# Atkins Was Obese, Had Heart Disease



## brodus (Feb 10, 2004)

Just so you know what's in store for you if you subscribe to the "Atkins for Life" thing.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040210/ap_on_he_me/atkins_medical_report_3


----------



## Stickboy (Feb 10, 2004)

Actually, the report I saw said his diet was not responsible for his condition when he died, according to his doctor anyway.


----------



## brodus (Feb 10, 2004)

Right, but independant review says otherwise.  That's why it's a news story of significance.  I'm sure the doctors who percribed Rush Limbaugh's pain killers would say he had real "pain management" issues.

Also, his wife didn't permit an autopsy--so the world will never know how clogged his pipes were.   It also is a good way to secure the revenue stream.

And he did have a heart attack that he tried to cover up as something else.

It's no coincidence that his health condidtions were exactly what science would predict for someone with the risk factors associated with his diet and lack of real exercise. 

The mayor of New York recently had to "take back" an off-mic comment about Atkins being fat.  

Responsible doctors and legitimately trained physicians would never perscribe such a diet, especially for the long-term.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 10, 2004)

There are no long term data on what Atkin's does.  No studies were ever carried out beyond six months.  So we have no long term data on Atkin's unlike other diets such as the American heart Association diet etc.  

People on Atkin's do lose weight faster (initial fluid loss mostly) and surprisingly, had good cholesterol (lower ldl and high hdl) after a 6 mos study in two studies http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Living/atkins_diet_danger_031120.html

 However, does this translate to less heart attacks or strokes later is questionable. 

 In addition, there is a higher rate of kidney stones, gall stones and gout in those who pursue this diet and are predisposed. 

 In Atkin's defense....he was ahead of his time in advocating how we look at our carbohydrate portion.  His diet was extreme but the new food pyramid has now incorporated a higher portion of protien than it did previously.  In addition, it is a great diet to reduce seizures in those refractory to seizure medicines 


Atkins Diet May Help Prevent Epileptic Seizures in Difficult-to-Treat Patients





> Dec. 10, 2003 (Boston) ??? Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center in Baltimore, Maryland, are experimenting with the Atkins diet as a possible regimen to prevent epileptic seizures in patients refractory to other therapeutic regimens.
> 
> Pediatric neurologist Eric H. Kossoff, MD, told Medscape he got the idea from parents who would say, "Like the Atkins diet?" when he told them he wanted to put their children on the ketogenic diet, a more rigorous high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet used as anticonvulsant therapy for intractable patients.
> 
> ...




In addition, Dr. Atkin's did have evidence of viral cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure  according to the inner circles of doctors . (Many of whom hate Atkin's out of either jealousy or that he was so successful selling an idea that had not been tested in clinical trials).


----------



## ghost (Feb 10, 2004)

Yes he did have a heart attack. From what exactly, who knows. I don't knock his diet because I know several people who have lost a lot of weight. I tried it and it just was not for me. In the gym, my energy dropped and had little endurance. Then I would feel sluggish for the rest of the day. I switched to eating clean 5-6 times a day (including whey protein shakes) and feel much better. Feels like the weight is coming off (slowly ) but muscle gains have been favorable.


----------



## brodus (Feb 10, 2004)

An overwheliming amount of research shows that consuming high levels of red meats, sat. fat, and cholesterol has adverse health effects:



> Research has shown consuming high levels of saturated fat, as many Atkins dieters do, may have adverse health consequences.
> 
> Adds Anderson, who discourages his patients from the Atkins diet, "Using the Atkins guidelines long-term will raise cholesterol by 28 percent, whereas a low-fat diet will lower cholesterol by 20 percent."




