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

Aaron Baugher wrote ...

"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.

Interestingly, I've just finished reading the book "Raw Meaty Bones Promote
Health" by Tom Lonsdale, a veterinarian. He's been having *exactly* the same
sort of problems trying to convince the veterinary industry to take a long
hard look at the prevalence of periodontal disease and question the
appropriateness of commercial pet food that can be up to 50% grains as a
complete and balanced diet for our companion carnivores.

Now I could well get blown out of the water for raising this as it's an
issue many people feel very passionately about, but I do it because Tom
Lonsdale's continuous fight to get published in veterinary journals is
exactly like this battle here, so I have a lot of sympathy for the man!

)

Rachel
(New Zealand)

Matti Narkia wrote:

Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:36:24 GMT in article
m "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" wrote:

Valley Of Mu_n wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher
wrote:

Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is
helping people with heart problems?

The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the
short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person.

How long will embarrassment over
past mistakes trump doing the right thing now?

The AHA doesn't consider it the right thing.

The AHA is not alone.

From Dr. Barry Sears (2/24/2000):

"Finally, the longer you stay in ketosis, you begin to oxidize
lipoproteins, so these are long-term consequences which begin to explain
why high protein diets fail."

Source:

http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Seminars/GND/Proceedings.txt

That is your "evidence"?.

Evidence that the AHA is not alone in their sentiments?

The answer is "yes".

Barry Sears' unsubstantiated oral statement over
three years ago without any references whatsoever to back it up?

Dr. Sears' statement was not contested by Dr. Atkins.

You have to
do "much" better than that.


Not really. See below.


Pertinent research:

http://tinyurl.com/s8mp

"This study demonstrates that incubation of AA with normal RBCs in
phosphate-buffered saline (37 degrees C for 24 h) resulted in marked GSH
depletion, oxidized
glutathione accumulation, hydroxyl radical generation, and increased
membrane lipid peroxidation."

Note that these are *normal* red blood cells (RBCs) incubated under
physiological
conditions with AA (acetoacetate is a ketone that *is* elevated with
ketogenic LC
dieting) resulting in measurable toxic (bad) effects on the cells.
Especially
concerning is the generation of oxygen free radicals and peroxidation of
membrane
lipids.

As ha already been shown, this applies only to type 1 diabetes patients as
authors mention in their conclusion.

This in vitro experiment being done under *normal* physiological conditions (no
hyperglycemia) makes it applicable to isolated hyperketonemia (ie ketogenic LC
dieting). Would suggest you read the entire paper.

The full text of this study is at

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org.../48/9/1850.pdf


Yes, it is. Would suggest you read it in its entirety especially paying
attention to Figure 1.


A quote from there gives one explanation why this study applies only to type
1 diabetes:

"The blood concentration of ketone bodies may reach 10 mmol/l in
diabetic patients with severe ketosis, versus 0.5 mmol/l in normal
people (24,25)."


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.

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

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

pb

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

pb

But shouldn't it be possible to run a computer simulation of
a ketogenic diet in the context of the average normal body
chemistry of an overweight person? Such a simulation should
reveal whether the diet actually works chemically to cause
weight loss, without regard to the possible long term problems.

martin

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.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

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.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

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

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")

Chung's position on this is firmer than that. He has stated that he
would rather someone be overfat than on Atkins. This strongly hints at
more than "roll the dice" with ketosis. I would suggest it would
follow that ketosis, in the 2PDiet context, be avoided entirely.

Now, this is my interpretation of Chung and not Mu speaking for Chung.
How overfat one can be before even Atkins might be appropriate, I do
not know. Maybe it would take morbid obesity, maybe that's not overfat
enough.

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.

On ASDLC and SMC? Really?

I never noticed that.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030829.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:52:57 GMT, Bob M wrote:

The problem is that no one has taken the time to study low
carb diets because they go against the party line.

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

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030829.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

Mineral Mu_n wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:52:57 GMT, Bob M wrote:


The problem is that no one has taken the time to study low
carb diets because they go against the party line.


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

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.

martin

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.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.