Electrolyte derangements with low-carb dieting.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:


Clearly, instead of being advised to change their diet, folks should
have been advised to eat less, down to the optimal amount, from the
outset.

Dearly departed Dr. Atkins, went the low-carb diet route, and died
prematurely one year after having to be resuscitated from SCD blamed
on cardiomyopathy of unknown cause that many suspect was linked to the
low-carb diet he advocated.

"Suspect" is a good word there, as no autopsy was ever performed,
and thus the speculation on the cause of an elderly man falling
is just that: speculation.

The cardiomyopathy was diagnosed at the time of the sudden cardiac
death (SCD) when Dr. Atkins required resuscitation. An autopsy is not
required for diagnosing cardiomyopathy.

Cite: (and I don't want to see the coroner's report which
that office later said should not have been released):

"I have had cardiomyopathy, which is a non-coronary condition and is
in no way related to diet," Atkins said in a statement.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/...iet/index.html


Nor is an autopsy required to diagnose SCD:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...8eb8593314c50?

Cite to someone other than you, if you please:

The article about the SCD of the 16 yo girl was not written by me:

http://tinyurl.com/28ycon

Sudden cardiac death in teenagers is rare, but not unheard of, is it?

Sudden cardiac death in a 16 yo girl in the manner described has not
been heard of previously.

Well, of course every case is different, but there are hundreds of SCDs
in the US in children and youths each year.

Not without an identifiable underlying predisposing condition or cause
even in this case where the cause has been identified to be the
Atkin's diet on the basis of the observed electrolyte derangements.

According to my sources, the "underlying predisposing condition or
cause" remains unclear in about 20-30 % of all cases.

Only for folks who would also say that the cause of death of the 16 yr
old girl in this case is unclear when clearly it is due to the Atkin's
diet both to her doctors and her parents.

Electrolyte derangements simply do not occur spontaneously.

So, then why has no clinical study about low carb diets shown comparable
electrolyte derangements?


It should not surprise you (nor others like Marilyn) to learn that
researchers are biased in favor of the source of their research
dollars.

Where there is bias, there is blindness.


Not all low carb studies were funded by low carb supporters.

You won't know about the electrolyte derangements until you look for
them as this dentist did:

http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v1.../4810683a.html

More anecdotes and not even to the point. Saliva pH does necessarily
translate into electrolyte (im-) balances and this dentist is not
comparing people on atkins with the general population but people on
allegedly high protein diets (Atkins is a high fat diet, not necessarily
higher in protein than the standard american diet) vs. vegetarians, who
tend to be rare in the general population. So, if anything, we can make
a guess about vegetarians compared with the general population from the
experiences of this dentist, but not about people on atkins compared
with the general population.

Thorsten

Thorsten Schier schrieb:
More anecdotes and not even to the point. Saliva pH does _not_ necessarily
translate into electrolyte (im-) balances

Here of course I forgot to insert a "not".

Thorsten

"Thorsten Schier" wrote

Atkins is a high fat diet
Thorsten

No it isn't.

"em" writes:

There may be people who eat more fat when they're on low-carb, but
that's not by design of the diet.

I've seen references to at least a few studies on l-c stating that
people actually end up eating less fat (in terms of grams). If you
look through the alt.support.diet.low-carb group, you'll see some of
these posts and should be able to find your way back to the studies if
you're interested.

It's probably true that many people eat less fat on a low-carb diet,
simply because they were eating high-fat *and* high-carb before. So
many foods are a combination of the two: potatoes and gravy, most
desserts, bread and butter, anything conventionally breaded and fried.
If you replace potato chips and ice cream with broccoli and pork rinds,
you'll be getting less carb *and* less fat.

However, compared to the USDA's recommendation of a maximum 30% of
calories from fat, or Ornish's 15% (or whatever), low-carb is almost
certainly going to be relatively high-fat. Mathematically, it *has* to
be either higher-fat, higher-protein, or lower-calorie, after all. My
protein requirement for the day gives me 480 calories, and my carb
maximum gives me up to 120 more, for a total of 600 from non-fat
sources. Now, a guy my size would normally eat 2400 calories a day to
maintain, but let's say the well-known appetite suppression aspect of
low-carbing kicks in or I do some fasting/starving, and I drop down to a
very low 1800 calories a day. That *still* has me getting 67% of my
calories from fat, which would have mainstream experts measuring me for
a coffin. If I stay up near my "normal" consumption of 2400
calories--without increasing protein or carbs--I'll be getting 75% from
fat.

That's high-fat. That's not a criticism, since I think it's the right
way to eat, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

On another note, I eat a lot more fruits and veggies within the
constraints of a low-carb diet than I do otherwise. I'm pretty much
forced to do so in order to get my carbs. I *never* used to eat a salad
and fruit every day. Now I have no choice.

That's a good point; when you stick with the very-low-carb sources like
broccoli and berries, you do have to eat a lot to get up near your carb
limit/requirement. You could reach the same number a lot faster with
some starchier vegetables or something like low-carb bread, but there
wouldn't be nearly as much nutrition in that smaller volume.



--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

"Susan" wrote

Sadly, I am old. My posts on BBS systems predate Usenet. I won't be
pompus and say that I was low-carbing before you were born, but, if
you're as young and beautiful as you sound, that may very well be the
case :-)

Keep that picture in your mind, I won't argue. ;-)

Ha!

Roger Zoul wrote:
"em" wrote in message ...
I've seen references to at least a few studies on l-c stating that people
actually end up eating less fat (in terms of grams).

High fat refers to the % of calories coming from fat. People who lose
weight on LC do typically end up eating less, so it is possible they could
end up eating less fat than before, on a gram basis.

If you look through the
alt.support.diet.low-carb group, you'll see some of these posts and should
be able to find your way back to the studies if you're interested.

What? Susan is the QUEEN of studies, dude. You won't find anyone more up
on studies than her.

You're both right as is Susan.

I posted a study recently that showed people on a low-carb diet
spontaneously reduced fat intake while the protein intake stayed about
the same.

I think what happens is most of your carby junk foods are very high-fat
also: chocolate, chips, fries, etc. Even though most of us wind up
adding other fats like olive oil and butter when we low-carb, overall
fat consumption goes down when you're not eating the carby crap.

That being said, it remains a high fat diet when figured by percentages
(which I think is a stupid way to measure a diet anyways as I've ranted
on several times).


--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

"Roger Zoul" wrote:
"em" wrote:

There may be people who eat more fat when they're on low-carb, but that's
not by design of the diet.

Absolutely it is. LC is a high fat diet...just reading Atkins book tells you
so...(I think he tries to avoid saying it directly it in later editions)

Going from 1972, 1993, 1999 to 2002 each edition put less stress
on the fact but it is present in all of them. It ranges from "Be
shockingly unafraid of fat" as advice applying to every phase down
to "Combining low fat with low carb will derail your losss" as advice
in the chapter on Induction.

People died on the Scarsdale low carb plus low fat diet. Dr Atkins
knew that. He also knew that people don't even get sick when they
follow the directions in his books. Sure, he didn't shoult high fat
from the margins of his books, but look at the videos of his
interviews some time. He did push high fat constantly in person.

I've seen references to at least a few studies on l-c stating that people
actually end up eating less fat (in terms of grams).

Compared to what? Massive overeating before starting? So what.
Compared to other types of diet plan no way.

High fat refers to the % of calories coming from fat.

As usual I object that percentages are meaningless. A 90% fat
diet at 1000 bears no resemblence to a 90% fat diet at 4000
calories. Carb counts are in grams. Protein counts are in grams.
Fat counts need to be in grams as well.

People who lose
weight on LC do typically end up eating less, so it is possible they could
end up eating less fat than before, on a gram basis.

I recall a lot of newbies worried that their fat grams came out 80ish.
After checking the other gram numbers and working the arithmetic
the advice almost always came out to get it to 3 digits without
increasing either carb or protein grams.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
...
"Roger Zoul" wrote:
"em" wrote:

There may be people who eat more fat when they're on low-carb, but
that's
not by design of the diet.

Absolutely it is. LC is a high fat diet...just reading Atkins book tells
you
so...(I think he tries to avoid saying it directly it in later editions)

Going from 1972, 1993, 1999 to 2002 each edition put less stress
on the fact but it is present in all of them. It ranges from "Be
shockingly unafraid of fat" as advice applying to every phase down
to "Combining low fat with low carb will derail your losss" as advice
in the chapter on Induction.

People died on the Scarsdale low carb plus low fat diet. Dr Atkins
knew that. He also knew that people don't even get sick when they
follow the directions in his books. Sure, he didn't shoult high fat
from the margins of his books, but look at the videos of his
interviews some time. He did push high fat constantly in person.

I've seen references to at least a few studies on l-c stating that
people
actually end up eating less fat (in terms of grams).

Compared to what? Massive overeating before starting? So what.
Compared to other types of diet plan no way.

High fat refers to the % of calories coming from fat.

As usual I object that percentages are meaningless. A 90% fat
diet at 1000 bears no resemblence to a 90% fat diet at 4000
calories.

They bear the resemblence of both being 90% fat, and thus both are high fat.
Whether one loses weight on them both is another question.

Carb counts are in grams. Protein counts are in grams.
Fat counts need to be in grams as well.

That's not necessary to do on a LC diet. You can simply count carb grams
and avoid overeating on LC.

People who lose
weight on LC do typically end up eating less, so it is possible they
could
end up eating less fat than before, on a gram basis.

I recall a lot of newbies worried that their fat grams came out 80ish.
After checking the other gram numbers and working the arithmetic
the advice almost always came out to get it to 3 digits without
increasing either carb or protein grams.

"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:
"em" wrote in message ...
I've seen references to at least a few studies on l-c stating that
people actually end up eating less fat (in terms of grams).

High fat refers to the % of calories coming from fat. People who lose
weight on LC do typically end up eating less, so it is possible they
could end up eating less fat than before, on a gram basis.

If you look through the
alt.support.diet.low-carb group, you'll see some of these posts and
should be able to find your way back to the studies if you're
interested.

What? Susan is the QUEEN of studies, dude. You won't find anyone more
up on studies than her.

You're both right as is Susan.

I posted a study recently that showed people on a low-carb diet
spontaneously reduced fat intake while the protein intake stayed about the
same.

I think what happens is most of your carby junk foods are very high-fat
also: chocolate, chips, fries, etc. Even though most of us wind up adding
other fats like olive oil and butter when we low-carb, overall fat
consumption goes down when you're not eating the carby crap.

That being said, it remains a high fat diet when figured by percentages
(which I think is a stupid way to measure a diet anyways as I've ranted on
several times).


I don't think it's stupid to say that most of the calories in a diet come
from fat (or whatever). One just needs to keep in mind that such a
statement doesn't tell the entire story. If people can't see that, then it
is they that are stupid.

"Gantlet" wrote

what is the difference between a low carb diet and a High Fat diet?
and please don't say the name.

Hi Tom,

All diets are low in something, no? Low fat, low carb, low calorie, etc.

To my knowledge, calories come from three different things: fat, protein and
carbs. Therefore, its only natural that if one cuts all of the X out of
their diet, they're going to eat a higher ratio of Y and Z.

I'll make up some numbers here. Lets say a (fat) person is eating 3000
Calories a day: 1000 Cal each from fat, protein and carbs. Then they go on a
low-carb diet and, at the same time, cut their daily caloric intake from
3000 Cal to about 2000 Cal per day. How? Easy: they cut themesleves down to
about 20 grams of carbo's per day. Now, they're down to around 2000 Cal/day,
and their diet pretty much consists of 50% fat and 50% protein. (And they're
dropping weight like a fricken' rock.)

If someone wants to say, "Well, 50% of their diet comes from fat, that is a
HIGH FAT DIET!!!"... whatcha gonna do?

The reason *I* would call this a low-carb diet, and *I* would not call it a
high-fat diet is because cutting carbs is what defines the diet. The dieteer
(sic, as in mouseketeer,) can choose what foods he eats and, to a great
extent, control the amount and type of fat that he eats.

I hope this makes some sort of sense. I am having the damndest time putting
this point across in another section of this thread.

For myself I if i went low carb i would feel safer getting most fat from
Monounsaturated, Polyunsaturated and Omega 3 Fatty Acids. and keeping
Saturated, Trans Fat and foods high in cholesterol the lowest my will
power allows.

That sounds reasonable to me. I'm not an expert dieter. I am a fat guy on
his way to skinny. There are some really good books out there on low-carb. I
suggest you check a few of them out at your local bookstore and, if anything
seems to float your boat, buy the book and read it.

Take your time, enjoy the journey.

Mike