Also, Atkins doesn't work in the long-term.  This is very recent:



> The new research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, compares the weight loss of severely obese individuals eating according to Atkins with those eating according to a conventional low-fat, low-calorie nutrition plan.
> 
> The results? While the Atkins dieters slimmed down significantly more than the traditional dieters, there was no weight difference between the groups after one year



Is giving people hardened arteries and health problems "okay" in the name of "raising carb consicousness?" That's the worst line of reasoning I've ever heard.  That's like saying RJ Reynolds should be thanked for raising "celan air consicousness."

I find it funny that anyone who criticizes Atkins is "jealous," and that a concern for the well-being of others is never identified as a the prime motivator.

There are tons of ways to lose weight quickly that have adverse health effects.  And yes, Atkins is one of them.

I'm only upset b/c people want an easy, no-sweat way to look like fitness models, and there is no other way to do it and be healthy than to push your metabolism through the roof with exercise.  Just look at Atkins himself.

If Atkins is so wonderful, why don't competitive athletes use it?  I ate everything in sight and as many carbs as I could, and through TRAINING, not some cook  diet, ran a 1:45 half mile in college.  I was sub 5% bodyfat for years.  Anyone else could do the same thing, and here's the simple perscription--workout two hours a day.  Hard work produces results--Atkins produces revenue for health food companies and heart attacks.

I also worked with nutrionists on the President's Council of Fitness, including Dr. Charles Kuntzlman who designed the health curriculum for the State of Michigan, and the overwhelming consensus was that Atkins diet is bad news.

I propose an alternatie explanation--there are more people standing to gain $ by promoting/not slamming Atkins now (including DOCTORS, food , grocery stores, media outlets, etc.), and hence they shy away from critical analysis.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 10, 2004)

Most doctors hate Atkins for the very reason we all have specified which is that no long term studies have been done despite quick results. And may I stress that   noone, especially  doctors, make any profit from advocating atkins, only the Atkin's institute.  But the research is still out and conflicting studies depend on the patient population studied. For those with syndrome X or type II diabetes, an Atkin's like diet may be good :



> In a head-to-head comparison between two popular and distinctly different eating plans, the Atkins diet trimmed significantly more pounds and body fat in obese but otherwise healthy women than a traditional low-fat diet, according to a report released last week at the annual meeting of the American Dietetics Association.
> 
> The study enrolled 53 women, aged 31 to 59, for six months. Half followed a low-fat approach, eating 30 percent of calories from fat. The other half ate according to the very-low-carbohydrate diet popularized by physican Robert Atkins.
> 
> ...



I personally like the Zone diet and the South beach diet.  

In the long run, the Atkin's diet incorporates foods that are known cancer risks (especially colon cancer which is associated with high fat foods and meat) so for this reason, it should not be advocated long term even if the cardiac studies may surprise us.


----------



## derekisdman (Feb 10, 2004)

Don't try to argue with bandaid woman, you won't win.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 10, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by derekisdman *_
> Don't try to argue with bandaid woman, you won't win.




I didn't think we were arguing,    and Brodus brings up great points that make most in the medical community skeptical of the Atkins, including myself.


----------



## brodus (Feb 10, 2004)

It is not true to imply that the Atkins Institute is the sole beneficiary and that doctors don't stand to gain anything from endorsements.  There are plenty of crooked docs who will support any product or endorse any supplement available.    Many of theses people are piggybacking the Atkins craze to get their free lunch ticket.

An entire BRAND CULTURE has developed around Atkins, and people are making money hand over fist.  It goes both ways.  Just look at all of atkins and "low-carb" products on the market.  Hell, they've even inked a deal with Subway.  Everywhere I look I see the Atkins logo.  That means $, $, $.  Many, many people are banking on this--it extends far beyond the Atkins Institute.  Even Beer companies--they hope you're too dumb to know that light beers already are low-carb, and that beer isn't exactly diet-friendly.

This is what I refer to when I say that there are a ton of people who stand to gain a lot by down-playing the risks of Atkins.

Do you know why they call it "The Atkins Institute?" It's because no real health insitute will support their claims, nor will any major University with a background in exercise physiology and nutrition.

