'Put fat children on Atkins diet'

"Tim Tyler"

My impression is that Atkins diet restricts carbohydrates - but not
fat or protein. So people eat more fat and protein to make up
for the lack of carbohydrates.

If they need more, then they eat more. You don't want people to starve do you?

The Atkins diet appears to be a bad one :-|

That is what everyone says before they try it.

People should be encouraged
to eat more fruit and vegetables - not to replace them with animal fat.

Calorie wise, an Atkins approved serving of broccoli and cheese has as many
calories as an unbuttered potato. And you are still getting the health benefits
of eating vegetables. The difference is that the calories are in the form of
fat instead of sugar. And fat is a lot easier on your body than sugar is.

In sci.life-extension kvs wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote in message ...

``Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long-term
safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets.''

- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12761365

Your favourite content-free website makes yet another hilariously
absurd point.

Actually it was a PubMed article - archiving a study in the
New England Journal of Medicine.

I wouldn't describe PubMed as a "content-free website".
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

brian lanning wrote or quoted:
Patricia Heil wrote in message ...

There is not long-term data on Atkins and it's dangerous to do
something to kids that isn't adequately tested on adults.

That didn't stop anyone from putting children on low-fat diets.

There's a /lot/ more data on low fat diets than there is on
low carb diets:

Medline searches:

"low fat":4061
"low carbohydrate":649 - "low carb":16

Look at the number that actually look at the associated diets and it's
even more one-sided.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

One of the points about butter was that it is way better than the
hydrogenated vegetable oils in margarine (and some of the "new generation"
cooking oils) and such.

Have you actually read his "age-defying" book? It is certainly not
advocating an animal fat rampage.*This* was the misconception I was trying
to correct. The recommended plan is way more balanced than you are trying to
suggest.

Ryan

Fat children should be advised to practise CR (calorie restriction),
vitamin supplements can be provided to prevent deficiencies


however I am not so sure the "atkins diet" is such an appropriate idea
for children, high protein may put extra strain on childrens kidneys
and would also mean higher intake of carcinogenic cooked meats and
nitrate laden meats

would elimating carbohydrates have any developmental effects on
children?

"brian lanning" wrote

I stopped all refined sugar.
I removed some fruits but not all.
I stopped all refined flour and only eat small amounts of whole wheat.
I stopped all white rice (i don't like wild rice).
I stopped all potatos and generally replaced them with vegitables.

I tried to start running again when I was 290. I got about 100 feet
and felt like I was going to die. One flight of stairs was enough to
make me out of breath. The other night, I ran a mile without
stopping.

Congrats, Brian. I was fat in high school and college, lost most of it in
1973 and never went back, excepting for a couple of years in the mid-1980's,
during the end of a hideous short marriage. Lost that again pretty quickly
and now, at 140, am about 100 pounds off my top. I do all the things you
list above, plus a few more, which I will mention FWIW to you.

There is a cheap little book called the "Sugar Busters Shopping Guide" that
lists, even by brand-name, low glycemic foods you can eat and high-glycemic
foods to avoid. Very handy. Also, Walford's "Beyond the 120-Year Diet"
book is excellent.

The potatoes you really have to avoid are the white ones but you can eat
sweet potatoes (not really potatoes but actually related to morning glories)
in moderation and they are VERY good for you. Oven-baked sweet potato
"fries" are a favorite of mine, excellent chopped up into salads.

Keeping each meal to one plate of food and not eating a bite after an early
supper has been very helpful to me. In recent months, I have stopped eating
lunch. A breakfast of, typically, whole wheat shredded wheat & bran cereal,
4 different kinds of fruit and soy milk then, at supper, a plate of salad of
maybe 10-15 ingredients with grilled chicken or fish on top. Sometimes, I
will eat something like a few bites of sweet potato and a handful of
unsalted pumpkin seeds right before preparing supper. Keeps me from being
too ravenous and over-eating.

I have found that the long-range key is to A. first, change the foods you
eat, and then B. restrict the calories. You can't practice healthy CR by
limiting your McDonald's. Obviously, you are beyond this; I just wanted to
mention it.

You might consider joining a gym, if you have not already, and adding some
light weight-training to your fitness routine. After a year or two you will
never want to stop your 2-3 days per week in the gym. Good for you in so
many ways.

As for running, consider your pace. I have been running, on and off, for 25
years. The key is to run slowly, especially at first. If, instead of
trying to run a certain distance, you will just go out for an HOUR and run
(or run/walk, at first, if necessary) SO SLOWLY that you could actually walk
faster, you will accomplish much more. Do that every other day, no more.
Only increase your pace / distance very gradually. But the key is the slow,
slow, slow pace in the beginning.

mack
austin

Tim Tyler wrote in message ...
brian lanning wrote or quoted:
That didn't stop anyone from putting children on low-fat diets.
There's a /lot/ more data on low fat diets than there is on
low carb diets:
Medline searches:
"low fat":4061
"low carbohydrate":649 - "low carb":16
Look at the number that actually look at the associated diets and it's
even more one-sided.

Your argument isn't really fair. Low fat has more studies only
because it's been around longer. But 20 or 30 years ago, there were
far fewer studies on low fat, and people still put their kids on it.
I suspect this is because low fat is more intuitive. Perhaps people
then and now like the idea of a low fat diet because it makes sense to
them. You are what you eat, right? Unfortuantely, it's nowhere near
that simple.

