimed to have been a study of the Atkins diet when it was simply a study of restricting carbohydrates.  This is probably why a reference link to the article was not provided.  I deleted the false claim and included a reference link to the abstract of the study.  It's debatable whether this study should even be included as evidence on the Atkins diet, but I left it in. 
The Diabetes category is for articles that are primarily or substantially about this serious disease (a check of whats listed there will reveal that).  This article does not qualify. OccamzRazor 20:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a citation for Atkin's book Atkins Diabetes Revolution as well as a link to a The West Suffolk Diabetes Service, both of which strongly link to Atkins as a Diabetic diet.  I can also supply references from Atkins books and websites, as well as other references linking the diet to treatment of diabetes.  The Diabetes cat should stay.  Dreadstar † 21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diabetes Category

message: The gist of this article, from the first paragraph, is that the diet is a fad. The only source cited for this is cited in a style that looks as if it's referencing a book but is in fact citing an online blog with no link provided. The blog is a short opinion piece by someone unqualified to make this statement and who cites no evidence for the assertions they make.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.111.19 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a search and - on the contrary - found many sources giving the diet this classification. I've added one of the stronger ones to quell any doubt! Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Technical point: If you want to get someone's attention, you need to ping them like I just did to you with the  template. You can also use , as in  which will render as  (who will now see this since it will ping him). ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, hello. The answer here is that we go by the sources (they are "listed" in the article). They say it's a fad diet & it fits the definition of fad diet like a glove. So Wikipedia says it too. Alexbrn (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The entire gist of the article that the diet is a fad is incorrect has no proper source 

message: "NPOV dispute"
The entire article reads as an anti-Atkins forum post.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide specific evidence and examples. Otherwise, there is no NPOV dispute. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Please do not bring unreliable sources here. The article follows reliable sources on this diet. If RS call this diet a fad diet, so shall Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

text: We go by what reliable sources say. They say it's a fad diet (hardly an unusual claim seeing as it fits the definition well), and so Wikipedia does too. Suggest we're done here. Alexbrn (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

text: A reference work published by Routledge is what we generally call a "reliable source" for a simple categorization. Your source does not appear to discuss this topic at all. There are other sources referring to this diet matter-of-factly as a fad, like NHS Choices, but it's such an unexceptional little fact we needn't bother adding redundant sourcing. (Also you sound learn to indent and sign your posts). Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "NPOV dispute"

message: The study cited in first section ("Effectiveness") compares users of the Atkins Diet to a control group that received behavioral counseling for weight loss. Perhaps there would be a better study to compare it to when assessing the overall 'effectiveness' of the diet. A control group that may have had no behavioral counseling could be a good example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindimine (talk • contribs) 21:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Mindimine, no.  The source is a literature review per WP:MEDRS, which was covered in your student training. We don't use individual clinical trial publications as sources. (btw, I moved your comment down here - new comments go at the bottom)  Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study Cited 

message: From the introduction, this article seems to have some bias in it. Specifically, the sentence "the diet is marketed with questionable claims that carbohydrate restriction is critical to weight loss" does not allow the reader to believe that the article is fairly balanced. It should not lead with saying the claims are questionable. Additionally, are there truly no good claims, at all, in achieving effective weight loss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindimine (talk • contribs) 23:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:LEAD -- the lead just summarizes the body of the article. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article bias 

message: This article is profoundly biased and does not include current (2018) results of research trials. Low carbohydrate dieting, such as Atkins, is becoming recognized as the preferred diet for sufferers of type 2 diabetics because of its positive impact on blood glucose and insulin levels. See work of Virta Health and others. 
Dr. Katz is quoted without any information about his financial relationships with trade groups of the food processing industry. Since the Atkins diet cautions against eating processed foods such as sugar, cereals, breads, and snacks, Katz cannot be considered an independent observer. 
There is no unbiased discussion of the claims of the diet’s impact on the risk of cardiovascular disease. The primary criticism of the Atkins diet over the decades is that it increases the risk of heart disease. However, today, the conventional and widely accepted lipid-heart hypothesis is under assault by many researchers and medical practitioners. It is convenient to think of cholesterol as the primary driver of heart disease, but in fact, this is not settled science. 
Instead of portraying this diet as a “fad diet”, it should be discussed as the recommended diet of a medical professional who withstood relentless pushback and dismissal from government and entrenched medical interests. Low carbohydrate dieting is being recognized around the world for its impact on diabetes, heart health as measured through standard lipid panels, and body weight. These three impacts are important net positives to human health considering the growing epidemics of obesity and diabetes, both of which are recognized risk factors for heart disease and many cancers. 
On a technical note, Dr. Eric Westman is quoted without any reference as to who he is. His complete name is not even given.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.110.55 (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this is releavant in Wikipedia.  We summarize reliable sources here. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's relevent if the claimer can provide reliable sources, and better still, provide a summary of what all reliable sources have to say on the subject. TP ✎ ✓ 11:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

text:  There's much in the Atkins diet that is probably sh*te, but this article makes the 'extra' effort to drive this home through heavy source cherrypicking to present a decidedly 'anti' POV. No such skewing of fact is required: if the diet does not pass peer review, then the preponderence of all reliable sources will show this. TP ✎ ✓ 12:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional instances of bias 

message: This article goes to great lengths to dismiss the Atkins diet as a fad (and nothing more), and seems to select its studies and sources to support this WP:POV. Would expanding it to indicate non-selective scientific consensus (and the results thereof) on (aspects of) the Atkins diet bring more balance? TP ✎ ✓ 14:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hard to formulate all that into a question, but I hope that's better. TP ✎ ✓ 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really. It's still incredibly vague, and as pointed out, begs the question. --tronvillain (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about article 'anti-' Bias 

message: * Malformed RfC. Weird title; vague POVish question question without supporting evidence. Suggest applying Hitchen's Razor. (The article as it stands correctly expresses the science with WP:MEDRS so far as I can see). Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: *You should probably ask an actual question instead of making vague proposals. See WP:RFC. --tronvillain (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hard to formulate all that into a question, but I hope that's better. TP ✎ ✓ 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really. It's still incredibly vague, and as pointed out, begs the question. --tronvillain (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: It's incredible, in 2018, that the article's author dismisses the Atkins Diet as a "fad" whose practitioners
will derive few or no health benefits from it. Both Gary Taubes (Why We Get Fat) and Nina Teicholz (The Big Fat Surprise)
exhaustively covered, and quoted,  the findings of many nutrition scientists: that the Atkins Diet had been proven, in most cases,  to have a 
healthier outcome than either low-fat diets or the Mediterranean Diet. In fact, the Atkins Diet is infinitely healthier
than the low-fat regime which Ancel Keys promoted half a century ago. 
The slant of the article seems to uphold another conclusion of Taubes and Teicholz: that nutrition scientists will protect
their personal theories with tigerish jealousy, even when those findings have long been proven to be completely false.
Younggoldchip (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have no problem in supplying WP:RS reliable sources for all this then? -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 19:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Yeah, and Taubes and Teicholz most certainly aren't what we're looking for! Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unscientific, Inadequate and Biased Treatment of The Atkins Diet 

message: (content copied from http://dietsnweightloss.com/blog/atkins-diet-plan/ removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonfm (talk • contribs) 06:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this for? Please start at WP:5P to see what we need for content here ... Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atkins diet plan 

message: To expand the History or Society sections, here are a few very interesting refs on Fad diet (look for the encyclopedias ones), and in the Talk:Fad_diet/Dumping_ground, there are notably a few retrospectives on the advertisement around this diet over decades. --Signimu (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources to expand History section