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

[tempaccount99]

i'm with you here.

the comment above about it being more of a religion than a diet also rings true, given the tone of some of the replies.

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

no its you who have the religious fervour of your indoctrination being challenged by unbelievers

[tempaccount99]

i rest my case.

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

where were you planning to rest it exactly since all i can see around is very muddy ground

to put it another way - your need to ascribe relious fevour to those who disagree with you is no diffrent from the chritian church decalring all who do not worship its way as heathen's

A similar tactic is used by medical people who descrive there opponents in a discussion about medical practice as quacks
Alternativly teh word pseudo-science is used for science that doesnt agree with your point of view

your attempting to imply that we are some how brainwashed zealots - people who have not thought or reasearched what they speak of only going on faith - when in fact it is you who are blinkered - no wheer in any of your arguments have you provided more than a single scientifically prepared study meanwhils we have read and reasearched widly.

But i guess you ascribe to teh idea that ignorance is bliss

[tempaccount99]

where were you planning to rest it exactly since all i can see around is very muddy ground
your comment seemed in a similar tone to others which were violently defending a way of life without looking at other possibilities, or entertaining the idea that there may be other explanations or options. therefore demonstrating my original point.

to put it another way - your need to ascribe relious fevour to those who disagree with you is no diffrent from the chritian church decalring all who do not worship its way as heathen's
if anyone wants to call me a heathen, then i'm absolutely fine with that (but yes, that wasn't your point). i'm merely commenting on what i see displayed in the replies to this journal entry.

A similar tactic is used by medical people who descrive there opponents in a discussion about medical practice as quacks
Alternativly teh word pseudo-science is used for science that doesnt agree with your point of view
there is a well drawn up boundry between pseudo-science and science, it's not a case of using terms depending on how one feels. my point of view is mostly formed out of common sense.

your attempting to imply that we are some how brainwashed zealots - people who have not thought or reasearched what they speak of only going on faith - when in fact it is you who are blinkered - no wheer in any of your arguments have you provided more than a single scientifically prepared study meanwhils we have read and reasearched widly.
i haven't made any arguments relating to good/bad properties of atkins here at all. i shall freely admit that i haven't studied anything about it at all. but from many of the comments here, some followers of the atkins diet don't seem willing to accept that there is an established method by which it could work (ie, eating less, specifically eating less calories, and in general thinking a lot more than someone not on a diet about what you're eating), and prefer to ascribe to various theories which seem to have an almost magical property. i prefer to take the more respected, established and widespread view, than the need to believe in something which i don't understand.

But i guess you ascribe to teh idea that ignorance is bliss
no, but i do like to keep an open mind. this is something i fear some people here are lacking.

linked comments 1

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

your comment seemed in a similar tone to others which were violently defending a way of life without looking at other possibilities, or entertaining the idea that there may be other explanations or options. therefore demonstrating my original point.


Actually that’s what we are saying about you, your unable to entertain new ideas - remember were the ones who have not only listed to and tried out low fat diets et al, but also have read extensively about other options - that we have turned away 'from the faith' in what the government has been promoting for years is what your objecting to. As i said before it is you who are blinkered

if anyone wants to call me a heathen, then I’m absolutely fine with that (but yes, that wasn't your point). I’m merely commenting on what I see displayed in the replies to this journal entry.

You must have mis-read what I said I wasn’t describe you as the heathen, I was describing us as the heathens. And you as sharp defenders of the faith, the lay members of a church denying any other possibility than their own.

there is a well drawn up boundary between pseudo-science and science, it's not a case of using terms depending on how one feels. my point of view is mostly formed out of common sense.

really wow - and you've studied the history of science and medicine have you? Because I would really like to read your paper on the subject that clearly delineates the line between pseudo-science and science. So that the rest of us researchers can go home and work on something else?

I suspect that you haven’t - that you believe in the mythology of science, an unquestioning belief in the science that you have been told, and that its can be cleanly divided from bad or wrong science. that you haven’t studied either sciences history or philosophy, looked at the power dynamic that run inside science, at how one idea gains favour over another not because of better science but because of group and power dynamics.

Re: linked comments 1

[tempaccount99]

Actually that’s what we are saying about you
am i talking to more than one person here?

You must have mis-read what I said I wasn’t describe you as the heathen
and i never said you did (notice the phrase "but yes, that wasn't your point" in my previous reply).

and as for your other points, Occams Razor (the principle of parsimony) is normally a sufficient means (and has certainly been proven so historically) for distinguishing snake-oil from what i would call science.

now please leave me alone and try to convince someone who actually wants to go on a diet about your wonderful claims.

