"Ken Kubos" wrote in message
...

Very comprehensive article. Whoever wrote this is actually doing a
decent job. I wouldn't say great though. No hard hitting questions
when the 'experts' spout off, no confrontation with actual facts. Just
a report about 'what the other side says'.

warning: several mini rants follow. may be hazardous to your personal
harmony.


Was Atkins Right After All?
NEW YORK, Feb. 15, 2003

many snip, some gnashing tooth, few outburst

"There are many principles in the Atkins diet that go against what we
know,"
says Dr. Robert Eckel of the University of Colorado, senior author of
the
heart association's policy on high-protein diets. "It keeps people
away from
staples of the diet that we know are associated with less heart
disease."

Sigh. Lowcarbers eat vegetables-- high fiber ones that are good for the
body. We chose veggies with high nutrient content as opposed to high
calorie content. We get our (fewer) calories somewhere else. Somewhere
more satisfying and long lasting.

Volumes of research suggest that people have the best chance of
avoiding
heart disease, high blood pressure and cancer if they eat a varied
diet with
plenty of fruits, vegetables and grains.

Those volumes of research don't examine the impact high glycemic carbs
and their lack have on the body.

"It's scary if people leave out these very important food groups and
just
depend on high-fat, high-protein foods," says Wahida Karmally,
nutrition
director at Columbia University's clinical research center.

1) Scary to who? The grain industry? Boo. Hoo.
2) You don't read for comprehension if you think lowcarb means cutting
vegetables or fruits out completely. Oh that's right, you don't sully
your mind with facts because you're a nutritionist and know everything
already.

Furthermore, people on the Atkins plan may get a quarter of their
daily
calories from saturated fat, more than double the heart association's
recommendation. Animal experiments and studies of large groups of
people
long ago convinced many experts that too much saturated fat clogs the
arteries and leads to heart attacks.

1)May does not equal will.
2) Studies done without removing high glycemic carbs. Makes a
difference.
3) Let me guess... those animal studies were with mice, right? And what
do mice eat if given the choice... yeah I thought so. Feeding fat to a
grain eating animal is designed to show what-- that fat will make a
grain eating animal sick? We knew that already.


So how do the traditionalists explain the cholesterol improvement seen
in
the Atkins dieters? Weight loss. Slimming down reliably improves
cholesterol
levels, and they say its benefits probably overshadowed any damage
done by
all the unhealthy fat that people ate.

Um, if its such a simple answer, why didn't you predict it would happen
before this? Why were ya'll so damn "surprised and dismayed" by those
studies mentioned above that showed an improvement in cholesterol?
Because you're trying to keep your death grip on the minds of the public
as the fount of all wisdom is why. So sad to see such a 'respected'
institution play king of the hill.

But another of Atkins' ideas on the subject is far more contentious.
He
argues that people lose more weight on his plan even if they actually
eat
more calories. That's a violation of the laws of thermodynamics,
skeptics
say.

Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. Human bodies are not
closed systems.

"A calorie is a calorie as far as weight reduction is concerned," says
Dr.
Michael Davidson, director of preventive cardiology at the Rush Heart
Institute in Chicago.

Or is it? Some of the new studies suggest otherwise.

Dr. Stephen Sondike of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City put
overweight teenagers on comparison diets for two months. The ones on
Atkins
lost twice as much as those on the low-fat diet. Yet they appeared to
eat
about 700 more calories a day than the others.

Less dramatic but still startling results came from another study at
the
University of Cincinnati. Women on Atkins lost twice as much while
eating
the same number of calories as the lowfat dieters.

"Surprised? Definitely," says Bonnie Brehm, a registered dietitian.
"We
really don't know what the answer is."

Yes you do. You just don't want to admit that you have ever been wrong.

And the Atkins weight loss was not simply dehydration, as Atkins
critics
often contend, since the Cincinnati dieters also lost twice as much
body
fat.

Thankyou (whoever) for pointing this one out. I get so tired of the
'it's only water' routine.

But even if the diet is reasonable for a few months of slimming down,
what
happens when people level off during the maintenance phase of the
program?
Does their cholesterol soar if they eat all that fat without losing
weight?

No. Only if they go off the diet do things start heading south. All
diet exhibit this little problem, so don't pronounce this fact in a sad
tone as if this doesn't happen with low fat or low calorie, because it
does.

None of the research so far answers that. However, Atkins-sponsored
studies
by Jeff Volek, an exercise and nutrition specialist at the University
of
Connecticut, offers some hints.

He put fit men on an Atkins regimen for six weeks with orders not to
lose
weight, and nothing bad seemed to happen. Their good and bad
cholesterol
went up proportionately, and their triglycerides fell. "I'd like to
see more
data," Volek said, "but ours provides evidence it doesn't have a
negative
effect on your heart."

They'll label it inconclusive, even if it was a 5 year study, and will
poopoo the whole thing because it was sponsered by Atkins (as they have
in the past, even as they called for Atkins to fund studies --hinting
dark and nefarious reasons why he hadn't yet). It doesn't matter what
the answer is, mainstream has a dogma to defend.

But for now, even many of the researchers who did these studies are
reluctant to recommend the Atkins diet. They know too little about its
long-term effects. A large new study just under way could settle these
doubts.

But gee, ya'll didn't mind recommending a lowfat regeme WITHOUT studies
to back you up. Only 'common sense' and political pull, and we see how
well that's worked for you haven't we. So why so cautious now? A little
late to start worrying about how we'll percieve your experiments on us
now isn't it?

This federally sponsored project will randomly put 360 overweight men
and
women on the Atkins plan or the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
standard
high-carb, low-fat diet, then watch them in painstaking detail for at
least
two years.

Oh gee, federally sponsored. Where were you when Atkins was begging for
funding all those years?

The study will try to answer three questions about Atkins, says Hill,
who
directs the University of Colorado's Center for Human Nutrition. "Does
it
produce weight loss? Is it a safe weight loss? And is it any better in
the
long run than anything else that has come along?"

Scientists will analyze the volunteers' blood and cholesterol in every
way
they can think of, as well as check their bone density, kidney
function,
body composition, exercise tolerance and more.

Is it a self reporting study, or are you going to have more control
built in? Are you actually going to give this an honest try or are you
going to toss out any results you don't like because they're "only
self-reporting", which-as-you-know-Bob, isn't reliable unless it
supports your position. Anyone wanna take bets which way they go?

"It's difficult to swallow," says O'Brien, "but the data are the data,
even
if they go against 30 years of dogma."

Thirty years of dogma. I'm glad somebody has admitted it in print.

revek