Dr. Atkins' Dietetic Revolution: Mu Critique?

If they choose to stop watching how much they are eating, they will gain
only to lose again when they resume. At some point, they will choose to
just keep watching how much they are eating.

Your judgement.

Once someone is enlightened to what is the truth, nothing
else will serve as a surrogate.

Your judgement.

Mirek

If they choose to stop watching how much they are eating, they will gain
only to lose again when they resume. At some point, they will choose to
just keep watching how much they are eating.

Your judgement.

Once someone is enlightened to what is the truth, nothing
else will serve as a surrogate.

Your judgement.

Mirek

In article , "Mirek Fídler"
wrote:

If they choose to stop watching how much they are eating, they will gain
only to lose again when they resume. At some point, they will choose to
just keep watching how much they are eating.

Your judgement.

Once someone is enlightened to what is the truth, nothing
else will serve as a surrogate.

Your judgement.

Mirek



It's "judgment" believe it or not. Made me go "huh" when I learned that.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

In article , "Mirek Fídler"
wrote:

If they choose to stop watching how much they are eating, they will gain
only to lose again when they resume. At some point, they will choose to
just keep watching how much they are eating.

Your judgement.

Once someone is enlightened to what is the truth, nothing
else will serve as a surrogate.

Your judgement.

Mirek



It's "judgment" believe it or not. Made me go "huh" when I learned that.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

"Luna" wrote

Um, hold on a minute. When the results of studies are discussed here, the
things you mention above are also very often discussed here. Many people
on
this group look further into the studies, question how they were done, and
report any financial ties the "researchers" might have to the rest of the
group.

Well said, Luna. I've gained a lot over the years from asdlc, and I _am_ a
scientist. LOL People post interesting abstracts and articles, and often
dive into critiquing the methods, whether length of study, subject
selection, statistical interpretation, and particularly overall
interpretation of results. Most of these folks have not been scientists or
health professionals. Sometimes they are off track, but typically they have
been quite able to evaluate the studies, often getting ahold of the full
texts so as to better evaluate what has been done - and not done. Once you
get past the jargon, it is mostly common sense. And of course common sense
is not very common, even among researchers.

I guess I've said this before, but I was steered to a great book re
statistical analysis, used all over the world in "non-major" statistics
courses because it focused on the logical procedures rather than the math.
And, in the estimation of the PhD statistician coworker who recommended the
book, it was logic that tended to be the weak point in most scientific
statistical evaluation. And of course logic is helpful in doing science, but
not exclusive to scientists. It was probably _not_ an accident that almost
all the bad examples in the book were from the medical research field. And
these failures in common logic, quite discernible to the non-science major
students to which the text was aimed, had been published in juried journals!
Ahem.

HG

"Luna" wrote

Um, hold on a minute. When the results of studies are discussed here, the
things you mention above are also very often discussed here. Many people
on
this group look further into the studies, question how they were done, and
report any financial ties the "researchers" might have to the rest of the
group.

Well said, Luna. I've gained a lot over the years from asdlc, and I _am_ a
scientist. LOL People post interesting abstracts and articles, and often
dive into critiquing the methods, whether length of study, subject
selection, statistical interpretation, and particularly overall
interpretation of results. Most of these folks have not been scientists or
health professionals. Sometimes they are off track, but typically they have
been quite able to evaluate the studies, often getting ahold of the full
texts so as to better evaluate what has been done - and not done. Once you
get past the jargon, it is mostly common sense. And of course common sense
is not very common, even among researchers.

I guess I've said this before, but I was steered to a great book re
statistical analysis, used all over the world in "non-major" statistics
courses because it focused on the logical procedures rather than the math.
And, in the estimation of the PhD statistician coworker who recommended the
book, it was logic that tended to be the weak point in most scientific
statistical evaluation. And of course logic is helpful in doing science, but
not exclusive to scientists. It was probably _not_ an accident that almost
all the bad examples in the book were from the medical research field. And
these failures in common logic, quite discernible to the non-science major
students to which the text was aimed, had been published in juried journals!
Ahem.

HG

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote

The biochemistry of hyperketonemia causing higher rates of lipid
peroxidation (via increased production of reactive oxygen species or
ROS) has been confirmed multiple times by more than one independent
group.

For example (from Lousiana State University):

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3A222DF9

Another example (from the University of Oklahoma):

http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1F261DF9

Other examples:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J21323DF9

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M23321DF9

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z25362DF9

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F26312DF9

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J17322DF9


These are interesting studies, and I appreciate the effort you've gone to in
providing cites, but it should be noted that they are ALL specific to Type I
diabetics and in vitro studies, and demonstrate associative relationships
between specific ketone bodies, not causative. This leads me to a couple of
concerns.

