Atkins Diet is dangerous pseudo-science

[ciphergoth]

The 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 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.

Comments

[babysimon]

cf. Smoking

?????

We were talking about the MRC. Where do they (or any other government body) recommend smoking?

[vampwillow]

If the government wanted to stop people smoking it could do many things that would be *effective* instead of placing a few words on the side of a packet of fags.

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.

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

I think she was referring to the tax on it and suggesting that govts won't push too hard to reduce the numbers of smokers (and petrol used) as then they'd lose revenue.

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.

[vampwillow]

I can't think of any effective ways to reduce smoking which haven't been tried

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.

[kitty-goth.livejournal.com]

What on God's Clean Earth makes you think that this type of Prohibition would help reduce smoking?

It's certainly worked for illegal drugs, hasn't it. No-one takes those at all these days, do they?

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

I disagree that that would be effective.

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?

[vampwillow]

I was trying to consider options that have the *possibility* of being effective. In (a) I'd agree that there would be a probability of illegal fags (a probability trying to approach unity, I would think) and it would depend upon the level of action taken to prevent such import and distribution channels as may start (continue) to operate.

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.