ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works

Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:43:15 GMT in article
Matti Narkia
wrote:

On the other hand most of the recent LC diet trials have been done with
Atkins' or very similar diet, so when assessing these diets one has to refer
to these diets.

Sorry about unintended circular expression. My intension was to say:

On the other hand most of the recent LC diet trials have been done with
Atkins' or very similar diet, so when assessing these _studies_ one has to
refer to these diets.

--
Matti Narkia

Roger Zoul wrote:

M.W.Smith wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: M.W.Smith wrote:
::::: 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.
:::
::: Sure it does. Protein & fiber help, along with good fats.
::
:: Not for me. Fiber is filling, but the full feeling doesn't
:: eliminate hunger for me. Protein does reduce hunger for me,
:: but not as efficiently as fat.

Are you referring to simply sat fats? One can easily add in fats to protein
and fiber rich foods. I'm saying that one doens't need to pig out on sat
fats to do low-carb.

::
:::::: 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.
:::
::: Especially if that exercise keeps calorie consumption from being
::: excessive.
::
:: For most people, exercise increases calorie consumption.

Interesting. I've found this to be the case only when starting an exercise
program after not doing any over a period of several months. And espeically
so for weight training. For me, adapting to a regular exercise program helps
me control eating. Not exercising seems to bring on increased calorie
consumption for me.

I guess it is a YMMV kind of thing.

It's in the timing of the exercise kind of thing. See the "hints" section of
the 2PD approach instructions.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

"M.W.Smith" wrote:

Roger Zoul wrote:

M.W.Smith wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: M.W.Smith wrote:
::::: 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.
:::
::: Sure it does. Protein & fiber help, along with good fats.
::
:: Not for me. Fiber is filling, but the full feeling doesn't
:: eliminate hunger for me. Protein does reduce hunger for me,
:: but not as efficiently as fat.

Are you referring to simply sat fats? One can easily add in fats to protein
and fiber rich foods. I'm saying that one doens't need to pig out on sat
fats to do low-carb.

We're never talking about pigging out.

:::::: 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.
:::
::: Especially if that exercise keeps calorie consumption from being
::: excessive.
::
:: For most people, exercise increases calorie consumption.

Interesting. I've found this to be the case only when starting an exercise
program after not doing any over a period of several months. And espeically
so for weight training. For me, adapting to a regular exercise program helps
me control eating. Not exercising seems to bring on increased calorie
consumption for me.

Try swimming 2k in the morning before work.


Would suggest you try doing the swimming right before dinner.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Mars at the Mu_n's Edge wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:31:55 -0600, "cheesegator"
wrote:

Here's the problem:

LC advocates have been viewed as frauds by your ilk for decades.

Here's your problem. You libelous statements are as important as your
Usenet handle.

Um... Usenet handle...? From Roose/SUT/arete(fishbone)/Mu...?

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.

Yes, Doctor Atkins did refuse to do so, Cheese.

Much like you and Chung.

Pastorio

On 2003-10-26, Supergoof wrote:

Hence the idiocy of the high-carb diet so commonly prescribed for diabetics.

What diet is that?

I recently visited my father and my step-mom, who has diabetes. The
first thing I noticed is the similarities between her diabetes diet
and my Atkins diets. They were virtually identical. We shared recipe
notes and eating tips on everything from meats to sugar free foods. I
loved her Russel Stover nut clusters and she loved my Carb Safe white
chocolate. I got cooking tips on how to cook up killer carnitas and
homemade chile sauce. She loved my Johnsonville Beer'n Brats. In
fact if she ingests too many carbs (sound familiar?) she has to
immediately get on the treadmill to compensate. The only difference
between diests I could see was, if she cheated, it kicked her ass. I
hope I never have to suffer that. It's why I'm on this diet now.

nb

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:14:57 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2003-10-26, Supergoof wrote:

Hence the idiocy of the high-carb diet so commonly prescribed for
diabetics.

What diet is that?

I recently visited my father and my step-mom, who has diabetes. The
first thing I noticed is the similarities between her diabetes diet
and my Atkins diets. They were virtually identical. We shared recipe
notes and eating tips on everything from meats to sugar free foods. I
loved her Russel Stover nut clusters and she loved my Carb Safe white
chocolate. I got cooking tips on how to cook up killer carnitas and
homemade chile sauce. She loved my Johnsonville Beer'n Brats. In
fact if she ingests too many carbs (sound familiar?) she has to
immediately get on the treadmill to compensate. The only difference
between diests I could see was, if she cheated, it kicked her ass. I
hope I never have to suffer that. It's why I'm on this diet now.

nb


Here are some quotes from the American Diabetes Association (see:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...25/suppl_1/s50). Note
the second and third paragraphs(!).

Foods containing carbohydrate from whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and
low-fat milk should be included in a healthy diet.

As sucrose does not increase glycemia to a greater extent than isocaloric
amounts of starch, sucrose and sucrose-containing foods do not need to be
restricted by people with diabetes; however, they should be substituted for
other carbohydrate sources or, if added, covered with insulin or other
glucose-lowering medication.

Carbohydrate and monounsaturated fat together should provide 60–70% of
energy intake. However, the metabolic profile and need for weight loss
should be considered when determining the monounsaturated fat content of
the diet.

Sucrose and sucrose-containing foods should be eaten in the context of a
healthy diet.

