Atkins Diet is dangerous pseudo-science
Aug. 13th, 2003 11:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciphergothThe Atkins Diet is a pile of dangerous pseudo-science. Not that this comes as a surprise, but here's the word from Dr Susan Jebb of the Medical Research Council's Human Nutrition Research Centre.
(Note: questions about TrustFlow here will be deleted, post them in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
trustmetrics.)
Update: Post made friends-only. Thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
babysimon for pointing out that vampwillow had invited people in atkins_uk to join the thread, resulting in some incredibly lunatic contributions. Update: Public again.
(Note: questions about TrustFlow here will be deleted, post them in
trustmetrics.)Update: Post made friends-only. Thanks to
babysimon for pointing out that vampwillow had invited people in atkins_uk to join the thread, resulting in some incredibly lunatic contributions. Update: Public again.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 06:03 am (UTC)If this is what you believe, then boggle, boggle.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 06:14 am (UTC)Cakes, sweets, take-aways, chicken tikka marsala, etc. all have substantial levels of added sugar and all are VATable products. I don't believe anyone is saying they 'recommend' an unhealthy diet, just that they don't push for a 'healthy' one quite as mich as they possibly could, and in part that *may* be due to the vested interest government's have in preserving income streams.
cf. Smoking, Petrol, etc.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 06:17 am (UTC)?????
We were talking about the MRC. Where do they (or any other government body) recommend smoking?
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 06:21 am (UTC)Governments make a fortune on taxing smoking but recognise that it is a golden egg that could be killed if they actually set out to reduce deaths from smoking and related illnesses. Governments *like* smokers because they make money for the treasury and die young, making them money at one end and saving it at the other. If they banned smoking entirely they would take an emormous 'hit' financially that would have to raise general taxation (bad thing!)
To not say something is wrong in many ways condones it.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 06:25 am (UTC)While I'm as cynical as the next person, I can't think of any effective ways to reduce smoking which haven't been tried, apart from increasing the minimum age to 18.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 06:36 am (UTC)making tobacco a restricted (class C) drug along the lines of cannabis which is, according to some research anyway, a less harmful drug? Banning its importation in any form and making possession punishable in some way.
It may not work long-term (cf prohibition in the USA) but it would certainly reduce intake levels and thus raise the herd level of health generally.
It would, of course, cost money to put such aprogram in place and would remove a *very* sunstantial tax take, as well as lose votes in the short term, thus something no government is, sadly, likely to do in this country.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 06:54 am (UTC)It's certainly worked for illegal drugs, hasn't it. No-one takes those at all these days, do they?
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 12:21 pm (UTC)a) I don't think it *would* reduce intake levels, judging by the ease with which you can get knock-off fags and also cannabis. If you banned cigarettes, you'd just get 1000x as many blokes in the pub with knock-off fags.
b)Getting fags mixed up with organised crime - nasty one, would get a lot more people involved in crime and dealing with criminals, which has its own health risks (stress etc)
c)the right to choose: why shouldn't consenting adults have the right to smoke, knowing the dangers? I thought Liberal Democrats were for individual liberty?
[now if you'd said 'ban smoking in public', I'd have agreed with you and merely commented that that's quite likely in the next few years]
d)If it doesn't work long term, there's not much smegging point, is there?
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 02:18 pm (UTC)in (b) I'd very much agree with you, and a reason why if this approach were to be taken it would have to be very carefully controlled. Cigarettes only on prescription anyone?
(c) is an absolute agreement however, well, almost. The LDs at their Spring Conference in Manchester last year took a decision that they support reworking the legal implications of cannabis possession by individuals and, so long as it does not impose on any other non-consenting person I firmly believe every person around (over the age of majority - whatever that may be as appropriate) should have the freedom to do what they want within ethical limits. Smoking in public is becoming less acceptable (and illegal) in many places around the world, and iirc in some locations (CA?) even prohibited in private / personal residences. I think this might be going too far, although I can understand the reasoning.
The big issue, aiui, with smoking is the 'get them young' position. Generally, smokers start when they are young - in their teens. People rarely take up cigarettes for the first time if they are much out of their teens. Peer pressure and 'rebellion' are often given as causes for people starting to suck on cancer sticks.
If we could stop the kids (who shouldn't be in the pubs of course) starting to smoke in the first place they would be less likely to start when older and so we *would* cut down the level of smoking-related illness and, if this could be maintained for a period, then the 'introduction to smoking' youngsters get from slightly older kids would (or could) stop and we would have a healthier population and no smoking-at-one-remove by the rest of us.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 06:39 am (UTC)Smoking is something of a special case, in that it's a win-win situation--not only do smokers bring in valuable tax revenue, they also die much earlier, cutting down on lifetime healthcare costs. (Well, I suppose I should say that it's win-win for everyone except the smoker...)
If anything, the government has a vested financial interest in promoting the Atkins diet. Pricey special foods = more tax revenue, people killing themselves off with a nice, sudden heart attack = less NHS cost.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 06:44 am (UTC)Actually, the really interesting thing about 'doing' lo-carb is that I'm not buying ANY special pricey foods. In fact I'm buying no processed foods whatsoever.
What I *am* buying is plenty of fresh salad and above-ground vegetables, plenty of fresh meat and fish and cheese plus 100g packets of brazil and macadamia nuts (my replacements for sweets).
Fresh quality stuff instead of processed sugar-laden stuff.
Good for me, probably good for the farmers, really bad for the food processors!
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 06:55 am (UTC)How can I say this any more plainly?
Do you think that might be the real issue here? Rather than your avoidance of pasta?
I mean, congratulations on vastly improving your diet (really!), but why do you have to believe in magic to do so?
Maybe I should write a best selling book: "The Food Pyramid Diet". All I have to do is find a way to obfuscate generally accepted practice, and I'll become rich.
Hmmm... weight gain is caused by evil wavelengths. Eat plenty of food reflecting light at 510nm. Wavelengths over 600nm should be avoided.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 07:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 04:37 pm (UTC)I said "Obesity leads to serious long-term illness such as diabetes". It was an example. I mentioned some other examples too.