I think the most major problem with Atkins is the wide group of people who have formulated opinions without actually reading exactly what the 'diet' (I use that term loosely - as this is a lifetime woe, not a diet) entails.

Too many people assume no carbs (bad), all meat and cheese (bad), etc.

We've even had writers, one of them being one of my favorite authors Janet Evanovich, including misinformation about the plan in their books.

To make matters worse, it seems whatever "studies" have been made have only concerned themselves with induction...or even worse...with the misinformed population who think they can just eat meat and cheese for a month and lose a lot of weight.

I am on a variation of Atkins. I eat strawberries. I eat whole grain wraps. I even eat an occasional slice of whole grain bread. I eat a lot of leafy greens. I don't swill a ton of greasy, fatty foods. I drink 64+ oz. of water every day. I exercise every day. I lose weight, a little every week. I feel great!

Low carb isn't for everyone. It was necessary for me because my 'comfort' and 'binge' food is salty carby food. I head toward potato chips and crackers and things like that...I've even been known to eat an entire package in one sitting (and I don't mean the small single serve kind).

It may not be your choice (and that is OK!), but please do not decide it is a 'bad' plan based on misinformation.

You know, people don't get like this about Low Fat as an approach - even though Low Fat tends to mean 'High Carb' - which basically means 'High Sugar'.

If we called it 'Low Sugar', rather than 'Low Carb', I have to wonder whether people would be so ready to come out with all this "well, I don't actually KNOW anything about it, but it sounds dodgy to me!" stuff. (Not that everyone's doing that - but I think a lot of us have that vague, uninformed, gut-level sense that Low Carb isn't a "proper" weightloss approach - not like Weight Watchers, or Low Fat, or Calorie Counting. I know I used to think that.)

This is an interesting point, because the thing about eating primarily lean fish, poultry, meat, green leafy veggies and dairy (along with limited fruit) is that this DOES mirror the kind of diet our ancestors ate. Fruit was neccesarily limited because it's seasonal, and we (and how our bodies process food) had already evolved a very long time before anyone thought about harvesting grains and processing them into flour, whilst sugar is, in evolutionary terms, practically a brand new foodstuff.

It's a touch depressing to see so many people whose opinions depend on hearsay - I mean, I had much the same impression of Low Carb myself before I actually went off and started doing some research - and, you know, READ Atkins' book. I was quite surprised to find that it is not, in fact, a weightloss plan that espouses "eating crap" and magically getting thin; it's a weightloss plan that specifically espouses eating whole foods - but cutting out sugar, and cutting back on the starchy foods that your body turns into sugar, whilst eating lots (this is mandatory) of leafy green veggies, lean cuts of fish, meat, poultry, seafood, healthy oils and dairy. And, within a couple of weeks, reintroducing berries, whole grains, melon, seeds and nuts and other higher-carb foods at a careful rate.

It is also an eating plan that makes no bones about the fact that (1) it's FOR LIFE, not just a quick fix, and (2) exercise is also mandatory.

I think we're all guilty of this intuitive notion that if you eat dietary fat it will glue itself onto us as people-fat, but that's actually pretty damn silly. If you eat fish, you do not suddenly grow gills. Our bodies break down foodstuffs and process them - and for many people a pat of butter may actually be easier for the body to process efficiently than a white bread roll is. Counterintuitive though that seems at first.

Gary Taubes' 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' gives a fascinating overview of the recent history of nutrition, including the basis for both the Low Fat and the Low Carb ideologies. It's not exactly light reading, but it's certainly head-go-boom stuff.

Snapless...very well said!!

Atkins (for that matter, low carb in general) is grossly misconstrude. The average person has never taken the time to read Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution but, rather rely on hearsay or the lame studies that crop up every so often. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find misinformation about SB, WW and some of the other popular "diets". No 1 plan "fits all". For me, Atkins works & I've made it my lifestyle. I agree 100% with Snapless, it may not be for you but...that does NOT mean its "bad" or "unhealthy".

I think what's silly is when someone tells you that it's unhealthy (understandable given the rumors), and you point out that all of your routine health indicators are headed in a better direction, and they still can't shake the "well, it's still bad for you, and no one ever keeps the weight off on low carb."

It's almost like "oh, yeah well you're still a poopyhead."

I mean, if my weight is coming down, I'm feeling better than I have in years, my autoimmune symptoms seem to be in remission, my blood sugar and blood pressure and cholesterol levels have all improved, my pain is under control, and I've got more energy to exercise...... now what's wrong with this again?

