Vegan Trolls

A high carb vegan comments.

Ah yes, the low-carb, meat-addicted Weston Price clones. Saturated fat is good for you, huh? Hey, I know a bridge you can buy! Interested? lol

It’s amazing how you people proliferate (and predictably, diss and despise) Campbell while worshipping your dead hero Atkins, the pseudo-scientist diet faddist who suffered from (remember?): HEART DISEASE. Hello? Anybody paying attention, or are you too busy scarfing fried bacon with cheese chasers?

Go high-carb vegan! Be thin AND healthy.

Well, after thanking him/her for bringing "fresh meat" to the table, I set out to do a more substantive response. Given the huge increase in readers over the last few months I thought I’d reproduce that here as it covers a lot of stuff I haven’t blogged about in quite a while.

So, here’s my response, along with some touch-ups and additions.


Weston Price, eh? So, are you just a troll? …Because if you knew anything about this blog you’d know that we’re not shills for WAPF. I don’t think grains & legumes have a proper place in the human diet, soaked, sprouted and/or fermented or not (though, if you must, that’s the way to prepare them).

But I suspect all you know about Weston Price is what you’ve read and heard in your vegan echo-chamber. You’re probably not aware that he travelled the world in the 1920s to seek out indigenous populations that had had little contact with civilization and were still eating their traditional foods, and he also compared them to members of these populations who had moved away into contact with modern foods. The research was meticulously documented in journals and photographs and published in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.

Who did he study? From Wikipedia:

Some of the cultures studied include the inhabitants of the Lötschental in Switzerland, the inhabitants of the Isles of Lewis and Harris in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, the Eskimos of Alaska and Canada, the Native Americans, among the inhabitants of New Caledonia, Fiji, Samoa, the Marquesas Islands, Tahiti, Rarotonga, Nukuʻalofa, Hawaii, the Masai, Kikuyu, Wakamba and Jalou tribes of Kenya, the Muhima of Uganda, the Baitu and Watusi of Rwanda, the Pygmies, and Wanande in the Congo, the Terrakeka, Dinka and Neurs of Sudan, the Aborigines of Australia, the inhabitants of the Torres Strait, the Māori of New Zealand, the Tauhuanocans, Quechua, “Andes Indians”, “Sierra Indians” and “Jungle Indians” of Peru.

What did they eat? From a review of the book:

Politically Incorrect: The Neglected Nutritional Research of Dr. Weston Price, DDS

Curiously, all native peoples studied made great efforts to obtain seafood, especially fish roe which was consumed so that we will have healthy children. Even mountain dwelling peoples would make semiannual trips to the sea to bring back seaweeds, fish eggs, and dried fish. Shrimp, rich in both cholesterol and vitamin D, was a standard food in many places, from Africa to the Orient.

The last major feature of native diets that Price found was that they were rich in fat, especially animal fat. Whether from insects, eggs, fish, game animals, or domesticated herds, primitive peoples knew that they would get sick if they did not consume enough fat. Explorers besides Dr. Price have also found this to be true. For example, anthropologist Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who lived for years among the Innu and Northern Canadian Indians, specifically noted how the Indians would go out of their way to hunt down older male caribou for they carried a 50 pound slab of back fat. When such animals were unavailable and Indians were forced to subsist on rabbits, a very lean animal, diarrhea and hunger would set in after about a week. The human body needs saturated fat to assimilate and utilize proteins and saturated animal fats contain high amounts of the fat soluble vitamins, as well as beneficial fatty acids with antimicrobial properties.

Of course, the foods that Price’s subjects ate were natural and unprocessed. Their foods did not contain preservatives, additives, or colorings. They did not contain added sugar (though, when available, natural sweets like honey and maple syrup were eaten in moderation). They did not contain white flour or canned foods. Their milk products were not pasteurized, homogenized, or low fat. The animal and plant foods consumed were raised and grown on pesticide-free soil and were not given growth hormones or antibiotics. In short, these people always ate organic.

Conclusions of the research from the Price-Pottenger website:

– Dental decay is caused primarily by nutritional deficiencies.

– Although radically different, 14 tribal diets provided almost complete immunity to tooth decay and resistance to disease.

– The diets contained no refined or devitalized foods.

– Laboratory analyses revealed that all of these diets were unusually high in protein, vitamins, minerals and especially in fat soluble factors found in animal fats.

– Contact with civilization, followed by adoption of the “displacing foods of modern commerce,” was disastrous for all groups studied.

– Rampant dental caries were followed by progressive facial deformities in children born to parents consuming refined and devitalized foods.