I just wonder how many Olympic athletes eat Atkins or any other fad diet....I can confidently say probably NONE.  I have worked out with a man who  held the world record for the fastest mile (Jim Ryan--he went sub-4:00 in HIGH SCHOOL).  I also worked with a true fitness and nutrition expert who was on the President's Council of Fitness and close friends with Arnold Shw. (Dr. Charles Kuntzleman http://www.kines.umich.edu/facstaff/kuntzleman.htm).  From my experience, people in peak physical condition worry about training first and carb-counting last, if at all.  Ketosis is not an athlete's friend.

I appreceiate that people have experienced weight loss and there are some who enjoy Atkins.  I just get upset because people think they're going to look ripped and buff just by replacing bread with steak, and that's impossible and unhealthy.  I thought this was common knowledge.


----------



## brodus (Feb 10, 2004)

Yes, we're not arguing!  I love a good debate.

I don't want to come off sounding angry!

I am just very skeptical of things, especially when I see the logo EVERYWHERE! It drives me nuts.


----------



## derekisdman (Feb 10, 2004)

I know I know


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 10, 2004)

I do know long distance athletes do not fare too well on the atkins. 

T he ones who really do best are the most sedate ones who rarely get much excercise in.  

However, some of them are smart enough to use the Atkins as a jump start to lose 20 pounds so their athritic joints can handle the load of weight bearing exercises and they go to a more modified version (more like the zone) and start increasing the excercise workouts.  I've seen patients use this in a temporary fashion and it has worked well for them.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2004)

Anyway, I will pick apart your statement for you.  This si in no way an attack, just letting you know the facts.




> _*Originally posted by brodus *_
> An overwheliming amount of research shows that consuming high levels of red meats, sat. fat, and cholesterol has adverse health effects:
> 
> *Their methodology is flawed...*
> ...



The only people that stand to make $ from this diet is the Atkins folks.  I can make a Low carb bar and call it just that, a low carb bar.  Atkins does not hold any type of patent on the term "low carb", but he does on his little symbol that pops up everywhere.  If Subway decides they want their food to carry that symbol, that is their choice.

By the way, I don't follow an Atkins diet and never will.  I just think the folks that are slamming it are either misinformed or backstepping  for decades of poor research.  It has it's merits and will continue to evolve.


----------



## ShaqFu (Feb 10, 2004)

*The PCRM that published that Report is fake*

Hey guys.. I haven't read through all the arguments in your debate, but in case you haven't got to it I thought I'd bring this to your attention:
PCRM Just A Front 

It turns out the PCRM (Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine) who published this original report  about Atkins being obese is a fake organization. It's just a front for the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). 

It's all a part of their campaign to turn Americans into Vegetarians.

Atkins went into hospital at 180-190 pounds (he was over 6 feet tall) but ballooned to the 258 while in a coma before he died.


----------



## Stickboy (Feb 10, 2004)

I wasn't try to say people should use the Atkins Diet ( I don't, and won't, but I have no need for a diet designed to lose weight) in my original post.  

Corri said it much better than I ever could.

PETA.  Doesn't surprise me at all, if true.  These people would kill off the human population to save a bird.


----------



## brodus (Feb 10, 2004)

bandaidwoman--you're totally right, I think the rapid loss of Atkins would be great for the sedentary obese in reducing muscle/joint strain and accelerating their return to exercise.  I hadn't really thought about that.  I initially thought this discussion was more geared to bodybuilders or people on track for competetive athletics (considering the site), but that was short-sighted of me.   I'm more concerned about the effects on blood glycogen, the LBM loss due to ketosis, and long-term health effects.


Well, Corri, belief is a choice, and if you get your news from http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ instead of peer-reviewed sources that employ top candidates from major journalism schools you are certainly free to do so.  

That "article" you linked to is a press release written by the restaurant and beef industry.  