I have to admit that as human beings, we're very capable of outsmarting (or outdumbing) ourselves in many unfortunate ways. No matter how healthy a diet plan is, someone will find an unhealthy way to follow it. We have a natural tendency to look for the loopholes. Low carb was never envisioned as the all-pork-and-nothing-but-pork diet. Just as low fat, was never intended to be exclusively Snackwell cookies and Baked Lays potato chips either.

We somehow seem to have an anti-common-sense gene or something.

I know this is going to come of as snarky, but it's something I've been chewing on for a while.

If it is so evolved and so different from Atkins of the 70's and it's based around whole foods... what exactly makes it Atkins? Why not call it whole foods low carb or some other name, thus eliminating the negative connotation that has plagued the diet for years now.

And my beef really isn't with Atkins- it's with all planned diets like it. I think the mere concept of them set people up to go off of them, thus why Atkins in particular has such an astoundingly high regain rate (more so, I wager, than losing weight with other methods, which has a high failure rate in general).

So, with all the "modified low carbers" out there, the new whole foods approach, and so on and so forth... where's the Atkins, aside from the induction?

What makes it Atkins, is that Dr. Atkins created the plan. I believe even in the 70's the diet in the book, was quite different than the diet people created (using the loopholes). As Dr. Atkins learned more, both about the science of weight loss, and the crazy things people were doing in the name of his diet, he addressed those in future editions of the book/diet.

I mean why don't people call low fat dieting - the all sugar all the time diet (when that is how they are interpreting it).

The Ornish plan is one of the absolutely best diets for cardiac patients. Repeated research shows this. Patients who follow the diet have excellent health outcomes, but compliance rates are extremely low. The mostly vegetarian, extremely low fat plan is not appealing to many people. Does that mean the plan should never be attempted, because it's not realistic? I'm not sure it's wise to go there either.

If relapse rated were reason to avoid attempting a weight loss plan, then weight loss should never be attempted, because they all have horrible success rates. People hate to change their habits.

What does that mean, exactly? Why so much caution there?

By the way, I'm not unaware of what the Atkins diet entails. It seems to me that critics are immediately written off (and in some cases attacked; see Livin La Vida Low Carb for examples) by the more zealous followers. The truth is, there is little research to support Atkins as a healthy, long-term lifestyle, and some evidence that suggests caution. I'm not saying that nobody should follow it, and if it works for you, kudos. But the rest of us (many health professionals included) have good reasons to be weary. The original poster asked for people's honest assessment of Atkins, and that's mine.

The plan you follow is your choice; however I'll stick to eating fruits and veggies liberally, and take my meat on the side. It's healthy and it works.

I'll stick to eating fruits and veggies liberally.
__________________

But that's the low carb point exactly. Except for two weeks of induction (which I really wish didn't exist just because it causes so much confusion), eating fruits and veggies liberally IS low carb.

I found the following quote on Livin La Vida Low Carb, which is a layman's blog within the Atkins movement. This is the author's prescription for someone following the plan:

Have them get rid of the fruit, milk and bread for breakfast and let them eat all the eggs and sausage they need to satisfy their hunger. Then at lunch, have them eat a hamburger patty or two with some cheese on top and a little mayo with a side salad and Ranch dressing. For supper, let them cook up a nice fatty steak and serve a little steamed broccoli or cauliflower with butter on the side. Snacks in between those meals can include almonds, macadamia nuts, sugar-free chocolates, cheese sticks, pepperoni slices, and other snackable low-carb foods.

Would you say this is a good example of an Atkins diet? Poor example? Why? I would truly like to get your take on this.

Atkins encourages liberal amounts of fruit? I guess that makes me wonder about your definition of liberal, especially since broadabroad mentioned introducing them with caution.

Atkins followers, correct me if I'm wrong (my personal plan is closer to South Beach or WW Core).

During induction no fruit is allowed, but during OWL, carbohydrates from fruits, vegetables, whole grains and beans are added until you reach your optimal carb level. Atkins never specifies what that level is for the average person, it could be 40 it could be 200.

That inspecifity, in my opinion is a weakness of Atkins. Though in all honesty, it actually may be a strength of the plan - as individual needs may truly vary tremendously, and there probably is no one-size-fits-all optimal level of carbs. A person with insulin resistance or diabetes (even if it goes into remission) probably will always have a lower optimal carb rate than other people. Just as people who've never had much of a weight problem, or someone who is very active, very likely would have a much higher optimal carb level.

