Skip to content


    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!

    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    Didi (re: Atkins)
    heretk posted:
    Didi wrote (elsewhere):

    Atkins reports in his book, "Dr Atkins Nutrition Breakthrough" that some of his diabetic patients (he doesn't give numbers) "adjust" (quotes his) to his diet and their blood sugars increase. He said it was beneficial for them to have their lower blood sugars even for a while. So he devises a "meat and millet" diet for diabetics whereas in his first book he claims his very low carb diet is the best for diabetics. His meat and millet diet adds grains. So if the king of low carb found his diet less than perfect for diabetics for whom the popular (and I believe incorrect) wisdom says to reduce carbs, and he actually adds carbs then one might question a low carb, higher animal protein diet. Of course when you eat more animal protein you are eating more fat and cholesterol. When we talk of carbs I hope we are on the same page and are referring only to whole food as grown or very very minimally processed. Not highly processed and refined flour products or starchy food cooked in fat.[br>

    Sorry, but with all due respect, I still believe that this "meat and millet" diet is probably a myth stemming from some misinterpretation of his text.

    Atkins did make small mistakes. In my opinion, allowing adding of more carbohydrates beyond 50g/d after just the first 6 months of induction stage, was the main one! But he never advocated eating huge amounts of carbs!

    His 50g of carbs during "induction" was much too soon and he did not clearly specify the upper limit after the induction stage. His induction stage limit of 50g was too high for most people, except those of large body size.

    Based on my recollection of diabetic people I talked to, worsening of blood glucose control after a certain period of time on his diet, was not due to some "adaptation" but precisely because they added too much carbs too soon!

    Even for me, though I was not diabetic (only metabolic syndrome) it took me 2 full years before I was able to add more carbs in form of rice and fruit to my diet, beyond the initial 25g of carbs day (I couldn't tolerate even 50g initially!) . I was able to increase that to about 50gonly after 2 years! Only after about 7 years I was able to consume up to a 100g of carbs, occassionally and infrequently.

    Whether he really specified adding millet to a diet they way you describe it, I seriously doubt. If you quote from memory this is may be distorted. Best thing would be to get the relevant fragment scanned and posted (you should perhaps post it on that other forum). The spirit of Atkins diet can be summarized in 2 words: "Carbohydrate Restriction". He has never changed that, as far as I know, till he died.

    However, since Atkins didn't specify carb limits, an interpretation by some readers to add cereals at liberty, and then suffer from poor glucose control or worse, may have been an unfortunate outcome.

    Anyway Atkins is dead and buried, but new research keeps cropping up supporting the notion of the therapeutic value of the low carb diets for people with metabolic syndrome and diabetes. That is partially Atkins legacy that has not and will not die. And that is really good news!

    Best regards,
    Stan (Heretic)

    dteresa responded:
    Hi, H. I copied the pages from which I wrote the above but can't scan them. However, I am really surprised that you don't use an inter library loan to get a copy of the book especially since you are such a fan. And you are correct. It is possible I misinterpreted and would be really interested in your understanding of his "meat and millet" diet and his explanation of diabetics "adjusting" to his diet. (I mean after you have read the book) Oddly enough I did not see any reference to this in any of his other books although admittedly I scanned them rather than really read thoroughly. I tend to mostly read what he says about diabetics.

    Bye the way, Dr. Atkins did not seem very heart healthy himself. As you know his family refused to allow an autopsy or to have his medical records made public. Pritikin on the other hand was autopsied after his suicide and his family made his records public. I realize knowing about the health of both of them would still be only anecdotal. We all know of people who eat exactly the opposite of your very low carb diet or my higher carb low fat diet who live to be centenarians. Someone else has a slice of pizza or a twinkie and drops dead. Or for that matter is in perfect health yet gets run over by a beer truck.

    heretk replied to dteresa's response:
    Yes, I will get a book as soon as I have a time and mental will do it. For the time being I reserve a privilege of remaining skeptical of what you have written so far. Sorry.

    BTW, from a different thread, your estimate of wild game fat contents is most likely completely wrong, by a factor of 10.


    Don't forget, our paleo ancestors didn't have that much fat in their environment. Game animals and most insects are only about 3 or 4 percent body fat.

    For example, just a cursory look at the food tables shows lean veal to be about 30% fat by calories (7% by weight). See for example here .

    Regards, and best wishes,
    dteresa replied to heretk's response:

    dteresa replied to heretk's response:

    dteresa replied to heretk's response:

    OK. The wildebeest has about 6 % fat. This is a lot less than feed lot cattle and maybe other domestic farmed animals.

    heretk replied to dteresa's response:

    Zoologists commonly report fat contents in animal tissue by weight, in % of the total, while in nutrition research the fat contents is commonly reported as % of the total calories or as % of the total animal tissue also by calories. For example if animal contains 4% fat by weight, and the total weight is composed by about 75% water, then the contents of dry protein fat by weight is 25% of the total animal. If fat is 4% of the total (as per Don Matesz article) then it constitutes 16% of the dry mass of protein fat. I ignore the weigh of the bones which constitute about 7% of the total mass of an animal (for mammals). Thus fat to protein ratio is 1:6. Since fat has twice as much calories as protein, therefore the ratio of fat to protein by calories is 1:3 which means that fat constitutes about 25% of calories of a lean wild animal, while protein 75%. The ratio is 25:75 = 1:3. A wilderbeest with 6% fat mass, would work out at around 36% of fat calories. Still, I prefer pigs or fatty ducks or geese.
    Stan (Heretic)
    dteresa replied to heretk's response:
    So, you don't think that a feed lot cow has more fat than a deer?
    Or that people who rely on hunting as their only source of animal food consume less fat than the average meat eating American?
    heretk replied to dteresa's response:
    Yes, a cow has more fat than a wild deer; the former is about 50% fat by calories (about 10% by weight), the later is probably about 30% by calories (about 5% weight).

    Spotlight: Member Stories

    Let's see.... I'm the mom of six (three hers, three mine) who used to live in Florida but now lives in the Chicago area. (Don't ask.) I&#...More

    Helpful Tips

    Old Discussions
    You can find some of the old discussions from the original diet debate board by looking up keywords or member names using the search on the ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    29 of 45 found this helpful

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.