The Never-Ending Diet Wars

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: CJasked @ 07/18/2008 9:00:19 PM

    I'm sure someone has pointed out that 200x365=73000, not 10000....and well, if you have more muscle then you burn more calories. Low fat diets tend to consume muscle mass reducing your overall metabolic rate. Just my 2 cents.

  • Posted By: kpmuad @ 07/18/2008 1:36:59 PM

    As someone who is ON the atkins diet, and has been for 6 months, I can assure you all that "red meat/butter/fat" is not all that I eat like this guy says. I eat a lot of salad and vegetables like Frankie3233 says. I've lost about 50 pounds and have been eating lots of vegetables, eggs, bacon, cheese, salads; all that stuff. I do not eat steak and eggs for breakfast, steak for lunch, and steak for dinner. Between myself and my dad we've found that vegetables make up a large portion of the diet, not red meat.

  • Posted By: mdimey @ 07/18/2008 1:36:15 PM

    I am an Atkins believer, I lost 6 dress sizes and 60 pounds on Atkins, and still follow the Atkins diet (5 years!), my cholesterol is great, my blood pressure is great. And best of all I have a wonderful doctor that encourages me to follow Atkins. I was never able to achieve this on a low fat diet. And I am a woman.

  • Posted By: kpmuad @ 07/18/2008 1:34:02 PM

    I agree Frankie, the author shows how little people know about Atkins having done no research at all. I have been on the diet for the past 5-6 months, and can report that I do not eat bacon for every meal. Most of the time I have salad with chicken or steak on it. For breakfast I generally eat an omellete with vegetables in it, and sometimes have bacon on the side. When I go to McDonalds, I get the chicken salad and NOT 100 hamburgers without the buns. Lately I've even felt like I was a vegetarian with all the salad i eat...

  • Posted By: coach13 @ 07/18/2008 9:04:26 AM

    Pathetic - Ornish still trying to prop up the low fat starvation diet. Of course it "works" when you do a total intervention including exercise. And he clings to a calorie is a calorie myth when it is evident that protein takes more energy to metabolize.

  • Posted By: frankie3233 @ 07/17/2008 11:35:31 PM

    Once again, an author shows his ignorance by stating " A vegetarian Atkins diet? Most people associate an Atkins diet with bacon, butter and brie, not a plant-based diet like the one I recommend." Atkins is all about dark leafy green vegtables, and others that are low on the glycemic index. Meats, fish, cheese, whole grains and legumes are also plentiful. The only thing that the atkins approach drastically limits is sugar and refined flour. If one would look back at the way humans ate before such refined and processed, high sugar empty calorie foods were introduced, people were healthier. Is it any coincidence that since the low-fat craze hit about 25 years ago that this country has seen a rise in the number of obese and severly obese people? Study after study has shown that the Atkins approach to eating works. I have lost forty pounds and kept the weight off for ten years. My chololesterol is well within norms and all the other blood work is excellent. So doctors and nutrishinests have finally recognized the science and are helping people...too bad the auther of this article is not one of them.

  • Posted By: toadhall1 @ 07/17/2008 11:18:53 PM

    i was so glad to hear about the outcome of the recent studys because it proved to me that my blood tests after being on the atkins diet(I ate lots of red meat,fat and all,butter etc. No trans fats ,no suger and my cholestral is perfect! I'm 55 years old and my cholestral was never even close to perfect. Why doe's dean Ornish not admit that he's just wrong? Even if his diet did work, it's the worst tasting crap you could eat. I'd rather die from heart disease than eat the recipes that are in his books. Doctors will never admit when there wrong Jim Bostelle

  • Posted By: toadhall1 @ 07/17/2008 11:17:19 PM

    i was so glad to hear about the outcome of the recent studys because it proved to me that my blood tests after being on the atkins diet(I ate lots of red meat,fat and all,butter etc. No trans fats ,no suger and my cholestral is perfect! I'm 55 years old and my cholestral was never even close to perfect. Why doe's dean Ornish not admit that he's just wrong? Even if his diet did work, it's the worst tasting crap you could eat. I'd rather die from heart disease than eat the recipes that are in his books. Doctors will never admit when there wrong Jim Bostelle

  • Posted By: panamajack @ 07/17/2008 5:07:05 PM

    You low-fat guys just can't stant the truth!! Atkins is the best diet going. How many studies will it take to convince you?

