South Beach or Atkins

Tabi Kasanari wrote:
:: On 11-Jan-2004, "Roger Zoul" says:
::
::::: As someone who studies both dieting and nutrition, I would say the
::::: most important difference is in nutritional balance and long-term
::::: health (avoiding adult-onset diseases, etc.).
:::
::: Are you saying that Atkins will lead to adult-onset diseases?
::: Which ones?
::
:: Any of the diseases caused by plaque buildup, such as heart disease
:: and Alzheimer's.
::
:: Agatston is polite about this, but here's what he says about Atkins
:: (The South Beach Diet, Chapter 3):
::
:: "The major problem I have with the Atkins Diet is the liberal intake
:: of saturated fats. There is evidence now that immediately following
:: a meal of saturated fats, there is dysfunction in the arteries,
:: including those that supply the heart muscle with blood. As a
:: result, the lining of the arteries (the endothelium) is predisposed
:: to constriction and clotting. Imagine: Under the right (or rather,
:: wrong) circumstances, eating a meal that's high in saturated fat can
:: trigger a heart attack. In addition, after a high-fat meal certain
:: elements in the blood, called remnant particles, persist for longer
:: than is healthy. These particles contribute to the buildup of plaque
:: in the vessel wall. None of this was known at the time Dr. Atkins
:: developed his diet. But now we know."

Would you happen to know the studies this statement is based on? The reason
I ask is that it is important to know the conditions under which the high
sat fat was introduced in the diet. I do have the book, btw, so maybe I'll
see if he has some cites.

::
::: In this respect I find
::::: the South Beach diet superior, mainly for the reasons given in
::::: Agatston's book. Read it and see if you agree. (I know for certain
::::: that hundreds of angry Atkins believers will dispute this.)
::::: Agatston specifically warns against continuing the "induction"
::::: period beyond 14 days, and for good reasons.
:::
::: What good reasons?
::
:: These are explained in Chapter 12 of his book, but essentially he
:: says that trying to extend Phase 1 results in having a dull diet,
:: increasing the likelihood of cheating; and that after cheating and
:: regaining weight, people try to go back to Phase 1 and find it
:: duller than before, causing them eventually to give up. He also
:: believes so-called "good carbs" are necessary to a certain extent,
:: which is why some of them are gradually reintroduced from Phase 2.
::

I certainly agree with this. There is not real reason I can see to extend
induction. One can certainly do induction-level carbs to prevent boredom,
but even that shouldn't be necessary. However, going past 14 days on
induction is not dangerous. Many people do it.

Do you always believe everything someone says when they are trying to sell
you something?

--
JC

Eat less, exercise more.

--
"Tabi Kasanari" wrote in message
...

On 11-Jan-2004, "Roger Zoul" says:

:: As someone who studies both dieting and nutrition, I would say the
:: most important difference is in nutritional balance and long-term
:: health (avoiding adult-onset diseases, etc.).

Are you saying that Atkins will lead to adult-onset diseases? Which
ones?

Any of the diseases caused by plaque buildup, such as heart disease and
Alzheimer's.

Agatston is polite about this, but here's what he says about Atkins (The
South Beach Diet, Chapter 3):

"The major problem I have with the Atkins Diet is the liberal intake of
saturated fats. There is evidence now that immediately following a meal of
saturated fats, there is dysfunction in the arteries, including those that
supply the heart muscle with blood. As a result, the lining of the
arteries
(the endothelium) is predisposed to constriction and clotting. Imagine:
Under the right (or rather, wrong) circumstances, eating a meal that's
high
in saturated fat can trigger a heart attack. In addition, after a high-fat
meal certain elements in the blood, called remnant particles, persist for
longer than is healthy. These particles contribute to the buildup of
plaque
in the vessel wall. None of this was known at the time Dr. Atkins
developed
his diet. But now we know."

In this respect I find
:: the South Beach diet superior, mainly for the reasons given in
:: Agatston's book. Read it and see if you agree. (I know for certain
:: that hundreds of angry Atkins believers will dispute this.) Agatston
:: specifically warns against continuing the "induction" period beyond
:: 14 days, and for good reasons.

What good reasons?

These are explained in Chapter 12 of his book, but essentially he says
that
trying to extend Phase 1 results in having a dull diet, increasing the
likelihood of cheating; and that after cheating and regaining weight,
people
try to go back to Phase 1 and find it duller than before, causing them
eventually to give up. He also believes so-called "good carbs" are
necessary
to a certain extent, which is why some of them are gradually reintroduced
from Phase 2.

--
Tabi Kasanari

On 11-Jan-2004, "Roger Zoul" says:

:: Agatston is polite about this, but here's what he says about Atkins
:: (The South Beach Diet, Chapter 3):
::
:: "The major problem I have with the Atkins Diet is the liberal intake
:: of saturated fats. There is evidence now that immediately following
:: a meal of saturated fats, there is dysfunction in the arteries,
:: including those that supply the heart muscle with blood. As a
:: result, the lining of the arteries (the endothelium) is predisposed
:: to constriction and clotting. Imagine: Under the right (or rather,
:: wrong) circumstances, eating a meal that's high in saturated fat can
:: trigger a heart attack. In addition, after a high-fat meal certain
:: elements in the blood, called remnant particles, persist for longer
:: than is healthy. These particles contribute to the buildup of plaque
:: in the vessel wall. None of this was known at the time Dr. Atkins
:: developed his diet. But now we know."

Would you happen to know the studies this statement is based on? The
reason I ask is that it is important to know the conditions under which
the
high sat fat was introduced in the diet. I do have the book, btw, so
maybe
I'll see if he has some cites.

