>Atkins' widow and Dr. Stuart Trager, the spokesperson for Atkins Physicians Council, both contend Robert Atkins weighed less than 200 pounds at the time of his accident, claiming "During his coma, as he deteriorated and his major organs failed, fluid retention and bloating dramatically distorted his body and left him at 258 pounds at the time of his death, a documented weight gain of over 60 pounds."
> Thanks to his death certificate, we know Atkins was 258 pounds at the time of his death. Yet according to a copy of his medical records, as turned over to USA Today by the diet guru's widow, Atkins weighed 195 pounds upon admission to the hospital 8 April 2003 following his fall. He died on 17 April 2003 after having been in a coma for more than a week.
Source: http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp
The dude was 72 years old. 72 year old people die of things like slipping on ice and cracking their heads. When he was admitted to the hospital, he was totally healthy, except for the head injury. There was no sign of any heart problems, except for some controversial leaked reports.
The tragedy is that Atkins really wanted people to be healthy and his diet was/is very healthy. It's very similar to Keto and many other low-carb diets. It's myths that keep countries like American in a downward spiral of obesity.
He did have cardiomyopathy for a few years before that, and a cardiac arrest the year before he died.
He didn't die of a heart attack, but it's an overcorrection to say that there was 'no sign of any heart problems'.
Heart disease can affect strength, balance, coordination, mental function, and any number of other responses, much as a cold or flu or pnemonia can. You might care to review the recent video footage of a notable candidate visibly collapsing whilst being aided into a waiting van for transport, as a consequence of pnemonia. A condition more generally understood to affect the lungs than major skeletal muscles, but here clearly a contributing factor.
Think systemically, please. Especially if you're in tech.
Which is why I would follow Occam's Razor in this scenario instead of using a convoluted theory to explain why someone slipped on ice.
"Simple is better than complex." [1]
1. The direct cause of Robert Atkins' fallin on ice was heart disease.
2. That his falling on ice is proof of heart disease.
Rather, I'm explaining how, as one of several precipitating factors, heart disease might be a factor in the question posed: "I don't get it: heart disease causes people to slip on ice?"
I'm suggesting that a multifactor risk analysis be considered.
It's the same multi-factor logic you might follow in answering questions of other disasters. Say: What caused the disaster of the RMS Titanic? What caused the Hindenberg disaster? What cause the Fukushima or Chernobyl disasters? What lead to the Bhopal disaster.
Looking only at the precipitating or triggering cause misses many other opportunities for mitigation or avoidance. The Titanic would have been better served with more lifeboats, 24/7 manned radios, regular lifeboat drills, the originally-scheduled first officer not having (inadvertently) pocketed the key to the bridge's binoculars case, heeding ice warnings, less hubris on the part of passengers, owners, and regulatory boards.
Old, sick people are more likely to slip and fall, and the hazards of such falls can be greater than for young, fit, healthy people.
To amend to your Zen of Python list: make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Post longer clarification: dismissed as too wordy.
Tough crowd.
So basically you've wandered into an "intro to critical thinking" level fallacy, which is especially ironic considering your last two sentences.
Atkins is reported to have suffered cardiomyopathy -- a virally-induced form of heart disease -- by Dr. Stuart Trager, chairman of the Atkins Physicians Council:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/nyregion/just-what-killed-...
I'm somewhat familar with the particulars of the story and debate over Atkins' perceived or claimed health or disease, and the disagreements over both arguments. I'm not taking a particular side.
But (as I've just commented to another response to my parent remarks above): yes, sick, frail, diseased, elderly people are more prone to falls than those who are well, strong, healthly, and young. And those falls can be fatal.
Hence: heart disease can be a contributing factor to slipping on ice (or the resultant injuries and outcome).
systemically, or systematically?