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
  #31  
Old October 27th, 2003, 05:16 PM
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis

"Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P." wrote:

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.


Dear friend,
I too worry about the known atherogenic properties of ketogenic diets.
However, it is not simply an issue of ketogenesis vs glycolysis but
rather a complex interaction between the two metabolic processes. To
simplify the thousands of complex biologic interactions that can vary
hourly into one or two basic science studies is missing the forest for
the trees. The real question one should ask is "Do sustained ketogenic
diets (not ketosis from diabetes) in individuals with glycolated
hemoglobin (HgbA1-c) under 5.0 and without exposure to known risk
factors for atherosclerosis suffer from accelerated atherosclerosis?".


Ime, they do.


I have yet to see such a study in my 10 years of practice, and doubt
there will be one because such a study would be extremely difficult to
administer.


Here we have no choice but to base our concerns on in vitro data such as that which
has been cited until (if ever) there is long-term safety data that refutes the in
vitro data.

People are complex organisms with complex social behaviors
(which is why we are so fascinating!).


Agree. The glory is all God's here.

Humbly,

Andrew

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


  #32  
Old October 27th, 2003, 05:59 PM
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis

Ron Ritzman wrote:

On 27 Oct 2003 04:12:22 -0800, (Patrick Blanchard,
M.D., A.B.F.P.) wrote:

The real question one should ask is "Do sustained ketogenic
diets (not ketosis from diabetes) in individuals with glycolated
hemoglobin (HgbA1-c) under 5.0 and without exposure to known risk
factors for atherosclerosis suffer from accelerated atherosclerosis?".
I have yet to see such a study in my 10 years of practice, and doubt
there will be one because such a study would be extremely difficult to
administer.


From what I have seen posted, the jury is still out but I understand
Dr. Chung's position on this. Even though he uses terms such as
"studies nay suggest" and "there is reason to *believe*" when talking
about diet induced ketosis, he believes there are enough unknowns and
question marks to say that it's safer for those who are overweight to
simply "eat less" of the foods you are eating right now then roll the
dice with ketosis. (his two pound diet approach covers the "simply")

Still, it is refreshing to see this issue being debated with published
studies and people who appear to have some level of clue rather then
Atkids regurgitating what their favorite diet book authors say.


Yes, it is refreshing.

Thank you for your comments, Ron.

Regards,

Andrew

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


  #33  
Old October 27th, 2003, 06:01 PM
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis

Bob M wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:32:10 -0500, Ron Ritzman
wrote:

On 27 Oct 2003 04:12:22 -0800, (Patrick Blanchard,
M.D., A.B.F.P.) wrote:

The real question one should ask is "Do sustained ketogenic
diets (not ketosis from diabetes) in individuals with glycolated
hemoglobin (HgbA1-c) under 5.0 and without exposure to known risk
factors for atherosclerosis suffer from accelerated atherosclerosis?".
I have yet to see such a study in my 10 years of practice, and doubt
there will be one because such a study would be extremely difficult to
administer.


From what I have seen posted, the jury is still out but I understand
Dr. Chung's position on this. Even though he uses terms such as
"studies nay suggest" and "there is reason to *believe*" when talking
about diet induced ketosis, he believes there are enough unknowns and
question marks to say that it's safer for those who are overweight to
simply "eat less" of the foods you are eating right now then roll the
dice with ketosis. (his two pound diet approach covers the "simply")

Still, it is refreshing to see this issue being debated with published
studies and people who appear to have some level of clue rather then
Atkids regurgitating what their favorite diet book authors say.


Yeah, but there are unknowns in everything. I have been following a low
carb dieat almost exclusively since the beginning of this year, and
intermittently for a year or so before then. I've lowered my weight about
50 pounds, increased my HDL, decreased my LDL, and decreased my
triglycerides. The problem is that no one has taken the time to study low
carb diets because they go against the party line.


They did not go against Dr. Atkins' party line. He had 30 yrs to conduct the
*safety* studies.