A very poor example. Let me quote from further up in the thread:

As you can see, there is a very large difference there.

My typical lunch, high in fiber, high in protein, low in fats, low in net carbs:

a multigrain wrap made with olive oil which has 100 calories, 3.5 grams of fat (0.5 of that saturated), 17 grams of carbs, 12 grams of dietary fiber (giving me a net of 5 grams carbs there) and 8 grams of protein
a teaspoon of mustard spread over the wrap
2-3 slices of lean roasted turkey breast or roast beef (from the deli!)
1-2 slices of cheese (provolone, swiss and pepper jack are some that I use)
fill the rest of it to overflowing with 5 different kinds of lettuce

16 oz. of water on the side.

Now tell me, does that sound like an absolutely horrible "diet" or something healthy I can maintain for life?

Have them get rid of the fruit, milk and bread for breakfast and let them eat all the eggs and sausage they need to satisfy their hunger. Then at lunch, have them eat a hamburger patty or two with some cheese on top and a little mayo with a side salad and Ranch dressing. For supper, let them cook up a nice fatty steak and serve a little steamed broccoli or cauliflower with butter on the side. Snacks in between those meals can include almonds, macadamia nuts, sugar-free chocolates, cheese sticks, pepperoni slices, and other snackable low-carb foods.

Would you say this is a good example of an Atkins diet? Poor example? Why? I would truly like to get your take on this.
__________________________________________________ _


Yikes, I would hope not! The example is nothing like my diet when I followed Atkins (even during induction).

I would usually have eggs for breakfast. I would use 1 or 2 whole eggs and up to 6 additional whites (even using 3/4 of a carton is cheaper than the egg substitutes which are egg white and food coloring). Once in a while I would have a couple strips of very crisp bacon, but never sausage, and usually something lean like smoked turkey, turkey ham or my favorite - shrimp and a bit of spicy tomato sauce (a creole omelette). I liked to add spinache to the omelettes.

For lunch I'd often have shrimp cocktail Shrimp, no sugar cocktail sauce (tomato sauce or low carb ketchup mixed with horseradish and a bit of splenda). Or a mexican shrimp cocktail - shrimp, fresh salsa (tomato, onion, cilantro, jalapeno) and avocado. Or grilled chicken breast and a salad. For lunches and/or dinners I often bought rotisserie chickens, and would have chicken chunks in a big salad for lunch or with steamed veggies for dinner.

For dinner, sometimes beef, more commonly fish, chicken, or turkey. Sam's Club has great "turkey mignons" A turkey breast wrapped in a strip of bacon.
Huge side of broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, snap peas (snap peas might not be kosher, but it never hurt the weight loss). Sometimes I would add butter to the veggies, usually not. Sesame oil is great to add as a seasoning, because it gives a lot of flavor in just a few drops.

For snacks raw green pepper, green beans, cauliflower with light (not fat free) ranch dressing. Sometimes I'd make my own ranch dressing with sour cream, mayo, and ranch dressing powder. Sometimes almonds or pecans (maybe 6 or so at a time).

My extreme, and "scariest" choices were an occasional (and I mean occasional once or twice a month at most) a little bit of homemade jerky or pork rinds (We have a local store that sells nacho pork rinds that are really good for a "chip" craving. One 1/2 oz serving is only 80 calories. The bag had three servings, and hubby and I would split, so it was 120 calories). When I want jerky, I make my own ysing the leanest cuts of beef, and a Nesco food dehydrator. I reduce the sodium by using a lower salt marinade instead of the full-strength soy sauce found in many recipes. Being a low salt jerky, I dry it on the highest setting (160 degrees) and refrigerate or freeze it after drying it, just to be safe. Usually when I make it, it's for a party and I don't have to worry about hubby or I eating "too much" of it, because there's never much left over.

Suzanne, I never said the Atkins diet is "horrible." And like most people, I don't like having words put in my mouth.

To answer your question, I certainly do think the sample lunch menu you provided can be maintained for life. And if that works for you, I think that's fine. For me, however, the nutrients are far too few. When I plan my diet, I think about things like folate, potassium, magnesium, vitamins A, B, C, D, E, K, etc., and I look for the foods that will provide them. Greens can't provide them all. Turkey, olive oil and cheese are also wonderful foods, but I wouldn't make them the core of my diet for the reason I just described.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the original poster asked for honest assessments of Atkins. I provided mine, and I stand by it.