Idiot with high cholesterol that sued Atkins, looses

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
"Ophelia" wrote in message

:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:: ...
:::
:: One might ask why he was doing Atkins in the first
::: place, as someone in his 50s.
::
:: That is an interesting comment Roger! Please will you
:: give a wee bit more detail?
::
:: O



Sorry, I was in a hurry and thus being brief. See the post to Jeri, she
had the same thought as you!

Yes, I saw it, thanks Roger

"Roger Zoul" writes:

And that's a good thing because "common sense" usually isn't too
good.

"Common sense is what tells us that the earth is flat." -- John Ross


--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://www.myspace.com/aaronbaugher

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

"Jbuch" wrote in message
:: About the most enduring and negative aspect of "common
:: sense" was Aristotelian physics.
::
:: Two of the postualates were "common sense" ...
:: 1) The natural state of material things is to be at rest.
:: 2) The velocity of an object is proportional to the
:: force acting upon it.
::
:: He also defined the uniform motion of the stars and
:: planets as being determined by the Gods.
::
:: In addition, Aristotle was above "manual
:: experimentation", so he never did or had done for him
:: any experiments, believing in the power of the logical
:: mind.
::
:: It took about 1500 years to break the "common sense" of
:: Aristotle, partly because of his "great reputation" and
:: how many doggedly followed such a famous mind.
::
:: Newton's first two laws.... in the 1600's BC:
:: 1) An object in uniform motion will stay in uniform
:: motion unless acted upon by external forces.
::
:: 2) The force applied to an object is proportional to the
:: rate of change of momentum (mass times velocity). OR
:: F=Ma.
::
:: So, Newton explicity discarded the basis of Aristotilian
:: physics which was based on "common sense".
::
:: "Common sense" is often "common self delusions".

Great example!

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:20:31 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

"Jeri" wrote in message

:: Roger Zoul wrote:
:: snip
::: One might ask why he was doing Atkins in the first
::: place, as someone in his 50s.
::
:: What does being in his 50's have to do with whether he
:: should be doing Atkins?

It could be an indication of *years* of living with bad dietary habits and
being overweight, which would have much more to do with his problems than
being on Aktins for a little while as it Chol went up.


Pretty lame, Roger.

I assume you think anyone over 50 is a lost cause?

"DK" wrote in message

:: On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:20:31 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::: "Jeri" wrote in message
:::
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::: snip
:::::: One might ask why he was doing Atkins in the first
:::::: place, as someone in his 50s.
:::::
::::: What does being in his 50's have to do with whether he
::::: should be doing Atkins?
:::
::: It could be an indication of *years* of living with bad
::: dietary habits and being overweight, which would have
::: much more to do with his problems than being on Aktins
::: for a little while as it Chol went up.
:::
::
:: Pretty lame, Roger.
::
:: I assume you think anyone over 50 is a lost cause?

No, stupid. Just idiots who show up in court trying to sue for their own
neglect of their health. Those like you, perhaps.

Roger Zoul wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

:: I'm with Hollywood. The court screwed up on it's
:: stance. It should have dismissed the case because he
:: never followed the directions
:: and therefor was suing the wrong folks. If he found
:: some diet plan that urged him to eat pastrami and
:: cheesecake but no veggies or exercise, that's who he
:: should have filed against.

So, which version of the book do you guys think the court should have read
to arrive at it's conclusion?

Just curious, is all....

It largely doesn't matter since following the directions of each
edition has you eating pretty close to the same foods but
getting different counts for those foods.

In the 1972 edition anything less carby than brocolli was counted
as zero. Salad, eggs, dairy, you name it was all ignored for your
count. Note that a daily salad was exepcted from day one and a
daily serving of a low carb veggie like brocolli from day eight.
Note that the 1972 plan was explicit that CCL is determined by
ketosis.

In 1993/1999 all carbs from any source were counted so the
same foods eaten under the 1972 plan tend to have around 15
grams higher count. The foods eaten on day eight in 1972 were
the foods eaten days 1-14 on 1993/1999.

In 2002 fiber deduction was added so the initial carb count of
20 would be maybe 30 per the 1993/1999 counting directions or
maybe 10 per the 1972 counting directions.

No matter the book, go into phase 2 and the initial counts just
plain no longer matter anyways.

Noway2 wrote:

It has been a long time since I have read the book, but doesn't it even
have an, albeit small, section about a certain percentage of the
population may have a negative cholesterol or cardiovascular risk from
the diet? IIRC the book also makes a statement about how there is now
way to know if you are one of those people without getting tested and
makes the recommendation for such testing?

Yes. The different editions also give different timings and
percentages.
Let's see if I remember the different editions right - 1993 says that
after 6 months 80% of people see improvement so it gives suggestions
for the other 20%. 2002 says that after 8 weeks the majority see
improvement. Both mention that the first few weeks generally show
a transient increase IIRC. It all adds up - early increase because the
switch to fat burning includes assorted adjustments in metabolism,
then different people improve different amounts and different rates.

It still ends up that 20% don't see improvements - Atkins does not
work for everyone. No plan does work for everyone.

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:54:57 GMT, Curt wrote:

He claimed he GOT high cholesterol from the Atkins diet and sued. The
judge threw it out. The Judge said the book is just a plan to a low carb
diet. What I want to know from the Idiot is, HOW can one possibly get
high cholesterol when properly doing a low carb diet. I do not believe
it is possible.

Why do you call him and idiot. Atkins SHOULD be sued, sued more, and
sued again, until they finally collapse and shut down. This company
is killing thousands of people every year. They all deserve to end up
living in poverty for their crimes and I wish them all an eternity in
HELL.

Do you have a cite for the thousands of people killed by the products
of Atkins Nutritionals yearly? Something that doesn't involve your
biased, vegetarian, poorly cited, bogus website? I have dropped over
thirty pounds and over 80 points of LDL cholesterol while maintaining
my lean body mass, my HDL and my taste for wonderful foods, including
delicious cow and yummy bacon.

The man is called an idiot because we was not even close to following
the Atkins Nutritional Approach, or at least according to the article
he wasn't. He developed a crappy circulatory system as a result of his
crappy diet, which bears no more resemblance to the ANA than you do to
a sane, rational human being.

Stop the massacre. How many plants have to be chopped into little
pieces just to feed the nation's vegetarians. The cruelty must end.
Save the vegetables. They have feelings too.

-Hollywood

wrote in message
oups.com...


I also find amazing the premise that 2 months of cholesterol at 230 is
all it takes to turn a healthy artery into a blocked one. If that were
true, there would be lots of people in big trouble. My cholesterol
has been around that for decades. But I also have high HDL. Also, no
mention is made anywhere of what his total chol profile was.


Me too. Mines been at this level for 50 years.


--
JK Sinrod
www.SinrodStudios.com
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com