In case you didn't know, so-called "Center for Consumer Freedom" is funded by restaurants and food companies and is less than six-month old (legally), so I would hardly call their reporting non-biased.  They also think that our country is gripped by "fat hysteria," and don't really understand the concept of public interest.  They're the same people who favor sticking cows full of steroids prior to slaughter to get more money at market, so I don't rate their ethics very high.

And I don't have the time to do dissect Dale's response to my arguments--but I do appreciate the time he took to formulate semi-cogent rebuttals.

I'll just say three things: 

1. The President's Council on Fitness, led for a time by Arnold Shw., did a lot more to raise exercise consciousness and long-term healthy living for the public at no cost than the for-profit Atkins empire has done.  But that's not the rub for me--people who truly want to help humanity don't charge assloads of money for their "secrets"--be they religious leaders, whatever--those not driven by profit generally seek to work in the public arena, as their desire is to enlighten humanity vs. make $.  

2.  You are plain wrong to assert that every study that links increased dietary intake of high sat-fat/high cholesterol with increased health risks utilized flawed methodology.  I honestly can't believe you'd think that.  If you had access to a University computer system, you'd quickly realize just how wrong you are.  

3. This is a bodybuuilding website and forum, not an obesity forum.  My analysis of the Atkins diet, then, was well within the threshold of topical reference, and since most all posters here aspire to some higher level of athleticism, my view--that Atkins probably isn't the best choice--is a perfectly valid statement.

Let's do a deal--I'll keep "backstepping" on my "decades old research" that has built countless world-class athletes, and you try pure Atkins for six months and watch what happens to your lean body mass and blood levels.  We both take photos before and after, and get independent third-party verification.  I'm so confident that "old school" training is far superior, that I'd bet just about everything I own on it.  If you're not a strength athlete, then the first person to run a sub 5-minute mile wins.  (I would assert that a six-month pure Atkins diet would prevent virualy anyone from reaching that speed/endurance level).


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 11, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by brodus *_
> 
> And I don't have the time to do dissect Dale's response to my arguments--but I do appreciate the time he took to formulate semi-cogent rebuttals.
> 
> ...



Let us continue this rather great debate.

Edit: The smoking gun has the medical examiner's report of Dr. Atkins online.  The ME report does not state that  Atkins' death was caused by a heart attack, it says he had a history of CV issues.  These issues could have been discovered recently, or they could have been discovered 40 years ago, who knows.


----------



## brodus (Feb 11, 2004)

Hah--the debate continues!  I told myself I would leave it at that, but Dale brings up many good points.

Well, we'll never know the truth about Atkins death b/c his wife suspiciously deined an autopsy and it seems that many groups with an agenda have gotten a hold of this sotry and muddied the water beyond hopes of clarity (to wit: the story has become a touchstone for the fight between the Restaurant and Beef industries and PETA, and I don't trust either group!)



> My initial point was poorly phrased so I will rephrase it.


Yeah, I thought that's what you meant.  True, most of the studies used to link high fat dietary intake to heart disease/health risk factors were not specific to Atkins plans.  And I'm not claiming that there is a 100% scientific causal relationship here.  I would say, though, that through meta-analysis you can establish definite trends towards increased health risk over the long term.

And even when you introduce the dramatic changes brought on by the diet--ketosis, insulin whiplash, and the rest--still, eating bacon, eggs, and steak all day is not healthy.  Okay, you're correct to point out that in a scientific setting, the validity of trying to connect the dots is in question based on the Cartesian principles that form the backbone of modern science (the method of doubt).  But there are plenty of studies that weren't conducted SPECIFICALLY on Atkins, but carefully looked at the effects of a high fat/high chol diet (of which Atkins is a version), and did establish causal links to risk factors over time.  This is enough for physicians and nutritionists to proceed with caution. Similar actions have been taken in regards to Effedra and other substances.  

