A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 23rd, 2003, 01:58 AM
Jim Marnott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #2  
Old October 23rd, 2003, 02:23 AM
cheesegator
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #3  
Old October 23rd, 2003, 05:47 AM
revek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #4  
Old October 23rd, 2003, 05:53 AM
revek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #5  
Old October 23rd, 2003, 03:47 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #6  
Old October 23rd, 2003, 03:53 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #7  
Old October 23rd, 2003, 04:37 PM
Bob M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #8  
Old October 23rd, 2003, 05:09 PM
revek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #9  
Old October 24th, 2003, 01:01 AM
bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #10  
Old October 24th, 2003, 01:25 PM
Aaron Baugher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret Diarmid Logan General Discussion 135 February 14th, 2004 04:56 PM
Low carb diets General Discussion 249 January 8th, 2004 11:15 PM
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy Diarmid Logan General Discussion 23 December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet Diarmid Logan General Discussion 84 November 16th, 2003 11:31 PM
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet Diarmid Logan Low Carbohydrate Diets 79 November 16th, 2003 11:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.