Why are we intentionally, absolutely willingly killing ourselves and our children?

[Hobbit]

..except Atkins is a fantastic diet, when adopted as a lifestyle change. (shrug). Not everyone can exercize.

As a lifestyle change, it's even worse, as it fundamentally alters your body chemistry. It may seem great in the short term, but eventually, it will come back to bite you. In fact, Dr. Atkins, on his death bed, retained so much water that his weight bloated by about 50-70 pounds, and many physicians have attributed that to his protien and fat heavy diet.

 

[Said1]

As a lifestyle change, it's even worse, as it fundamentally alters your body chemistry. It may seem great in the short term, but eventually, it will come back to bite you. In fact, Dr. Atkins, on his death bed, retained so much water that his weight bloated by about 50-70 pounds, and many physicians have attributed that to his protien and fat heavy diet.

What type of condition caused his death. Heart attack?

 

[dmp]

As a lifestyle change, it's even worse, as it fundamentally alters your body chemistry. It may seem great in the short term, but eventually, it will come back to bite you. In fact, Dr. Atkins, on his death bed, retained so much water that his weight bloated by about 50-70 pounds, and many physicians have attributed that to his protien and fat heavy diet.

Except as a lifestyle change the Atkins Diet is a fantastic way to increase over-all health, AND quality of life. Your account about the events around his death are inaccurate. He died from complications relating to a fall.

Robert Atkins weighed less than 200 pounds at the time of his accident, claiming "During his coma, as he deteriorated and his major organs failed, fluid retention and bloating dramatically distorted his body and left him at 258 pounds at the time of his death, a documented weight gain of over 60 pounds."

The 50-70lbs is a coma/organ failure/fluid thing...NOT a diet thing.

 

[Hobbit]

Except as a lifestyle change the Atkins Diet is a fantastic way to increase over-all health, AND quality of life. Your account about the events around his death are inaccurate. He died from complications relating to a fall.

Falls don't cause water retention. I remember this story originally reported as Atkins dieing overweight, but that it was later revealed to be water retention. Every physician I talked to said it was probably due to the high amount of protein in his diet and that when the fall put him in critical condition, this problem became evident.

With the popularity of the Atkins diet, I did research to see if maybe I was just crazy for calling it a bad idea or not. However, nearly every dietician, physician, chemistry professor, biology professor, and everyone else whose credentials I knew and thought was qualified said it was a really bad idea. Let me give you a couple of choice quotes:

"God wasn't stupid when he designed us, and this diet redesigns part of the system, supposedly to be 'better.' However, by God or evolution, our bodies are designed to last, and changing the design can't be good."

"Few people think of other side effects. Most 'low-carb' foods also contain high amounts of fats, salt, protien, and other nutrients that should be in, but not dominant in, our diet. It's unhealthy."

"Carbs provide our primary energy source. Replacing that energy source causes the body to work much harder than it should, and while it may cause a drop in weight, you'll pay for it later."

When I swam, I had a high carb, high calorie diet in order to keep me going. When I stopped, I cut calories on the carb end, since I wasn't as active, but I kept excercising. This kept me down to a weight that's quite low and fit for my height. Atkins dieters are looking for a quick way out, and it hardly ever works. I've seen dozens of friends try it, and only two of them lost weight. Of those who lost weight, one switched over to a more normal diet afterwords due to the warnings she had heard about the chemistry change. The other one lost a lot of energy and slept a lot. Last I saw, he was starting to put the weight back on since he wouldn't force himself to excercise.

Let's face it, the Atkins diet is just another trendy, fashion diet that will die out like all those who came before it. The only good way to lose weight is to change the calorie in/calorie out ratio.

 

[dmp]

Falls don't cause water retention. I remember this story originally reported as Atkins dieing overweight, but that it was later revealed to be water retention. Every physician I talked to said it was probably due to the high amount of protein in his diet and that when the fall put him in critical condition, this problem became evident.

You act like he ate 4lbs of bacon, 20lbs of Beef a day?

With the popularity of the Atkins diet, I did research to see if maybe I was just crazy for calling it a bad idea or not. However, nearly every dietician, physician, chemistry professor, biology professor, and everyone else whose credentials I knew and thought was qualified said it was a really bad idea. Let me give you a couple of choice quotes:

...nobody likes to admit they were wrong. Look what the USRDA has done for us? Nothing. Oh yeah - we're fatter than ever.

"Few people think of other side effects. Most 'low-carb' foods also contain high amounts of fats, salt, protien, and other nutrients that should be in, but not dominant in, our diet. It's unhealthy."

...because somebody says so.

"Carbs provide our primary energy source. Replacing that energy source causes the body to work much harder than it should, and while it may cause a drop in weight, you'll pay for it later."

...except most people don't have the physical activity to use the carbs from 4 pieces of bread per day.

