Disease Proof

Ha Ha! Atkins Diet Raises Heart Risks, Duh!

More bad news for the Atkins fad, published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association new research reveals the high-protein, i.e. high-saturated, Atkins diet reduces blood vessel dilation, an important factor in heart health. Scientists placed 18 healthy people on three different diets, the Atkins diet (50% fat) and two others lower in saturated fat, 30% and 10%. Four weeks after completing the experiment, Atkins participants performed the worst on a blood vessel test. Atkins Nutritionals had no intelligent rebuttal; HealthDay News reports.

High-fat diets are dangerous. A couple years ago, a study linked the Atkins diet with inflammation linked with heart and artery disease. Atkins himself was overweight and had heart problems. In addition to heart problems, consuming copious amounts of meat, i.e. saturated fat, and little to no fiber and fruit, heightens risk of colon cancer and other cancers. Recently, hotdogs were tied to leukemia risk and red meat with blindness.

In related news, a previous report showed low-carb high-protein diets sap people’s energy and discourage activity and another study revealed Atkins produced only modest weight-loss results with limited sustainability in the long run. Tisk, tisk.

Image credit: jaxxon

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (4) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Steve - April 2, 2009 8:42 AM

Hi Gerry

It would appear that the Atkins corporation is distancing itself from Doctor Atkins approach. Check out this nutritional overview from their web site. Sounds perhaps closer to E2L than "Lose weight with cheeseburgers". The winds of change are a blowin' in low carb land.

"Atkins is about eating delicious and healthy foods, which makes it so much better than any of those fad diets out there. You eat a variety of your favorite foods - lean protein, leafy greens, vegetables, nuts, fruits, whole grains."

Veggies? Fruits? Grains? Leafy Greens? I'll have to try that (giggle)

Regards, Steve

NBC - April 2, 2009 9:38 AM

I've been telling people this forever. Nobody's been listening because the comeback is, "well so-and-so lost so much weight" to which I respond, and how long do you suppose his body can withstand the dumping of all that fat and red meat before it rebels?

john polifronio - April 21, 2009 10:23 PM

I still say, the best diet emphasizes a growing awareness of the nutritional qualities of foods, combined with an increasing sensitivity to "your" preferences and needs. Fruits and veggies in copious amounts, are a staple for nearly everyone, myself included. I keep the intake of nuts and seeds low; of grains, low; of fish low, of red meat lower still, and all junk foods, lowest of all. Beyond that point, controversy grows to infinity. Instead of following these "diet plans," rigidly, we should be using common sense, good taste, recognising the uniqueness of each indivdual, and showing a willingness to surrender to good and sound science.

The obsession with all the "popular" diets, is nothing more than a desperate need to simplify a fundamentally complex and inescapable challenge and responsibility.

Mark - April 22, 2009 11:09 AM

I'm not an Atkins proponent, but I do get a little tired of all this "research." 18 people and 4 weeks? Are you freaking kidding me?!? That's a great way to draw meaningful conclusions - limit the scope of your study to the point of being laughable.

Look, Atkins is crap because you end up eating a lot of cheese, butter and other man-made crap. That said, meat is not bad - if you didn't have the luxury of modern society (that is, agriculture and grocery stores), not eating meat would leave you dead in no time. You'd be trying to subsist on grass and leaves. If you had any interest in living, you'd hunt. And then we'd be able to stop doing all this ridiculous research and having all these stupid arguments about what we "should" be eating.

All the research that points to low life expectancy in meat-eating cultures is spurious, too. Of course the Maasai don't live as long as people in developed countries - try raising your family in Kenya without modern medicine and see how long you all last. You can't just look at life expectancy and tell anything about the health of the adult population based on their diet.

"The obsession with all the 'popular' diets, is nothing more than a desperate need to simplify a fundamentally complex and inescapable challenge and responsibility." John, that's a great thought. I would suggest, however, that it's good to simplify. The problem is when, as with the 'popular' diets you're talking about, you over-simplify.

You can skew any research you want. But common sense tells you that you should eat what would keep you alive if you had only nature to subsist on. Just ask yourself, "If I didn't have immediate access to food, what would I eat?" Then eat along those lines. If it were me, I'd hunt game, eat green foliage to sustain me between hunts, and forage for other food like fruit. Hmmm - meat, veggies, fruit and nuts with no grain, processed dairy or junk food? Wonder why that sounds healthy. Lucky us, we have the luxury of eating all those foods as we need them, and we get to choose spinach, broccoli and chicken as opposed to grass, sticks and squirrels. Of course I'm occasionally going to have some bread or butter, but the basis of what I eat should be those simple, natural things that man would eat in order to survive.

Dr. Fuhrman's Executive Offices
4 Walter E. Foran Blvd.
Suite 408
Flemington, NJ 08822