Atkins Nutritionist, would you explain this, please?

[Emily-D]

Kimmer recently posted, "per the Atkins Nutritionist, the '72 and '92 versions of Atkins no longer exist." Since I missed that thread, would you explain that to me? I'm sure that there must be others who are wondering what it means. Thank you.

[Matt]

i would assume that it means those are old and outdated versions. The newest version, Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution is the most updated and offers the best methods to lose weight. Thats just what i would assume from common sense.

[Lisa Rae]

Emdo,

Thanks for asking this. I've been following the same thread..and basically wanted to know the same thing. Looking through the posts on this board..I couldn't find the statement..but maybe I missed it?

Yes..one can assume that as time passes and more research is done..any weightloss program will change based on new information. However..that is a far cry from saying the old versions "don't exist"

When I read this statement (and still not sure exaclty where it came from as of yet) It seemed to me to be more then just updating a great original plan. More like the old version was WRONG..and thus..this is now Atkins. If it was said as just that it has been updated based on research..well I get that. But to state that his amazing an inovative original plan doesn't exist...to me implies the Atkins plan now is NOT based on the original concepts and ideas and is a diffrent "diet" alltogether.

Would love to hear from the Atkins Nutritionalist on her take of the above statement as well.

[Atkins_Nutritionist]

I am not sure what she meant. I did not say this and I'm not sure what is meant by this. Was this taken verbatim? Could someone post the whole statement or thread? It will help me sort through te specifics.

Kimmer can you help with this....?

[Lisa Rae]

I always thnk it's best to get it clear right up front. So I sent Kimmer a PM..and let her know her "presence was requested"

I got the impression this info came from Colette...but then again..the post was HUGE! and my memory is not what it should be for a 39 year old (LOL)

[Atkins_Nutritionist]

Yes, I may have responded to this. It sounds familiar but just want to make sure we are speaking about the same thread.

[Lisa Rae]

A.N. Umm..nope..it's a post on the main bb..entitled "About one of Kimmers posts" and thus far..I haven't seen you respond on that threead or here.

So I guess we just gotta wait for Kimmer (who is the queen of busy) to see my pm..and come in for an update

[MAMZELLE]

I haven't seen that particular post / statement of Kimmer's, nor do I presume to speak for anyone else, nor like to... but after reading so many other statements and conversations like it of hers, and until she gets here, I'll take a stab at saying that.... to my knowledge of reading dozens of Kimmer's other posts on the subject, and having spoken to her personally, that ["not existing''] comment was just an expression, and a figure of speech referring to it's changes and transformations, and not a negative comment about the Original, nor that it is 'outdated'...... but we shall soon see [?] :-)

[Kimmer]

Originally posted by Atkins_Nutritionist
I am not sure what she meant. I did not say this and I'm not sure what is meant by this. Was this taken verbatim? Could someone post the whole statement or thread? It will help me sort through te specifics.

Kimmer can you help with this....?

Sorry, I didn't get Lisa Rae's PM until yesterday and I was too pooped to post. I'm a foster mom to 4 teens and yesterday was the first day of school (doing the Happy Dance, LOL!)

Several people are posting as the Atkins Nutritionist, so I'm not sure who I'm answering to in this post.

When the AN originally posted requesting "success stories" for the upcoming Atkins books I posted on that thread and stated that yet another Atkins book would be confusing ... there's a 1972, 1992, 2002, etc. version of the Atkins plan. That thread has been deleted (I think because it was no longer needed).

I sent emails to the authors of the thread (Atkins staff), plus Dr. Trager and Colette Heimowitz. Colette sent me an email. I reposted 1 paragraph (I don't post/forward emails without permission of the author). She had posted the email in the deleted thread.

This is the perinent paragraph. It indicates the 1972 and 1992 versions are defunct:

Dated 8/5/04, from C. Heimowitz:

"... There’s no need for any “debate” about whether to go with the 1972 edition or the 1992 edition; Atkins, like Freud, was a revolutionary thinker who continued to modify and expand his initial theories and observations based on the most current research available as he published over several decades. The 1992 edition was based on the most current research available at that time, as was the 1972 edition. The important thing is to do what works and to continue to scientifically validate the program. That’s what’s been happening, and that is exactly what will continue to happen. The basics of how to do Atkins are spelled out very clearly in the Atkins Essentials book ..."

[jezzie]

This is what puzzles me. I've watched many Dr. Atkins interviews in which he stated he had been successfully treating overweight people for thirty years. When the new science updated the theory ... what about the people who successfully lost weight the first thirty years? Did they then get discounted because it was outdated science?