My mother in law used to send my wife to school, we're talking the
80s, with a camberidge bar and a tab for lunch. How's that for a low
fat diet? It didn't work. My wife gained weight anyway. Today, we
know it's because a lot of artificual sweeteners cause an insulin
response in my wife. Her body was also in starvation mode because she
wasn't getting enough calories. Today, she's losing weight with a low
carb diet. Something she's never been able to do.

It's true that we have no long term studies of low carb diets. But
it's just as unreasonable to assume that it's unsafe as it is to
assume that it's safe. We just don't know, long term. That, to me,
says that we need to exercise caution when considering whether to put
a child on a low carb diet. If the child is only 10 pounds
overweight, for example, then maybe it's not worth the risk. But if
the child is one of these five year olds that weighs over 100 pounds,
maybe they should try it. As all things in life, you have to weigh
the risks with the advantages and then make the best decision you can.

In the short term, I think it's fair to argue that the health benefits
of losing weight outweigh the possible risks. I've been on the diet
for 8 months now. I probably won't be on it for more than a year.
But I will never go back to the way I ate before.

brian
290/228/210
july 8,2003

She gained weight on a cambridge bar and a tab.

Yeah, right.

--
Most of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little.

Becky P.

"brian lanning" wrote in message
om...
Tim Tyler wrote in message
...
brian lanning wrote or quoted:
That didn't stop anyone from putting children on low-fat diets.
There's a /lot/ more data on low fat diets than there is on
low carb diets:
Medline searches:
"low fat":4061
"low carbohydrate":649 - "low carb":16
Look at the number that actually look at the associated diets and it's
even more one-sided.

Your argument isn't really fair. Low fat has more studies only
because it's been around longer. But 20 or 30 years ago, there were
far fewer studies on low fat, and people still put their kids on it.
I suspect this is because low fat is more intuitive. Perhaps people
then and now like the idea of a low fat diet because it makes sense to
them. You are what you eat, right? Unfortuantely, it's nowhere near
that simple.

My mother in law used to send my wife to school, we're talking the
80s, with a camberidge bar and a tab for lunch. How's that for a low
fat diet? It didn't work. My wife gained weight anyway. Today, we
know it's because a lot of artificual sweeteners cause an insulin
response in my wife. Her body was also in starvation mode because she
wasn't getting enough calories. Today, she's losing weight with a low
carb diet. Something she's never been able to do.

It's true that we have no long term studies of low carb diets. But
it's just as unreasonable to assume that it's unsafe as it is to
assume that it's safe. We just don't know, long term. That, to me,
says that we need to exercise caution when considering whether to put
a child on a low carb diet. If the child is only 10 pounds
overweight, for example, then maybe it's not worth the risk. But if
the child is one of these five year olds that weighs over 100 pounds,
maybe they should try it. As all things in life, you have to weigh
the risks with the advantages and then make the best decision you can.

In the short term, I think it's fair to argue that the health benefits
of losing weight outweigh the possible risks. I've been on the diet
for 8 months now. I probably won't be on it for more than a year.
But I will never go back to the way I ate before.

brian
290/228/210
july 8,2003

Tim Tyler cited:

``A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity

Despite the popularity of the low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat
(Atkins) diet, no randomized, controlled trials have evaluated its
efficacy. [...]

Recently stopped being true. Many recent studies are coming out now,
fresh off the presses.

The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss
(absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional
diet for the first six months

So low carbing works 4% better during the critical first 6 months
which is the time period most people actually lose the most on any
diet. Fabulous.

but the differences were not significant at one year.

A year in most who've survived that long are already out of their
initial fast loss. It makes sense that plans 4% slower would be
able to catch up in the second half-year. So this tells us that
plans other than low-carb work. Not exactly shocking news.

The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater
improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease.

Translation - Low carb is healthier than the competition on some
objectively measured standard.

Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups.

Not exactly shocking news. I'd *love* to see the relative numbers,
though. Was adherence worse by the low carbers or by the others?
Was dropout higher among the low carbers of the others? The 4%
faster loss early on sounds like it just might correlate to a
100-104 ratio of dropouts low-carb to other. The detailed numbers
would be fascinating.

Longer and larger
studies are required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy
of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets.''

Absolutely. Dr Atkins stayed on his own plan over 3 decades and was
in excellent health given his virus infection. But one person does
NOT a study make! Time for more studies! Certainly.

Oh and by the way, the competition needs those exact same studies.
If the 6 month results of low carb show better cholesterol, etc, I
itch to see the 5 year results from low fatters put side by side
with the 5 year results from low carbers. What are the chances
low carbers will be going "oh crap!"? But without such studies
it's only a guess.

- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12761365

Experiment on yourselves by all means - but don't claim afterwards
nobody warned you

Your own cited study says low carbing wins, so why the objection?
This is why my objection was about honesty and your response really
nailed it.

Right. After all your study claims that low carbing beats low fatting.
Yet you warn of the dangers. Where's the sense in that? In the lack
of long term studies, gotcha. I agree on that angle.

and maybe hold off putting kids on the diet until it has been better
researched.

Taking kids off french fried and sugary sodas can hardly be a problem.
Going further than that, err, only worth the bother on kids who are
already obese and then only as a corrective measure.

"anony344" píse v diskusním príspevku
om...
Fat children should be advised to practise CR (calorie restriction),
vitamin supplements can be provided to prevent deficiencies

would elimating carbohydrates have any developmental effects on
children?

Probably not, unlike CR with FDA proposed ratios... (too little
protein).

Mirek