Study Explains Fast Low Carb Results ( NOT WATER )

Funding by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the
American Diabetes Association.



http://www.temple.edu/news_media/AtkinsDiabetes.html

STUDY OF OBESE DIABETICS EXPLAINS WHY LOW-CARB DIETS PRODUCE FAST RESULTS
(Philadelphia) - A new study by Temple University School of Medicine
researchers has shown why the pounds melt so quickly on low-carbohydrate
diets, and it's not related to water, metabolism or boredom. The
research was conducted in a group of obese patients with type 2 diabetes
who followed the Atkins diet.

According to lead researcher, Guenther Boden, M.D., "When carbohydrates
were restricted, study subjects spontaneously reduced their caloric
intake to a level appropriate for their height, did not compensate by
eating more protein or fat, and lost weight. We concluded that excessive
overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."

Almost 80 percent of diabetics are overweight or obese, compounding
health risks such as heart disease and stroke. Boden wanted to examine
how low-carbohydrate diets, which have been shown to produce rapid
weight loss, affected weight, appetite and blood sugar in obese diabetics.

He discovered that study subjects did not eat less because they were
bored with the food selection, and their weight loss was not
attributable to water loss, two common speculations about low-carb
diets. Further, weight loss could not be explained by a change in
metabolism, another popular misconception.

The study, "Short-Term Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diet Compared with
Usual Diet in Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes," is published in the
March 15 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. It is the only study
of the Atkins diet to have been conducted in the strictly controlled
environment of a clinical research center where every calorie eaten and
spent was measured.

After a week of typical eating, ten obese patients with type 2 diabetes
followed the Atkins diet for two weeks, with carbohydrates limited to 20
grams per day and unlimited protein and fat.

"When we took away the carbohydrates, the patients spontaneously reduced
their daily energy consumption by 1,000 calories a day. Although they
could have, they did not compensate by eating more proteins and fats and
they weren't bored with the food choices. In fact, they loved the diet.
The carbohydrates were clearly stimulating their excessive appetites,"
said Boden.

All patients stayed in the hospital for the length of the study to
insure exact measurements of calorie intake and expenditure. In other
studies of the Atkins diet, subjects were at home and reported their own
diet and exercise, making it difficult to ensure accuracy.

In addition to the calorie reduction and weight loss, subjects
experienced markedly improved glucose levels and insulin sensitivity, as
well as lower triglycerides and cholesterol.

Treatment for diabetes centers on closely monitoring sugar levels, diet
and medication. Weight loss can often reduce or eliminate the need for
medication, including insulin.

Boden warns that the long term effects of low-carbohydrate diets are not
known. Whether other types of diets would have a similar impact also
remains to be investigated.

Other research projects of Boden's include a National Institutes of
Health supported study of obesity-associated diabetes and cardiovascular
disease.

This study was funding by grants from the National Institutes of Health
and the American Diabetes Association.

###


Dr. Boden can be reached at 215-707-8984 or through Temple University
Public Relations at 215-707-0730.

"jbuch" wrote in message
...
eating more protein or fat, and lost weight. We concluded that excessive
overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."


All together, now:

DUH!

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

None Given wrote:
"jbuch" wrote in message
...
eating more protein or fat, and lost weight. We concluded that
excessive overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."


All together, now:

DUH!

It is not at all a "DuH" when the study is funded by the National Institutes
of Health and the American Diabetes Association.

That's significant even though the results are obvious to those of us here
who have achieve some success with weight loss and maintenance on LC.

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
It is not at all a "DuH" when the study is funded by the National
Institutes
of Health and the American Diabetes Association.

That's significant even though the results are obvious to those of us here
who have achieve some success with weight loss and maintenance on LC.


I didn't say it wasn't significant. It is still a DUH.

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

Yes, definitely a step in the right direction! We need more unbiased
research like this to prove that LC works and exactly why it works.

Roger Zoul wrote:
None Given wrote:

"jbuch" wrote in message
...

eating more protein or fat, and lost weight. We concluded that
excessive overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."


All together, now:

DUH!


