On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:42:01 -0700, Shari in Cali <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>    It would be nice if they had gotten a few more things RIGHT. I mean,
>    even the HEADLINE is wrong -- this is NOT a HIGH PROTEIN DIET, it is an
>    ADEQUATE PROTEIN diet....

Oh, it was okay for the typical mass-media outlook: not too challenging,
third-grade vocabulary, not threatening to the medical status quo.
Entire WOL issues and the sustainability of such diets were mostly
ignored of course... not sensational enough.

I was taken aback that the guy who dropped 30% off his initial weight
seemed to be eating few fruits or veggies. Not gonna last long...

>    Not only that, they say that "critics" claim that there is no scientific
>    basis for the insulin-fat storage theory (correct me if I am wrong but
>    havent there been quite a few studies in this area, and aren't they
>    referenced in PP and DANDR?)

NeanderThin (mentioned in passing in the USA Today article) also refers
to these studies, and goes way beyond into the theory of genetic/biochemical
incompatibility with entire food classes. The blood-type WOE (whatever
its real name is) explores these ideas too.

For example, I noticed that the article mentioned that tofu is acceptible in Atkins,
but since tofu is a legume derivative it is Forbidden under the Paleodiet WOE.
Perhaps tofu was included in Atkins as an inclusive sop to the vegetarians;
Paleoeaters of course feel that the best of diets includes red meat.

The same goes for Atkins' use of artificial sweeteners, which, besides
presenting a WOL problem, are high-tech products and therefore also Forbidden.

>    > Here's the url to the online version:
>    > http://www.usatoday.com/life/health/diet/lhdie061.htm