First, what is going on biochemical in a Type I diabetic with significantly
elevated ketone levels is significantly different from a non-insulin
dependent diabetic, or especially a relatively healthy person who has
induced ketone production through dietary means. Blood glucose levels, blood
lipid levels, and doubtless many other factors will be quite different.
Until these studies are repeated on non-insulin dependent diabetics and
non-diabetics, conclusions drawn re effects of ketones on lipids should be
considered suspect at best.

Secondly, associations do not prove causation. In short, these studies,
while interesting and certainly pertinent for Type I diabetics, don't serve
for much more than an indication that similar studies need to be carried out
on non-diabetic subjects.

Being cautious, I'd say that it is probably a good idea to keep your carb
intake as high as is compatible with weight loss, but I already believe that
anyhow and it's part of the Atkins program to do that. Low-starch vegetables
and low-sugar fruits are full of antioxidants of various kinds, and the
Atkins program encourages us to load up on these, rather than grain
products, sugars, and other relatively "empty calorie" carb sources . Atkins
has always recommended taking supplemental antioxidant nutrients, too, which
would tend to mitigate effects of elevated ketone levels, if indeed there
are such effects in non-TI diabetics. (These studies do *not* demonstrate
such).

HG

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote

The biochemistry of hyperketonemia causing higher rates of lipid
peroxidation (via increased production of reactive oxygen species or
ROS) has been confirmed multiple times by more than one independent
group.

For example (from Lousiana State University):

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3A222DF9

Another example (from the University of Oklahoma):

http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1F261DF9

Other examples:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J21323DF9

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M23321DF9

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z25362DF9

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F26312DF9

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J17322DF9


These are interesting studies, and I appreciate the effort you've gone to in
providing cites, but it should be noted that they are ALL specific to Type I
diabetics and in vitro studies, and demonstrate associative relationships
between specific ketone bodies, not causative. This leads me to a couple of
concerns.

First, what is going on biochemical in a Type I diabetic with significantly
elevated ketone levels is significantly different from a non-insulin
dependent diabetic, or especially a relatively healthy person who has
induced ketone production through dietary means. Blood glucose levels, blood
lipid levels, and doubtless many other factors will be quite different.
Until these studies are repeated on non-insulin dependent diabetics and
non-diabetics, conclusions drawn re effects of ketones on lipids should be
considered suspect at best.

Secondly, associations do not prove causation. In short, these studies,
while interesting and certainly pertinent for Type I diabetics, don't serve
for much more than an indication that similar studies need to be carried out
on non-diabetic subjects.

Being cautious, I'd say that it is probably a good idea to keep your carb
intake as high as is compatible with weight loss, but I already believe that
anyhow and it's part of the Atkins program to do that. Low-starch vegetables
and low-sugar fruits are full of antioxidants of various kinds, and the
Atkins program encourages us to load up on these, rather than grain
products, sugars, and other relatively "empty calorie" carb sources . Atkins
has always recommended taking supplemental antioxidant nutrients, too, which
would tend to mitigate effects of elevated ketone levels, if indeed there
are such effects in non-TI diabetics. (These studies do *not* demonstrate
such).

HG

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote

There are many that are not overweight at all and still get some of MetS
symptoms.

MetS is without symptoms.

This doesn't make sense. You must be defining the term "symptoms"
differently than most of us do. Maybe what you're trying to say is that as
Metabolic Syndrome develops, its effects may be subtle and different from
person to person? So that there may not be any definite set of readily
observable effects that can be considered diagnostic?

Certainly there are a whole bunch of common effects, such as weight gain,
all the effects that come from elevated insulin levels, instability in blood
sugar levels, etc. I'd tend to consider these as symptoms, although
recognizing that a given subject may not exhibit the same set of effects as
another. And also that in the beginning stages, the effects (or symptoms)
may be subtle and not conclusively recognizable without laboratory tests.

HG

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote

There are many that are not overweight at all and still get some of MetS
symptoms.

MetS is without symptoms.

This doesn't make sense. You must be defining the term "symptoms"
differently than most of us do. Maybe what you're trying to say is that as
Metabolic Syndrome develops, its effects may be subtle and different from
person to person? So that there may not be any definite set of readily
observable effects that can be considered diagnostic?

Certainly there are a whole bunch of common effects, such as weight gain,
all the effects that come from elevated insulin levels, instability in blood
sugar levels, etc. I'd tend to consider these as symptoms, although
recognizing that a given subject may not exhibit the same set of effects as
another. And also that in the beginning stages, the effects (or symptoms)
may be subtle and not conclusively recognizable without laboratory tests.

HG