  • Posted By: lindamann @ 07/17/2008 1:02:32 PM

    I'm always a little surprised at how little diet "experts" and physicians really know about Dr. Atkins??? health plan. First of all; there are different stages of the Atkins diet, but the final "maintenance" stage is essentially a healthy, lifelong diet of nutrient-dense, fiber-rich, complex carbs and lean protein. Daily exercise and plenty of water are also recommended. Dr. Atkins simply showed us how to stop living on simple sugar! I lost 43 pounds and have kept most of it off over the last few years. Added benefits are never feeling hungry between meals, a cure for my chronic heartburn, loss of the typical "crash" after meals that most of my friends suffer from, and nearly perfect blood work. The friend who told me about this lifestyle lowered his cholesterol significantly. Sometimes I slip and eat something sugary, such as bread or pasta, but I always return to the food that simply makes me feel better. I realize that my testimony and thousands of others' are merely anecdotal, but we now have scientific studies that, for some reason, still don't impress those that practice the art of medicine. I urge anyone who has taken the Hippocratic Oath to do their homework by actually READING Dr. Atkins' revolutionary book. The press should follow suit.

    • Posted By: bigcha @ 07/17/2008 4:18:48 PM

      Finally! Someone who actually read the book! It seems Ornish and the rest of the nay sayers don't get past chapter 1. You saved me a lot of breath...

  • Posted By: stephenprestwood @ 07/16/2008 7:25:57 PM

    Mr. Ornish, at least Newsweek had the wisdom to call your piece an opinion. There may be flaws in the NEJM study that careful review and analysis will reveal, but your defensive accusations sound more like someone with a vested interest in an academic paradigm. Those of us who are out trying to eat healthy food and monitor our blood work are increasingly finding that low-carb and Atkins-like diets work. The most health problems I ever experienced were during the years I tried to maintain a low-fat vegetarian diet that was full of whole grains, pasta, rice, breads, and of course fresh and cooked vegetables... and lots of beans and soy protein supplements. Results? I gained 20 pounds of fat, had no energy, had body aches and pains, lost muscle mass, triglycerides went off the scale, libido diminished, and more... When I started eating meat and then went low-carb life suddenly got a lot better. Strangely enough, the lab results improved too. Looks like the NEJM study shows that I'm not so exceptional. Save your evangelizing for those who need a religion. I'll just take the facts (and my direct experience), thank you!

    • Posted By: fifi8989 @ 07/16/2008 8:31:16 PM

      Did you ever consider that maybe you became unhealthy because you were a vegetarian? Never known too many healthy vegetarians, in fact they were always getting sick. So you do need meat to live, but he's not saying stop eating meat, he's saying eat healthy. He's also not telling you to stuff your face full of pasta, and bread. I do believe he said at the end that you should eat low fat AND low carb. So, is eating a lot of carbs good for you? No, but neither is stuffing you're face full of fat.

      • Posted By: stephenprestwood @ 07/17/2008 3:34:38 PM

        Yes, I absolutely think my health problems were related to my vegetarian diet, that was one of the points I was making! And, I wasn't "stuffing my face full of pasta and bread" though your hyperbole is a nice attempt to discredit my scientifically validated experiences. At the time, I was also following what a lot of credentialed "experts" were telling us in the 1990s, namely that fat was bad and any food with fat in it was bad, and if you ate meat, make sure you cut all the fat off and be sure to skin that chicken breast, and hey, if you supplement a vegetarian diet with lots of soy protein you'll be just as healthy as if you actually ate.... well, meat (see the circular logic!). But, it was all baloney!!! (Pardon the pun.) Meat is good for you. Fat is good for you. Vegetables are good for you. Nuts and fruits are good for you. But processed sugars including cane/beet sugar, bread and pasta need to be managed carefully. Not to mention high-fructose corn syrup, which is basically a synthetic toxin that happens to taste sweet. Remember all the so-called "fat-free" foods sold in the supermarket that contained tons of processed sugar, but not a gram of fat. Hah! No wonder everyone eating that crap got as big as a house. All those so-called "experts" should be held partly accountable for the rise in diabetes and our expanding waistlines. People were just following the doctor's orders. But now we know better. And scientific research is finally catching up to what many of us experientially discovered long ago.

  • Posted By: JCG0001 @ 07/17/2008 2:19:47 PM

    I believe one seriously overlooked consideration in the "calories = calories" position that most "learned" researchers embrace is the fact that not all theoretical calories present in food are "burned" or in other words, utilized by the body. Caloric measurements in a lab are based on combustion of the food samples completely, or, are extrapolated from pre-existing data that was originally based upon complete combustion. Also, from an engineering perspective, all fuels burn at different rates. If you place paper into a fire, it flashes, and is consumed completely. A piece of wood may take much longer. Also, if you put the wood in there only for a short period of time, you may only get a very small percent of the theoretical energy. I strongly believe our bodies are like that. Food doesn't remain in the furnace forever, and is moved through pretty quickly to a waste state. The fact that certain foods are more completely converted than others (carbs will logically burn quicker than proteins or fats) in the period of time the food remains in the stomach / intestine should indicate that the "calorie = calorie" statement is factually inaccurate.