I just don't get how losing weight quickly allows smart people to fool themselves into thinking they've trumped a natural rule, that eventually, garbage in/garbage out.  

You're a smart person--you know its a bad diet for anyone in athletics, you wouldn't do it, even though you know that substantial long-term studies haven't been done.  Why is this?



> Couldn't agree with you more here. I never said it should be used by athletes, I believe it is contraindicated to athletes. I was merely stating that the diet has it's merits to a greater populatiojn, the obese people of this obese country.



Well, I am an athlete and I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of posters here are too, so this is a rather signiificant distinction when you're evaluating the efficacy of a dieting regime.  It's not really helpful to advocate a diet for the grossly obese on a bodbulding website.  Look at the logo--it is of a lean, ripped athlete, not a blubberous, sedentary lazy ass.

I point to comeptetive athletics as a litmus test for dietary and health regimes b/c at this level, tiny changes in performance are exhibited and felt, and the athlete's body is functioning at top efficiency.  

After all the defense of Atkins, and a supposed disbelief in the side effects and risks, you still won't eat your own medicine.  Your only escape is this:


> I would never do this diet since I am not obese, which is the target population


Is this true though?  It seems to me the "target population" for this marketing engine and pop-culture phenomenon is everyone.  If it's only for the obese, surely the last place you'd expect to find it is on a bodybuilding forum, where people are concerned with attaining goals of sub 5% b.f. 

I don't even need to find studies to site to guarantee that anyone who works out 1 to 2 hours per day as a LIFESTYLE change, not a fad diet, is going to lose weight faster, maintain lean body mass, KEEP the weight off, feel better about themsleves, have elevated seratonin levels, and dramatically reduce their disease risk factors to a level the Atkins can only dream of.  This is what physicians with good conscience should advocate.  Something proven to work for everyone.

The fact that noone here will take my challenge says everything.  If you want to get ripped, win races, or kick a$$ in ANY sport, Atkins is the worst.   

I extend my offer to anyone who thinks they can eat pure Atkins for one month and run a sub-5 minute mile, or consistently rain at a pro level.  I believe this is physiologically impossible.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 11, 2004)

Athletes are about efficiency, people who are trying to lose weight are not.  If you want explosiveness, carbs are the best fuel source so it would hold that one would want them if performing an event that requires explosive behavior such as weight training.  

In regard to your challenge, you are assuming that speed in the mile is the only performance parameter to consider, which is far from correct.  You could measure performance in a million different ways and find pros and cons for both.  I imagine that you chose this event because you are good at it.  Obviously Atkins does not lend itself well to this event with it's lack of carbs.  On the other hand, I think one could perform an endurance event equally as well on Atkins as on a normal carb-heavy diet.  I think a more appropriate challenge would be to have someone eating an Atkins style diet perform a long distance event.  When I did the Anabolic Diet a few years back I got 5 miles in a touch over 30 mins and I imagine I prolly could have kept that pace for about 10 minutes at a weight of 200 lbs.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Feb 11, 2004)

there is nothing suspicious about a person not having an autopsy done on a decedent at all. although having an autopsy done on a live person would be surprising.  If a person dies of a known cause due to non criminal actions or due to an illness for which he received treatment, then no autopsy is required at all. 
for people who see conspiracy all around them, this non-autopsy is a huge issue.  they want it done " for posterity's sake" or to "clear up the murky issues " or whatever.  they quote "public interest" ad naseum.  

if a 30 year old wife of a recently deceased octagenarian decides to forego the autopsy then immediately cremates the body, that is suspicious.   this was not the case.

i dont' recall it ever being said that Atkins would be beneficial for athletes.  Did Atkins himself ever say this or was it ever published that the atkins style diet would be of benefit for sub  4 minute milers or elite athletes.?  i have never had enough interest in this sustained low carb diet business to ever inquire.  
mm


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Feb 11, 2004)