As an admitted non expert common sense tells me ... if all those people successfully lost weight with the old science it's good enough for me. Especially because it makes sense to me expert or not.
~jezzie

[MAMZELLE]

I am one of "those" here alive and breathing to show that 'nothing' should be 'discounted' as outdated. In my personal opinion and experience, 'extreme' Atkins [72] was originally targeted FOR the most metabolically resistant and that is why my personal choice of 'virtually' 0 carbs was and still is my most effective method, and which I am in
the process of skimming back down to..... having been eating Romaine salad the past week instead of doing it the way I used to without even that..... it took me totally out of keytosis for the very first time, after only three days of the salad.

There are those who are lucky and can successfully experiment with today's wider range of higher carbs, but eventually do go back to the basic minimum because of always getting stuck..... one resort of which is the desperate meat/eggs fast, which to me IS normal, basic Atkins and my way of always doing it, then going to vegetables only AFTER induction [but never really fully leaving induction]... then salad and drops of other things long afterwards and only dependent on an irrisistable social outing or holiday to occasionally allow for more.

Not my place to make recommendations, merely saying what has always worked much better for me, [which certainly 'can't' be "discounted"], and especially after recently taking even very mimimal stabs at the more lenient 'updates'. If even the OLD standard of salad gets me into trouble, anything else is just out of the question and I'm happy to continue aiming for 0.

I'm a person who likes to keep an open mind [as I did when doing and STICKING with Atkins at [and since] the beginning when most of the word was afraid, and many cringed at even the mention of his name lol], but what I did then, and on that highest level of extreme minimal carbs.... is what has always been the most effective , has produced lifelong results..... and therefore still is for me. I don't believe in tampering with success.

For those who can't tolerate the most minimal carbs, I do believe in experimenting and taking advantage of today's fuller menu, but also expect a slower loss for some, which is fine and according to what each individual finds livable for this stage and also long term, which IS the objective.

[Lisa Rae]

Gald you could make it Kimmer!

Yeah..I still have no idea how you do it girl..I have one pre-teen boy..and I feel like I am forever cooking, doing dishes and laundry! Thank goodness for low-carb eh? at least I have 3 x's the energy I once did (which apparently I need!)

Ok..so waiting for an update. Glad you cleared this up. Waiting with curiosity.

P.S. when is this NEW version comming on the market. Will be an intresting read to say the least. I have the original book..but found it about 1 1/2 years into my weightloss..and since that version was working for me..it's the one I've stuck too. I'm truly hopeing (and not thinking it's going to happen) that the emphasis on this book is learning to eat real food in a healthy way. From the read on this board thus far..The A.N seems to not say "Products are he way to lose" but also doesn't seem to emphasize the need for chaning old bad habits by eating real food..not treats for daily nutrition. Well at least not enough for me that is (LOL)

[Kimmer]

What I think is more confusing are the changes the AN is indicating in this forum, including suggestions for specific fat type ratios, increasing Induction carbs, allowing LC products, etc.

Yet ...

Dr. Atkin's original 1972 books has been rereleased and is available at bookstores now.

Dr. Atkin's original plan is much, much different than the newer books, which, I imagine, will include the yet-to-be-published one?



PS - Not that anyone's interested , but I don't post in this forum because I understood it to be a place for people ask questions specifically of the AN ... otherwise the AN could pick & choose questions to post about on the main BB.

[jezzie]

I'm 'guessing' that maybe 1992 was the last book Dr. Atkins actually wrote. In the 2002 it says "The revision of this book was a massive team effort." It also says Michael Bernstein, a vice president at Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., was the leader of the team.

Many different plans work if you stick to them. Different roads hopefully leading to the same goal ... healthy weight loss.
~jezzie

[Kimmer]

Originally posted by jezzie
In the 2002 it says "The revision of this book was a massive team effort." It also says Michael Bernstein, a vice president at Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., was the leader of the team.

Michael Bernstein was the leader of the team that revised DANDR???

From www.atkins.com: [emphasis mine]

"Michael Bernstein oversees the Atkins information products group. In this role he is responsible for the company’s Web site and online activities, the direct-to-consumer business, and all research, education and communication initiatives. This includes the development and distribution of editorial and promotional content, as well as public-relations activities. Within the direct-to-consumer business, Mr. Bernstein also manages the business development group, focusing on private label and licensing opportunities."

Well, that certainly explains the new direction the Atkins books are taking.

[Atkins_Nutritionist]

Ok,

Here is my translation after reading the paragraph:

I think what she is saying is that as new science emerges the program may change to keep up with the latest information. For examlpe, there is a lot of research now showing the value of omega 3 fats (avocados, olives, olive oil, fish...) to your health. This information may not have been available previously. So an updated book may specifically say that it is beneficial to include deep sea fish vs. eat a variety of proteins.

The premise is to still eat protein and fat and vegetables but we now say add fish to your meals of steak/chicken....

This is not to say that the older books cannot be used and it does not mean that the older books have zero value. You may want to use 2 books (older and more recent) and cross reference.