    What is needed is a complete re-analysis of how the body processes foods; how fast different macronutrients and other food categories are converted; and what those impacts are on human health. I believe the conventional wisdom (only low fat is healthy) will be show to be incomplete, and therefore, can only lead to further bad choices.

  • Posted By: sorry4U @ 07/17/2008 1:40:14 PM

    I am constantly astonished at the rabidity of Dr. Ornish's defensive posture for HIS diet plan. It's as if anyone who finds anything that doesn't validate exactly what he has said is "seriously flawed". It's fine for him for him to disagree but when he has to utilize deceptive rhetoric to make his points, he's over the line. He KNOWS that it is NOT "physiologically impossible" for someone to consume more calories and lose more weight - all people differ in their ability to absorb and metabolize foods of all kinds (different levels of L-Carnitine, etc.) For all of his discussion about the level of HDL, he KNOWS it's all about the ratio of garbage to garbage trucks that is important and that is what the study talks about. C'mon Dr. Ornish, truth is where you find it, not where it is wished to be.

  • Posted By: zinjboss @ 07/17/2008 1:35:30 PM

    Your comment:
    "that those on the "low-fat" diet consumed 200 fewer calories per day???or 10,000 fewer calories per year???than those on the Mediterranean diet, yet people lost more weight on the Mediterranean diet. That's physiologically impossible." is goes to core of your opinions - a calorie is a calorie "is not how it works" - it never has. You cite "physiologically impossible" but you clearly do not understand fat metabolism as its effected by different "calories." Your comment is disturbing.

  • Posted By: zinjboss @ 07/17/2008 1:32:33 PM

    Dear Dr Ornish:

    Your comment:
    "that those on the "low-fat" diet consumed 200 fewer calories per day???or 10,000 fewer calories per year???than those on the Mediterranean diet, yet people lost more weight on the Mediterranean diet. That's physiologically impossible." is nothing short of amazing. While you cite "physiological impossible" you clearly do not understand fat metabolism. A calorie is a calorie continues to dominate your approach - and its wrong.

  • Posted By: DesertPete9 @ 07/17/2008 1:26:43 PM

    200 calories a day fewer is 73,000 (200x365), not 10,000. This throws your credibility into considerable question.

  • Posted By: kmeister @ 07/17/2008 11:20:10 AM

    Re: Robert Atkins

    According to various sources, he weighed 196 lbs. (not 187) at the time of his final hospital admission, and 255 at death (due to fluid accumulation from organ failure, not fluid he "received intravenously"). Sources say that he was 6 feet tall or a little less.

    Some people here claim to have seen the autopsy report, but according to various sources, an autopsy wasn't performed, apparently due to family objections.

    It's interesting to read comments such as "people who saw him could tell you he was in prime shape," as if that means he didn't have coronary artery disease.

  • Posted By: dietuniversal @ 07/17/2008 10:42:46 AM


    Are you fed up with modern diet miracles? Do you want do try something permanent? Send me an email and I???ll send you my free diet book.

    robert@dietuniversal.com

  • Posted By: dietuniversal @ 07/17/2008 10:42:28 AM


    Are you fed up with modern diet miracles? Do you want do try something permanent? Send me an email and I???ll send you my free diet book.

    robert@dietuniversal.com

  • Posted By: glmory @ 07/16/2008 11:52:43 PM

    If you cut out processed grains like white flour, and white rice, and cut out all sweeteners like sugar, and aspartame from your diet you will be more healthy. It will be true if you follow a high fat mostly meat diet like the Masai, or Inuit, or a vegetarian diet like the Indians.

    • Posted By: ksfc @ 07/17/2008 12:55:25 AM

      If the Inuit and Masai are so healthy, why is their life expectancy around 50 (after adjusting for infant mortality)? Why do the Inuit have the highest rate of osteoporosis in the world? Why do both groups have serious heart disease and atherosclerosis, despite being very physically active, if they're so healthy?

      • Posted By: gaushihtzu @ 07/17/2008 8:15:26 AM

        If I lived off of whale blubber in the arctic I wouldn't want to live past 50.
        According to wikipedia their diet includes: Grasses, tubers, roots, stems, berries, and seaweed. If they eliminate tubers and some roots, they would certainly not have any cholesterol problems. The death rate was due to "During the 19th century, the Western Arctic suffered a population decline of close to 90% of their population resulting from foreign diseases including tuberculosis, measles, influenza, and smallpox. Autopsies near Greenland reveal that, more commonly pneumonia, kidney diseases, trichinosis, malnutrition, and degenerative disorders may have contributed to mass deaths among different Inuit tribes." European American's moving into the area's brought about their common diseases which were mostly unknown the the Inuit. Also, the old people of the Inuit, many into their 80's, are considered the keepers of the knowledge. Their overall life expectancy did decline in the later 1900's due to alcohol and drugs brought by non natives. But still life expectancy is still increasining overall.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse