OK. I've had the 2002 paperback version in my Amazon shopping cart several times now and then I say to myself, "The 1992 (the one I have and have almost worn out) version can't be that different. Why spend money on something I already have."

So, is it worth the money? I welcome your opinion.

IMHO, If your 1992 plan is working for you then stick with it. I have noticed that there are differences in the DANDR over time. Things change. Seems like most of it had to do with the "low-Carb Fad" that was going on. The commercial aspects seemed to get involved. I would suggest checking out the Atkins website to see the differences. If you like what you see, then by all means get the new one.

http://atkinscenter.com/

__________________
To think is to create!
So What? Now What?
Tom
Restart LC 7/05/08

I believe the newer version pushes the Atkins products a lot. And I avoid that stuff. (I buy the bars for my husband, because he has one for breakfast on the one day he goes to work early, and it's easier for him to have that than eat before he leaves.)

Like Tom said, if you are having success with an older version, I think I'd stick with it if you can find a less-worn-out copy. I have the original book, from the 70s, which is before net carbs, and you started with essentially 0 carbs, adding 5 per day each week, until you stopped losing, then you cut back those last 5 carbs. Much simpler to follow!

__________________
Nita

I've looked at the various editions, too. I feel that the most recent is fine ... if you totally disregard the advice regarding sugar alcohols. As has been implied, the acceptance of polyols in the most recent DANDR's seems to be related to when Atkins Nutritionals started marketing their own sweets. Maltitol seems to be essential to mantaining texture and eye appeal when manufacturing sweet things.

Most polyols (maltitol being the worst and erythritol being the exception) I've found to be generally detrimental to the program. It varies from person to person, but many people seem to metabolize them just as if they were sugar.

They were strictly off limits in earlier books.

On the other hand, the more recent versions have more references to current research which supports the Atkins program.

__________________

Hmmm. Current research. I enjoy reading all I can about that. As a home economist, that kind of information is right up my alley. When I first started this WOE 9 years ago, it went against everything I was ever taught. So, I've had a mind set for the FGP and I have to read and reread the explainations on how and why the diet works over and over again to get it all sorted out in my mind. I'm wondering if the newer version does a better job explaining the biochemistry of the diet that my 1992 version? (I had one in my hand again at Borders but put it back. I didn't have enough time to look through it. DD was in a hurry.)

I think I will eventually buy it if just for comparison only.

Beth

Highest Weight 1998 205 (5' 9")
205/160/150

Beth, I just got several of the Protein Power books by Michael and Mary Dan Eades, and their explanations of the science behind low carb are really good. I think even better than Dr. Atkins (who was a life-saver for me, and because of him I lost the initial 75 lbs.). I was really fascinated by their explanations, and the newest research. In fact, I believe they were the ones who instituted the concept of net carbs, deducting the fiber from the total count. The books are a really good read.

__________________
Nita