*Re: The PCRM that published that Report is fake*



> _*Originally posted by Corri *_
> Atkins went into hospital at 180-190 pounds (he was over 6 feet tall) but ballooned to the 258 while in a coma before he died.



please provide your reference for this information.  i can't find this fact mentioned anywhere.  every journalist continually mentions 258 pounds which was his weight at time of death, not admittance


----------



## brodus (Feb 11, 2004)

Marcus is right, it's not normal to do an autopsy for someone that dies essentially of natural causes.  It is true, though, that we'll never know what exactly was up with the founder of the lastest anti-fat fads b/c since no autopsy was performed.  Part of me thinks that someone interested in putting rumors to rest with nothing to hide might permit an autopsy, but you're right, that's speculation.



> The importance of complex carbohydrates in the nutrition schedule of a bodybuilder cannot be emphasized often enough.



Someone pinch me--is this a bodybulding site? Or an obesity site? Judging by the name and the logo, it seems to me that athletes would be interested in diets that support athletics.  Why are you advocating a diet that doesn't work well for athletes?  That's really the heart of the issue, no pun intended.

Dale, I picked a mile becuase it's easily measured on a track, which most people have acess to, whereas a 5k road race is more problematic.  And actually, you are wrong, Atkins favors shorter distances, not longer.  The longer you extend the distance, the more important stored glycogen becomes.  That's why marathoners and competitive cyclists carbo-load and mile runners don't really.  That's why they make high-density carbo gels for distance athletes.  And to run fast miles, you need to train at long distances, and there is no way you can sustain interval training at sub-5 minute paces on hamburgers and half and half.  I choose this time b/c I think its the threshold between the top 5% of conditioned runners and the rest of the population.  I'm saying that if you're shooting for the top, Atkins will only hurt you.  

I used running numbers becuase I am familiar with them and I have trained with Olympic athletes, so I am aware of the demands that kind of training puts on your body.

I also trained with college soccer teams, and they carbo-loaded before games, too.  My  brother plays college football, and they have spaghetti dinners before games.  

No matter  the sport, I see very little difference in the importance of carbs to anyone working out for more than 25 minutes.  A bodybuilder on Atkins is going to feel fatigue much quiker than a bodybuiler who is eating right. 

Let's face it--no study or test I think up is going to satisfy your conditions.   I was trying to think of something simple, since proposing a double-blind, controlled unviersity conducted study seems out of my price range.  

Why even waste your time counting carbs when the science behind increased exercise is so strong?  I get angry b/c many, many people are misled into thinking Atkins can make them look like fitness models, and that is utter horse$hit.  Posting pro-Atkins stuff on a Body Building site contributes to this mis-direction, in my opinon.  No one gains huge, wins races, climbs mountains on Atkins. It is only for obese people who can't really exercise to get them to a state where they can exercise and then begin a healthy lifestyle.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 12, 2004)

IMO, bodybuilders are far from athetes.  Do you think Ronnie Coleman could run a sub 5 minute mile?  I would love to see him play a pro sport, I bet he couldn't.  Also, I will prolly catch hell for this, but the percentage of people on this board who I would term BBers is prolly no more than 2%.


http://static.elibrary.com/m/medica...estrimtoomuchfatfromdietslongdistancerunners/

Medical Post : Athletes trim too much fat from diets: long distance runners especially guilty [Peter Horvath study] : 
Albuquerque, N.M. -- Athletes may have trimmed too much fat from their diets for peak performance, New York researchers report. "Many athletes, especially long distance runners , consume insufficient energy for optimal training and performance , believing body weight is more important than maintaining maximal energy stores , " said Dr. Peter Horvath (PhD) , associate professor of nutrition at the State University of New York at Buffalo. "There's a fat phobia out there among athletes." The emphasis on muscle glycogen stores has led athletes to focus on dietary carbohydrates at the expense of triglycerides , Dr. Horvath said. "A low-energy diet with low dietary triglycerides may compromise performance for certain individuals and events." The study involving six male long distance runners aged 18 to 21 was presented at the American College of Nutrition meeting here.