When I swam, I had a high carb, high calorie diet in order to keep me going. When I stopped, I cut calories on the carb end, since I wasn't as active, but I kept excercising.

My Emphasis - you were doing something very aerobic. No worries. Make sense. However, MOST people do not. For those who can't or won't exercise, Atkins Diet does a fantastic job of improving their health.

Atkins dieters are looking for a quick way out, and it hardly ever works.

ANY dieter is looking for a quick way out which hardly ever works. As I qualified "Atkins as a lifestyle-change DOES work, and work well."

I've seen dozens of friends try it, and only two of them lost weight. Of those who lost weight, one switched over to a more normal diet afterwords due to the warnings she had heard about the chemistry change. The other one lost a lot of energy and slept a lot. Last I saw, he was starting to put the weight back on since he wouldn't force himself to excercise.

I've met no people who put weight back on -except when they went back to their previous eating habbits. For them, ANY diet would have done the same. The key is to stop going on Diets - one needs to adjust their eating hobbits - er...Habbits.

Let's face it, the Atkins diet is just another trendy, fashion diet that will die out like all those who came before it. The only good way to lose weight is to change the calorie in/calorie out ratio.

Let's face it, The Atkins Diet works. It works when people stick to eating discipline and can be a GREAT tool to improve not only our lifespans, but our quality of life.

If you've never had to struggle with weight, maybe you won't be able to understand what a godsend a plan like Atkins gave can be to people.

 

[opewon]

Can we cut the crap here?...If you moderate your lifestyle you stand to live a long and happy life. Eat meat, eat your veggies, stay active and take vitamins. If you smoke heavy, drink heavy don't exercise then you are bound to have health problems. Is this a no brainer or is this just me?

 

[Hobbit]

I'm telling you, those who made the Atkins plan work didn't do it through just reducing carbs, but by reducing total calorie intake, and maybe excercising for once, and those people would probably be better off with a more standard diet.

Now, as for the USRDA, that's nother example of the cookie cutter, one size fits all mentality of the government. Different people have different nutritional needs. Besides, nobody ever actually uses it, and what good is the USRDA when Total keeps advertising that you can get your whole RDA of a bunch of stuff in one meal.

Not having time to excercise is an excuse. I do calesthenics while I'm watching TV, and I KNOW that if the average America spent even half their TV time on a treadmill...still in front of the TV...we wouldn't have quite the obesity problem as now.

 

[dmp]

I'm telling you, those who made the Atkins plan work didn't do it through just reducing carbs, but by reducing total calorie intake, and maybe excercising for once, and those people would probably be better off with a more standard diet.

Nobody can do atkins and eat till they're stuffed. Research the diet some.

Besides, nobody ever actually uses it, and what good is the USRDA when Total keeps advertising that you can get your whole RDA of a bunch of stuff in one meal.

Speculation.

Not having time to excercise is an excuse. I do calesthenics while I'm watching TV, and I KNOW that if the average America spent even half their TV time on a treadmill...still in front of the TV...we wouldn't have quite the obesity problem as now.

I'm not talking of ppl who don't 'find the time' I'm talking of people who can't. Regardless of the reason, most people don't excercize. Atkins works for those people.

 

[Mariner]

I care so much about how people treat their bodies? Because

1. I'm a doctor, so it's my business, and

2. I'm a taxpayer, paying an exorbitant sum in taxes to cover Medicare, a huge chunk of which goes to cover the bills for people with preventable conditions who didn't take care of themselves.

Mariner.

 

[MtnBiker]

2. I'm a taxpayer, paying an exorbitant sum in taxes to cover Medicare, a huge chunk of which goes to cover the bills for people with preventable conditions who didn't take care of themselves.

Should those people be accountable for their own actions and decisions?

And if they where would a percentage of them perhaps be more motivated to take care of themselves?

 

[Mariner]

smaller ways, people should be financially accountable for bad decisions. For example, it makes sense to charge smokers more for their health insurance, since they raise the cost for all of us. I'd also be in favor of tax breaks for those walking or using public transportation rather than driving to work.

In bigger ways, though, it just doesn't work. Spend some time in hospitals, and you'll see the level of resignation and self-contempt people have about their health and their bodies. Massive public health efforts have caused some people--primarily those in the higher socioeconomic class--to alter their eating and exercise habits, but most Americans go forward with very little idea of what they're in for. Especially, people have no idea just how crummy the last 6 months of life (when fully half our health care expenditures occur) can be, hospitalized or in an ICU.

It is a strange situation, where Americans want to be free to live as they please, but simultaneously expect a safety net to catch them when the inevitable--diabetes, a heart attack, a stroke, or a bad fall--strikes. What would you do? Fine people who don't take enough calcium and exercise for 40 years to prevent the fall that ends up costing us a half-million dollars in care? Place a surcharge on Big Macs to help fund angioplasties?

