The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

Here is a video that might be of some interest to members
of this group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZ...eature=related

The interesting thing is that low carb is never worse than
any other diet on weight loss or any measure of risk.

More studies of this kind might sway the medical establishment
and the ADA.

In article ,
James Warren wrote:

The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

Here is a video that might be of some interest to members
of this group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZ...eature=related

The interesting thing is that low carb is never worse than
any other diet on weight loss or any measure of risk.

More studies of this kind might sway the medical establishment
and the ADA.

Not likely. Aside from fiscal considerations the sheer shock of
knowing that you have disabled or even killed people with you dietary
and medical advice precludes most of the people involved from seeing
the truth. This goes triple for the bariatric surgery enthusiasts, who
abhor low carb prior to the surgery and mandate it afterwards. Perhaps
bariatric surgery "works" by enforcing a low carb diet.

See Ignaz Semmelweis.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

On 5/25/2012 1:51 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
In articleKpidnVXwmsfEKSLSnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews. com,
James wrote:

The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

Here is a video that might be of some interest to members
of this group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZ...eature=related

The interesting thing is that low carb is never worse than
any other diet on weight loss or any measure of risk.

More studies of this kind might sway the medical establishment
and the ADA.

Not likely.

Don't give up so easily. It is worth a try.

Aside from fiscal considerations the sheer shock of
knowing that you have disabled or even killed people with you dietary
and medical advice precludes most of the people involved from seeing
the truth. This goes triple for the bariatric surgery enthusiasts, who

At the end of the video he says that the ADA has begrudgingly sanctioned
LC diets if people can't comply with LF diets saying compliance trumps diet.

abhor low carb prior to the surgery and mandate it afterwards. Perhaps
bariatric surgery "works" by enforcing a low carb diet.

See Ignaz Semmelweis.

The way I understand it bariatric surgery works by causing drastic
changes in several hormone levels like ghrelin, PYY and GLP-1.

James Warren wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
James wrote:

The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
...
The interesting thing is that low carb is never worse than
any other diet on weight loss or any measure of risk.

No surprise to any of us here.

More studies of this kind might sway the medical establishment
and the ADA.

Not likely.

Don't give up so easily. It is worth a try.

The way to sway the medical establishment is to teach low carb in
medical school. That has started to happen.

Aside from fiscal considerations the sheer shock of
knowing that you have disabled or even killed people with you dietary
and medical advice precludes most of the people involved from seeing
the truth. This goes triple for the bariatric surgery enthusiasts, who

Think of the fear of medical malpractice. The evidence has been
overwhelming for decades.

At the end of the video he says that the ADA has begrudgingly sanctioned
LC diets if people can't comply with LF diets saying compliance trumps diet.

Compliance is vastly important. Any plan that drives people off it is a
failed plan. A percentage of the population does fine on low fat but
low fat drives very many off. When I tried low fat I was hungry
constantly until I relented.

But there is more to it than compliance. There is the long term
results. Poor compliance to low fat is one of the starting points that
pointed Dr Atkins to low carb. He saw many of his heart patients fail
to comply even though it would cost them their lives to fail. Then he
started noticing that the few who did/could comply got worse results
after 6+ month on low fat.

abhor low carb prior to the surgery and mandate it afterwards. Perhaps
bariatric surgery "works" by enforcing a low carb diet.

The way I understand it bariatric surgery works by causing drastic
changes in several hormone levels like ghrelin, PYY and GLP-1.

Which is a cause and which is the effect? It is certain that bariatric
surgery makes total adherence to low carb mandatory. What if those same
people had tried total adherence to low carb before surgery?

I know we can't know that. It's like saying everyone in a concentration
camp loses weight. It's true but it's not relevant to dieting.

There should be suspicions though. The diet shortly after bariatric
surgery, doesn't it remind you of the test cases in the original fat
fast experiment?

On 5/25/2012 3:56 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
James wrote:

The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
...
The interesting thing is that low carb is never worse than
any other diet on weight loss or any measure of risk.

No surprise to any of us here.

More studies of this kind might sway the medical establishment
and the ADA.

Not likely.

Don't give up so easily. It is worth a try.

The way to sway the medical establishment is to teach low carb in
medical school. That has started to happen.

Aside from fiscal considerations the sheer shock of
knowing that you have disabled or even killed people with you dietary
and medical advice precludes most of the people involved from seeing
the truth. This goes triple for the bariatric surgery enthusiasts, who

Think of the fear of medical malpractice. The evidence has been
overwhelming for decades.

At the end of the video he says that the ADA has begrudgingly sanctioned
LC diets if people can't comply with LF diets saying compliance trumps diet.

Compliance is vastly important. Any plan that drives people off it is a
failed plan. A percentage of the population does fine on low fat but
low fat drives very many off. When I tried low fat I was hungry
constantly until I relented.