IN regrad to running a marathon vs sprinting.  You would not be able to create energy fast enough to power a sprint in the absence of carbohydrate considering it is highly anaerobic.  If you were running a marathon, you would at least be able complete it with just fat in the diet.

Anyway, about your proposal.  What percentage of the general population can run a sub 5 minute mile?  I am talking people who have absolutely no training to do so?  Now, take that pool of people who do have the training to do so, what do their coaches push in terms of diet?  I would imagine the number of coaches who promote the Atkins diet to be zero.  So how do you know without a shadow of a doubt that it cannot be done?  There is no sample of subjects to compare.  You seem to know alot about research, so you should know that you can't say something cannot happen when there is no pool of people to pick from.  You would need either a child who is on Atkins and trains while doing this diet, or someone who has been training for years to switch over to the Atkins diet.  I would imagine the number of people on this board that could run a sub 5 minute mile to be a handful at best so your best bet on analyzing the Atkins diet would be to get one of them to do it.  The fastest mile I have run is 5:27 and I am not interested in training to reduce that as I have no reason to.


In parting, think about this.  Fifteen years ago, if you asked an expert what the best way to lose fat is, they would tell you that 30-60 mins of slow cardio is the way to go.  The answer today is HIIT, which is 180 degrees from slow, steady cardio.  Research is ever-evolving and I would imagine that within the next 10-15 years, you may just see an Atkins advocate become a sub 5 minute miler.  The diet has not been mainstream for long enough to judge if it is totally inadequate for an athlete.


----------



## Twin Peak (Feb 12, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_
> IMO, bodybuilders are far from athetes.  Do you think Ronnie Coleman could run a sub 5 minute mile?  I would love to see him play a pro sport, I bet he couldn't.  Also, I will prolly catch hell for this, but the percentage of people on this board who I would term BBers is prolly no more than 2%.



I think you are flawed and/or highly limited in your definitions here.

1) Define "athlete".

2) Define "bodybuilder."

Personally, based on my own definitions, I consider myself both.  However, I am not a professional at either.

What does running a sub 5 minute mile have to do with being an athlete?  Hardly appropriate for a definition of the same.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 12, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> I think you are flawed and/or highly limited in your definitions here.
> 
> 1) Define "athlete".
> ...




I am not really defining them, I am looking at them as opposite ends of a spectrum/continuum based solely on DIRECT training purpose.  A pure athlete is someone who trains based solely on performance while a pure BBer is someone who trains purely for aesthetics.  I fall in the middle somewhere as well TP, but more closely to performance.

IMO, running a sub 5 minute mile has absolutely nothing to do with athletic prowess, which was my point.  The original intent by the thread starter was to show that someone doing the ATkins could not be an elite ahlete.  He proposed a contest to see if someone who is doing an Atkins diet run a sub 5 minute mile.  Personally I don't see the relevance.


----------



## brodus (Feb 12, 2004)

Dale,
   Yeah, I agree that there isn't a large enough population size to do a real, honest-to-goodness valid study.  By your own rationale, though, you must understand that the "study" you sited, involving SIX runners, all male, is pretty weak.

   My challenge was really more of a though experiement--I just want posters to concede that  Atkins is for rapid fat loss---the ketosis that it inspires is not good for athletes.  If it was, why do, as you say, probably zero elite trainers use it?  You know why, as well as I do, if you know about what happens physiologically to enable such rapid weight loss.  

    My reason for posting, and why I am still coming back to this thread, (and questions you haven't answered) is that if, as you say, Atkins is targeted toward obese people, why is it all over a bodybuilding board?  And doesn't it bother you that there is so much $ attached to this whole thing?  Although you truly point out that the Atkins Institute doesn't get a paycheck everytime someone say "low carb," it is also true that the low-carb craze has lined the pockets of many, many people who could care less about anyone's long-term health.