The same goes for the products, products were not available a few years ago. It was very difficult to not have ANYTHING convenient to take with you and stick with the program.

If you use an advantage bar when you are on the go because it is better than eating an ice cream cone or a candy bar, it is less deterimental to our plan. If you choose to eat 3-4 bars or more, you may or may not see the benefits. It is all a matter of the individual's choice and response to various foods.

Everyone needs to determine what works specifically for them and this is a fundamental point that Atkins and the nutritionists that support Atkins hold true. We sincerely want people to be successful and will help any way we can.

Please let me know if this clears up any confusion. I hope this helps.

[Atkins_Nutritionist]

P.S. By the way, isn't the quote, "per the Atkins Nutritionist, the '72 and '92 versions of Atkins no longer exist," a lot different than what the quote actually said.

We must be very careful when we read and disseminate information. It is important to provide accurate information vs. a statement with a personal slant to it.

I know it is hard but it is important to give information and allow people to have their own interpretation. It is a classic example of the old "telephone" game (one person describes a story to another person and that person tells someone else, the story is told to many others and by the time the last person hears the story, it is completely different that the original version of the story).

This is why it is key for anyone who goes on Atkins to educate themselves through the website, the books...vs. ust listening to a friend or family member.

[Kimmer]

Originally posted by Atkins_Nutritionist
This is not to say that the older books cannot be used and it does not mean that the older books have zero value. You may want to use 2 books (older and more recent) and cross reference.

So if someone chooses to follow the '72 plan of meat with UP TO 3 cups of salad veggies (recalling that tomatoes & onions weren't allowed back then), then it's OK?

GREAT!

But this contradicts the AN responses on this forum. The AN responses are that we need to aim for 20 net carbs at Induction (which according to 1972 & 1992 versions would be about 30-35 total carbs). The '72 and '92 versions don't allow SA or glycerin. They certainly don't allow for the recent AN advice of 25-30 grams of fiber daily. These are HUGE differences in how people lose weight.

In a response to Ben_1981, the AN is also requesting he follow specific fat type percentages (poly, mono, sat). Is this going to be in the new book? If customers don't have internet access to the USDA food database or www.fitday.com, how would they possible aim for 37% of a specific fat type?

Several people are answering as the Atkins Nutritionist (I'm counting at least 3) and they are providing conflicting answers. People are trying to educate themselves through various channels, including this BB. If the books were more clear, people wouldn't need to.

So, for the record, people would be correct if they choose to follow Dr. Atkins' original 1972 book, which severely limits veggie carbs while providing excellent weight loss?

[MAMZELLE]

.....and certainly with all due respect.... The omega 3's and it's supplements, [which I did take even back then] and fresh deep sea Fish along with ALL fish were just as important 'back then' and the diet didn't only consist of "meat and chicken". Fish was always not ONLY suggested, but also advised and downright PUSHED as the better of the three proteins, and that it should be eaten much more often than the other two, and certainly more than meat.... the order of preference was 'always' fish, chicken and thenmuch more seldom.... meat, and that was since day one and directly from the good doctor himself to me, therefore to all of his patients, [and even in the 72 book, I'm sure, if memory serves]. So I'm confused at that being indicated as the result of 'recent' and newely developed research that will be in the new book [?].

Also..... There is STILL a problem of having something "convenient to take with you and stick to the program". Perfect example, my DF and I were just having another of our ongoing conversations last night of how he is having a problem, being a teacher, about lunch issues and he is very upset about not being able to fully tackle and resolve it YET.

He is pre-diabetic [boarderline] and I've been getting him on modified Original Atkins very slowly [unfortunately not being there], cutting out those frozen low carb 'boxes' and instead have him standing by the stove every night while on his cell with me, cooking REAL chicken and fish in olive oil, seasonings, etc., and making his own salad, but he has a problem putting tuna in a container for some reason, to carry with him, as other [women] teachers find it second nature to do, i.e. one of the teachers, also on Original Atkins and a personal friend of his, [married to a doctor who also just lost 40 lbs. on it].

So having an Atkins 'BAR' or shake is certainly not solving the lunch situation because that is not the equivelant of egg salad or tuna salad with fresh lettuce and celery nor anything else he could put into a container even prepared the night before, or leftovers. But it's hard getting him accustomed to doing that from 3000 miles away where I could do it for him or at least GET him physically accustomed to doing it himself, which I gradually am and eventually will be even moreso... but he is working on even that, and complaining about when he DOES grab something he
shouldn't instead ['prepared low carb'], and is very AWARE that he shouldn't even be eating THOSE things.... that are low carb but really not even nearly considered as a substitute for 'real' foods and for a 'meal'.