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


  #34  
Old October 27th, 2003, 08:03 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works

Aramanth Dawe wrote:
:: On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher
:: wrote:
:: snip
::
:::: "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.
::
:: It's the way ALL reputable scientific journals operate.
::
:: Papers come in. The editors send them off to other reputable
:: scientists in that particular field to be reviewed - basically, the
:: editors want to make sure the paper is 'good science'. The editor
:: then takes into account the comments of the reviewer(s) as to whether
:: or not the paper is plausible, is well written and the experiments
:: (if
:: any) described therein are good science in deciding whether to reject
:: the paper outright, ask for revision and resubmission or publish it.
:: If your work happens to be in accord with current thinking on the
:: topic, it's more likely to be published or at least only minor
:: revision before publication. If your work, no matter how well
:: researched, does NOT fit with current thinking it's more likely to be
:: rejected.
::
:: As it happens, this is a situation that effects my family on a
:: regular
:: basis.
::
:: My husband is a professional Research Scientist. His paid work is as
:: a civilian scientist attached to the Australian Defence Force. He
:: publishes about 5 or so papers a year (mostly classified, or I'd
:: point
:: you to them) in that field and they are rarely returned for more than
:: minor revision before publication. He also has (classified) Patents
:: in his name for his sonar enhancement system (ISHTAR - you can see
:: some unclassified information at
::
http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/corpo...industry1.html
:: if you're interested in what he gets up to).
::
:: His PhD work was in Tachyon Physics. His theories in this field are
:: VERY controversial, although they fit better with established
:: knowledge than do the current theories in this field. It takes him
:: approximately 3 years of revision and resubmission to get every paper
:: published. It's not that his papers in Tachyons are poorly written.
:: It's not that his papers are poorly researched. It's just that most
:: of the reviewers out there *have a vested interest in having *their*
:: theories be the accepted ones* so they reject papers showing that
:: they
:: might have been wrong.

keep in mind that reviewers don't reject submissions, they make
recommendations on whether a submission should be accepted or rejected, or
have revisions made. Also, for their recommendations to carry weight, they
must provide a clear reason for their position. They can't just claim that
the results are invalid simply because they outside their realm of
experience or knowledge on the matter.

If a paper is well written and the research methods are well stated and well
executed, and the conclusions are in agreement with any data given, and
sound theory is applied throughout the submission, the reviewers are duty
bound to recommend publication. At that point, if there is still debate of
certain controverial issues, they get hammered out in print. That, imo, is
where the fun starts!

About the 3 years of revision/resubmission....a lot of that has to do with
people just being busy and not turning in reviewers in a timely manner.

::
:: Since most editors of journals *don't* have the expertise to be a
:: peer-reviewer of *every* subject that their journal covers they have
:: to rely on the judgements of those who *do* have the expertise. This
:: is true throughout all the branches of science. And, since
:: scientists are no less human than anyone else you might meet
:: (although
:: some people might think so) they *do* tend to unconsciously protect
:: their livelihoods by demanding greater proof of controversial papers
:: than they might of ones that support their own views.

Even if editors have the expertise, they very likely won't have the time.
Also, having mulitple independent recommendations helps to remove bias in
the decision making process..


  #35  
Old October 28th, 2003, 12:45 PM
M.W.Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis

Mars at the Mu_n's Edge wrote:


If there is a "party", then there are those who are not part of the
"party". Why have they not done the research then?



On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:44:39 +0100, "M.W.Smith"
wrote:


I think it is too hard. I suspect that the main effect of
the diet is the reduction in hunger and craving, so that
most of thr weight loss is actually due to eating less. You
would have to keep people locked in a "Big Brother" kind of
environment so that you could rigidly control what they eat
and prevent them from exercising. It isn't really feasible,
which is why I think a computer simulation of the entire
chemistry is the only way. That would show that the diet
would work or not in its pure form.



I think the simulation is an interesting tool indeed. I also concur
with your ideas about the difficulties of testing diets. A control
group would be hard to control, wouldn't they? This holds true for the
2PDiet, Atkins, Ornish or whatever.

The only place we might differ is in studying the pathological effects
of, say, ketosis over a term. Not being a researcher, I am not at all
certain if this is doable but I am told, by researchers, it is.


I think that aspect of it *is* testable. It just requires
subjects to be on a generally high-fat-low-carb diet for
many years and then to compare their disease statistics with
those of people who were not on that kind of diet during the
same period of years. I don't think ketosis is the problem
but continually high fat in the blood and in the intestines.

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.

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.

martin

  #36  
Old October 28th, 2003, 01:06 PM
Matti Narkia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis

Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:45:01 +0100 in article
"M.W.Smith" wrote:

Mars at the Mu_n's Edge wrote:


If there is a "party", then there are those who are not part of the
"party". Why have they not done the research then?



On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:44:39 +0100, "M.W.Smith"
wrote:


I think it is too hard. I suspect that the main effect of
the diet is the reduction in hunger and craving, so that
most of thr weight loss is actually due to eating less. You
would have to keep people locked in a "Big Brother" kind of
environment so that you could rigidly control what they eat
and prevent them from exercising. It isn't really feasible,
which is why I think a computer simulation of the entire
chemistry is the only way. That would show that the diet
would work or not in its pure form.



