Atkins diet centers on the green....

Atkins diet centers on the green
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist, 2/12/2004

When diet docs die, they certainly don't go quietly.

First there was Dr. Herman Tarnower, creator of the oh-so-passe Scarsdale
Diet, who was gunned down in his study by his irate lover. Now the late Dr.
Robert Atkins of lotsa-fat, low-carb fame has risen again, as it were, into
the public eye.

The ghoulish Atkins postmortem imbroglio reads like scenes from a Carl
Hiaasen novel. First, a physicians group devoted to promoting vegetarianism
(Is Prince Charles somehow involved? One can only hope) got hold of the
confidential medical examiner's report on Atkins's death. Next, they leaked
it to The Wall Street Journal, hyping the "heart attack angle." The
document, now available for all to read at thesmokinggun.com, mentions that
Atkins, who observed his own diet, had a history of myocardial infarction,
or heart attack.

This suggestion is hugely controversial, because Atkinoids have always
argued, counterintuitively, that their high-fat diet does not increase the
risk of heart attacks.

The Empire struck back. On the official Atkins website, atkins.com, Dr.
Stuart Trager, chairman of the Atkins Physicians Council, blasted the
"animal rights activists" for leaking the medical examiner's report, and for
publicizing Atkins's extreme obesity -- he was 6 feet tall and weighed 258
pounds -- at the time of his death. Atkins's weight ballooned as the result
of fluid retention after he was hospitalized for a fall that proved to be
fatal. In an interview with the Journal, Trager stressed that Atkins's heart
problems resulted from a disease of the heart muscle, not from his eating
habits.

Atkins's widow, Veronica, has posted a lengthy statement on the Atkins
website, imploring that her husband's soul be allowed to "rest in peace" so
that "I can grieve uninterrupted." "Is caring about what someone else eats
so important that some doctors are willing to betray their most basic of
oaths, to protect a patient's dignity and confidentiality?" she asked.

A vulgar, agenda-driven invasion of privacy? To be sure. An unnecessary and
ultimately irrelevant spectacle exploiting unknowable facts about a man 10
months in the grave? Yes. But let's not forget: This is not a battle over
ideas or public health. This is a dispute about money. Lots of money.

Dr. Atkins and his successors who manage the booming $200 million Atkins
Nutritionals business were not working for the betterment of mankind, to
borrow Mary Baker Eddy's phrase. They were working to sell diet books,
millions and millions of them, and specialized food products with the Atkins
label. "Atkins" is a registered trademark, and people pay to use it. Most
recently, the sandwich chain Subway and the fern bar/pickup joint T.G.I.
Friday's have signed partnerships to sell food with the Atkins "seal of
approval." The Atkins brand has power, and it uses that power to boost
profit margins.

Business Week has noted that Atkins charges $4.99 for a box of soybean-based
pasta, twice the price of wheat-based noodles, even though the ingredients
cost roughly the same. A Boston private equity company, Parthenon Capital,
now owns a majority of Atkins Nutritionals shares and has talked about
taking the rapidly growing firm public. "It is something we are
considering," says co-chief executive John Rutherford.

Remember: It's all about the green. And I don't mean broccoli
--
Ken

"I want to tell you about a school in Houston. It's a school for 'at risk'
children.
In other words, folks, these are children who can't learn."

- G.W. Bush, presidential debates

Who cares whether it's based on money or not? I feel much, much better on
Atkins than I did when I was eating brown rice and pasta. Moreover, I
rarely buy any Atkins product (too expensive), so they aren't profiting
from me.


--------
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Ken Kubos wrote:
|
| Atkins's widow, Veronica, has posted a lengthy statement on the Atkins
| website, imploring that her husband's soul be allowed to "rest in peace"
| so that "I can grieve uninterrupted." "Is caring about what someone else
| eats so important that some doctors are willing to betray their most
| basic of oaths, to protect a patient's dignity and confidentiality?" she
| asked.

As much as I'm a staunch Atkins supporter and defender; I have to be a bit
unsympathetic here. When you make youself a public figure, the bad
publicity goes with the good. Ask any politician.
|
| Dr. Atkins and his successors who manage the booming $200 million Atkins
| Nutritionals business were not working for the betterment of mankind, to
| borrow Mary Baker Eddy's phrase. They were working to sell diet books,
| millions and millions of them, and specialized food products with the
| Atkins label. "

Why are working for the betterment of Mankind and selling a product mutually
esclusive? This is a stupid, petty statement made by a small jealous mind.
(Ken, I realize this is not you statement but an article being quoted).

| Business Week has noted that Atkins charges $4.99 for a box of
| soybean-based pasta, twice the price of wheat-based noodles, even though
| the ingredients cost roughly the same.

So what? America is about Free Enterprise, a system where prices depend on
supply and demand. Again, petty jealousy and the nutritional quivalent of
penis envy.