But there is more to it than compliance. There is the long term
results. Poor compliance to low fat is one of the starting points that
pointed Dr Atkins to low carb. He saw many of his heart patients fail
to comply even though it would cost them their lives to fail. Then he
started noticing that the few who did/could comply got worse results
after 6+ month on low fat.

abhor low carb prior to the surgery and mandate it afterwards. Perhaps
bariatric surgery "works" by enforcing a low carb diet.

The way I understand it bariatric surgery works by causing drastic
changes in several hormone levels like ghrelin, PYY and GLP-1.

Which is a cause and which is the effect? It is certain that bariatric
surgery makes total adherence to low carb mandatory.

Why? I hadn't heard that at all.

The change in hormones is immediate presumably because most of the
stomach is bypassed and is not stimulated by eating.

What if those same
people had tried total adherence to low carb before surgery?

I know we can't know that. It's like saying everyone in a concentration
camp loses weight. It's true but it's not relevant to dieting.

There should be suspicions though. The diet shortly after bariatric
surgery, doesn't it remind you of the test cases in the original fat
fast experiment?

Again, what diet change is mandated by the surgery? Surgery is much
more drastic an intervention than diet change.

James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
James wrote:

abhor low carb prior to the surgery and mandate it afterwards. Perhaps
bariatric surgery "works" by enforcing a low carb diet.

The way I understand it bariatric surgery works by causing drastic
changes in several hormone levels like ghrelin, PYY and GLP-1.

Which is a cause and which is the effect? It is certain that bariatric
surgery makes total adherence to low carb mandatory.

Why? I hadn't heard that at all.

The change in hormones is immediate presumably because most of the
stomach is bypassed and is not stimulated by eating.

The not eating part is caused by the band. It can as easily be caused
by doing the fat fast. That should trigger the same metabolic changes.

What if those same
people had tried total adherence to low carb before surgery?

I know we can't know that. It's like saying everyone in a concentration
camp loses weight. It's true but it's not relevant to dieting.

There should be suspicions though. The diet shortly after bariatric
surgery, doesn't it remind you of the test cases in the original fat
fast experiment?

Again, what diet change is mandated by the surgery? Surgery is much
more drastic an intervention than diet change.

Before surgery there is no pain when eating. After surgery if you eat
more than a certain amount there is severe pain and vomitting. Much
worse pain than the hunger.

People on the fat fast report little hunger. Same as folks who have had
surgery. One is voluntary the other forced.

On May 25, 3:03*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 5/25/2012 3:56 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:





James Warren wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
* *James * wrote:

The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
...
The interesting thing is that low carb is never worse than
any other diet on weight loss or any measure of risk.

No surprise to any of us here.

More studies of this kind might sway the medical establishment
and the ADA.

Not likely.

Don't give up so easily. It is worth a try.

The way to sway the medical establishment is to teach low carb in
medical school. *That has started to happen.

Aside from fiscal considerations the sheer shock of
knowing that you have disabled or even killed people with you dietary
and medical advice precludes most of the people involved from seeing
the truth. This goes triple for the bariatric surgery enthusiasts, who

Think of the fear of medical malpractice. *The evidence has been
overwhelming for decades.

At the end of the video he says that the ADA has begrudgingly sanctioned
LC diets if people can't comply with LF diets saying compliance trumps diet.

Compliance is vastly important. *Any plan that drives people off it is a
failed plan. *A percentage of the population does fine on low fat but
low fat drives very many off. *When I tried low fat I was hungry
constantly until I relented.

But there is more to it than compliance. *There is the long term
results. Poor compliance to low fat is one of the starting points that
pointed Dr Atkins to low carb. He saw many of his heart patients fail
to comply even though it would cost them their lives to fail. Then he
started noticing that the few who did/could comply got worse results
after 6+ month on low fat.

abhor low carb prior to the surgery and mandate it afterwards. Perhaps
bariatric surgery "works" by enforcing a low carb diet.

The way I understand it bariatric surgery works by causing drastic
changes in several hormone levels like ghrelin, PYY and GLP-1.

Which is a cause and which is the effect? *It is certain that bariatric
surgery makes total adherence to low carb mandatory.

Why? I hadn't heard that at all.

The change in hormones is immediate presumably because most of the
stomach is bypassed and is not stimulated by eating.


I agree. It's apparent that a lot more is going on
here than bariatric surgery forcing a LC diet. There
have been studies that show that within a day or two
of the surgery being performed people who were
diabetic revert to normal and no longer need
medication. Research is going on right
now to determine exactly why as it could lead to a
major breakthrough in how to treat diabetes.
As you suggest, one prime candidate is the effect
it has on hormones.



What if those same
people had tried total adherence to low carb before surgery?

I know we can't know that. *It's like saying everyone in a concentration
camp loses weight. *It's true but it's not relevant to dieting.

There should be suspicions though. *The diet shortly after bariatric
surgery, doesn't it remind you of the test cases in the original fat
fast experiment?

