Then I find it interesting that you find his arguments so compelling, because his whole premise is that "controlling carbohydrates" is the key to weight loss.
See, Atkins is magic. You just have to READ his book and you lose weight! In all seriousness, you simply increased your exercise and cut out some junk food (well, dark chocolate in moderation is good), something EVERY weight loss expert would recommend. You didn't eliminate all bread and pasta from your diet did you? Your conclusion should be from that experience: atkins is wrong about the main drivers of weight loss.
Yes, this is the "holy grail" theory of atkins/taubes/paleo folks. While there is some truth to what he states, there are some major problems with this line of thinking:
a) people were eating refined grains though out the world for much of the century before people started becoming obese. As we all well know, the japanese and chinese (and other asians) practically live off of white rice. Others ate lots of bread or corn. And these groups have hardly had any obesity issues for most of this period. So refined grains per se are not causing obesity (but yes, whole grains are certainly better than refined)
b) yes, drinking lots of soda is not healthy. No one denies that or recommends that. But if you exercise a lot and eat nutritiously otherwise (and not in excess of your energy needs), some soda won't make you gain weight or kill you. And just because excess sugar for most people is not good, this doesn't mean one needs to therefore demonize ALL carbohydrate sources (the overreaction to the so-called "demonization of fats"). and lastly, eating tons of bacon is at least as bad for you as drinking lots of soda. But Dr Atkins says: go nuts on the bacon!
c) while some people did assume that as long as a food was "low fat" they could eat as much as they wanted of it, this was NOT what nutrition experts were telling them. It was always within the context of the right amount of calories that low fat foods were recommended
d) while people did start consuming more sugars and carbs as obesity levels rose, people were ALSO eating more fat. People on average were pretty much eating more of everything (total calories per capita definitely rose, and this was the key). Fast food and desserts are not just high in sugar, but ALSO high in fat, especially sat fat. And it this combination (high sugar in take COUPLED with high sat fat intake) is most likely the most dangerous combination. But Dr Atkins and others only want to focus on the sugar/carbs when there were several other parts to the equation.
. Interesting, he ignores an absolutely CRUCIAL part of the equation. Too many calories, especially fast food/dessert/snack type calories (which again are usually high in BOTH refined carbs/sugars and fat/sat fat) combined with decreased activity levels/more sedentary lifestyles, and Dr Atkins concludes: it was only the carbs.
a) carbs mostly don't get converted to fat. To a small degree yes, but the bigger problem with excess carb ingestion (if part of excess calories) is fat burning is reduced.
b) what happens to excess fat calories?? They disappear into the thin air?? this is the part that always gets me with these anti-carb zealots. They always say: excess carbs get converted to fat, but they never answer: what happens to excess (beyond energy needs) fat intake?? Well I'll tell you: it gets stored as fat. shocking, huh? At least carbs have an initial storage route as glycogen. but all excess dietary fat is stored as you, yup, you guessed it: FAT. Now if you are not eating excess calories, neither fat nor carbs will be stored as body fat, but you will instead use these energy sources as fuel.
c) the main causes of insulin resistance are not insulin spikes from large carbohydrate meals, but excess calories, lack of exercise and excess saturated fat. High amounts of sugar can play a role too. All of this leads to cells not responding to insulin and and an improper functioning pancreas. This can be reversed in two weeks if one drastically cuts CALORIES. I'll post the research if you care to read it.
Protein is more satiating than carbs or fat, but fat has not been shown to be more satiating than carbs. And in fact, high fiber carbs (like some whole grains), that also contain a reasonable amount of protein, are quite satiating. yes, there are more "all carb" foods like some candy or soda (or nearly all-carb foods like pretzels) than there are all-fat foods (most people don't chug oils), so yes, in ways "cutting carbs" might end up in one not replacing all those calories with fat calories. And yes you get protein with your fat most of the time. So I will give low-carbs diets that, but this still does not mean high fat diets are healthier or more easy to lose weight on in the long term than low-fat, higher carb diets that provide ample protein. if meat is satiating, eat chicken breast or other lean meats. low fat doesn't have to mean low-protein.
sure, that makes sense, but you could have not read atkins at all and simply: burned all the CALORIES (fat or carbs) that you ate, and yes, cut sugar and eaten whole grains instead of refined. And completely Contrary to atkins, most nutrition experts would absolutely recommend keeping saturated fat levels fairly low. Contrary to all the armchair experts out there, this advice is more supported than ever by research.