– These changes consisted of narrowed facial structure and dental arches, along with crowded teeth, birth defects and increased susceptibility to infectious and chronic disease.

– Significantly, when some natives returned to their traditional diets, open cavities ceased progressing and children subsequently conceived and born, once again had perfect dental arches and no tooth decay.

– If civilized man is to survive, he must incorporate the fundamentals of primitive nutritional wisdom into his modern life-style.

Based upon his findings, he came back and began curing cavities in his patients nutritionally. See, he found almost no tooth decay in his travels (often less than one cavity per 1,000 teeth or more examined) at a time when tooth decay was 30% in the modern world and even teens were having teeth extracted for dentures.

Prove it? Yep, you guessed it. Re-calcifying tooth cavities was published in major medical journals as early as 1924.

I would also recommend reading Dr. Stephan’s recent series on Malocclusion.

And check out what Activator X — now Vitamin K2 (MK-4; Menatetrenone) — is all about.

Finally, not all vegetarians are ignorant parrots when it comes to Price.

Atkins? While I think a low-carb focus has merit, especially for radical weight loss, a whole food focus is more important.

I do not follow an Atkins diet. As to the controversy surrounding his death, I’ve never been interested. If someone else want’s to argue that, be my guest.

Saturated fat. I’ll bet you know nothing first hand, that you just parrot conventional “wisdom.”

I’ll bet you have no idea how healthful were the heftiest saturated fat consuming people on the planet. Bet you don’t even know who they are, or that saturated fat makes up a full 50% of their total energy intake.

More good, devastating stuff.

Last but not least, I wonder if you’ve been vegan long enough to experience the physical degeneration that eventually comes for most, as written by 20-yr vegan Lierre Keith in the recently published “The Vegetarian Myth.” I own a signed copy.

I’ve blogged about it here:

Here’s Lierre on YouTube.

Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.


  1. Keith Norris on November 7, 2009 at 14:34

    Hehehe. These folks remind me of the biblical literalists who insist that the world is 6k years old. Forget ideologies, vegans — damn, just look at the overwhelming evidence. Want to protest CAFOs and animal cruelty? Hey, I’m behind you 100%. No protest though, is worth the degradation of my health. Proper animal husbandry combined with intelligent crop rotation, can feed the world and at the same time, improve the health of the world’s inhabitants.

    Hey, I wouldn’t expect a reply, Richard — not an intelligent one, at least.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2009 at 14:52


      Check your email.

    • Bryce on November 7, 2009 at 17:17

      I was trying to sell the Paleo diet to two good friends who are Biblical literalists, who contrary to what some might assume, are extremely well educated and intelligent guys, some of the smartest and most rational that I know.

      Anyway, everything was making sense to them, but the evolutionary basis for paleo nutrition obviously didn’t fly, being that evolution ‘never happened.’ I didn’t bother to argue whether evolution happened. I simply used the analogy of the Staged Crime Scene. This doesn’t apply to someone who thinks the evidence points to something other than evolution. It only applies to someone who things the evidence is null and void because it isn’t as old as it appears to be. Anyway, on to my explanation:

      If (big if) all the evidence for evolution was placed there, by God, in an effort to make it impossible to determine scientifically (and thus making it a matter of faith) that the earth is 6k yrs old . . . then surely He would have gone as far as to make our metabolisms consistent with the picture he had painted with staged evolution.

      Imagine someone who could stage the perfect crime scene, ensuring every detail was meticulously and masterfully laid out to look like a suicide. If an omnipotent deity created the earth, staged all the evidence for evolution, and then forgot to make our metabolisms consistent with the evolutionary evidence, it would be equivalent to this master criminal accidentally made the gun shot residue spray in the wrong direction.

      Surely, an omnipotent and omniscient being wouldn’t make such an error. So regardless of whether the evidence stands up, or was staged, the evolutionary basis for our fat hungry, carb sensitive metabolisms still applies.

      This was satisfactory to my friends. Hopefully, if you encounter a biblical literalist, and are genuinely concerned for their health, you can share this thought experiment with them in the hopes that they realize the validity of the Paleo way.


      • Bryce on November 7, 2009 at 17:23

        Oh, and great post eviscerating veglib, by the way. When you can’t take your beliefs, hold them to the light, and see if they remain true, you are lying to yourself, and I think there are few greater wrongs one can commit than to lie to oneself in this life. Only through this are things like veganisms or Nazi-ism possible . . . not that I’m comparing the two ;-).

