I read the original article, which I didn't realise she quoted in its entirety! It was poorly written.
Having said that, while I'm neither pro- nor anti-low carb diets (each to their own, I say), Dana Carpender spends quite a bit of time spouting the "clinical studies show..." line, but not once does she reference one of these studies. In fact the only reference she cites is Wikipedia - hardly a credible source.
I don't dispute her statements. I don't know whether they're true or not. But she's given me no more reason to believe her than the original articles author either, and she's just as guilty of making unsubstantiated claims as him.
I agree.Low carb diets are not responsible for increase in cancer, heart disease.....Its diets high in animal fats such as red meat.I think people assume that several low carb dieters eat few carbs.With south beach diet you dont even count your carbs, on any phase.You just eat the healthy carbs.Big difference!
Location: NW New Jersey But, My Heart's In Pittsburgh!! GO STEELERS & PENGUINS!!!
Posts: 3,060
S/C/G: 245/143/145
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrismm
I agree.Low carb diets are not responsible for increase in cancer, heart disease.....Its diets high in animal fats such as red meat.I think people assume that several low carb dieters eat few carbs.
Most people assume that low carb dieters eat few carbs and that low carb diets consist of all you can eat red meat, bacon & butter, when in reality, if a person is doing low carb correctly....they are avoiding the "bad carbs" like sugar & foods made with white flour. Both of which are unhealthy!
FIRST, everyone has their own path. And if this is your path and it works for you, I have no issue with it. You have every right to believe that you have the healthiest path for your lifestyle.
However, with respect to this article in particular, I want to see the "studies show that"... which is often referred to. Foods are indeed left out -- grains, sugars, starches -- but there is no clarification of fruit and its role in Atkins. There is no discussion of the lifespan of "primitive" primarily meat-eating groups. The article claims that Northern Populations (the term that she uses is currently considered racist where I'm from -- the actual term would be Inuit or First Nations Peoples) were healthy for milennia, but fails to recognize that the average lifespan historically of these people was approximately 50 years - a full 10 years less than their contemporary Americans -- and today suffers the highest rate of cancer in the world. While mortality is multi-factorial, the sweeping statement of the author (The [Innu] were healthy) is somewhat misleading and superficial. This article really doesn't stand up to scrutiny on the science side of the house. References other than wikipedia would be, ahem, more credible? And it would be even MORE credible if there wasn't a spelling error in the title -- kind of sets the tone...
Personally, I love Dana Carpendar and have her book with her story. I have used her plan and lost weight on it in the past. I trust would trust anything she says when it comes to lowcarb. She knows her stuff. Thanks for the article reference Kim. We all must do what works for us.
That is the key. After reading the book The Metabolism Miracle and some of her articles I believe that the only reason the lc programs I have tried in the past that didn't work was because I either didn't do everything right or I didn't give it long enough. We have a tendency to want to see results on the scales. She explains that sometimes you gain weight while the body is making the transition lowcarbing. I didn't know that and I thought it wasn't working and that I was gaining weight. Perhaps that is why some lowcarber diets remind us that the tape measure is our best friend instead of the scales. Lowcarbers don't see results on the scales as fast as other diets because we lose more inches. She says this makes us look like we are losing pounds, but we are actually burning more fat quicker. It really makes a difference in how I feel about lowcarb. I always heard that lowcarb tones the body and now I understand why that is so. I have no proof but it seems to me that lowcarb works better with exercise than other diets. At least I think that is true for those of us who have to do lowcarb to lose. I call that a bonus.
However, with respect to this article in particular, I want to see the "studies show that"... which is often referred to. Foods are indeed left out -- grains, sugars, starches -- but there is no clarification of fruit and its role in Atkins. There is no discussion of the lifespan of "primitive" primarily meat-eating groups. The article claims that Northern Populations (the term that she uses is currently considered racist where I'm from -- the actual term would be Inuit or First Nations Peoples) were healthy for milennia, but fails to recognize that the average lifespan historically of these people was approximately 50 years - a full 10 years less than their contemporary Americans -- and today suffers the highest rate of cancer in the world. While mortality is multi-factorial, the sweeping statement of the author (The [Innu] were healthy) is somewhat misleading and superficial. This article really doesn't stand up to scrutiny on the science side of the house. References other than wikipedia would be, ahem, more credible? And it would be even MORE credible if there wasn't a spelling error in the title -- kind of sets the tone...
JMHO
Kira
Hi Kira - the spelling error was NOT in the responders title but in the original article to which she was responding.
Dana Carpenter Debunks 10 Hazards of a Low Carb Diet
