|
|
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
The burning question
October 23, 2003 *Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie, low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports.* An academic nutritionist at the University of Cincinnati, Dr Bonnie Brehm, is at the cutting edge of research into the biggest question to hit her field in decades: does the Atkins diet work? Most nutritionists faced with the torrent of anecdotal evidence for its effectiveness have simply parroted the mantra that more research is needed, while muttering darkly about possible long-term health effects. Brehm and her colleagues, in contrast, have spent the past few years actually doing the research and will unveil their findings at the American Dietetic Association's annual meeting next week. They have been studying the effectiveness of the Atkins diet in trials involving people classed as clinically obese, implying a weight of more than 92 kilograms (14 stone) in a person 175 centimetres (5 foot, 9 inches) tall. The latest results are in - and they appear to vindicate the late Dr Robert Atkins, whose diet books have sold 15 million copies over 30 years. According to Brehm, those following Atkins's low-carbohydrate diet for four months achieved twice the weight loss of those on a conventional calorie-controlled, low-fat diet. Furthermore, the team found no evidence of harmful effects from following the diet - at least during the study. These results are in line with those found in similar small studies now starting to emerge. As well as backing the claims made for the Atkins diet, these latest results seem to further undermine standard nutritional advice about the need to focus on cutting fat and calories. They are something of an embarrassment to Brehm, whose research is funded by the American Heart Association, which has long advocated calorie-controlled, low-fat diets. As a scientist, Brehm puts unearthing the truth above pleasing her paymasters - but it is this that causes most concern. She is having problems explaining her findings - and in the increasingly vociferous debate over the Atkins diet, that may well land her in trouble at next week's meeting. The scientific world is becoming increasingly polarised over the diet, with researchers such as Brehm being given a tough time over their apparent support for what some scientists regard as the nutritional equivalent of crystal therapy. At the heart of the controversy is the science behind the Atkins diet - first published 30 years ago - and whether it is really anything more than a collection of buzzwords. Conventional wisdom dictates that calories are the key to weight loss, and so those who lose weight must simply be consuming fewer calories than they burn up. Yet, according to Brehm, the obese people who lost weight on the Atkins diet ate and burned up essentially the same number of calories as those on the standard diet. What was very different was the proportion of body fat shed by each group, which mirrored their percentage weight loss. On the face of it, this backs the central claim of the Atkins diet: that a low-carb diet turns the body into a fat-burning machine. To trigger this effect, Atkins dieters are instructed to begin by eliminating all carbohydrates from their diet, forcing their bodies to get energy by burning up fat reserves instead. The result is supposed to be weight loss, plus the production of compounds known as ketones; the higher the level of "ketosis", the more fat is being burnt. That's the theory. Yet studies of the patients in Brehm's trial failed to reveal a connection between ketosis and fat loss. "We didn't see any correlation - all of our expectations were confounded," she says. "I'm hoping someone in the audience might have some answers." Brehm is confident that there is a reasonable, if not simple, explanation for her findings: "In the end, the energy in has got to match the energy out." Even more baffling is why there are still such enormous gaps in knowledge about how humans respond to diet. The past 20 years have seen obesity reach record levels in the developed world. This has led scientists to concede that the standard advice on nutrition and healthy eating has been an abject failure - yet the Atkins diet is still dismissed as a "fad" by the British Dietetic Association, with leading nutritionists insisting that there is insufficient scientific evidence to give it more credence. This lack of evidence has not deterred many in the medical profession from condemning the diet out of hand. Last week a poll of British doctors revealed that one in four would advise their patients to stay fat rather than try the Atkins diet - despite the proven life-threatening effects of obesity. Such attitudes might suggest that the scientific world is in the grip of cognitive dissonance over the Atkins Diet, preferring to ignore whatever evidence it does not like. Professor Eric Westman, a clinical trials expert at Duke University in North Carolina, and author of a study of the evidence for and against the diet, says, "It is making people re-examine dogma - and it's not always appreciated." According to his review, which is due to appear in Current Atherosclerosis Reports, studies show that the Atkins diet does produce weight loss over six months, and without obvious health effects. Contrary to the claims of many nutritionists, there is even evidence that it may be healthier than the standard diet: despite its promotion of fat and eggs, studies suggest that the diet may boost levels of the healthy forms of cholesterol. Westman thinks that this unexpected effect may explain a long-standing mystery surrounding heart disease. In the late 1980s, researchers began investigating the unusually low rates of heart attacks and stroke among Eskimo communities in Greenland. Until now, the explanation was thought to lie in their diet of oily fish. Yet attempts to reduce heart disease using supplements of fish oil extracts proved disappointing. Westman says the studies of the Atkins diet point to another explanation: that the lo-carb diet forced on the Inuit by their environment gives them higher levels of healthy forms of cholesterol, which are proven to lower heart disease risk. Despite this, Westman cautions anyone with a medical condition against rushing onto a low-carb diet. "The problem is that it works too well," he explains. "The diet can cause insulin levels to drop by 50 per cent in one day, so diabetics could find themselves over-medicated. It's the same for those with high blood pressure." Even so, Westman believes that the results are impressive enough to warrant an intensive research effort on the Atkins diet: "We're in a period when we will learn a lot." It is not a prospect that thrills the entire nutritional science community. Westman has been vilified for conducting research with financial support from the Atkins Foundation - despite the fact that some vocal critics of the diet, such as Dr Susan Jebb, the head of nutrition at the UK Medical Research Council, have, in turn, received funding from bodies such as the Flour Advisory Bureau. Brehm has also run into resistance even over her research funded by the American Heart Association. "We had a tough time getting our results published - it took 18 months altogether," she says. "The big journals really couldn't handle it. But we're not endorsing the diet: it's just our results." What both sides do agree on is the paucity of scientific evidence on the long-term benefits and health effects of the Atkins diet. With the world-wide obesity problem now claiming an estimated 2 million adult lives a year, Brehm believes that the time has come to commit serious resources to studies of low-carb diets. As she says: "We need much more doing - and doing quickly." This is a sentiment endorsed by Professor Tom Sanders, the director of the Nutrition, Food and Health Research Centre at King's College, London - and a sceptic regarding the Atkins diet. "The evidence is that it's the calorie intake that counts," Sanders says. "But in the end, diets don't work because people don't follow them. We need large-scale, randomised and controlled trials of treatments of obesity running for one to two years." Those already embarked on such research suspect that it will take a great deal to overcome the visceral response the mere mention of Atkins provokes among academics. Says Brehm: "A lot of people just want to hold on to what they learned in college." The Telegraph, London -- Jim 231/194?/197 Atkins since 22 May '03 Gym since 1 sept '03 |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
Why is this such a controversy? Whether or not there truly exists a
"Metabolic Advantage" as Dr. Atkins used the term, there is another very simple explanation. For some people, if not all people, it MUST be true that: Consuming 1,000 Kcal of Fructose is NOT metabolically equivalent to consuming 1,000 Kcal of Bacon grease. Why not???? I'll tell you why: 1. Not all foods have EXACTLY the same absorption in the gut. Most of the fructose calories will be used by the body, while a greater percentage of the bacon grease calories will end up in the toilet. 2. The energy USED by the body in metabolizing & processing is not EXACTLY the same for all foods. Again, my hypothesis is that sugary/starchy foods are much more easily processed by the body. Even a 1% difference in NET ABSORBED CALORIES (between a low-carb and a high-carb diet of equivalent GROSS calories) would be significant. I would bet it's much greater than 1%. If I'm wrong, then Atkins' "Metabolic Advantage" seems to be the only logical explanation for these results. |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
"Jim Marnott" wrote in message . .. The burning question October 23, 2003 *Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie, low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports.* An academic nutritionist at the University of Cincinnati, Dr Bonnie Brehm, is at the cutting edge of research into the biggest question to hit her field in decades: does the Atkins diet work? Most nutritionists faced with the torrent of anecdotal evidence for its effectiveness have simply parroted the mantra that more research is needed, while muttering darkly about possible long-term health effects. Brehm and her colleagues, in contrast, have spent the past few years actually doing the research and will unveil their findings at the American Dietetic Association's annual meeting next week. They have been studying the effectiveness of the Atkins diet in trials involving people classed as clinically obese, implying a weight of more than 92 kilograms (14 stone) in a person 175 centimetres (5 foot, 9 inches) tall. The latest results are in - and they appear to vindicate the late Dr Robert Atkins, whose diet books have sold 15 million copies over 30 years. According to Brehm, those following Atkins's low-carbohydrate diet for four months achieved twice the weight loss of those on a conventional calorie-controlled, low-fat diet. Furthermore, the team found no evidence of harmful effects from following the diet - at least during the study. These results are in line with those found in similar small studies now starting to emerge. As well as backing the claims made for the Atkins diet, these latest results seem to further undermine standard nutritional advice about the need to focus on cutting fat and calories. They are something of an embarrassment to Brehm, whose research is funded by the American Heart Association, which has long advocated calorie-controlled, low-fat diets. As a scientist, Brehm puts unearthing the truth above pleasing her paymasters - but it is this that causes most concern. She is having problems explaining her findings - and in the increasingly vociferous debate over the Atkins diet, that may well land her in trouble at next week's meeting. The scientific world is becoming increasingly polarised over the diet, with researchers such as Brehm being given a tough time over their apparent support for what some scientists regard as the nutritional equivalent of crystal therapy. At the heart of the controversy is the science behind the Atkins diet - first published 30 years ago - and whether it is really anything more than a collection of buzzwords. Conventional wisdom dictates that calories are the key to weight loss, and so those who lose weight must simply be consuming fewer calories than they burn up. Yet, according to Brehm, the obese people who lost weight on the Atkins diet ate and burned up essentially the same number of calories as those on the standard diet. What was very different was the proportion of body fat shed by each group, which mirrored their percentage weight loss. On the face of it, this backs the central claim of the Atkins diet: that a low-carb diet turns the body into a fat-burning machine. To trigger this effect, Atkins dieters are instructed to begin by eliminating all carbohydrates from their diet, forcing their bodies to get energy by burning up fat reserves instead. The result is supposed to be weight loss, plus the production of compounds known as ketones; the higher the level of "ketosis", the more fat is being burnt. BZZZZT. The part about "higher ketosis" is flat out wrong. Sigh. That's the theory. Yet studies of the patients in Brehm's trial failed to reveal a connection between ketosis and fat loss. "We didn't see any correlation - all of our expectations were confounded," she says. "I'm hoping someone in the audience might have some answers." Yeah, because ketosis is merely a confirmation that you are burning fat for fuel, not a magic bullet. Brehm is confident that there is a reasonable, if not simple, explanation for her findings: "In the end, the energy in has got to match the energy out." Even more baffling is why there are still such enormous gaps in knowledge about how humans respond to diet. The past 20 years have seen obesity reach record levels in the developed world. This has led scientists to concede that the standard advice on nutrition and healthy eating has been an abject failure - yet the Atkins diet is still dismissed as a "fad" by the British Dietetic Association, with leading nutritionists insisting that there is insufficient scientific evidence to give it more credence. This lack of evidence has not deterred many in the medical profession from condemning the diet out of hand. Last week a poll of British doctors revealed that one in four would advise their patients to stay fat rather than try the Atkins diet - despite the proven life-threatening effects of obesity. Such attitudes might suggest that the scientific world is in the grip of cognitive dissonance over the Atkins Diet, preferring to ignore whatever evidence it does not like. I find it kind of funny, in a way. Knowing the way the scientific process works, and the peer-review raking-over-the-coals that happens behind the closed ranks the communities face the public with, I know that this is business as usual, only right out in the non-understanding public's view-- who are going to look on this as a mark against the establishments' reputation and respect and not see that this is standard operating procedure. The scientific/medical communities are shooting themeselves in the foot and they don't even know it. Professor Eric Westman, a clinical trials expert at Duke University in North Carolina, and author of a study of the evidence for and against the diet, says, "It is making people re-examine dogma - and it's not always appreciated." According to his review, which is due to appear in Current Atherosclerosis Reports, studies show that the Atkins diet does produce weight loss over six months, and without obvious health effects. Contrary to the claims of many nutritionists, there is even evidence that it may be healthier than the standard diet: despite its promotion of fat and eggs, studies suggest that the diet may boost levels of the healthy forms of cholesterol. Westman thinks that this unexpected effect may explain a long-standing mystery surrounding heart disease. In the late 1980s, researchers began investigating the unusually low rates of heart attacks and stroke among Eskimo communities in Greenland. Until now, the explanation was thought to lie in their diet of oily fish. Yet attempts to reduce heart disease using supplements of fish oil extracts proved disappointing. Westman says the studies of the Atkins diet point to another explanation: that the lo-carb diet forced on the Inuit by their environment gives them higher levels of healthy forms of cholesterol, which are proven to lower heart disease risk. Despite this, Westman cautions anyone with a medical condition against rushing onto a low-carb diet. "The problem is that it works too well," he explains. "The diet can cause insulin levels to drop by 50 per cent in one day, so diabetics could find themselves over-medicated. It's the same for those with high blood pressure." Even so, Westman believes that the results are impressive enough to warrant an intensive research effort on the Atkins diet: "We're in a period when we will learn a lot." It is not a prospect that thrills the entire nutritional science community. Westman has been vilified for conducting research with financial support from the Atkins Foundation - despite the fact that some vocal critics of the diet, such as Dr Susan Jebb, the head of nutrition at the UK Medical Research Council, have, in turn, received funding from bodies such as the Flour Advisory Bureau. Brehm has also run into resistance even over her research funded by the American Heart Association. "We had a tough time getting our results published - it took 18 months altogether," she says. "The big journals really couldn't handle it. But we're not endorsing the diet: it's just our results." What both sides do agree on is the paucity of scientific evidence on the long-term benefits and health effects of the Atkins diet. With the world-wide obesity problem now claiming an estimated 2 million adult lives a year, Brehm believes that the time has come to commit serious resources to studies of low-carb diets. As she says: "We need much more doing - and doing quickly." This is a sentiment endorsed by Professor Tom Sanders, the director of the Nutrition, Food and Health Research Centre at King's College, London - and a sceptic regarding the Atkins diet. "The evidence is that it's the calorie intake that counts," Sanders says. "But in the end, diets don't work because people don't follow them. We need large-scale, randomised and controlled trials of treatments of obesity running for one to two years." Those already embarked on such research suspect that it will take a great deal to overcome the visceral response the mere mention of Atkins provokes among academics. Says Brehm: "A lot of people just want to hold on to what they learned in college." Other than that one error, this is a fantastic article,. It doesn't cover just the highlights (and get half of them wrong). I'm sure the good doctor would have considered it an excellent piece. I just wish he was still alive to see it. revek --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003 |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
"cheesegator" wrote in message ... Why is this such a controversy? Whether or not there truly exists a "Metabolic Advantage" as Dr. Atkins used the term, there is another very simple explanation. For some people, if not all people, it MUST be true that: Consuming 1,000 Kcal of Fructose is NOT metabolically equivalent to consuming 1,000 Kcal of Bacon grease. Why not???? I'll tell you why: 1. Not all foods have EXACTLY the same absorption in the gut. Most of the fructose calories will be used by the body, while a greater percentage of the bacon grease calories will end up in the toilet. 2. The energy USED by the body in metabolizing & processing is not EXACTLY the same for all foods. Again, my hypothesis is that sugary/starchy foods are much more easily processed by the body. Well, yeah. Consider that we introduce rice cereal as the first solid food in a baby's diet. Why? Because it is easily digestible. Then fruit. Protien is last on the list. Now think about the implications in that. Even a 1% difference in NET ABSORBED CALORIES (between a low-carb and a high-carb diet of equivalent GROSS calories) would be significant. I would bet it's much greater than 1%. I doubt it is so high, myself, for 'average' folks, and I have heard that sort of differential factoring is accounted for in the calculations of caloric loads of different foods (for average folks). Of course, for us overweight people, we have visual evidence that our bodies react differently to food than 'average' folks. revek --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003 |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
cheesegator wrote:
:: Why is this such a controversy? Whether or not there truly exists a :: "Metabolic Advantage" as Dr. Atkins used the term, there is another :: very simple explanation. :: :: For some people, if not all people, it MUST be true that: :: :: Consuming 1,000 Kcal of Fructose is NOT metabolically equivalent to :: consuming 1,000 Kcal of Bacon grease. :: :: :: Why not???? I'll tell you why: :: :: 1. Not all foods have EXACTLY the same absorption in the gut. Most :: of the fructose calories will be used by the body, while a greater :: percentage of the bacon grease calories will end up in the toilet. Do you have a cite for this? I'm not saying it isn't true, but I've never read anything convincing on this. I do know, however, that when I eat lots of fat -- stuff floats :) :: :: 2. The energy USED by the body in metabolizing & processing is not :: EXACTLY the same for all foods. Again, my hypothesis is that :: sugary/starchy foods are much more easily processed by the body. :: :: Even a 1% difference in NET ABSORBED CALORIES (between a low-carb :: and a high-carb diet of equivalent GROSS calories) would be :: significant. I would bet it's much greater than 1%. :: :: If I'm wrong, then Atkins' "Metabolic Advantage" seems to be the only :: logical explanation for these results. I like your notions better than the metabolic advantage. I just don't know if they are true. |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
revek wrote:
:: "Jim Marnott" wrote in message :: . .. ::: The burning question ::: ::: October 23, 2003 ::: ::: *Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even ::: the scientist in charge is baffled about why the low-carb regime ::: reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie, low-fat ::: eating plans, Robert Matthews reports.* ::: ::: An academic nutritionist at the University of Cincinnati, Dr Bonnie ::: Brehm, is at the cutting edge of research into the biggest question ::: to hit her field in decades: does the Atkins diet work? ::: ::: Most nutritionists faced with the torrent of anecdotal evidence for ::: its effectiveness have simply parroted the mantra that more ::: research is needed, while muttering darkly about possible long-term ::: health effects. ::: ::: Brehm and her colleagues, in contrast, have spent the past few years ::: actually doing the research and will unveil their findings at the ::: American Dietetic Association's annual meeting next week. ::: ::: They have been studying the effectiveness of the Atkins diet in ::: trials involving people classed as clinically obese, implying a ::: weight of more than 92 kilograms (14 stone) in a person 175 ::: centimetres (5 foot, 9 inches) tall. The latest results are in - ::: and they appear to vindicate the late Dr Robert Atkins, whose diet ::: books have sold 15 million copies over 30 years. ::: ::: According to Brehm, those following Atkins's low-carbohydrate diet ::: for four months achieved twice the weight loss of those on a ::: conventional calorie-controlled, low-fat diet. Furthermore, the ::: team found no evidence of harmful effects from following the diet - ::: at least during the study. ::: ::: These results are in line with those found in similar small studies ::: now starting to emerge. As well as backing the claims made for the ::: Atkins diet, these latest results seem to further undermine standard ::: nutritional advice about the need to focus on cutting fat and ::: calories. ::: ::: They are something of an embarrassment to Brehm, whose research is ::: funded by the American Heart Association, which has long advocated ::: calorie-controlled, low-fat diets. ::: ::: As a scientist, Brehm puts unearthing the truth above pleasing her ::: paymasters - but it is this that causes most concern. She is having ::: problems explaining her findings - and in the increasingly ::: vociferous debate over the Atkins diet, that may well land her in ::: trouble at next week's meeting. ::: ::: The scientific world is becoming increasingly polarised over the ::: diet, with researchers such as Brehm being given a tough time over ::: their apparent support for what some scientists regard as the ::: nutritional equivalent of crystal therapy. At the heart of the ::: controversy is the science behind the Atkins diet - first published ::: 30 years ago - and whether it is really anything more than a ::: collection of buzzwords. ::: ::: Conventional wisdom dictates that calories are the key to weight ::: loss, and so those who lose weight must simply be consuming fewer ::: calories than they burn up. Yet, according to Brehm, the obese ::: people who lost weight on the Atkins diet ate and burned up ::: essentially the same number of calories as those on the standard ::: diet. What was very different was the proportion of body fat shed ::: by each group, which mirrored their percentage weight loss. On the ::: face of it, this backs the central claim of the Atkins diet: that a ::: low-carb diet turns the body into a fat-burning machine. ::: ::: To trigger this effect, Atkins dieters are instructed to begin by ::: eliminating all carbohydrates from their diet, forcing their bodies ::: to get energy by burning up fat reserves instead. The result is ::: supposed to be weight loss, plus the production of compounds known ::: as ketones; the higher the level of "ketosis", the more fat is ::: being burnt. :: :: BZZZZT. The part about "higher ketosis" is flat out wrong. Sigh. :: ::: That's the theory. Yet studies of the patients in Brehm's trial ::: failed to reveal a connection between ketosis and fat loss. "We ::: didn't see any correlation - all of our expectations were ::: confounded," she says. "I'm hoping someone in the audience might ::: have some answers." :: :: Yeah, because ketosis is merely a confirmation that you are burning :: fat for fuel, not a magic bullet. :: ::: Brehm is confident that there is a reasonable, if not simple, ::: explanation for her findings: "In the end, the energy in has got to ::: match the energy out." ::: ::: Even more baffling is why there are still such enormous gaps in ::: knowledge about how humans respond to diet. The past 20 years have ::: seen obesity reach record levels in the developed world. This has ::: led scientists to concede that the standard advice on nutrition and ::: healthy eating has been an abject failure - yet the Atkins diet is ::: still dismissed as a "fad" by the British Dietetic Association, ::: with leading nutritionists insisting that there is insufficient ::: scientific evidence to give it more credence. This lack of evidence ::: has not deterred many in the medical profession from condemning the ::: diet out of hand. Last week a poll of British doctors revealed that ::: one in four would advise their patients to stay fat rather than try ::: the Atkins diet - despite the proven life-threatening effects of ::: obesity. ::: ::: Such attitudes might suggest that the scientific world is in the ::: grip of cognitive dissonance over the Atkins Diet, preferring to ::: ignore whatever evidence it does not like. :: :: I find it kind of funny, in a way. Knowing the way the scientific :: process works, and the peer-review raking-over-the-coals that happens :: behind the closed ranks the communities face the public with, I know :: that this is business as usual, only right out in the :: non-understanding public's view-- who are going to look on this as a :: mark against the establishments' reputation and respect and not see :: that this is standard operating procedure. The scientific/medical :: communities are shooting themeselves in the foot and they don't even :: know it. :: Well, they deserve to be found out for the out-right fraud they have hoisted on the unsuspecting public. If they had remained true to the "scientific way" rather than being swayed by politics and commerical interests, the entire scene would likely be different than it is today. Just think: had thye followed proper means of conducting science 30 years ago, there might be many many fewer obese people and kids around today. If you ask me, they have a huge burden to bear. |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:47:10 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote: cheesegator wrote: :: Why is this such a controversy? Whether or not there truly exists a :: "Metabolic Advantage" as Dr. Atkins used the term, there is another :: very simple explanation. :: :: For some people, if not all people, it MUST be true that: :: :: Consuming 1,000 Kcal of Fructose is NOT metabolically equivalent to :: consuming 1,000 Kcal of Bacon grease. :: :: :: Why not???? I'll tell you why: :: :: 1. Not all foods have EXACTLY the same absorption in the gut. Most :: of the fructose calories will be used by the body, while a greater :: percentage of the bacon grease calories will end up in the toilet. Do you have a cite for this? I'm not saying it isn't true, but I've never read anything convincing on this. I do know, however, that when I eat lots of fat -- stuff floats :) :: :: 2. The energy USED by the body in metabolizing & processing is not :: EXACTLY the same for all foods. Again, my hypothesis is that :: sugary/starchy foods are much more easily processed by the body. :: :: Even a 1% difference in NET ABSORBED CALORIES (between a low-carb :: and a high-carb diet of equivalent GROSS calories) would be :: significant. I would bet it's much greater than 1%. :: :: If I'm wrong, then Atkins' "Metabolic Advantage" seems to be the only :: logical explanation for these results. I like your notions better than the metabolic advantage. I just don't know if they are true. Has anyone even studied this? The problem, as I see it, is that no one wants to undertake an analysis of what's happening. Who would pay for it? The beef industry? They don't care -- people eat beef regardless. Certainly none of the corn, wheat, rice, etc. people are going to pay. This is where I think the government should step in. Evidence is mounting that their "food pyramid" is pure crap. Undertake studies to see if it is. They're requiring schools to limit fat to 30% by calories per day, yet I eat way more than that and feel great. No one wants to undertake this research, so the Government, who's making up rules based on who knows what, should do something. -- Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... Well, they deserve to be found out for the out-right fraud they have hoisted on the unsuspecting public. If they had remained true to the "scientific way" rather than being swayed by politics and commerical interests, the entire scene would likely be different than it is today. Just think: had thye followed proper means of conducting science 30 years ago, there might be many many fewer obese people and kids around today. If you ask me, they have a huge burden to bear. You are right that they never did the studies back then, like they should have. But the hoopla that you see in the media on a daily basis is basically the peer-review process, just done out in public where people can see the ugliness of it all. And they wonder why people are losing respect. revek --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/17/2003 |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
. This lack of evidence ::: has not deterred many in the medical profession from condemning the ::: diet out of hand. Last week a poll of British doctors revealed that ::: one in four would advise their patients to stay fat rather than try ::: the Atkins diet - despite the proven life-threatening effects of ::: obesity. ::: ::: Such attitudes might suggest that the scientific world is in the ::: grip of cognitive dissonance over the Atkins Diet, preferring to ::: ignore whatever evidence it does not like. few statements depress me more. this is the height of stubborn non scientific doctrinal behavior. |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
I feel a rant coming on...
*Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie, low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports.* Now is she really baffled, or just avoiding the truth? Anyone who's spent 10 minutes reading about the role of insulin in fat storage knows exactly why low-carb works. For someone doing nutritional research to claim not to know this basic stuff means she's either woefully unqualified for her job or going out of her way not to learn anything that would interfere with mainstream beliefs. Most nutritionists faced with the torrent of anecdotal evidence for its effectiveness have simply parroted the mantra that more research is needed, while muttering darkly about possible long-term health effects. "Here be dragons." According to Brehm, those following Atkins's low-carbohydrate diet for four months achieved twice the weight loss of those on a conventional calorie-controlled, low-fat diet. Furthermore, the team found no evidence of harmful effects from following the diet - at least during the study. Gotta get in those caveats. They are something of an embarrassment to Brehm, whose research is funded by the American Heart Association, which has long advocated calorie-controlled, low-fat diets. Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is helping people with heart problems? How long will embarrassment over past mistakes trump doing the right thing now? As a scientist, Brehm puts unearthing the truth above pleasing her paymasters - but it is this that causes most concern. She is having problems explaining her findings - and in the increasingly vociferous debate over the Atkins diet, that may well land her in trouble at next week's meeting. At least she's trying. She could always plagiarize Protein Power; it spends a couple chapters explaining exactly why it works. To trigger this effect, Atkins dieters are instructed to begin by eliminating all carbohydrates from their diet, Not true, of course, but we seem doomed to hear this daily. Even my eggs this morning had a few carbs. forcing their bodies to get energy by burning up fat reserves instead. Also not true. I've lost weight while eating way more calories than I burned. If it were all about 'burning up fat reserves', the low-calorie low-fat diet would work just peachy. The result is supposed to be weight loss, plus the production of compounds known as ketones; the higher the level of "ketosis", the more fat is being burnt. Inaccurate, since we all produce ketones; induction-level low-carbers just produce enough to detect easily. That's the theory. Yet studies of the patients in Brehm's trial failed to reveal a connection between ketosis and fat loss. "We didn't see any correlation - all of our expectations were confounded," she says. "I'm hoping someone in the audience might have some answers." "It can't possibly be that the idea I was trying to disprove -- that will get me laughed at at the next convention -- could be the truth! I'd rather blame it on magical fairies. Could someone prove magical fairies exist, please?" Brehm is confident that there is a reasonable, if not simple, explanation for her findings: "In the end, the energy in has got to match the energy out." Assuming the human body is a perfectly efficient machine, that burns food the way an engine burns gasoline. Mine isn't. Even more baffling is why there are still such enormous gaps in knowledge about how humans respond to diet. The past 20 years have seen obesity reach record levels in the developed world. This has led scientists to concede that the standard advice on nutrition and healthy eating has been an abject failure - yet the Atkins diet is still dismissed as a "fad" by the British Dietetic Association, with leading nutritionists insisting that there is insufficient scientific evidence to give it more credence. This lack of evidence has not deterred many in the medical profession from condemning the diet out of hand. Last week a poll of British doctors revealed that one in four would advise their patients to stay fat rather than try the Atkins diet - despite the proven life-threatening effects of obesity. It's become a vicious circle. Atkins came across the common sense (and hardly new or secret) idea that cutting back on carbs would help people lose weight, and developed that into an overall diet plan. Instead of spending the next 20 years researching it in a lab somewhere and restricting his results to tired medical journals, he had the tackiness to make money on it by putting it in a book where it was accessible by the common people. Associations of all stripes hate that kind of individuality. Now there's no need to research low-carb, because millions of people are already running their own tests at home. Mainstream types don't want to do the research, because they don't want to admit they were wrong for all those years, and they already can see that's where this is headed. Basically, we all beat them to it. The best they can do is treat it as a non-scientific fad, and hope it goes away or at least doesn't grow in popularity. Despite this, Westman cautions anyone with a medical condition against rushing onto a low-carb diet. "The problem is that it works too well," he explains. "The diet can cause insulin levels to drop by 50 per cent in one day, so diabetics could find themselves over-medicated. It's the same for those with high blood pressure." Standard good advice. I'm sure diabetics shouldn't make any significant changes in diet without being careful. "We had a tough time getting our results published - it took 18 months altogether," she says. "The big journals really couldn't handle it. But we're not endorsing the diet: it's just our results." That's really, really sad. Any journal that refuses to publish research simply because it doesn't like the results should cease to exist. They aren't supposed to be in the business of suppressing knowledge. Those already embarked on such research suspect that it will take a great deal to overcome the visceral response the mere mention of Atkins provokes among academics. Says Brehm: "A lot of people just want to hold on to what they learned in college." Ain't it the truth. -- Aaron 280/228/200 |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher
wrote: Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is helping people with heart problems? The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person. How long will embarrassment over past mistakes trump doing the right thing now? The AHA doesn't consider it the right thing. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031021.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
"Valley Of Mu_n" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher wrote: Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is helping people with heart problems? The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person. Unfortunately, the AHA didn't warn doctors about statin-induced rhabdomyolysis until after Bayer pulled Baycol, after hundreds of deaths. Unfortunately, the AHA didn't warn doctors about statin-induced myositis, nor statin-induced myopathy without elevated CK, until a year after the initial recognition of the rhabdomyolysis dangers. Unfortunately, the AHA has yet to warn doctors (beyond a brief mention of a speculation) about statin-induced polyneuropathy and statin-induced peripheral neuropathy. Nor, have they determined that there is any increased urgency in warning doctors to watch for statin-induced polyneuropathy and statin-induced peripheral neuropathy when they are treating diabetics - many of whom are at risk for these very conditions - now that the FDA has approved statins for diabetics. Unfortunately, the AHA has yet to warn doctors about statin-induced cognitive decline, statin-induced memory loss, and statin-induced episodes of Transcient Global Amnesia, often occuring in multiples. (No mention, yet the Australian Drug Administration warned that statins are "Drugs that make you forget" in 1998.) Nor, have they determined that there is any increased urgency in warning doctors to watch for statin-induced cognitive decline, statin-induced memory loss, and statin-induced episodes of Transcient Global Amnesia now that the FDA has approved statins for children ages 11-17. Then again, the AHA has known since 1985 that statins cause a Coenzyme Q10 deficiency, with mitochondrial damage and cardiac impacts, and they have yet to warn doctors to watch for the results of this deficiency, let alone suggest a supplement to prevent it. What are the results of not warning doctors (or patients) about these statin-induced adverse effects? For specific examples, see Smart Money Magazine's November issue, on the stands now, complete with color pictures of the disabled patients. |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
Sharon Hope wrote:
What are the results of not warning doctors (or patients) about these statin-induced adverse effects? For specific examples, see Smart Money Magazine's November issue, on the stands now, complete with color pictures of the disabled patients. ----------------- Hi, Sharon - I read it and it was pretty frightening. Based on what has already been learned about Baycol it bears a closer look. I don't want to be one of it's victims and have cut back from 20mg. to 10mg and then every other day to nothing. I saw my MD just a few weeks ago and mentioned the weakness in my legs and the pain I was experiencing. He said it was probably just leg cramps and offered a Rx. for quinine tabs to relieve that. Wouldn't you think HE would know if there is a problem with Lipitor ? Guess not. 8-( I plan on consulting with someone else on this...but where to start ? If any permanent damage has been I'm going to be really angry. -- Patricia Florida-USA |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
Valley Of Mu_n wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher wrote: Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is helping people with heart problems? The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person. How long will embarrassment over past mistakes trump doing the right thing now? The AHA doesn't consider it the right thing. The AHA is not alone. From Dr. Barry Sears (2/24/2000): "Finally, the longer you stay in ketosis, you begin to oxidize lipoproteins, so these are long-term consequences which begin to explain why high protein diets fail." Source: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Seminars/GND/Proceedings.txt Pertinent research: http://tinyurl.com/s8mp "This study demonstrates that incubation of AA with normal RBCs in phosphate-buffered saline (37 degrees C for 24 h) resulted in marked GSH depletion, oxidized glutathione accumulation, hydroxyl radical generation, and increased membrane lipid peroxidation." Note that these are *normal* red blood cells (RBCs) incubated under physiological conditions with AA (acetoacetate is a ketone that *is* elevated with ketogenic LC dieting) resulting in measurable toxic (bad) effects on the cells. Especially concerning is the generation of oxygen free radicals and peroxidation of membrane lipids. Humbly, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
Sharon Hope wrote:
"Valley Of Mu_n" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher wrote: Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is helping people with heart problems? The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person. Unfortunately, the AHA didn't warn doctors about statin-induced rhabdomyolysis until after Bayer pulled Baycol, after hundreds of deaths. So you better take heed when the AHA warns you about something. They tend to be late about doing it according to Ms. Hope. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:36:24 GMT in article
m "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote: Valley Of Mu_n wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher wrote: Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is helping people with heart problems? The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person. How long will embarrassment over past mistakes trump doing the right thing now? The AHA doesn't consider it the right thing. The AHA is not alone. From Dr. Barry Sears (2/24/2000): "Finally, the longer you stay in ketosis, you begin to oxidize lipoproteins, so these are long-term consequences which begin to explain why high protein diets fail." Source: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Seminars/GND/Proceedings.txt That is your "evidence"?. Barry Sears' unsubstantiated oral statement over three years ago without any references whatsoever to back it up? You have to do "much" better than that. Pertinent research: http://tinyurl.com/s8mp "This study demonstrates that incubation of AA with normal RBCs in phosphate-buffered saline (37 degrees C for 24 h) resulted in marked GSH depletion, oxidized glutathione accumulation, hydroxyl radical generation, and increased membrane lipid peroxidation." Note that these are *normal* red blood cells (RBCs) incubated under physiological conditions with AA (acetoacetate is a ketone that *is* elevated with ketogenic LC dieting) resulting in measurable toxic (bad) effects on the cells. Especially concerning is the generation of oxygen free radicals and peroxidation of membrane lipids. As ha already been shown, this applies only to type 1 diabetes patients as authors mention in their conclusion. The full text of this study is at http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org.../48/9/1850.pdf A quote from there gives one explanation why this study applies only to type 1 diabetes: "The blood concentration of ketone bodies may reach 10 mmol/l in diabetic patients with severe ketosis, versus 0.5 mmol/l in normal people (24,25)." -- Matti Narkia |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
Please see the last couple paragraphs of this news item.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...3-lowcarb.html Although the hypotheses I stated are my own, the intuitive logic is compelling--as the above-reference researcher illustrates. To me, this is by far the most obvious reason why LCers may consume more calories (than LFers) and yet lose more weight. It may not ultimately prove to be true, but isn't this the logical place to begin the research? The converse to my simple hypothesis would be: "All foods (i.e. no exceptions, ever, anywhere, under any circumstances) are metabolized in EXACTLY the same way, or at least have EXACTLY the same net metabolic effect on EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING". Not particularly likely, IMHO. "Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... cheesegator wrote: :: Why is this such a controversy? Whether or not there truly exists a :: "Metabolic Advantage" as Dr. Atkins used the term, there is another :: very simple explanation. :: :: For some people, if not all people, it MUST be true that: :: :: Consuming 1,000 Kcal of Fructose is NOT metabolically equivalent to :: consuming 1,000 Kcal of Bacon grease. :: :: :: Why not???? I'll tell you why: :: :: 1. Not all foods have EXACTLY the same absorption in the gut. Most :: of the fructose calories will be used by the body, while a greater :: percentage of the bacon grease calories will end up in the toilet. Do you have a cite for this? I'm not saying it isn't true, but I've never read anything convincing on this. I do know, however, that when I eat lots of fat -- stuff floats :) :: :: 2. The energy USED by the body in metabolizing & processing is not :: EXACTLY the same for all foods. Again, my hypothesis is that :: sugary/starchy foods are much more easily processed by the body. :: :: Even a 1% difference in NET ABSORBED CALORIES (between a low-carb :: and a high-carb diet of equivalent GROSS calories) would be :: significant. I would bet it's much greater than 1%. :: :: If I'm wrong, then Atkins' "Metabolic Advantage" seems to be the only :: logical explanation for these results. I like your notions better than the metabolic advantage. I just don't know if they are true. |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
Patricia,
Glad you read it. Now you know what my husband is going through and what I face every day. Where to start: Contact the UCSD Statin Study - Dr. Golomb (nearly full page photo in the Smart Money article) has information on her website, and is collecting adverse effects. http://medicine.ucsd.edu/statin/ click on 'contact us'. You can email or call. Read the website http://www.impostertrial.com/, both the section for patients and the section for doctors. Imposter /impóster/ n. (also im·pos´tor) 1 A web site for patients and physicians searching for information concerning Statin Therapy and related issues 2 acronym: Is Myopathy Part Of Statin Therapy? Check the Statin FAQ on http://forum.ditonline.com/viewboard.php?BoardID=38 (I may also post one here again, under its own subject line) Note that the FAQ tends to emphasize non-muscular statin adverse effects, because I was under the erroneous illusion that the myopathy and rhabdomyolysis problems were common knowledge. Again and again I find that is not true, both among treating doctors and patients. (Which indicates the doctors are not even listening to the AHA on the one adverse effect they admit to) Take all of the above to your doctor and DEMAND that he address your pain. He owes you a blood test to check for elevated CK, but he also should know that you can have statin myopathy without elevated CK. Any of the following out of range are danger signs: BUN high Creatine high low CO2 low red blood cells high AST high ALT elevated CPK (aka CK) If he won't help, check the NIH (National Institutes of Health) website for a neuromuscular specialist or a mitochondrial specialist and have them check into the problems. Do not wait! My husband was on 10mg for 4 years and you read some of the statin adverse effects that disabled him in the article (couldn't cover it all in 6 pages - his medical records since quitting Lipitor in January 2002 are over 4 inches thick!). Coenzyme Q10 supplements may help, but they will not be the entire answer. Good luck, and please let me know how you are doing. Take care, Sharon "Patricia" wrote in message ... Sharon Hope wrote: What are the results of not warning doctors (or patients) about these statin-induced adverse effects? For specific examples, see Smart Money Magazine's November issue, on the stands now, complete with color pictures of the disabled patients. ----------------- Hi, Sharon - I read it and it was pretty frightening. Based on what has already been learned about Baycol it bears a closer look. I don't want to be one of it's victims and have cut back from 20mg. to 10mg and then every other day to nothing. I saw my MD just a few weeks ago and mentioned the weakness in my legs and the pain I was experiencing. He said it was probably just leg cramps and offered a Rx. for quinine tabs to relieve that. Wouldn't you think HE would know if there is a problem with Lipitor ? Guess not. 8-( I plan on consulting with someone else on this...but where to start ? If any permanent damage has been I'm going to be really angry. -- Patricia Florida-USA |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher
wrote: snip "We had a tough time getting our results published - it took 18 months altogether," she says. "The big journals really couldn't handle it. But we're not endorsing the diet: it's just our results." That's really, really sad. Any journal that refuses to publish research simply because it doesn't like the results should cease to exist. They aren't supposed to be in the business of suppressing knowledge. It's the way ALL reputable scientific journals operate. Papers come in. The editors send them off to other reputable scientists in that particular field to be reviewed - basically, the editors want to make sure the paper is 'good science'. The editor then takes into account the comments of the reviewer(s) as to whether or not the paper is plausible, is well written and the experiments (if any) described therein are good science in deciding whether to reject the paper outright, ask for revision and resubmission or publish it. If your work happens to be in accord with current thinking on the topic, it's more likely to be published or at least only minor revision before publication. If your work, no matter how well researched, does NOT fit with current thinking it's more likely to be rejected. As it happens, this is a situation that effects my family on a regular basis. My husband is a professional Research Scientist. His paid work is as a civilian scientist attached to the Australian Defence Force. He publishes about 5 or so papers a year (mostly classified, or I'd point you to them) in that field and they are rarely returned for more than minor revision before publication. He also has (classified) Patents in his name for his sonar enhancement system (ISHTAR - you can see some unclassified information at http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/corpo...industry1.html if you're interested in what he gets up to). His PhD work was in Tachyon Physics. His theories in this field are VERY controversial, although they fit better with established knowledge than do the current theories in this field. It takes him approximately 3 years of revision and resubmission to get every paper published. It's not that his papers in Tachyons are poorly written. It's not that his papers are poorly researched. It's just that most of the reviewers out there *have a vested interest in having *their* theories be the accepted ones* so they reject papers showing that they might have been wrong. Since most editors of journals *don't* have the expertise to be a peer-reviewer of *every* subject that their journal covers they have to rely on the judgements of those who *do* have the expertise. This is true throughout all the branches of science. And, since scientists are no less human than anyone else you might meet (although some people might think so) they *do* tend to unconsciously protect their livelihoods by demanding greater proof of controversial papers than they might of ones that support their own views. Aramanth |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
revek wrote ...
"cheesegator" wrote ... For some people, if not all people, it MUST be true that: Consuming 1,000 Kcal of Fructose is NOT metabolically equivalent to consuming 1,000 Kcal of Bacon grease. Why not???? I'll tell you why: 1. Not all foods have EXACTLY the same absorption in the gut. Most of the fructose calories will be used by the body, while a greater percentage of the bacon grease calories will end up in the toilet. 2. The energy USED by the body in metabolizing & processing is not EXACTLY the same for all foods. Again, my hypothesis is that sugary/starchy foods are much more easily processed by the body. I doubt it is so high, myself, for 'average' folks, and I have heard that sort of differential factoring is accounted for in the calculations of caloric loads of different foods (for average folks). Of course, for us overweight people, we have visual evidence that our bodies react differently to food than 'average' folks. It's all about the insulin ... carbs stimulate insulin, protein/fats don't, or at least *very* little. I'm no scientist so bear with me here, but the insulin spike you get with the fructose (or any carbs, to a greater or lesser degree) means your body is going to store any excess calories as fat. Too many such insulin spikes can leave a person insulin resistant, which means the body is producing more and more of the fat-storing insulin because it's not registering ... and if it continues you end up with type 2 diabetes if you're not careful. Hence the idiocy of the high-carb diet so commonly prescribed for diabetics. I'm sure there are others here who can explain it all soooo much better than I can! This is essentially what I can recall from reading DANDR. When my GP told me I was insulin resistant, she said my body is extremely efficient at gaining and retaining weight. bloody brilliant ... :o) Rachel (New Zealand) |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
Aaron Baugher wrote ...
"We had a tough time getting our results published - it took 18 months altogether," she says. "The big journals really couldn't handle it. But we're not endorsing the diet: it's just our results." That's really, really sad. Any journal that refuses to publish research simply because it doesn't like the results should cease to exist. They aren't supposed to be in the business of suppressing knowledge. Interestingly, I've just finished reading the book "Raw Meaty Bones Promote Health" by Tom Lonsdale, a veterinarian. He's been having *exactly* the same sort of problems trying to convince the veterinary industry to take a long hard look at the prevalence of periodontal disease and question the appropriateness of commercial pet food that can be up to 50% grains as a complete and balanced diet for our companion carnivores. Now I could well get blown out of the water for raising this as it's an issue many people feel very passionately about, but I do it because Tom Lonsdale's continuous fight to get published in veterinary journals is exactly like this battle here, so I have a lot of sympathy for the man! :o) Rachel (New Zealand) |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
Matti Narkia wrote:
Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:36:24 GMT in article m "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote: Valley Of Mu_n wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher wrote: Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is helping people with heart problems? The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person. How long will embarrassment over past mistakes trump doing the right thing now? The AHA doesn't consider it the right thing. The AHA is not alone. From Dr. Barry Sears (2/24/2000): "Finally, the longer you stay in ketosis, you begin to oxidize lipoproteins, so these are long-term consequences which begin to explain why high protein diets fail." Source: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Seminars/GND/Proceedings.txt That is your "evidence"?. Evidence that the AHA is not alone in their sentiments? The answer is "yes". Barry Sears' unsubstantiated oral statement over three years ago without any references whatsoever to back it up? Dr. Sears' statement was not contested by Dr. Atkins. You have to do "much" better than that. Not really. See below. Pertinent research: http://tinyurl.com/s8mp "This study demonstrates that incubation of AA with normal RBCs in phosphate-buffered saline (37 degrees C for 24 h) resulted in marked GSH depletion, oxidized glutathione accumulation, hydroxyl radical generation, and increased membrane lipid peroxidation." Note that these are *normal* red blood cells (RBCs) incubated under physiological conditions with AA (acetoacetate is a ketone that *is* elevated with ketogenic LC dieting) resulting in measurable toxic (bad) effects on the cells. Especially concerning is the generation of oxygen free radicals and peroxidation of membrane lipids. As ha already been shown, this applies only to type 1 diabetes patients as authors mention in their conclusion. This in vitro experiment being done under *normal* physiological conditions (no hyperglycemia) makes it applicable to isolated hyperketonemia (ie ketogenic LC dieting). Would suggest you read the entire paper. The full text of this study is at http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org.../48/9/1850.pdf Yes, it is. Would suggest you read it in its entirety especially paying attention to Figure 1. A quote from there gives one explanation why this study applies only to type 1 diabetes: "The blood concentration of ketone bodies may reach 10 mmol/l in diabetic patients with severe ketosis, versus 0.5 mmol/l in normal people (24,25)." Normal people are not having hyperketonemia from being on *ketogenic* LC diets. One would expect folks on *ketogenic* LC diets to have serum ketone concentrations somewhere between 0.5 micromol/ml and 10 micromol/ml. Now look again at Figure 1 paying close attention to MDA (marker of lipid peroxidation, which is the bad stuff). I would not want any of that increasing in my arteries. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Normal people are not having hyperketonemia from being on *ketogenic* LC diets.
One would expect folks on *ketogenic* LC diets to have serum ketone concentrations somewhere between 0.5 micromol/ml and 10 micromol/ml. Now look again at Figure 1 paying close attention to MDA (marker of lipid peroxidation, which is the bad stuff). I would not want any of that increasing in my arteries. Dear friend, I too worry about the known atherogenic properties of ketogenic diets. However, it is not simply an issue of ketogenesis vs glycolysis but rather a complex interaction between the two metabolic processes. To simplify the thousands of complex biologic interactions that can vary hourly into one or two basic science studies is missing the forest for the trees. The real question one should ask is "Do sustained ketogenic diets (not ketosis from diabetes) in individuals with glycolated hemoglobin (HgbA1-c) under 5.0 and without exposure to known risk factors for atherosclerosis suffer from accelerated atherosclerosis?". I have yet to see such a study in my 10 years of practice, and doubt there will be one because such a study would be extremely difficult to administer. People are complex organisms with complex social behaviors (which is why we are so fascinating!). pb |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P. wrote:
Normal people are not having hyperketonemia from being on *ketogenic* LC diets. One would expect folks on *ketogenic* LC diets to have serum ketone concentrations somewhere between 0.5 micromol/ml and 10 micromol/ml. Now look again at Figure 1 paying close attention to MDA (marker of lipid peroxidation, which is the bad stuff). I would not want any of that increasing in my arteries. Dear friend, I too worry about the known atherogenic properties of ketogenic diets. However, it is not simply an issue of ketogenesis vs glycolysis but rather a complex interaction between the two metabolic processes. To simplify the thousands of complex biologic interactions that can vary hourly into one or two basic science studies is missing the forest for the trees. The real question one should ask is "Do sustained ketogenic diets (not ketosis from diabetes) in individuals with glycolated hemoglobin (HgbA1-c) under 5.0 and without exposure to known risk factors for atherosclerosis suffer from accelerated atherosclerosis?". I have yet to see such a study in my 10 years of practice, and doubt there will be one because such a study would be extremely difficult to administer. People are complex organisms with complex social behaviors (which is why we are so fascinating!). pb But shouldn't it be possible to run a computer simulation of a ketogenic diet in the context of the average normal body chemistry of an overweight person? Such a simulation should reveal whether the diet actually works chemically to cause weight loss, without regard to the possible long term problems. martin |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:32:10 -0500, Ron Ritzman
wrote: On 27 Oct 2003 04:12:22 -0800, (Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.) wrote: The real question one should ask is "Do sustained ketogenic diets (not ketosis from diabetes) in individuals with glycolated hemoglobin (HgbA1-c) under 5.0 and without exposure to known risk factors for atherosclerosis suffer from accelerated atherosclerosis?". I have yet to see such a study in my 10 years of practice, and doubt there will be one because such a study would be extremely difficult to administer. From what I have seen posted, the jury is still out but I understand Dr. Chung's position on this. Even though he uses terms such as "studies nay suggest" and "there is reason to *believe*" when talking about diet induced ketosis, he believes there are enough unknowns and question marks to say that it's safer for those who are overweight to simply "eat less" of the foods you are eating right now then roll the dice with ketosis. (his two pound diet approach covers the "simply") Still, it is refreshing to see this issue being debated with published studies and people who appear to have some level of clue rather then Atkids regurgitating what their favorite diet book authors say. Yeah, but there are unknowns in everything. I have been following a low carb dieat almost exclusively since the beginning of this year, and intermittently for a year or so before then. I've lowered my weight about 50 pounds, increased my HDL, decreased my LDL, and decreased my triglycerides. The problem is that no one has taken the time to study low carb diets because they go against the party line. -- Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:32:10 -0500, Ron Ritzman
wrote: From what I have seen posted, the jury is still out but I understand Dr. Chung's position on this. Even though he uses terms such as "studies nay suggest" and "there is reason to *believe*" when talking about diet induced ketosis, he believes there are enough unknowns and question marks to say that it's safer for those who are overweight to simply "eat less" of the foods you are eating right now then roll the dice with ketosis. (his two pound diet approach covers the "simply") Chung's position on this is firmer than that. He has stated that he would rather someone be overfat than on Atkins. This strongly hints at more than "roll the dice" with ketosis. I would suggest it would follow that ketosis, in the 2PDiet context, be avoided entirely. Now, this is my interpretation of Chung and not Mu speaking for Chung. How overfat one can be before even Atkins might be appropriate, I do not know. Maybe it would take morbid obesity, maybe that's not overfat enough. Still, it is refreshing to see this issue being debated with published studies and people who appear to have some level of clue rather then Atkids regurgitating what their favorite diet book authors say. On ASDLC and SMC? Really? I never noticed that. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030829.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:52:57 GMT, Bob M wrote:
The problem is that no one has taken the time to study low carb diets because they go against the party line. If there is a "party", then there are those who are not part of the "party". Why have they not done the research then? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030829.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Mineral Mu_n wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:52:57 GMT, Bob M wrote: The problem is that no one has taken the time to study low carb diets because they go against the party line. If there is a "party", then there are those who are not part of the "party". Why have they not done the research then? I think it is too hard. I suspect that the main effect of the diet is the reduction in hunger and craving, so that most of thr weight loss is actually due to eating less. You would have to keep people locked in a "Big Brother" kind of environment so that you could rigidly control what they eat and prevent them from exercising. It isn't really feasible, which is why I think a computer simulation of the entire chemistry is the only way. That would show that the diet would work or not in its pure form. martin |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
If there is a "party", then there are those who are not part of the "party". Why have they not done the research then? On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:44:39 +0100, "M.W.Smith" wrote: I think it is too hard. I suspect that the main effect of the diet is the reduction in hunger and craving, so that most of thr weight loss is actually due to eating less. You would have to keep people locked in a "Big Brother" kind of environment so that you could rigidly control what they eat and prevent them from exercising. It isn't really feasible, which is why I think a computer simulation of the entire chemistry is the only way. That would show that the diet would work or not in its pure form. I think the simulation is an interesting tool indeed. I also concur with your ideas about the difficulties of testing diets. A control group would be hard to control, wouldn't they? This holds true for the 2PDiet, Atkins, Ornish or whatever. The only place we might differ is in studying the pathological effects of, say, ketosis over a term. Not being a researcher, I am not at all certain if this is doable but I am told, by researchers, it is. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
"Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P." wrote:
Normal people are not having hyperketonemia from being on *ketogenic* LC diets. One would expect folks on *ketogenic* LC diets to have serum ketone concentrations somewhere between 0.5 micromol/ml and 10 micromol/ml. Now look again at Figure 1 paying close attention to MDA (marker of lipid peroxidation, which is the bad stuff). I would not want any of that increasing in my arteries. Dear friend, I too worry about the known atherogenic properties of ketogenic diets. However, it is not simply an issue of ketogenesis vs glycolysis but rather a complex interaction between the two metabolic processes. To simplify the thousands of complex biologic interactions that can vary hourly into one or two basic science studies is missing the forest for the trees. The real question one should ask is "Do sustained ketogenic diets (not ketosis from diabetes) in individuals with glycolated hemoglobin (HgbA1-c) under 5.0 and without exposure to known risk factors for atherosclerosis suffer from accelerated atherosclerosis?". Ime, they do. I have yet to see such a study in my 10 years of practice, and doubt there will be one because such a study would be extremely difficult to administer. Here we have no choice but to base our concerns on in vitro data such as that which has been cited until (if ever) there is long-term safety data that refutes the in vitro data. People are complex organisms with complex social behaviors (which is why we are so fascinating!). Agree. The glory is all God's here. Humbly, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 27 Oct 2003 04:12:22 -0800, (Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.) wrote: The real question one should ask is "Do sustained ketogenic diets (not ketosis from diabetes) in individuals with glycolated hemoglobin (HgbA1-c) under 5.0 and without exposure to known risk factors for atherosclerosis suffer from accelerated atherosclerosis?". I have yet to see such a study in my 10 years of practice, and doubt there will be one because such a study would be extremely difficult to administer. From what I have seen posted, the jury is still out but I understand Dr. Chung's position on this. Even though he uses terms such as "studies nay suggest" and "there is reason to *believe*" when talking about diet induced ketosis, he believes there are enough unknowns and question marks to say that it's safer for those who are overweight to simply "eat less" of the foods you are eating right now then roll the dice with ketosis. (his two pound diet approach covers the "simply") Still, it is refreshing to see this issue being debated with published studies and people who appear to have some level of clue rather then Atkids regurgitating what their favorite diet book authors say. Yes, it is refreshing. Thank you for your comments, Ron. Regards, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Bob M wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:32:10 -0500, Ron Ritzman wrote: On 27 Oct 2003 04:12:22 -0800, (Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.) wrote: The real question one should ask is "Do sustained ketogenic diets (not ketosis from diabetes) in individuals with glycolated hemoglobin (HgbA1-c) under 5.0 and without exposure to known risk factors for atherosclerosis suffer from accelerated atherosclerosis?". I have yet to see such a study in my 10 years of practice, and doubt there will be one because such a study would be extremely difficult to administer. From what I have seen posted, the jury is still out but I understand Dr. Chung's position on this. Even though he uses terms such as "studies nay suggest" and "there is reason to *believe*" when talking about diet induced ketosis, he believes there are enough unknowns and question marks to say that it's safer for those who are overweight to simply "eat less" of the foods you are eating right now then roll the dice with ketosis. (his two pound diet approach covers the "simply") Still, it is refreshing to see this issue being debated with published studies and people who appear to have some level of clue rather then Atkids regurgitating what their favorite diet book authors say. Yeah, but there are unknowns in everything. I have been following a low carb dieat almost exclusively since the beginning of this year, and intermittently for a year or so before then. I've lowered my weight about 50 pounds, increased my HDL, decreased my LDL, and decreased my triglycerides. The problem is that no one has taken the time to study low carb diets because they go against the party line. They did not go against Dr. Atkins' party line. He had 30 yrs to conduct the *safety* studies. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
Aramanth Dawe wrote:
:: On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher :: wrote: :: snip :: :::: "We had a tough time getting our results published - it took 18 :::: months altogether," she says. "The big journals really couldn't :::: handle it. But we're not endorsing the diet: it's just our :::: results." ::: ::: That's really, really sad. Any journal that refuses to publish ::: research simply because it doesn't like the results should cease to ::: exist. They aren't supposed to be in the business of suppressing ::: knowledge. :: :: It's the way ALL reputable scientific journals operate. :: :: Papers come in. The editors send them off to other reputable :: scientists in that particular field to be reviewed - basically, the :: editors want to make sure the paper is 'good science'. The editor :: then takes into account the comments of the reviewer(s) as to whether :: or not the paper is plausible, is well written and the experiments :: (if :: any) described therein are good science in deciding whether to reject :: the paper outright, ask for revision and resubmission or publish it. :: If your work happens to be in accord with current thinking on the :: topic, it's more likely to be published or at least only minor :: revision before publication. If your work, no matter how well :: researched, does NOT fit with current thinking it's more likely to be :: rejected. :: :: As it happens, this is a situation that effects my family on a :: regular :: basis. :: :: My husband is a professional Research Scientist. His paid work is as :: a civilian scientist attached to the Australian Defence Force. He :: publishes about 5 or so papers a year (mostly classified, or I'd :: point :: you to them) in that field and they are rarely returned for more than :: minor revision before publication. He also has (classified) Patents :: in his name for his sonar enhancement system (ISHTAR - you can see :: some unclassified information at :: http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/corpo...industry1.html :: if you're interested in what he gets up to). :: :: His PhD work was in Tachyon Physics. His theories in this field are :: VERY controversial, although they fit better with established :: knowledge than do the current theories in this field. It takes him :: approximately 3 years of revision and resubmission to get every paper :: published. It's not that his papers in Tachyons are poorly written. :: It's not that his papers are poorly researched. It's just that most :: of the reviewers out there *have a vested interest in having *their* :: theories be the accepted ones* so they reject papers showing that :: they :: might have been wrong. keep in mind that reviewers don't reject submissions, they make recommendations on whether a submission should be accepted or rejected, or have revisions made. Also, for their recommendations to carry weight, they must provide a clear reason for their position. They can't just claim that the results are invalid simply because they outside their realm of experience or knowledge on the matter. If a paper is well written and the research methods are well stated and well executed, and the conclusions are in agreement with any data given, and sound theory is applied throughout the submission, the reviewers are duty bound to recommend publication. At that point, if there is still debate of certain controverial issues, they get hammered out in print. That, imo, is where the fun starts! About the 3 years of revision/resubmission....a lot of that has to do with people just being busy and not turning in reviewers in a timely manner. :: :: Since most editors of journals *don't* have the expertise to be a :: peer-reviewer of *every* subject that their journal covers they have :: to rely on the judgements of those who *do* have the expertise. This :: is true throughout all the branches of science. And, since :: scientists are no less human than anyone else you might meet :: (although :: some people might think so) they *do* tend to unconsciously protect :: their livelihoods by demanding greater proof of controversial papers :: than they might of ones that support their own views. Even if editors have the expertise, they very likely won't have the time. Also, having mulitple independent recommendations helps to remove bias in the decision making process.. |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Mars at the Mu_n's Edge wrote:
If there is a "party", then there are those who are not part of the "party". Why have they not done the research then? On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:44:39 +0100, "M.W.Smith" wrote: I think it is too hard. I suspect that the main effect of the diet is the reduction in hunger and craving, so that most of thr weight loss is actually due to eating less. You would have to keep people locked in a "Big Brother" kind of environment so that you could rigidly control what they eat and prevent them from exercising. It isn't really feasible, which is why I think a computer simulation of the entire chemistry is the only way. That would show that the diet would work or not in its pure form. I think the simulation is an interesting tool indeed. I also concur with your ideas about the difficulties of testing diets. A control group would be hard to control, wouldn't they? This holds true for the 2PDiet, Atkins, Ornish or whatever. The only place we might differ is in studying the pathological effects of, say, ketosis over a term. Not being a researcher, I am not at all certain if this is doable but I am told, by researchers, it is. I think that aspect of it *is* testable. It just requires subjects to be on a generally high-fat-low-carb diet for many years and then to compare their disease statistics with those of people who were not on that kind of diet during the same period of years. I don't think ketosis is the problem but continually high fat in the blood and in the intestines. However, my ESP tells me that any positive correlation between Atkins and higher rates of heart problems and cancer problems can probably be nullified if not reversed by strict adherence to daily strenuous exercise and daily high water consumption. In other words, I expect it will be shown that when you do the Atkins diet, you must do the diet component, the exercise component, and the water drinking component, and that the exercise and water components are as important as the diet component. I won't be surprised if the studies end up showing that if you're a sloth going in and you remain a sloth, the Atkins diet will increase your chances of dying before your time. martin |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:45:01 +0100 in article