I think the simulation is an interesting tool indeed. I also concur
with your ideas about the difficulties of testing diets. A control
group would be hard to control, wouldn't they? This holds true for the
2PDiet, Atkins, Ornish or whatever.

The only place we might differ is in studying the pathological effects
of, say, ketosis over a term. Not being a researcher, I am not at all
certain if this is doable but I am told, by researchers, it is.


I think that aspect of it *is* testable. It just requires
subjects to be on a generally high-fat-low-carb diet for
many years and then to compare their disease statistics with
those of people who were not on that kind of diet during the
same period of years. I don't think ketosis is the problem
but continually high fat in the blood and in the intestines.

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.

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.

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, and that
low-carb/ketogenic diet can be made a lot healthier than Atkins' diet. The
link to the message is

http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3EBDD62B.8E580569%40grandecomIMRETARDE D.net
(http://tinyurl.com/so0e)

A citation:

"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.

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

As well, there is NO rule that says a ketogenic diet has to be high
in saturated fats. Once again, don't equate the Atkins diet (a
piece of **** for the most part) with a low-carb/ketogenic diet.
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. 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 (defined
as any diet containing 100 grams of carbs/day or less). It would
only share the definition of 'ketogenic' with the Atkins diet."

--
Matti Narkia
  #37  
Old October 28th, 2003, 01:31 PM
cheesegator
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis


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

SNIP

They did not go against Dr. Atkins' party line. He had 30 yrs to conduct

the
*safety* studies.


Here's the problem:

LC advocates have been viewed as frauds by your ilk for decades. Until very
recently, any study they conducted (or partially funded) was dismissed out
of
hand by the keepers of the orthodoxy--who seldom took the time to read them.
These studies are also expensive to undertake. Why sink lots of $$$$ into a
study whose results the "establishment" stubbornly refuses to accept.

"Knowing" that the earth was flat, your kind saw no need to conduct studies
to
bear out what the LC advocates had been claiming. I have some great recipes
for all the egg on your collective faces.

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. Those poor *******s who did
undertake small trials were shouted down any time the elders didn't
like their
results. What was a guaranteed way for an MD to lose credibility from
1960
to 1990? Conduct a legitimate study of the LC phenom.

If the results support existing doctrine . . . "Ha--told you so".

If the results contradict existing doctrine . . . "Well, er, it um was er a
small sample.
"One er shouldn't um extrapolate from these limited results. Er, larger
studies are
warranted . . ." {Obviously these larger studies never happened. Who wants
to
**** away one's credibility (if not livelihood) by questioning the Holy
Canon.}

I'm surprised a highly educated man like you failed to see the "Heads I Win,
Tails
You Lose" mentality in your last comment . . . or perhaps you did.


  #38  
Old October 28th, 2003, 01:42 PM
Ron Ritzman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:06:43 GMT, Matti Narkia
wrote:

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, and that
low-carb/ketogenic diet can be made a lot healthier than Atkins' diet. The
link to the message is

http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3EBDD62B.8E580569%40grandecomIMRETARDE D.net
(http://tinyurl.com/so0e)


And Lyle is usually right

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.)

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.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address
  #39  
Old October 28th, 2003, 01:52 PM
Mars at the Mu_n's Edge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis



The only place we might differ is in studying the pathological effects
of, say, ketosis over a term. Not being a researcher, I am not at all
certain if this is doable but I am told, by researchers, it is.


On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:45:01 +0100, "M.W.Smith"
wrote:

I think that aspect of it *is* testable. It just requires
subjects to be on a generally high-fat-low-carb diet for
many years and then to compare their disease statistics with
those of people who were not on that kind of diet during the
same period of years.


What about environmental variants? Trans fat intakes? How do you get a
clinically clean control group or testing group?

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.


What is the reason for 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.


Is this high water consumption to offset water loss in ketosis or
water loss in Atkins at all times of the diet?

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.


It is your opinion, then, that Atkins, or perhaps any diet (including
the 2PDiet) would be, or could be, counterproductive to long life if
not combined with an appropriate exercise program? And if that is the
case, should that program leaned to the aerobic or anaerobic ?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
  #40  
Old October 28th, 2003, 01:53 PM
M.W.Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis

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.

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.

martin

 




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 05:56 PM
Low carb diets General Discussion 249 January 9th, 2004 12:15 AM
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy Diarmid Logan General Discussion 23 December 14th, 2003 12:39 PM
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet Diarmid Logan General Discussion 84 November 17th, 2003 12:31 AM
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet Diarmid Logan Low Carbohydrate Diets 79 November 17th, 2003 12:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.