        As for my thought experiment, I realize that a biblical literalism might frustrate some, but I was less concerned with being ‘right’ on the evolution topic, and more concerned with their health. To date, they have both modified their diet in stages, and have lost weight and feel better, so there is a success story to add to the books.


      • David on November 7, 2009 at 22:05

        I’m a devout Christian, but accept current estimates for the age of the earth and see no reason to be tied down to young earth creationism. I also follow a strict paleo diet, keep up with all the research, and advise my Christian friends and family to eat this way as well. I don’t think this diet does any damage to the Christian worldview, and I believe a good case can be made for this type of diet being totally consistent with a Christian framework. Nevertheless, regardless of the reason why it works, the fact is that it does work, and it’s extremely healthy. I wouldn’t eat any other way.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 8, 2009 at 08:42

        Hey David:

        Thanks for sharing that. Sounds like a very healthy attitude to me. Seems there’s plenty of Christian and other religious institutions that accept some or all aspects of evolution while still retaining their spirituality.

        Some of those letters are pretty good, especially the first one.

      • Caleb Christman on March 1, 2010 at 12:48

        Hey David I would like to ask you some more questions about your understanding of the Paleo diet. could you email me at thanks man.

      • Amaroq on March 3, 2010 at 05:58

        One would think that simply being able to have an open mind to, and accept, empirical evidence would be enough to sell someone on this diet.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 8, 2009 at 08:48

        Yep, Bryce, while it would be great if everyone accepted evolution, it’s not essential to benefiting from a diet modeled after it. As I wrote some time back, you don’t have to believe in evolution.

      • Arlo on November 9, 2009 at 20:30

        Maybe not… but for me it was the essential link from Atkin’s style low carb mentality to an approach to diet that had a foundation, which just happens to also be much lower in carbohydrates than the standard western diet.

      • Michael on November 8, 2009 at 12:53

        I was trying to sell the Paleo diet to two good friends who are Biblical literalists, who contrary to what some might assume, are extremely well educated and intelligent guys, some of the smartest and most rational that I know.

        Looks like I’m late to the party. :-)

        It might be difficult to sell a biblical “literalist” on a strict paleo diet but it is quite easy to sell them on a Weston Price style diet, which would encompass a paleo diet but would also include a non-paleo all animal food diet (like the Masai) and high carb diets loaded with saturated fat (like several of the other African tribes Price studied) or the modern Kitavans.

        One can also note that if Price had been transported back in time to study the diet of the ancient Hebrews, he would have found a group that easily fits within his seminal work Nutrition and Physical Degeneration in terms of diet.

        If he was hanging around during the Hebrews Egyptian captivity he would have been able to compare and contrast their diet and health with that of the ancient Egyptians, who were truly masters of ultra refining flour and refining oils and had many of the “modern” degenerative diseases as a result.

        This was satisfactory to my friends. Hopefully, if you encounter a biblical literalist, and are genuinely concerned for their health, you can share this thought experiment with them in the hopes that they realize the validity of the Paleo way.

        My approach is to show to biblical “literalists” (and their critics) that biblical “literalism” is impossible – meaning that even so called biblical “literalists” aren’t truly literalists, just that they understand some parts of the Bible in a literal fashion. Other parts they take quite figuratively (like Old Testament references to stars falling out of heaven or New Testament references to the body and blood of Christ).

        Once that is established you can have much more fruitful discussions about diet, health and a myriad of other topics touched on by their faith commitments if one is so inclined.

  2. Weight Loss » Blog Archive » Vegan Trolls on November 7, 2009 at 14:38

    […] Original post by Free The Animal […]

  3. Grok on November 7, 2009 at 14:56

    Vegan trolls are out thick lately.

    Don’t sweat it too much Richard. Just think of Veganism as Darwinism. While they spew their vomit just shake you head up and down while going “Ahhh… thats how that works.” Let them live their miserable lives.

    I challenge any vegan to try and live outside of society and in a place away from the equator for a while. There’s a reason no native peoples are vegans. They were trying to stay alive.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2009 at 15:01

      Indeed. Vegetarianism & veganism are wholly modern. Psychiatrists will eventually study the disorder.

      • Grok on November 7, 2009 at 16:53

        Which is exactly what it is.

        I can respect that they want to save the animals or earth with their lifestyle. But it’s just that! A personal lifestyle choice. We are passionate about our paleo type lifestyles also, and both groups obviously share ground about sustainability etc…

        Where Veganism crosses the line is when trolls go around touting that Veganism is healthy. Then you get the real crazies that cause property damage. When’s the last time you heard of a meat touting caveman burning a soy field?