"M.W.Smith" wrote: Mars at the Mu_n's Edge wrote: If there is a "party", then there are those who are not part of the "party". Why have they not done the research then? On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:44:39 +0100, "M.W.Smith" wrote: I think it is too hard. I suspect that the main effect of the diet is the reduction in hunger and craving, so that most of thr weight loss is actually due to eating less. You would have to keep people locked in a "Big Brother" kind of environment so that you could rigidly control what they eat and prevent them from exercising. It isn't really feasible, which is why I think a computer simulation of the entire chemistry is the only way. That would show that the diet would work or not in its pure form. I think the simulation is an interesting tool indeed. I also concur with your ideas about the difficulties of testing diets. A control group would be hard to control, wouldn't they? This holds true for the 2PDiet, Atkins, Ornish or whatever. The only place we might differ is in studying the pathological effects of, say, ketosis over a term. Not being a researcher, I am not at all certain if this is doable but I am told, by researchers, it is. I think that aspect of it *is* testable. It just requires subjects to be on a generally high-fat-low-carb diet for many years and then to compare their disease statistics with those of people who were not on that kind of diet during the same period of years. I don't think ketosis is the problem but continually high fat in the blood and in the intestines. However, my ESP tells me that any positive correlation between Atkins and higher rates of heart problems and cancer problems can probably be nullified if not reversed by strict adherence to daily strenuous exercise and daily high water consumption. In other words, I expect it will be shown that when you do the Atkins diet, you must do the diet component, the exercise component, and the water drinking component, and that the exercise and water components are as important as the diet component. I won't be surprised if the studies end up showing that if you're a sloth going in and you remain a sloth, the Atkins diet will increase your chances of dying before your time. In one of his usenet messages Lyle McDonald, the author the book _The Ketogenic Diet_ (http://www.theketogenicdiet.com/), emphasizes that one shouldn't equate Atkins' diet with a low-carb/ketogenic diet, and that low-carb/ketogenic diet can be made a lot healthier than Atkins' diet. The link to the message is http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3EBDD62B.8E580569%40grandecomIMRETARDE D.net (http://tinyurl.com/so0e) A citation: "As well, in a low calorie/weight losing condition, lipid profiles almost always improve on a ketogenic diet. DESPITE a high saturated fat intake. Of course, this only holds during the weight loss phase of the diet; at weight maintenance or during weigh gain, blood lipid profiles generally deteriorate on a ketogenic diet. However, there is NO rule that says that the same diet used to lose weight must be the same diet used to maintain weight. One can shift from a true ketogenic diet towards a more 'balanced' (defined as any diet with 100 g carbs/day) diet during maintenance. That would be accomplished by lowering fat intake and increasing carbohydrate intake. As well, there is NO rule that says a ketogenic diet has to be high in saturated fats. Once again, don't equate the Atkins diet (a piece of **** for the most part) with a low-carb/ketogenic diet. The Atkins diet is a lowcarb/keto diet but all keto diets are NOT the Atkins diet. To whit, a diet of lean proteins, primarily healthy fats and tons of vegetables (with moderate fruit intake) is (most likely) going to be a ketogenic diet. It would be astoundingly healthy (esp. in comparison to both the Standard American Diet and probably the food pyramid). It would also, most likely, be a ketogenic diet (defined as any diet containing 100 grams of carbs/day or less). It would only share the definition of 'ketogenic' with the Atkins diet." -- Matti Narkia |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message ... SNIP They did not go against Dr. Atkins' party line. He had 30 yrs to conduct the *safety* studies. Here's the problem: LC advocates have been viewed as frauds by your ilk for decades. Until very recently, any study they conducted (or partially funded) was dismissed out of hand by the keepers of the orthodoxy--who seldom took the time to read them. These studies are also expensive to undertake. Why sink lots of $$$$ into a study whose results the "establishment" stubbornly refuses to accept. "Knowing" that the earth was flat, your kind saw no need to conduct studies to bear out what the LC advocates had been claiming. I have some great recipes for all the egg on your collective faces. 1. Studies conducted by or funded by LC advocates/researchers didn't count. 2. The medical establishment, although biased against LC diets, chose not to conduct any major studies of the issue. Those poor *******s who did undertake small trials were shouted down any time the elders didn't like their results. What was a guaranteed way for an MD to lose credibility from 1960 to 1990? Conduct a legitimate study of the LC phenom. If the results support existing doctrine . . . "Ha--told you so". If the results contradict existing doctrine . . . "Well, er, it um was er a small sample. "One er shouldn't um extrapolate from these limited results. Er, larger studies are warranted . . ." {Obviously these larger studies never happened. Who wants to **** away one's credibility (if not livelihood) by questioning the Holy Canon.} I'm surprised a highly educated man like you failed to see the "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" mentality in your last comment . . . or perhaps you did. |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:06:43 GMT, Matti Narkia
wrote: In one of his usenet messages Lyle McDonald, the author the book _The Ketogenic Diet_ (http://www.theketogenicdiet.com/), emphasizes that one shouldn't equate Atkins' diet with a low-carb/ketogenic diet, and that low-carb/ketogenic diet can be made a lot healthier than Atkins' diet. The link to the message is http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3EBDD62B.8E580569%40grandecomIMRETARDE D.net (http://tinyurl.com/so0e) And Lyle is usually right :) Yea, how many Atkids are doing the diet with Salmon, lean meats, flax oil and macadamia nuts? When I did the diet (limited budget) my typical breakfast was either a protein drink or a half can of Double Q salmon, lunch, a Wendy's chicken BLT salad with a low carb dressing or lemon. Dinner, Chicken or the leanest cut of beef or pork I could find on special at Kroger, a salad and/or a green vegetable. I did not constantly "pig out" on bacon, sausage, and bunless burgers. (though I won't say I never ate those things.) Lyle made another interesting point. Weight loss itself, regardless of the composition of the diet, often improves lipid numbers. So does exercise. So even one on the "high sat fat" Atkins diet, (assuming it's resulting in a calorie deficit and the dieter is exercising) the dieter is often better off then he was on his old diet sitting in his easy chair his only exercise being Budweiser curls and the 5 yard commercial break potty dash. -- Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can figure out my email address |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
The only place we might differ is in studying the pathological effects of, say, ketosis over a term. Not being a researcher, I am not at all certain if this is doable but I am told, by researchers, it is. On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:45:01 +0100, "M.W.Smith" wrote: I think that aspect of it *is* testable. It just requires subjects to be on a generally high-fat-low-carb diet for many years and then to compare their disease statistics with those of people who were not on that kind of diet during the same period of years. What about environmental variants? Trans fat intakes? How do you get a clinically clean control group or testing group? However, my ESP tells me that any positive correlation between Atkins and higher rates of heart problems and cancer problems can probably be nullified if not reversed by strict adherence to daily strenuous exercise and daily high water consumption. What is the reason for high water consumption? In other words, I expect it will be shown that when you do the Atkins diet, you must do the diet component, the exercise component, and the water drinking component, and that the exercise and water components are as important as the diet component. Is this high water consumption to offset water loss in ketosis or water loss in Atkins at all times of the diet? I won't be surprised if the studies end up showing that if you're a sloth going in and you remain a sloth, the Atkins diet will increase your chances of dying before your time. It is your opinion, then, that Atkins, or perhaps any diet (including the 2PDiet) would be, or could be, counterproductive to long life if not combined with an appropriate exercise program? And if that is the case, should that program leaned to the aerobic or anaerobic ? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Ron Ritzman wrote:
Yea, how many Atkids are doing the diet with Salmon, lean meats, flax oil and macadamia nuts? When I did the diet (limited budget) my typical breakfast was either a protein drink or a half can of Double Q salmon, lunch, a Wendy's chicken BLT salad with a low carb dressing or lemon. Dinner, Chicken or the leanest cut of beef or pork I could find on special at Kroger, a salad and/or a green vegetable. I did not constantly "pig out" on bacon, sausage, and bunless burgers. (though I won't say I never ate those things.) However, for a great many overweight people, a big problem is sticking to the diet, whatever the diet. The high fat foods of Atkins serve to eliminate the hunger and cravings that are most dieters' downfall. For these people, the diet you are talking about will not so effectively reduce hunger and cravings. Lyle made another interesting point. Weight loss itself, regardless of the composition of the diet, often improves lipid numbers. So does exercise. So even one on the "high sat fat" Atkins diet, (assuming it's resulting in a calorie deficit and the dieter is exercising) the dieter is often better off then he was on his old diet sitting in his easy chair his only exercise being Budweiser curls and the 5 yard commercial break potty dash. I agree, but my point was that the exercise might completely nullify the long term negative effects of the high fat in the diet. martin |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
WeightLossBanter