Again, what diet change is mandated by the surgery?

There are definitely guidelines for what is suggested
for people to eat long term following the surgery. But
I'm not aware of anything that forces people to eat LC.
And even if there are recommendations, we all know
how well those work. Most people are going to revert
to eating what they like as long as it doesn't make them
feel ill. And again, I see nothing that says those with
surgery will be forced to eat LC due to the surgery.
In fact, some of what I've seen argues exactly the
opposite, ie that some vegs high in fiber, too much
fat, may cause problems for them.

On May 25, 12:33*pm, James Warren wrote:
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

Here is a video that might be of some interest to members
of this group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZ...eature=related

The interesting thing is that low carb is never worse than
any other diet on weight loss or any measure of risk.

More studies of this kind might sway the medical establishment
and the ADA.

Great find. Best thing I've seen here in a while.
Some of my thoughts.... First, it's important to recognize
that the goal here was not to even try to have strict
adherence to any of the diets. It was oriented to see
what happens with those given a book, class room instruction, 8 weeks
of follow-up, etc, then left alone
to follow the diets for a year. More like what happens
in the real world and a perfectly valid approach.


Even at 8 weeks, while
still being guided, the Atkins group was clearly not doing
Atkins. Carbs accounted for 17% of their caloric intake
at 8 weeks. If we assume a diet of 2000 calories, that
would be 340 cals from carb, or 85g. If they were
doing Atkins by the book, they should be at no more
than 50g of carbs at 8 weeks. So, I'd say from the start
they were doing lower carb, but not specifically
adhering to Atkins.

And at 1 year, their carb intake was double that, so
they were taking in about 170g of carb. Obviously
lower carb than a typical diet, but again, not Atkins.
That's the other thing we already knew, which is that
regardless of diet, most people wind up going back
to their old ways. You can see it in the charts where
weight loss peaked right about at 8 weeks, then
started a slow climb back up for the rest of the year.
That was true for all the diets, though LC was better.
But I have to believe if it were continued for another
year or two the reversion rate would just continue to
increase toward 100%.

That is the really discouraging part. Despite the
health benefits that can be seen, most people just can't
change their ways. It's clear to me that the obesity
epidemic isn't going to be solved until we have some
miracle drug.

On 27/05/2012 1:00 PM, wrote:
On May 25, 12:33 pm, James wrote:
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

Here is a video that might be of some interest to members
of this group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZ...eature=related

The interesting thing is that low carb is never worse than
any other diet on weight loss or any measure of risk.

More studies of this kind might sway the medical establishment
and the ADA.

Great find. Best thing I've seen here in a while.
Some of my thoughts.... First, it's important to recognize
that the goal here was not to even try to have strict
adherence to any of the diets. It was oriented to see
what happens with those given a book, class room instruction, 8 weeks
of follow-up, etc, then left alone
to follow the diets for a year. More like what happens
in the real world and a perfectly valid approach.


Even at 8 weeks, while
still being guided, the Atkins group was clearly not doing
Atkins. Carbs accounted for 17% of their caloric intake
at 8 weeks. If we assume a diet of 2000 calories, that
would be 340 cals from carb, or 85g. If they were
doing Atkins by the book, they should be at no more
than 50g of carbs at 8 weeks. So, I'd say from the start
they were doing lower carb, but not specifically
adhering to Atkins.

And at 1 year, their carb intake was double that, so
they were taking in about 170g of carb. Obviously
lower carb than a typical diet, but again, not Atkins.
That's the other thing we already knew, which is that
regardless of diet, most people wind up going back
to their old ways. You can see it in the charts where
weight loss peaked right about at 8 weeks, then
started a slow climb back up for the rest of the year.
That was true for all the diets, though LC was better.
But I have to believe if it were continued for another
year or two the reversion rate would just continue to
increase toward 100%.

That is the really discouraging part. Despite the
health benefits that can be seen, most people just can't
change their ways. It's clear to me that the obesity
epidemic isn't going to be solved until we have some
miracle drug.

A lot of food is consumed out of the home or brought in in the form
of fast food. Carbs are so prevalent in the West that is is nearly
impossible to avoid them. Everything comes with a potato of some kind
and bread or rolls or buns. It takes considerable effort to eat
LC. When I am in a situation when the best thing available is a
hamburger, I buy the largest one and throw away the bun. If LC ever
catches on there will be more choice (fries with that?).


--
-jw

In article ,
James Warren wrote:


A lot of food is consumed out of the home or brought in in the form
of fast food. Carbs are so prevalent in the West that is is nearly
impossible to avoid them. Everything comes with a potato of some kind
and bread or rolls or buns. It takes considerable effort to eat
LC. When I am in a situation when the best thing available is a
hamburger, I buy the largest one and throw away the bun. If LC ever
catches on there will be more choice (fries with that?).

It's distressing to have to throw away the bun and to avoid
restaurants where fries come with the burger.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.