If you have any ideas, tell them to Dmp, since he is obviously planning to depend on the rest of us one day if he needs nursing home care due to an illness which might have been prevented by taking care of his health better now.

Basically, any effort to withdraw Medicare from people who haven't taken care of themselves will lead to horror stories of people dying of gangrene on the streets. It won't happen.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It is a strange situation, where Americans want to be free to live as they please, but simultaneously expect a safety net to catch them when the inevitable--diabetes, a heart attack, a stroke, or a bad fall--strikes. What would you do? Fine people who don't take enough calcium and exercise for 40 years to prevent the fall that ends up costing us a half-million dollars in care? Place a surcharge on Big Macs to help fund angioplasties?

.

You see why your socialist crap will never work? You're finally starting to understand people. The road you're starting to go down is the road of making the irresponsible more responsible for their own bad choices. If that's what your gonna do, why have a socialist system? Keep it private, let the consequences be the consequences. Reality is funny that way.

 

[Mariner]

not in favor of "cradle to grave" socialism a la Germany or France. If I was, I'd go live there. I like the American spirit of self-reliance.

I think that in a complex society, people need significant support from institutions in order to function at their best, e.g. public schooling, college loans, vocational training, unemployment insurance, work safety regulations, regulations that keep companies fair and prevent monopolies, a minimum wage, etc.

This list of items, though long, is finite. I agree with conserviatives that there's a point at which a safety net turns into an invitation to dependency or laziness. For example, I supported Clinton's welfare reform, and the addition of work requirements to welfare for those who can work.

Another example: as you know, I'm deaf and work with deaf people. In the current set-up, deaf people are automatically eligible for SSDI. So many perfectly healthy deaf people graduate from high school and head for the SS office rather than the college admissions office.

I think deaf people without additional disabilities should not be eligible for SSDI, and think the whole Deaf Community would benefit if this option were ended.

In other words, I'm not a "socialist." But I do believe that many elements of the social safety net are now too frayed. In particular, social service agencies are understaffed to prevent child abuse and neglect, preventive medical care is not adequately available for children or adults (resulting in far higher costs when illnesses become more severe and bring people to the ER--which we all pay), and health, safety, and environmental protections are being enforced in a lax manner under the current business-friendly administration.

I'm a capitalist--that's the engine of our wealth. I just believe the engine needs some steering too. If left to run on its own, it creates things like robber barons, strip mines, superfund sites, sweatshops, child pornography, and monopolies--things most people would agree are not good.

Mariner.

 

[archangel]

smaller ways, people should be financially accountable for bad decisions. For example, it makes sense to charge smokers more for their health insurance, since they raise the cost for all of us. I'd also be in favor of tax breaks for those walking or using public transportation rather than driving to work.

In bigger ways, though, it just doesn't work. Spend some time in hospitals, and you'll see the level of resignation and self-contempt people have about their health and their bodies. Massive public health efforts have caused some people--primarily those in the higher socioeconomic class--to alter their eating and exercise habits, but most Americans go forward with very little idea of what they're in for. Especially, people have no idea just how crummy the last 6 months of life (when fully half our health care expenditures occur) can be, hospitalized or in an ICU.

It is a strange situation, where Americans want to be free to live as they please, but simultaneously expect a safety net to catch them when the inevitable--diabetes, a heart attack, a stroke, or a bad fall--strikes. What would you do? Fine people who don't take enough calcium and exercise for 40 years to prevent the fall that ends up costing us a half-million dollars in care? Place a surcharge on Big Macs to help fund angioplasties?

If you have any ideas, tell them to Dmp, since he is obviously planning to depend on the rest of us one day if he needs nursing home care due to an illness which might have been prevented by taking care of his health better now.

Basically, any effort to withdraw Medicare from people who haven't taken care of themselves will lead to horror stories of people dying of gangrene on the streets. It won't happen.

Mariner.

you being a MD and all...DNA ring a bell?..George Burns for example lived a full life..some 99 years...smoked cigars and did the martini route...so what are you saying professor..or Dr or MD or whatever...life is not a generalization...too each his or hers own...a crap shoot too be more exact...prove me wrong?

 

[Mariner]

read my post #17 above, you'll see that I wrote:

"Yes, we all die in the end, and anything you do to improve your health confers only a statistical benefit..."

Statistical benefit--in other words, you improve your odds. But you can do so considerably. My family, for example, has a history of early heart disease. By eating a vegetarian diet, I reduce my cholesterol and raise my HDL to a point that my risk of heart disease is reduced by a third. By exercising regularly, I reduce it another third. By drinking a glass of red wine every night, another third. I could drop dead of a heart attack tomorrow (at 42), but statistics say that these actions have considerably improved my chances of outliving my dad. Vice versa, if I ate McDonalds every day, never exercised, and smoked, chances are I'd have a heart attack sooner than he did.

Does that make sense?

Mariner.