Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (138016)	1/29/2002 4:51:06 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>> there is no evidence to support atkins being used by top flight athletes. i looked. i looked a LOT! << obviously you didn't look hard enough. try looking on page 49 in your favorite book, "enter the zone". "The SUNY study compared the effects of a high-fat versus a high-carbohydrate diet on the endurance of six elite distance runners. In both diets the amount of protein remained constant. But the high-fat diet provided more than 150 grams of fat per day. (This is a massive amount of fat, far more than ever recommended on a Zone-favorable diet.) In this study, the runners were treated like Marv Marinovich's athletes. Each meal was planned for the athletes, and every meal had to be recorded for the researches by the athletes. (In essence, these elite athletes were treated like lab rats.) Each runner tried each diet for seven days, and at the end of the seventh day, each took an endurance test, running on a treadmill until he reached exhaustion. The results? The runners on the high-fat diet--that is, the diet with the lowest amount of carbohydrate--had the best endurance time. the evidence proving my high-fat atkins-type diet fared best for elite distance runners is not in the atkins book. it's in your zone book! heh, heh, heh. >> that IS evidence it doesn't work b/c atkins is very popular << i told you banana brain. atkins is popular with people who are trying to lose weight and cure their ills. top flight athletes don't suffer from this problem, so they don't seek out a diet plan such as atkins. furthermore, most athletes have been brainwashed to "carbo-load", so i could see why a diet that is very restrictive of carbohydrates doesn't appeal to them. doesn't mean they are right. you really need to get over this low-level, dumbed-down logic that says something has to be popular to be correct. there are probably more top-level athletes on high-carb diets than on the zone. does that mean you think that high-carb diets are better? of course not. so popularity is not a substitute for scientific principles and evidence. what you really need to do skeeter is find some top-level athletes who tried the atkins approach and got poor results. saying you can't find any top-level athletes who use atkins ONLY proves that you haven't found athletes who have tried it. it DOESN'T prove that they would not do as well or better on atkins. don't let a little logic get in the way of your attempts to deflect the real issues at hand which are scientific principles. last but not least, you fail to acknowledge the simple truth that atkins says you can adjust your carbohydrate level upwards as long as you are not putting on weight. so like i said, for top-level athletes who train intensely, they can eat more carbs because they will be burned off. of course, the vast majority of people are not top-level athletes and the ones who visit dr atkins do so because they have chronic ailments and usually obesity to go along with it. many of them will not cure their symptoms or maintain their weight with 40% carbs. they might need to restrict them to half that amount to stabilize their symptoms and weight. even dr sears acknowledges these differences. he says that while the ratio of carbs to protein should ideally be 4:3, because of the difference in people's genetics you could maintain equal 1:1 proportions of carbs to protein and remain in the zone favorable diet. this would be more like a 40% fat, 30% carb, 30% protein diet--which is getting closer to my diet. >> yes, you eat fruit, but your banana tirade shows you feel it is a "bad, bad, bad carbo - something you don't even need to survive (as though that means jack! -vbg-)." << i said it's all relative. bananas are not the worst source of carbs on the planet, but they are far from ideal. even sears agrees. i guess you better read the zone one more time before you "devour bananas all day long". "enter the zone" page 84: "So you want to make sure that most of your carbohydrate blocks consist of favorable carbohydrates. These include most--although not all--fiber-rich fruits and vegetables. Unfavorable carbohydrates include bread, pasta, grains, corn, potatoes, and high-glycemic fruits and vegetables, like papayas, bananas, corn, and carrots--as well as fruit juices. considering you "devour bananas all day long" it doesn't sound like you are following the plan for "entering the zone". perhaps it is you who might need to catch up on a little more reading, eh? >> you are as wrong as the folks that think that all fats are "bad, bad, bad." << uh huh. i'm wrong because i don't cater to your wishes and waste an hour searching the net for athletes who give testimonials for atkins. nevermind the fact that you have not offered one shred of scientific data or proof to refute my points. you are simply unable to, so you attempt to goad me into looking for anecdotes from athletes as a diversionary tactic. >> both are good, good, good when eaten in moderation. << there you go with the moderation thing again. does this sound like moderation to you? "i devour bananas all day long" apparently dr sears wouldn't approve--and neither do i.