Re: linked comments 1

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

and as for your other points, Occams Razor (the principle of parsimony) is normally a sufficient means (and has certainly been proven so historically) for distinguishing snake-oil from what i would call science.


so you would call a lot of religious thinking science?
since occams razor predates science?
I woudl suggest that teh simpler explantion isnt always correct on one had we have evolutionary ideas that through a varierty of complex process that we dont understand fully yet animals have evolved, on the other god created the world and everything it.

according to occams razor the second one must be true since its is simpler. Btw i'm an atheist, a scientist and I believe in evolution (but I'm not a darwinianist)

now please leave me alone and try to convince someone who actually wants to go on a diet about your wonderful claims

I'm not trying to convince you to do Atkins I'm objecting to you describing me and mine as closed minded, unthinking, unscientific, people who spout claims with out solid scientific basis for our statements etc. You seem to assume that only you can be sceptical.

you want to eat the way you do and exercise the way you do its your choice,

Re: linked comments 1

[tempaccount99]

ah, you misunderstand occams razor. we're not talking about assuming the choice with the least words, but the one that requires the smallest logical leap. i'm sure you'll agree that the idea of a supreme immortal omnipotent being is somewhat more of a logical step than a bit of random chance followed by a series of evolutionary steps.

Re: linked comments 1

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

If your analyis is correct and occams razor suggests that the answer with the smallest logical leap is the correct one and thus that the idea that "the idea of a supreme imortal omnipotent being" is a more logical step and thus moer right step than believing in evolution, then im happy for you.
According to your logic god is an integral part of science but evolution is a pseudo-science. Which if your a creationist is great - except I'm not i think occams razor is this case is a lousy analysis and i prefer the pseudo science of evolution

Re: linked comments 1

[tempaccount99]

no, that's not even slightly what i said. read again and you'll see that it's the other way round. which demonstrates that occams razor works for our mutual thinking on the subject.

how could you possibly say that the idea of a "supreme imortal omnipotent being" is a logical one at all, let alone a small logical leap. *boggles*

linked comments 2

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

i haven't made any arguments relating to good/bad properties of Atkins here at all. i shall freely admit that i haven't studied anything about it at all. but from many of the comments here, some followers of the Atkins diet don't seem willing to accept that there is an established method by which it could work (i.e., eating less, specifically eating less calories, and in general thinking a lot more than someone not on a diet about what you're eating), and prefer to ascribe to various theories which seem to have an almost magical property. i prefer to take the more respected, established and widespread view, than the need to believe in something which i don't understand.

So you haven’t studied any of what is written, yet you feel free to comment based on zero research. Ok, what a good scientist you are. No really! You sound just like various scientists especially right now the evolutionary ** specify field** scientists - the blind assumption that if their accepted theories about reality, work in their own little clique then they must work for everywhere else. Even though they have made no attempt to understand the issues in that area, and they simply don’t recognise that their original theories are just interpretations of data not hard fact. Hey I used to be like that too – until I did a whole lot of studying – been reading new scientist since I was 10 that sort of thing.

So again you make this magnificent assumption “some followers of the Atkins diet don't seem willing to accept that there is an established method by which it could work” er yes some people don’t want to read what Atkins has actually said in his text i.e. that we lose fat by eating less calories – the point is that fat satiates you – hence you eat less calories and get thinner – for backup to this try reading last weeks new scientist, dated 9th august. There is no magic about Atkins – try reading the book yourself rather than going on hearsay. “i prefer to take the more respected, established and widespread view, than the need to believe in something which i don't understand”. So you would rather remain the dark, not do any research about the subject area, then spout ill informed guess work based on hearsay. Sorry I’ll rephrase that, you would rather accept at face value what you have been told – because what the establishment says has to be right, just like the Christian establishment was so right when commenting about evolution for instance, and then quote people who haven’t done any research on Atkins but are quoting irrelevant research done on unrepresentative groups who aren’t following an Atkins diet in the first place. Good for you, any time you want plugs for your nose or even some light do ask for them.

Re: linked comments 2

[tempaccount99]

once again i shall make the point that i neither know nor care about the atkins diet, and have no desire to do any reasearch on it, and i never made any claims as to the good or bad properties of it. it certainly "works", and so do many other diets. i'm not defending or attacking it, and nowhere have i done so. and yet even without attacking it, you continue to defend it. you're preaching to the wrong person by talking to me - i have no reason to study multitudes of differing nurishment schemes, as i wouldn't have time to do anything else if i did. my own mix of what i want to eat and a decent amount of exercise works just fine for me at keeping me happy, healthy and sane.

