We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
They are physiologically correct in general, and especially in noting the trivial effect of exercise on fat loss. Exercise is for strength and vitality for white-collar and otherwise sedentary people, but not for fat loss. Lose fat, exercise better, get stronger, feel better, and fight aging.
Medically, each pound of spare adipose tissue over-stresses your heart, and your knees and hips. Not good. Also, strong and thin is good for sex.
If you just don't care, that's fine too. It's a free country. Very few have the self-discipline needed to do hard things persistently and obviously many people do not care very much about how they look or feel.
I have no problem with overweight people. I just assume that other things are more important to them than physical fitness, and they are right about that. It is not for everybody.
When rated by disease statistics, all-plant diets are scientifically shown to be about twice as healthy as any other, with the mixed western diet being worst. Plant diets - which are heavily carbohydrate-loaded - are virtually impossible to gain excess weight by. They restore proper metabolic function; they moderate.
Adkins is a fad. It's also an extreme way to lose weight, putting the system in peril. But hey, they say it's good for sex or something.
A 2003 review of Atkins "theories" in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition concluded: "When properly evaluated, the theories and arguments of popular low carbohydrate diet books... rely on poorly controlled, non-peer-reviewed studies, anecdotes and non-science rhetoric. This review illustrates the complexity of nutrition misinformation perpetrated by some popular press diet books. A closer look at the science behind the claims made for [these books] reveals nothing more than a modern twist on an antique food fad."
The continual denial of the dangers by the people who embrace and promote this ketogenic diet—it’s understandable why—because people are often economically invested with their egos and their food preferences into this diet.
I'm not getting into diet bashing (but apparently I am alone in that).
But I do believe the low-carbohydrate diet is the healthiest if protein to fat ratio is around 20-30/70-80.
The 'problem' with protein diets (and I don't mean Eades Protein Power) is that there is too much emphasis on eating large quantities of 'lean' protein. BD has talked about this a little.
Because I was on a downward slope to Type II DB, I started looking at what was available to help me stay out of the medical industry's dis-assembly lines. Dr. Bernstein's Diabetic Diet book was one of the first I read, and it is excellent. Then came Atkins, and then (in my mind the best written so far) Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories".
I've been 'low-carbing' now for over 20 years, lost the weight I needed to lose, kept it off and my blood sugar is reliably in the 80's. I can even go off the wagon for a day or two - I just don't do it more than once a month or so. Now my glucose levels will rocket up to 125-130 when I goof-off, but dump within an hour or two. Back down to reliable 80's.
Any road, I am sure the New Atkins book is a good one too. The key, for a lot of us with the propensity for Type II diabetes, is to eliminate the sources of starches and sugars in our diets. Cured! ?? Controlled without drugs? Absolutely. ALL prescription drugs are little poisons.
Fair Winds, Dr. Joy. I love seeing your posts.
P.S. I'm female, over 65 and I still lift weights as my primary form of exercise. Basic lifts: deads, squats (no bench) and farmer's walks, plus some froo-froo to make up for no bench ;->.
Only that it's extremely unusual for anyone to be able to increase his exercise enough to result in weight loss without concentrating on his food as well. Among other things, there is an almost universal tendency to ramp up eating to match the increased exercise. Naturally, if you do control food intake, exercise will increase the calorie deficit and assist in losing weight. There are people who can increase exercise, continue to eat intuitively, and not overeat, but they're rare, fortunate creatures. Most of us should play the odds, and that means food control has to figure into the process as well as exercise.