The comparason isn't an advantage bar vs. an "ice cream bar" when thinking in terms of 'lunch'. The only comparason there is, is an Atkins bar vs. a hershey bar as you did imply and ice cream, in which case of COURSE it's much better, but that doesn't help with 'lunch' and most sensible people aren't eating candy bars and ice cream for lunches OR snacks [he certainly never did].... so those bars and shakes are not substitutes nor alternatives for wholesome tuna, egg, green salad, etc...... 'LUNCHES' and there is STILL a problem in that area, and STILL is nothing available except ready mixed tuna, eggs salads like the above mentioned, which I wouldn't go near with a ten foot pole even with sterilized gloves on, and wouldn't trust what would be put in them by a deli, luncheonette, etc., so things STILL have to be prepared at home, and it is STILL a problem to most 'men', more than women, and not a macho thing [in his situation], but a mere inconvenience and something they're just not used to, the litttle darlin's lol

Ps... Yes, I absolutely agree about the 'telephone game'.... that can be very dangerous and always has been

[Lisa Rae]

Hey Kimmer..

I can almost guarentee that if someone chooses to follow the 72 plan..the AN will not be showing up at their door and bust them LOL

This is my take...I will use exercise as a comparison.

When I started..most people we're on the aerobics crazy. Everyone was spouting how wonderful it was..all the benifits and such (old atkins) I unfortunatly was specifically told I could not do aerobics..due to a back injury. I had to find what worked for me. I began by just walking..small amounts 3 times a week. (so more like revised Atkins..not as dramatic..but still a good plan/exercise) For some..walking would not be dramatic enough for the results they wanted..for me..was still a huge improvement to my seditary life untill then. So...If someone can and wants to do aerobics..and it works for them..great. If someone needs a less dramatic form of exercise..like walking..and it works for them..again great. One is not better or wrose..it's more about what works for you right?

So 72 version...works for someone..again great. revised, was perfect for me..New Atkins might be just the right fit for someone else (say "Buns of Steel" LOL)

We have to be willing to take personal responsibility for what we Choose. We have to be willing to go out and get educated..then find what fits their life and personality. We can't expect the Atkins people to hold our hand..plan everymeal..and hold our forks!

However..isn't the main goal to lose weight and be healthy? whichever road you take..if we all end up there..then we all will be happy eh?

[Kimmer]

Lisa, I fully agree that everyone is responsible for their food and lifestyle choices.

The fly in the ointment ... where people are confused ... is the recommendations of the AN don't coincide with the older books. My interpretation of Colette's email is that DANDR is revised because of new science (hence the "old science" books are invalid ... if they're still valid, why revise?)

So, whether someone chooses <20 carbs from '72 or '92 or the instructions on the AN forum of 20 'net' (which is what, 30-35), the specifc fats percentage, the 25-30 grams of fiber PLUS allowing 1-2 Atkins products a day will result in disappointed customers. Disappointed in weight loss (or gain!) and disappointed in the complexity of "new" Atkins.

Recently I read the post of Rules at the top of this forum (after it was pointed out to me) and I've broken many of them. You and I aren't supposed to have this conversation. I'm not supposed to make suggestions for the new book. I'm not supposed to question the AN after the question is answered ... even if I'm still confused or think the answer is wrong or if the answer contradicts a previous AN answer.

[Lisa Rae]

Eww Kimmer..I'm bad! never read the rules for this board!..as I've been on these boards for almost 4 years! Better go read..don't want to be in trouble (yeah ok..like that won't happen?) LOLOL

[Druktenis]

I've been doing Atkins off and on since 1973 and have recently been surprised to hear all the foods people are eating on the diet. The BB's really surprised me. My local fitness owner/friend said to me "a carb is a carb" and not to count "net". We I did a little test with my ketostix. I went total carb for a week and then went net carb for a week and was surprised to see my stix staying purple over both.

Needless to say, I was happy because the Breakfast Bars are very convenient early am for a food source of energy to workout and the ice cream bars are heavenly compared to any "homemade" I was ever able to make.

In conclusion, if I stalled I would count only pure carbs, but if I keep losing and/or maintaining then hallelujah for the new products. I love the WOE and truly have gratitude for the guts Dr. Atkins had as the pioneer of a healthy, doable lifestyle.

[Emily-D]

I don't think that new, revised books invalidate the older ones.

Luckily, we're free to choose whatever plan we like, and I choose to follow the plan outlined in Dr Atkins' 1992 book.

[Atkins_Nutritionist]

Druktenis,

" I did a little test with my ketostix. I went total carb for a week and then went net carb for a week and was surprised to see my stix staying purple over both."

"Needless to say, I was happy because the Breakfast Bars are very convenient early am for a food source of energy to workout and the ice cream bars are heavenly compared to any "homemade" I was ever able to make."

"In conclusion, if I stalled I would count only pure carbs, but if I keep losing and/or maintaining then hallelujah for the new products. I lo