If they want to complain about prices that are out of line with production
costs, let them focus instead on the obscene prices of drugs in America. We
pay up to 50 times what the same drugs are sold for in other countries, and
up to 400 times what it costs to manufacture them. And you're bitching about
a specialty product that is priced just 2X what the equivalent non-specialty
product is? Sheesh!

This article is a great example of someone assuming that his readers are
ignorant sheep, easily swayed by rhetoric and sensationalism. People who
try to incite such as this assume that others will listen to their stupid
illogical drivel and be taken in. As politicians also eventually realize,
Americans are smarter than that. Truth, not ignorant emotion-evoking
drivel, prevails.

| Remember: It's all about the green. And I don't mean broccoli

What a stupid statement. Of course it is. Just because Microsoft Windows
is beneficial to Mankind, does Bill Gates give away his software for free?
Clothing is beneficial; do you have to pay for it? Is a college education
free? Should farmers give away there products because they 're beneficial
to mankind? Why in the world should Atkins (figuratively speaking) be
expected to not make a profit from his plan/products? This is such an
ignorant, small-minded and just plain idiotic concept that it makes the
author of the article look really, really really stupid.
--
Peter
website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:14:34 GMT, Bob in CT
wrote:

Who cares whether it's based on money or not? I feel much, much better on
Atkins than I did when I was eating brown rice and pasta. Moreover, I
rarely buy any Atkins product (too expensive), so they aren't profiting
from me.

That is the way I look at it too. Who cares?

They do not profit from me either.

"Ken Kubos" wrote in message ...
Atkins diet centers on the green
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist, 2/12/2004

A vulgar, agenda-driven invasion of privacy? To be sure. An unnecessary and
ultimately irrelevant spectacle exploiting unknowable facts about a man 10
months in the grave? Yes. But let's not forget: This is not a battle over
ideas or public health. This is a dispute about money. Lots of money.

Dr. Atkins and his successors who manage the booming $200 million Atkins
Nutritionals business were not working for the betterment of mankind, to
borrow Mary Baker Eddy's phrase. They were working to sell diet books,
millions and millions of them, and specialized food products with the Atkins
label.

Yeah, what a bunch of greedy *******s, so unlike the altruistic low fat
advocates. I mean, it's SO nice of Ornish and McDougall to give out their
books for FREE!

Atkins diet centers on the green



.... gee, I'm kinda disappointed. I thought this thread was going to be
about broccoli, cucumbers, lettuce, asparagus, chard, spinach, bok
choy, baby Chinese greens, celery, bean sprouts, parsley, coriander,
chives, green onions ...

.... and it's only about money! I can't eat THAT.

Is money high-carb?

On 12 Feb 2004 19:42:13 -0800, (Leghorn Dude)
wrote:

Atkins diet centers on the green



... gee, I'm kinda disappointed. I thought this thread was going to be
about broccoli, cucumbers, lettuce, asparagus, chard, spinach, bok
choy, baby Chinese greens, celery, bean sprouts, parsley, coriander,
chives, green onions ...

... and it's only about money! I can't eat THAT.

Is money high-carb?

Dunno, but it has to be high in fiber.


--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:14:34 GMT, Bob in CT
wrote:

Who cares whether it's based on money or not? I feel much, much better on
Atkins than I did when I was eating brown rice and pasta. Moreover, I
rarely buy any Atkins product (too expensive), so they aren't profiting
from me.

That is the way I look at it too. Who cares?

They do not profit from me either.

They profited from me. I spent $7 on the book.



LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 265/226/140
& hubby- 310/253/180

snip


Business Week has noted that Atkins charges $4.99 for a box of
soybean-based
pasta, twice the price of wheat-based noodles, even though the ingredients
cost roughly the same. A Boston private equity company, Parthenon Capital,
snip

This is disingenuous. Just because the ingredients cost the same doesn't
mean they cost the same to produce. The current market for wheat based
noodles would be much larger than soy based and until the production runs
get to a similar size you are unlikely to see similar pricing. In general
when you produce in volume the cost per unit is less.

Sid...

"Tony Lew" wrote in message
om...
"Ken Kubos" wrote in message
...
Atkins diet centers on the green
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist, 2/12/2004

A vulgar, agenda-driven invasion of privacy? To be sure. An unnecessary
and
ultimately irrelevant spectacle exploiting unknowable facts about a man
10
months in the grave? Yes. But let's not forget: This is not a battle
over
ideas or public health. This is a dispute about money. Lots of money.

Dr. Atkins and his successors who manage the booming $200 million Atkins
Nutritionals business were not working for the betterment of mankind, to
borrow Mary Baker Eddy's phrase. They were working to sell diet books,
millions and millions of them, and specialized food products with the
Atkins
label.

Yeah, what a bunch of greedy *******s, so unlike the altruistic low fat
advocates. I mean, it's SO nice of Ornish and McDougall to give out their
books for FREE!

and how much does a paperback version of dandr cost? Most of the
information is available on the website for free if you can't afford the
book.

Sid...