Re: linked comments 2

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

I'm not preaching to you, I'm objecting to you continued assertion that I and others are closed minded for doing atkins, and that we preach about it. We get preached about low fat diets everyday and in everyway - yet because we stand up and object that's wrong

Its basically like being queer by standing up and actually saying hey this is a good thing we are acussed of stuffing it in people faces and being unthinking mystics - when its you who are being the unthinking group. you accuse me of not having open mind yet its your mind that is closed!

Re: linked comments 2

[tempaccount99]

but you have been preaching to me, you have been trying to convince me that it's a rational way of life. i never asked anything about that, i never denied anything about that.

i'm happy to accept that you can do what you like, and i haven't been telling you that you're wrong for doing so, and i haven't been shoving alternatives down your throat.

what you have been doing, is continuing to quote so called research and evidence to back up your spurious claims. i don't need that. i'm happy to believe that the "atkins diet" is a diet.

linked comments 3

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

no, but i do like to keep an open mind. this is something i fear some people here are lacking.

yup your mind is truly open to new things, as open as I don’t know the bible no, no wait the Koran. A mind so open that actually doing some research before commenting is not required. A mind so open to other possibilities that its owner merely spouts hearsay and nth hand information from ‘establishment’ sources. A mind that assumes that others are just like them and that it never occurred to us to look at all the data, that we could never have read research papers on the issues before starting down the Atkins route, that for example it wouldn’t occur to us to do what Atkins asks and to get regular blood tests. And of course all those laboratories around the world are part of some global conspiracy to foist the lie that Atkins works when they report back reduced triglyceride levels, lower levels of VLDL and LDL cholesterol, whilst rising level of HDL, of good blood iron levels, good Liver Function Tests, to doctors who whilst initially sceptical watch as there patients lose weight from life threatening levels to normal body weight.

The same patients who for years have fought to reduce or just maintain their weight on diets that fit the ‘standard’ pyramid of foods. I say ‘standard’ because it different in different countries and has been changed every 10 years or so to become the new established Truth. 20+ years ago the truth was that bread and potatoes were the best and fat was bad, 10+ years ago it was that bread and potatoes weren’t so good and that complex vegetables that was good and that it was fat that should be taken in very small amounts, Now its that some fats such as Olive oils are good and should be taken in reasonable amounts but saturated, trans and hydrogenated fats should be avoided – the sort of fats found in most margarine’s. But hey the establishment or at least the bits of the establishment that everybody has been quoting still hold to the idea that fat equals bad carbs equal good.

Perhaps you should try doing opening your mind through research before you try to comment on the openness of other people commenting here

Re: linked comments 3

[tempaccount99]

i don't care about the atkins diet, as i've said many times before. you're totally free to do what you like, and i'm happy to let you do so - hey, if it works for you why not. i'm not the one talking about conspiracies, i haven't quoted any hearsay, and i'd like to make my own judgement in my own time.

Re: linked comments 3

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

Ok cool - but perhaps you shoudl do some research before you comment on this area. You think i wasnt sceptical of this before i tried Atkins?
I admit i relied on a friend to my most of my reasearch I tried it out for a week to see if it helped, I have subsquenstly read and researched numerous papers because I have met a barrage of ill thought out hearsay based on little or no research. I have also found that Atkins worked for me - and that there is strong scientific evidance to back up the theories about how it works

Re: linked comments 3

[tempaccount99]

but perhaps you shoudl do some research before you comment on this area
i haven't commented on this area. i have looked at both sides of the discussion, and come to conclusions. the one that makes most sense to me is that atkins is a diet, like many others. it's no better, no worse than any other diet.

Re: linked comments 3

[(Anonymous)]

How disappointing. To say that attempting discussion with semi-literate trolls whose meagre grasp of logic and interconnectivity of arguments makes it less than exhilarating, would be quite an understatement. Are some people just born with a thick fog between their neurons that prevents clear thought?

Hmm, anyway, reminds me of the 'tards from siamang's bunny-eating post. Pity we have to share a planet with so many of them.

I know you conduct yourself too professionally to stoop to saying that yourself, so I hope you don't mind me taking this potshot for you ;) - unter
Bitchy mode: Disengaged

Re: linked comments 3

[tempaccount99]

I hope you don't mind me taking this potshot for you
no, man, i don't mind you taking potshots... not sure you needed to do it anonymously though... :)