The Ketogenic Diet

Bob in CT wrote:
:: Is there anything worthwhile in this book? I've begun rereading the
:: book, and I just can't seem to get past his condescending attitude
:: (Atkins sucked). Nor can I believe that I need 5grams of carbs per
:: every two sets at the gym. Nor do I think I'll be on a cyclic
:: ketogenic diet. What else is there in this book?
::
:: --
:: Bob in CT

There's a lot of good stuff in the book. However, you may not be it's
intended audience. Most people DO NOT need a CKD and I don't think Lyle is
trying to sell it to most, either. Whether or not anyone needs a TKD depends
greatly on how hard one trains, and not everyone works out at the same
intensity.

Frankly, I don't recall an "Atkins sucked" attitude (he did have some
science wrong), though Lyle pretty much thinks everyone sucks, including
him.

x-no-archive: yes

Bob in CT said:

Is there anything worthwhile in this book? I've begun rereading the
book, and I just can't seem to get past his condescending attitude
(Atkins sucked).

Atkins' books *did* suck when it came to providing good scientific
evidence. Since Lyle focused on the science, not the hype, behind
ketogenic dieting exclusively, it makes sense in that context. He did
find Protein Power to be the only popular diet book that did not err on
the science.

Nor can I believe that I need 5grams of carbs per

Quoted message said:

every two sets at the gym. Nor do I think I'll be on a cyclic
ketogenic diet. What else is there in this book?

The book is highly informative, but very badly written and edited. It's
basically just an exhaustive review of the research on metabolism and
ketogenics for people who have an interest.

Whether or not you find it worthwhile depends upon how big your appetite
for uninterpreted reams of research is and how much you care about how
ketogenics works or whether you have a particular goal in mind body fat
or performance wise.

Susan

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:15:28 -0400, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob in CT wrote:
:: Is there anything worthwhile in this book? I've begun rereading the
:: book, and I just can't seem to get past his condescending attitude
:: (Atkins sucked). Nor can I believe that I need 5grams of carbs per
:: every two sets at the gym. Nor do I think I'll be on a cyclic
:: ketogenic diet. What else is there in this book?
::
:: --
:: Bob in CT

There's a lot of good stuff in the book. However, you may not be it's
intended audience. Most people DO NOT need a CKD and I don't think Lyle
is
trying to sell it to most, either. Whether or not anyone needs a TKD
depends
greatly on how hard one trains, and not everyone works out at the same
intensity.

Frankly, I don't recall an "Atkins sucked" attitude (he did have some
science wrong), though Lyle pretty much thinks everyone sucks, including
him.

Perhaps Atkins sucked is an over generalization. However, I remember
reading the book and basically getting very little out of it. I'm
rereading it and wondering why. I think that a TKD is beneficial, even
for me. But he tends to concentrate on lifting, which I do, just not that
much.

--
Bob in CT

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Bob in CT said:

Is there anything worthwhile in this book? I've begun rereading the
book, and I just can't seem to get past his condescending attitude
(Atkins sucked).

Atkins' books *did* suck when it came to providing good scientific
evidence. Since Lyle focused on the science, not the hype, behind
ketogenic dieting exclusively, it makes sense in that context. He did
find Protein Power to be the only popular diet book that did not err on
the science.

Well, I find most studies to be so lacking that to call them "scientific"
is an injustice. I also find that Lyle reaches conclusions based on too
few studies. Also, I think one must be careful how one applies studies.
Just because a bunch of 20 year old people had some outcome doesn't mean
that 40 year olds will have the same outcome.

Quoted message said:

Nor can I believe that I need 5grams of carbs per

Quoted message said:

every two sets at the gym. Nor do I think I'll be on a cyclic
ketogenic diet. What else is there in this book?

The book is highly informative, but very badly written and edited. It's
basically just an exhaustive review of the research on metabolism and
ketogenics for people who have an interest.

Whether or not you find it worthwhile depends upon how big your appetite
for uninterpreted reams of research is and how much you care about how
ketogenics works or whether you have a particular goal in mind body fat
or performance wise.

Susan

Well, I haven't quite hit the explanations of the ketogenic process.
Perhaps I'll reread this part, then decide.