It is not at all a "DuH" when the study is funded by the National Institutes
of Health and the American Diabetes Association.

That's significant even though the results are obvious to those of us here
who have achieve some success with weight loss and maintenance on LC.



Yeah. It looks like one of the few honest (but short term) assesments
of Atkins for diabetes.

Imagine the cost.....

The subjects were kept isolated in a hospital or research center for
accurate controlled food intake measurements. Probably for the full 3
weeks or about 20 days.

The cost per subject was probably five hundred dollars per day x 10
subjects x 20 days = %1,000,000 USD for the information. More or less.

The traditional diabetic treatment diet has allegedly been low fat and
high carbohydrates.

So evidently, the National Diabetes Association did some good research,
questioning the validity of their traditional dietary recommendations.

Of course, the study didn't have a control group, but with these
seemingly strong results, one might not have been needed.


POWERFUL........

"When we took away the carbohydrates, the patients spontaneously reduced
their daily energy consumption by 1,000 calories a day."

None Given wrote:
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
It is not at all a "DuH" when the study is funded by the National
Institutes
of Health and the American Diabetes Association.

That's significant even though the results are obvious to those of
us here who have achieve some success with weight loss and
maintenance on LC.


I didn't say it wasn't significant. It is still a DUH.

A DUH is not significant.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:33:21 -0500, jbuch
wrote:

So evidently, the National Diabetes Association did some good research,
questioning the validity of their traditional dietary recommendations.

Of course, the study didn't have a control group, but with these
seemingly strong results, one might not have been needed.


POWERFUL........

"When we took away the carbohydrates, the patients spontaneously reduced
their daily energy consumption by 1,000 calories a day."


Actually, I think a control group would be a very good idea.
Sometimes just the effect of being watched can affect how people
behave. Patients who had access to a full range of foods but still
knew that the food they ate was being weighed, measured and counted
might well drop their consumption a noticeable amount compared to "not
being watched". I don't think it would be 1000 calories/day, but even
if it was only, say, 200 calories/day it would make better science if
that aspect was measured and allowed for.

Of course, it's possible that there are already studies on this effect
and so no new work was needed.

"jbuch" wrote

The traditional diabetic treatment diet has allegedly been low fat and
high carbohydrates.

Not always. That's what frustrates me so badly. I had a nutritionist give me
an old version of a diabetic exchange diet that monitored/limited carbs
(about 1976). It was the only diet I was ever successful on. I lost 90
pounds and exercised regularly. I remember at the time thinking "why is
she/this limiting carbs" they're good for you. I eventually (over about 5
years) wavered from the diet and began gaining weight again. I kept hearing
all of the "carbs are good" and went back to my carb addictions, life
interfered with maintaining my exercise routines and I ended up eventually
putting the weight back on. I never tied the carbs to the weight gain. How
could I, everything said that carbs were the solution to weight loss. I even
tried to follow McDougal, the total vegetarian, no fat, high carb diet. I
couldn't even manage 24 hours. I'd get so ravenous, my appetite was
uncontrollable. The carb craving cycle had me totally out of control. I
would eat until I was stuffed, but my appetite was still going. I NEVER felt
full, I NEVER was not hungry, even after tons of food. I couldn't stop.

It took me quite a while to be able to hear the "low carb" value.
Traditional medicine had me sold for years, even when I had personal
experience that it didn't work. I assumed the problem was me, no will power,
no ability to focus. It really messed up my self esteem (along with the
weight issues). But, now I remember the old diet that worked, the "diet
plates" that restaurants used to offer in the 50's. A plain hamburger patty
(no bun!) with cottage cheese and either 2 peach slices or a half a pear.
Protein with fat and limited fruit (carbs). I remember the (50's again)
wisdom that to loose weight you had to stop eating bread and potatoes.
Amazing how this used to be the traditional diet treatment and now things
are finally coming full circle.

Gayle

X-No-Archive: yes

jbuch wrote:

The cost per subject was probably five hundred dollars per day x 10
subjects x 20 days = %1,000,000 USD for the information. More or less.


whatever the costs, it's still better than spending more money on yet
another "low carb evil, high carb fine" project...