Atkins Diet is dangerous pseudo-science
Aug. 13th, 2003 11:51 amThe 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.
(Note: questions about TrustFlow here will be deleted, post them in
Update: Post made friends-only. Thanks to
linked comments 2
Date: 2003-08-15 02:44 am (UTC)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
Date: 2003-08-15 02:55 am (UTC)Re: linked comments 2
Date: 2003-08-15 03:52 am (UTC)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
Date: 2003-08-15 06:41 am (UTC)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.