To: craig crawford who wrote (137778 ) 1/24/2002 6:14:13 PM From: Skeeter Bug Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684 % are meaningless, math major, when discussing total intake of protein. atkins doesn't limit protein intake, does he? you support atkins as "the man." so, if one is prone to gluttonism, they may eat 20 hamburgers at one sitting should their appetite allow, right? correct me if i'm wrong here. i don't know how much protein is bad for YOU. 150 g of protein may be fine for you (at least it may not cause harm), i don't know. but to support something that doesn't limit protein intake to that which is beneficial to the body is nonsense, imho. just like telling folks taking 10 aspirin is 5 times BETTER than taking 2 aspirin. abusing your body with too much of anything, imho, is bad. the establishment is out to lunch on diet, imho. that doesn't make me *feel* like a *superstar* or that i possess *secret* knowledge that i must *defend* from the *infidels*. as i said before, the atkins diet is reasonably safe if 1. one doesn't have kidney problems going into it. 2. one follows it as laid out (not an easy feat since the high/low protein guys on this board can't even get the zone straight). i'm not hatin'. i think the zone isbetter b/c 1. there is evidence to back it up - diabetes tests, stanford swim team, college/pro football training camp, james donaldson (nba) and other athletes have used it with great success. btw, this doesn't prove the zone caused the success, but it does prove one can be elite while on the zone. it is also meaningfule when the stanford coach gives rave reviews... 2. it works for me. it may not work for some people. atkins may allow them to lose weight where the zone doesn't, that's fine.