        I feel if veganism is done VERY carefully it can be moderately healthy…. Obviously plants are a very good source of nutrition. The problem is, very few vegans do it correctly (like your high carbo clown). Most are soybean eating fools. You don’t have to look much further than their SAD mimicking frankenfood products to see this.

      • Arlo on November 7, 2009 at 17:40

        Then you get the real crazies that cause property damage.

        Actually, the REAL crazies are the ones that talk about building walls throughout the Serengeti to keep the herbivores and carnivores separate. Or genetically programming carnivores to not want to eat other animals. How would they survive you ask? Meat grown in vitro, that’s dumped into the wild for them to eat.


        My other favourite? The vegans who will ask questions like, “Do you know if those mono and di-glycerides are animal or plant based?”, as they order fudge.

      • Grok on November 7, 2009 at 20:19

        Yep, that’s pretty crazy!

  4. Arlo on November 7, 2009 at 15:43

    Great post! Calm, concise, filled with data and links. Devastating. Veglib is a loss, I’m sure, but maybe some uncertain vegetarians who are open to at least reading alternative point of view will be swayed a bit.

    So many things wrong with veglibs comment. A virtual treasure trove of assumptions!

  5. Chris on November 7, 2009 at 17:25

    I use to argue with vegans quite a bit more (there are two vegan restaurants right below my building), and it was entertaining for a while but it just seems like a waste of time.

    Why have a discussion with someone who makes decisions about their diet primarily based on ethical and/or moral issues?

    I eat paleo as my health and well being are my primary concerns, ethical and moral issues take a back seat; any other approach is really just plain asinine and almost irresponsible.

    The other thing I’ll point out is, as there are these two vegan restaurants and bar that they all seem to like to hang out at, I get to observe a lot of vegans. They all basically look sick, either too skinny and emaciated/gaunt, or fat with excessive abdominal adiposity.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 8, 2009 at 08:54

      “Why have a discussion with someone who makes decisions about their diet primarily based on ethical and/or moral issues?”

      Well, I never discuss the issue with vegans or veggies one on one. It’s not my place and I mind my own business. But I think it’s appropriate to have these sorts of things on the blog, available for anyone looking around. According to Lierre Keith, there are tons of these people out there in very ill health and fooling themselves because, of course, “that’s impossible” because “a vegan diet is the healthiest diet.” So, it’s them, not the diet.

      That is, until word starts getting around, they learn of one or two others that faced reality, and they go searching around.

  6. Don Matesz on November 7, 2009 at 19:11

    I have to laugh at the reference to Atkins’s heart disease. Regardless of his heart disease, Atkins lived to 72 years old. According to Wikipedia, it appears he did not die of heart disease, but of trauma.

    Again according to Wikipedia, Linda McCartney, an ardent vegetarian, died at age 56 from breast cancer.

    So I have to wonder, why does this vegan consider Atkins’s health to provide evidence against low carb dieting, but does not consider McCartney’s breast cancer to provide evidence against a high carb vegetarian diet.

    Heart disease notwithstanding, Atkins lived 16 more years than McCartney. This alone doesn’t prove that low carb will make everyone live longer, but it certainly does not support the thesis that a vegetarian diet provides a longer life.

    If anything, comparing these two, Atkins had the longer, healthier life. Again, these two individuals don’t a body of evidence make, but I laugh at how vegetarians select their evidence.

    • Grok on November 7, 2009 at 20:24

      Quit using your brain Don. Don’t you know it’s made of meat? LOL

      Rational thinking is not allowed!

      • John Campbell on November 8, 2009 at 00:38

        Grok – its even worse than that, our brains are largely fat! I can hear the carrots scream in pain.

    • Bret M on November 8, 2009 at 11:11

      Don, I always dig one step deeper into wikipedia. Call it a hunch, but THIS evidence:

      Seems pretty solid to me. No rumors on that.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 8, 2009 at 12:00

        So, “immediate cause” was the fall & head injury, he lay in a coma for 2 weeks retaining 60 pounds of water, sending his BP sky high and he ultimately succumbed to MI. Doesn’t seem surprising to me and I fail to see how it can mean much of anything with respect to his diet.

        I think if Atkins dieters were regularly dropping dead of MI, the media and establishment would have a field day.