   I also agree with your contiuum as it relates to the end goals of training.   And come on, anyone here knows that someone as huge as Ronnie Coleman isn't your first pick for a soccer match or the swim team.  That's not a slam--that's just reality. 

    And I agree that the percentage of athletes online is proabably small.  Most people I train with don't even know what an online forum is!  Any maybe that's how it's supposed to be...maybe I should be working out right now instead of sitting on my ass and posting!!

   Have a good day everyone!


----------



## andyo (Feb 12, 2004)

Yeah, aint that some shit. 


Goes to show you that fad diets are bullshit, as was the low carb craze. 

Watch now, the fast food chains will again be touting the high carb menu, lol


----------



## brodus (Feb 12, 2004)

Andyo, they already are "on board," and sell burgers wrapped in lettuce here in Chicago.

Eating enough of the right carbs is important.  Buying a loaf of carb-crusher bread for $5 and a gallon of $6 low-carb milk is just stupid.

I'm still waiting to see a celebrity athlete endorsement.  Then I will vomit, and eat three baked potatoes.


----------



## HoldDaMayo (Feb 12, 2004)

I'm not a fan of the atkins lifestyle... but i do feel the induction phase can be a great tool for temporary quick weight loss...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 12, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by brodus *_
> Dale,
> Yeah, I agree that there isn't a large enough population size to do a real, honest-to-goodness valid study.  By your own rationale, though, you must understand that the "study" you sited, involving SIX runners, all male, is pretty weak.
> 
> ...



I believe we are in pretty much agreement.


----------



## cjrmack (Feb 19, 2004)

I think there may be a healthy way to approach Atkins but eating "low-carb" burgers from Carl's Jr. and various other "fast-food" low carb meals being pushed at the public is not going to get it done. I think that is the biggest problem. Also beware that my sister and niece have tried Atkins and eventually thier craving for carbs caught up to them. I witnessed them each scarf down just about a whole basket of bread sticks at Olive Garden!


----------



## Eggs (Feb 19, 2004)

Thats one of the worst things about Atkins... weak willed people


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Feb 25, 2004)

i am still waiting for the scoop on how buddy knew that he went into the hospital at 195 pounds or so but ballooned up to 235 or whatever while hospitalized.  


and then there is this: i don't know how they lasted that long on it....


  For years we've been told high fat foods are bad for us. Now it turns out bacon and eggs, minus the toast and hash browns could help us lose weight. 

For thirty years, the diet, made famous by the late Dr. Robert C. Atkins, has been criticized as foolish, and potentially dangerous by the medical establishment. 

Now two studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine say the Atkins diet ??? which limits carbohyrdates but permits unrestricted amounts of protein and fat ??? helps people lose weight faster without raising their cholesterol. 

Compared to a conventional high-carbohydrate, low calorie approach, Atkins dieters lost twice as much weight after three to six months. At one year, there was no difference between the groups but Atkins dieters had a greater increase in good cholesterol and a greater decrease in triglycerides. 

Both studies concluded the diet is safe and effective in the short term. 

"Our initial findings suggest that such diets may not have the adverse effects that were anticipated," said Dr. Gary Foster, lead author of one of the studies and clinical director of the Weight and Eating Disorders Program at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Sixty-three obese men and women who were 44 years old, participated in the study. They were divided in to two groups. 


In three months, those in the Atkins group lost an average of 14.7 pounds compared with 5.8 pounds in the conventional group 
At six months the Atkins group lost an average of 15.2 pounds compared to 6.9 pounds 
At 12 months, the Atkins average loss was 9.5 pounds compared to 5.4 pounds 
The other study, conducted by the Philadelphia Medical Center, reported similar results. 

The studies are making the medical establishment take notice, and rethink its approach to nutrition. 

A long-term study is about to begin, which will look at how a high protein diet affects the heart.


----------

