Yes, there is quite a socio-cultural phenomenon when it comes to Dr .Atkins diet. Because it is considered an alternative diet, even a quackery, by one part of the society while being extremely popular and reportedly successful in another part. The followers are being told that the diet is for the ignorant, while dieticians and nutritionists in their turn ignore existing scientific facts.

For already decades, it is being predicted by one part of medical establishment that its adherents will eventually suffer from numerous health problems, while another part of establishment is peacefully collecting data after data after data on safety of even more stringent, ketogenic diet.

On the Net, there is no lack of conventional sites arguing against Dr. Atkins diet. However, I was disappointed with their lack of any standard bibliographic references. That is, to my disbelief, none of medical professionals ever backed up his or her opinion with standard for medical community crediting (footnotes, endnotes, etc.)

Combinedwith my inability to find any experimental proof of adverse effects and with the results of clinical study conducted by Durham Veterans Hospital (NC),I believe it gave me the right to question their seriousness. But let me start from the very beginning.

I've started off as Dr. Atkins opponent, too, so I've been there.  I bought the old and well used "Diet Revolution" at a yard sale in early1990s. I knew nothing of the diet but I became instantly suspicious of it because of its style which I considered then mostly hype. Sorry to admit, I still can see why so many people who like the eDiet, dislike the book nevertheless.

What forced me to change my opinion a few years later and actually read the book more carefully was the body metamorphoses of a couple of friends of mine, including a competitive bodybuilder. So, I've re-read the book, and you know what - I didn't find it SO revolutionary at all. Since my childhood, doctors in Russia would tell their patients to restrict their carbohydrate intake: "Cut out white flour, breads, and sweets" - was a standard formula of health educators before the Western low fat dietetic ideas have their way to Russia, and that was not until the mid-90s. Recently, I've heard from one of the Weight Watchers' veterans that in 1980s, the WW program emphsized limiting carbohydrates plus to counting calories.

About three years ago, during my research on alternative medicine, I happened to be surfing the Net and found the QuackWatch site with Dr. Atkins books on the list of "Unrecommended Reading" - with no comments or explanation why. Now, three years later, there's still no comments, but now I am not surprised.

The matter is, when I decided to figure out what is known to health sciences about this type of diet, I've managed to found hundreds of articles showing many effects of the diet on human and animals' bodies - and only two articles (at that time) one describing syptoms of induction phase as general consequences of the diet and another predictingadverse effects. These were dated by 1970s but I failed finding any attempts to confirm the suspicions or even any follow up studies, not for the Atkins diet (the ketogenic one is another story and I'll tell it later).

For example:

 
"The diet decreases appetite: patients eat less without feeling severe hunger and without measuring their food intake. Orthostatic hypotension, fatigue, and nausea are frequent, despite what Dr. ATKINS claims"(Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift. Journal Suisse de Medecine.107(29):1017-25, 1977)

"Hypercholesterolemia is to be expected in a greater part of the adherents to such a diet" (Fortschritte der Medizin. 96(34):1697-702, 1978)

Now, compare it with this fact: Drs. Garg A., Grundy SM., and UngerRH. from Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of Texas, came to the conclusion:

                                    "Compared with the low-carbohydrate diet, the
                                    high-carbohydrate diet caused a 27.5% increase in
                                    plasma triglycerides and a similar increase in
                                    LDL-cholesterol levels; it also reduced levels of HDL
                                    cholesterol by 11%."

Which means, it was the high-carb and not low-carb  diet that made blood tests numbers worse

Now, in 2000, I could easily find facts from peer reviewed journals beating these suspicions and I will give you this facts in my next article.  Just one note here, about the studies reported failing to show  -all about presumed adverse effects.  None of other effects just has ever been under investigation:

1   2   next page->