      • Bryce on November 8, 2009 at 17:41

        If he was in a coma, they were probably feeding him glucose through a needle . . . 2000kcal a day of it (this could very well be incorrect, someone who deals with coma patients please correct me). So 2000kcal a day of pure glucose will make you retain water? And it might give you a heart attack too? Man, this really proves that fat is bad for you . . .

      • Richard Nikoley on November 8, 2009 at 18:02

        It’ not only that. The family may have given up hope of a recovery or good result from a “recovery.” Been there, in particular with my favorite of 4 grandparents — the grandmother wise enough to dub me “the smartass,” a term of endearment I cherish to this day.

        She had a surgery that went wrong, essentially never woke up, and they pounded her liver until she could take no more. in the end, it doesn’t matter what was the technical cause of death. It’s not the real cause.

      • Skyler Tanner on November 10, 2009 at 12:04

        When my mother was fighting cancer, she got below a size 0 (at 5’9″!). During her final days in the hospital, her liver was basically fucked and her body shutting down, she ballooned to the point where my father had to bring extra large panties. I suspect she gained at least 30lbs of water.

        When your “religion” depends on hating a man, facts and checking of those facts don’t matter.


      • Michael on November 8, 2009 at 13:14

        I don’t think the smoking gun archive slams the door by any means since it doesn’t include the results of the autopsy, but I didn’t think there was any controversy as to how he died but rather his weight when he slipped on the sidewalk. There seems to be a few people who saw him before his fatal injury that said that while he was not obese he was overweight (NY mayor Bloomberg IIRC is one of those folks) but not sure if this has been fully verified.

        I don’t think it really matters very much since it seems that Atkins didn’t fully understand the power of saturated fat and what his company morphed into in the years before he died was tragic in my opinion.

  7. Pam Maltzman on November 7, 2009 at 21:11

    Echoing Don Matesz: It’s my understanding that Dr. Atkins slipped on an icy sidewalk, fell, and hit his head, an injury from which he did not recover. And he doesn’t deserve the crap thrown at him from all sides… vegans hate him, but some more modern paleo/low-carb types sort of throw off on him too. He was ahead of his time, even if he wasn’t quite as up-to-date as paleo/primal/cutting-edge stuff.

  8. Mike on November 7, 2009 at 22:05

    Epic post, Richard. Impeccable rebuttal.

  9. Trish on November 8, 2009 at 08:11

    IIRC Atkins was treated with steroids to keep brain swelling down from his injury and he gained a lot of fluid weight as a result–vegans and others only saw the weight and were all OMG HE WAS OBESE WHEN HE DIED. Dumbasses. Before the injury he was reported to be 6’1″ and 172 pounds, very reasonable.

  10. LeonRover on November 9, 2009 at 16:38

    Vegan ( or any) trolls are rarely worth paying any attention to.

    I recall being told at the age of eight: “Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me”.

    Those who do not have the intellectual depth to argue their position with evidence, have the absurd notion that invective and insult will change their opponents position. Such is the mindset of the fundamentalist, be it Shi’ite or Vegetarian.

  11. Amaroq on November 10, 2009 at 07:19

    The philosophy I’ve come to accept, Objectivism, defines morality in respect to the individual, as opposed to the collective, God, or the world as a whole.

    I’ve seen at least one or two commenters here say that they put their health before morality. You’ve accepted a false-dichotomy between the ethical and the practical.

    From my perspective, veganism is evil because of how unhealthy it is. It is both ethical and practical to eat meat because it is what I need to survive. And living is a good thing.

    If you want some really heavy ammo against attacks from vegans, look into philosophy, particularly Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. As long as you subconsciously accept a false-dichotomy between ethical and practical, as long as you let the vegans keep the moral high-ground, will always be able to attack you on moral grounds.

    They are slowly killing themselves, and they preach this deathist creed to others. They need to be attacked morally too, not just practically. Otherwise, they will continue to take more and more ground in this battle of life versus death.

  12. Amaroq on November 10, 2009 at 07:48

    I’m going to be very embarrassed if I find out I just posted this an an already-Objectivist blog. xD

    • Richard Nikoley on November 10, 2009 at 09:00

      Well, I’ve read all Rand ever wrote (fiction and non) going back nearly 20 years now. I agree with her philosophy in probably all areas except politics. I think her ethics undercuts her politics, so, I’m more of an anarchist (free market). But, I don’t make a big deal of it and, I respect the claim by Objectivists that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and so, I don’t call myself one.