--
Bob in CT

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:15:28 -0400, Roger Zoul
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: Bob in CT wrote:
::::: Is there anything worthwhile in this book? I've begun rereading
::::: the book, and I just can't seem to get past his condescending
::::: attitude (Atkins sucked). Nor can I believe that I need 5grams
::::: of carbs per every two sets at the gym. Nor do I think I'll be
::::: on a cyclic ketogenic diet. What else is there in this book?
:::::
::::: --
::::: Bob in CT
:::
::: There's a lot of good stuff in the book. However, you may not be
::: it's intended audience. Most people DO NOT need a CKD and I don't
::: think Lyle is
::: trying to sell it to most, either. Whether or not anyone needs a TKD
::: depends
::: greatly on how hard one trains, and not everyone works out at the
::: same intensity.
:::
::: Frankly, I don't recall an "Atkins sucked" attitude (he did have
::: some science wrong), though Lyle pretty much thinks everyone sucks,
::: including him.
:::
:::
::
:: Perhaps Atkins sucked is an over generalization. However, I remember
:: reading the book and basically getting very little out of it. I'm
:: rereading it and wondering why. I think that a TKD is beneficial,
:: even for me. But he tends to concentrate on lifting, which I do,
:: just not that much.
::

I think the book was written for those who wanted to bulk up and then cut,
cut, cut to get in "show" shape. Those guys expend a LOT of energy in a
workout, and hence the CKD (especially) and the TKD made a lot of sense. I
too think the TKD can be very useful for a lot of use more casual
exercisers, but the CKD should be used only by those with the most serious
of intentions.

:: --
:: Bob in CT

x-no-archive: yes

Bob in CT said:

Well, I find most studies to be so lacking that to call them
"scientific" is an injustice.

Without studies, we have nothing to go on. I find studies to be very
informative, even when flawed, as long as I ignore the author's
statements about what they think they've proven. The data and methods
and results are where the insights come from.

I also find that Lyle reaches

Quoted message said:

conclusions based on too few studies. Also, I think one must be
careful how one applies studies. Just because a bunch of 20 year old
people had some outcome doesn't mean that 40 year olds will have the
same outcome.

Too few studies??? He basically cited everything there was! That's the
only strength of the book. Did you notice the long list of citations at
the end of the chapters? How many more studies have you found that you
think he ignored??

Quoted message said:

Well, I haven't quite hit the explanations of the ketogenic process.
Perhaps I'll reread this part, then decide.

Uh, Bob, it sounds as if you haven't even opened the cover.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Bob in CT wrote:
::
::: Well, I find most studies to be so lacking that to call them
::: "scientific" is an injustice.
::
:: Without studies, we have nothing to go on. I find studies to be very
:: informative, even when flawed, as long as I ignore the author's
:: statements about what they think they've proven. The data and
:: methods and results are where the insights come from.
::
:: I also find that Lyle reaches
::: conclusions based on too few studies. Also, I think one must be
::: careful how one applies studies. Just because a bunch of 20 year
::: old people had some outcome doesn't mean that 40 year olds will
::: have the same outcome.
::
:: Too few studies??? He basically cited everything there was! That's
:: the only strength of the book. Did you notice the long list of
:: citations at the end of the chapters? How many more studies have
:: you found that you think he ignored??

He had around 600 cites in the book, but it's a bit dated now. I do recall
in some places where lyle draws conclusions on a single study -- better than
nothing, but not conclusive at all. Frankly, I think even lyle gets a few
things wrong, too.

::
:::
::: Well, I haven't quite hit the explanations of the ketogenic process.
::: Perhaps I'll reread this part, then decide.
:::
::
:: Uh, Bob, it sounds as if you haven't even opened the cover.
::
:: Susan

The book was not written for idiots, so try something easier.

HTH

"Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is there anything worthwhile in this book? I've begun rereading the book,
and I just can't seem to get past his condescending attitude (Atkins
sucked). Nor can I believe that I need 5grams of carbs per every two sets
at the gym. Nor do I think I'll be on a cyclic ketogenic diet. What else
is there in this book?

--
Bob in CT

Roger Zoul said:

Frankly, I don't recall an "Atkins sucked" attitude

Frankly, Zoulie, your memory sux, he cut Atkins into shreds.

Bob in CT said:

Perhaps Atkins sucked is an over generalization. However, I remember
reading the book and basically getting very little out of it. I'm
rereading it and wondering why.

--
Bob in CT

Bob Atkins claims he was a scientist, he knowingly lied to make mega
$$$, he used the cloak of being a scientist, he was and is a fraud.

I can't believe Atkins is still being bashed after all these years. WOW.
Nothing better to do?

"Mu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob in CT said:

Perhaps Atkins sucked is an over generalization. However, I remember
reading the book and basically getting very little out of it. I'm
rereading it and wondering why.

--
Bob in CT

Bob Atkins claims he was a scientist, he knowingly lied to make mega
$$$, he used the cloak of being a scientist, he was and is a fraud.

2Phat said:

I can't believe Atkins is still being bashed after all these years. WOW.
Nothing better to do?

Atkins died, his influence didn't.