Less than 10% of energy intake should be derived from saturated fats. Some
individuals (i.e., persons with LDL cholesterol 100 mg/dl) may benefit from
lowering saturated fat intake to 7% of energy intake.

Dietary cholesterol intake should be 300 mg/day. Some individuals (i.e.,
persons with LDL cholesterol 100 mg/dl) may benefit from lowering dietary
cholesterol to 200 mg/ day.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

Matti Narkia wrote:

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.

Of course all of those parts are mandatory per the Atkins book
to count as being on the plan. So anyone who doesn't isn't on
Atkins. Yet lots of folks who aren't on Atkins *claim* they are.

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.

Crystal ball time. What say I vote the other way, we wait 50
years, and the one who turns out right dances on the other's
grave? Chuckle.

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

Because, after all, Atkins is only ketogenic for 2 of its 4 phases.
So it isn't a ketogenic diet for even a majority of its time. It
is only ketogenic during its *loss* phases. Anyone who successfully
maintains that loss will be *on Atkins* *out of ketosis* for much
longer than they where in ketosis on Atkins. I was in ketosis 6
months, out for 12, back in for around 3-4, and out again for over
2 years at this point, on Atkins the whole time.

A citation:

How much of this is Lyle MacDonald?

"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.

Looks like he didn't even read the book he's commenting on. Not
a good sign. The maintenance phase is 1 of 2 non-ketongenic phases
of Atkins.

However, there is NO rule that says that the same diet used to lose
weight must be the same diet used to maintain weight.

Like the different phases of Atkins being, uhm, different. You know,
like it says to in the book? It's amzing how folks who bad mouth
Atkins frequently haven't bothered to read the book. Hey, it's got
it's problems folks, it;s just that these aren't them.

In fact there IS a rule that the maintenance phase is different from
the other phases. Right there in the book.

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.

Accept for the comment on 100 grams, this may as well have been lifted
from the chapter on maintenance. Hello, McFly, read the book, dude.

As well, there is NO rule that says a ketogenic diet has to be high
in saturated fats.

There's NO rule in Atkins that you have to eat high saturated either.

Once again, don't equate the Atkins diet (a
piece of **** for the most part) with a low-carb/ketogenic diet.

Right. Because only 2 of the 4 phases of Atkins are ketogenic. AND
because the increased carb intake in the later phases is at the expense
of dietary fat.

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.

Oh look! You just described OWL for the typical Atkid!

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

Thanks for calling the typical OWL food astoundingly healthy.

(defined
as any diet containing 100 grams of carbs/day or less).

Oh, there's one point where you aren't talking about Atkins. On
Atkins, ketogenic is defined as, drum roll please, the amount of
carbs it takes one specific body to produce ketones or not.
Depending on the individual that could range from 15-150 grams of
carb per day but the numbers commonly cluster around 50ish.

It would
only share the definition of 'ketogenic' with the Atkins diet."

In fact only the definition of "ketogenic" diverges from plain old
by the book following the actual directions Atkins.

It is *astonishing* how many people haven't bothered to *read the
book*. Folks, there's a lot more to Atkins than Induction.

On 2003-10-23, Bob M wrote:

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.

Not true. The beef industry has been taking it in the shorts for
years. Look at all the turkey/chickne hotdogs, lunchmeat, chili,
breasts, etc. It's one of the reasons beef is at an all-time high,
price-wise. That and the ban on Canadian beef. But, it would seem
the beef and corn industry would benefit from a beneficial study. Maybe
they are studying it. The milk industry ...cheese!... would also
benefit.

On the other side of the coin, the starch industry is quaking in their
boots. Potato growers are already starting to feel the pinch in the
form of a noticeable reduction in french fry sales. Rice is
safe. Eleventy jillion asians will see to that. Wheat? Well, bread
will be around forever, but I think all the crap snacks will be hard
hit.

nb

On 2003-10-23, revek wrote:


please trim your posts. Some Usenet users have limits on total
download. Thank you.

nb

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:

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.

Dr. Atkins spoke before Dr. Sears so he couldn't contest this in his
presentation. The discussion was too short for everyone to be able to
contest everything they might not like about what the others said.

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.

They used rather high concentrations of ketones. In the second part of
the study, where they studied hyperketonemia vs. normoketonemia in
diabetics the children in the hyperketonemia-group had a mean level of
acetoacetate (which was the only ketone which showed any significant
effect on membrane peroxidation) of 0,71 micromol/ml. In the first part
however, they seem to have used much higher concentrations in most
tests. Their tables show the effects of concentrations of acetoacetate
of 5 and 20 micromol/ml.

Figure 1 is the only hint that they investigated also the effect of
lower concentrations. This figure shows only a small effect for
concentrations of about 1 micromol/ml.

Then they found out that even the effect of the very high concentrations
of acetoacetate on MDA was prevented by a small amount of vitamin E (0,1
micromol/ml).

So the effect of acetoacetate on membrane peroxidation might be a
possbile concern. However, this study suggests that the effect might not
be very important unless the production of ketones gets really out of
control and can be prevented altogether by sufficient levels of vitamin
E or other antioxidants.

The children with hyperketonemia did have somewhat higher levels of MDA
and depletion of glutatione, but they also had higher blood sugar so
that we don't know whether this is due to the ketones or the blood
sugar.


Thorsten

--
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)