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.