  13. Richard Nikoley on November 10, 2009 at 08:56
  14. Andrea on November 18, 2009 at 12:34

    I read about this book in paste magazine – Eating Animals by jonathan Safron Foer. Have you heard of it? From what I’ve read from the reviews, it makes a good case for becoming vegan, (environmentally, politically, etc, not nutritionally – protein vs. carbs) I don’t want to read it for fear I may never want to eat meat again, and I love meat!

    • Richard Nikoley on November 18, 2009 at 12:37

      I’ve seen a couple articles about it, but nothing that would compel me to eat it. Far better would be the book by 20-year vegan Lierre Keith, The Vegetarian Myth. I’ve done a few reviews of the book if you want to search the blog.

  15. Chadwick on November 29, 2009 at 12:35

    This is a slightly uninformed comment because I have not read the Atkins books nor am I well-read on the way he lived his life, but vegetarians (and others) may very well be creating a straw man of epic proportions.

    First of all, low-carb DOES NOT equal optimal health. However, optimal health may be (or resemble) low-carb. Do not mix the two up.

    Secondly, as has been pointed out, the MI suffered by Atkins was likely related to his pre-existing health “issues”. We can even assume that a.) the MI was independent of the trauma, AND b.) that it was related to his diet. What does this tell us? Absolutely nothing. I am sure we could find a person who smokes, never goes outdoors, and drinks corn syrup all day that lived to be 100 years old. One person does not a sample make.

    And lastly, even if Atkins’ MI was related to diet (which it appears it was not), this does not necessarily affect the validity of the message. The facts and research should stand on its own, regardless of what happens to one person or another. Can you face the facts? What do vegetarians agree with; what do they disagree with? Now they say “well it provides evidence against it.” I agree completely–I agree that we need evidence. After all, the only thing that matters in life is what actually works. Let’s look at the evidence then: extensive anthropological studies that have shown paleo/primal diet to be consistent with healthier peoples, evidence that the diet-heart hypothesis has increased obesity, heart disease, and other nasty life-altering ailments, the numerous success stories on this site and others, etc.–and instead of facing the facts, they point to the death of one man which was likely not even related to his diet. Wonderful.

    Heck, maybe if he was a vegetarian he would not have had the energy to get out of the house and walk that fateful day in NYC. Maybe it could have saved him!

  16. Alex Thorn on December 22, 2009 at 05:20

    I never cease to be amazed and fascinated by the number of people who eat a low carb, high fat (particularly saturated fat) diet yet get uncomfortable with the idea that it may be equated with the Atkins diet! It’s as if there is some foul taint attached to the poor, late doctor and his dietary strategy. I’m guessing it is because there is so much ‘muddy water’ surrounding his death and state of health at the time.

    In as much as I have never read any of the books by Dr Atkins, I can truthfully say I am not, nor ever have, followed the ‘Atkins Diet’ but I don’t get defensive if people think I am when I tell them what I will and will not eat. I think we owe the man some respect for getting this type of diet into the popular consciousness and defending it against it’s detractors. So, having not read any of his books but having read a lot of information on the man and his work on the web, I can see that there are many common factors between the Atkins diet approach, paleo diets and low carb/high fat diets in general.

    From what I have pieced together it seems Dr Atkins suffered from cardiomyopathy brought on by a viral infection in his younger years, so it was not heart disease in the usual sense and not related to diet. His death was due to the head trauma he suffered after slipping on ice and falling. While in a coma in hospital, after this unfortunate accident, he suffered system systemic organ failure, which resulted in the swelling of the body’s tissues due to the accumulation of fluids (any combination of ascites, peripheral oedema or pleural effusions). All of these factors were spun by pro-vegetarian factions to give the impression that Dr Atkins died of heart disease as a grossly overweight man due to his, in their view, ‘foolhardy’ dietary preferences.

    A rather malodorous post mortem character assassination in my opinion!

    • Grok on December 22, 2009 at 13:56

      Great comment Alex. This is what decades of brainwashing will do to people.

      Just like the people who cut the fat off a steak or eat lean hamburger because they’re scared of getting fat, yet the have no qualms about having a box of solid corn syrup based non-fat candy while sitting on the couch.

      They look at us low/lower-carbers cross-eyed during dinner when we eat our fat, then think we’re weird yo-yo dieters when we don’t partake in the candy eating.

      • Amaroq on December 26, 2009 at 14:14

        I’ve always loved eating the fat on steaks and porkchops. When other people cut the fat off, I offer to eat it for them.

  17. Rational Dave on April 25, 2010 at 07:27

    I know this is an older post, but for anyone who comes sifting through these posts and blog comments, someone claiming that Atkins’ diet killed him should at least understand the facts.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.