Sorry, I don't know. His book is obviously aimed at a lay audience, so he
avoids scientific jargon and doesn't give references (other than for the
recipes).

However, going past 14 days on
induction is not dangerous. Many people do it.

Agatston is not entirely clear on this issue. In the passage I referred to,
he talks only about the practical issue of "sticking to it." Elsewhere he
seems to say it is best to eat some carbs generally, but they must be good
ones (whole grains, etc.). He prefers people not eat very sweet fruits
(pineapple, bananas, etc.) and avoid carrots, potatoes and other highly
starchy foods. Overall his diet is not as high in fat as Atkins. For me,
it's a nice compromise; but I've never been more than a bit overweight. I
don't know how it works with people who have more severe obesity problems.

Note that Agatston plays down the dangers of ketosis. In general he treats
both Atkins and Ornish with respect.
--
Tabi Kasanari

Tabi Kasanari wrote:
:: On 11-Jan-2004, "Roger Zoul" says:
::
::::: Agatston is polite about this, but here's what he says about
::::: Atkins (The South Beach Diet, Chapter 3):
:::::
::::: "The major problem I have with the Atkins Diet is the liberal
::::: intake of saturated fats. There is evidence now that immediately
::::: following
::::: a meal of saturated fats, there is dysfunction in the arteries,
::::: including those that supply the heart muscle with blood. As a
::::: result, the lining of the arteries (the endothelium) is
::::: predisposed to constriction and clotting. Imagine: Under the
::::: right (or rather, wrong) circumstances, eating a meal that's high
::::: in saturated fat can trigger a heart attack. In addition, after a
::::: high-fat meal certain elements in the blood, called remnant
::::: particles, persist for longer than is healthy. These particles
::::: contribute to the buildup of plaque in the vessel wall. None of
::::: this was known at the time Dr. Atkins developed his diet. But now
::::: we know."
:::
::: Would you happen to know the studies this statement is based on?
::: The reason I ask is that it is important to know the conditions
::: under which the
::: high sat fat was introduced in the diet. I do have the book, btw,
::: so maybe
::: I'll see if he has some cites.
::
:: Sorry, I don't know. His book is obviously aimed at a lay audience,
:: so he avoids scientific jargon and doesn't give references (other
:: than for the recipes).
::
::: However, going past 14 days on
::: induction is not dangerous. Many people do it.
::
:: Agatston is not entirely clear on this issue. In the passage I
:: referred to, he talks only about the practical issue of "sticking to
:: it." Elsewhere he seems to say it is best to eat some carbs
:: generally, but they must be good ones (whole grains, etc.). He
:: prefers people not eat very sweet fruits (pineapple, bananas, etc.)
:: and avoid carrots, potatoes and other highly starchy foods. Overall
:: his diet is not as high in fat as Atkins. For me, it's a nice
:: compromise; but I've never been more than a bit overweight. I don't
:: know how it works with people who have more severe obesity problems.
::
:: Note that Agatston plays down the dangers of ketosis. In general he
:: treats both Atkins and Ornish with respect.

yes, this is true. My impression of this book and his diet is simply that he
was trying to develop a plan that would ease the mind of those who fear sat
fat and don't believe that whole grains are bad (a lot of folks have come to
believe this - not matter it be true or not). So, SBD, imo, is Atkins with
that specific slant. Keep in mind that Atkins doesn't say you have to eat a
lot of sat fat -- he just doesn't restrict it.

Do you feel like death warmed over now?

Day 4 of induction and I'm actually feeling pretty good.
But maybe that's because there's a large salmon steak sitting
frying in olive oil right now though, and the smell is wafting in
from the kitchen :-)

slr

Tabi Kasanari wrote:
Roger Zoul says:

Agatston is polite about this, but here's what he says about Atkins (The
South Beach Diet, Chapter 3):

Sounds to me like SBD puts more thought into types of fat than DANDR, but
that the conclusions it reaches are the same. Dr A discussed bad transfats
to be avoided, good saturated fats to not fear, better monounsaturated
fats to be used, and better polyunsaturated fats to be pursued. On Atkins
it is okay to use bacon grease but it is even better to replace it with
the same quantity of nut oil. SBD takes this a bit farther.

Agatston
:: specifically warns against continuing the "induction" period beyond
:: 14 days, and for good reasons.

What good reasons?

These are explained in Chapter 12 of his book, but essentially he says that
trying to extend Phase 1 results in having a dull diet, increasing the
likelihood of cheating; and that after cheating and regaining weight, people
try to go back to Phase 1 and find it duller than before, causing them
eventually to give up. He also believes so-called "good carbs" are necessary
to a certain extent, which is why some of them are gradually reintroduced
from Phase 2.

Oh he he directly copied the Atkins reasons with barely even changing the
wording then. Cool.

In the 1972-1999 editions Dr Atkins made it clear that moving on to OWL
yields better loss on the average than remaining at 20. It's a fact that
is easily seen by tracking postings for a few years, especially if you
add a caveat that it gets less true for folks with 100+ to lose. But in
2002 he dropped explicit mention of that stance. Looks like SBD cribbed
from the 2002 edition on this point. It's true, so may as well use it.

SLR wrote:
::: Do you feel like death warmed over now?
::
:: Day 4 of induction and I'm actually feeling pretty good.
:: But maybe that's because there's a large salmon steak sitting
:: frying in olive oil right now though, and the smell is wafting in
:: from the kitchen :-)

That would make me feel really good!

Sounds like you're surviving induction quite nicely. GFY.

carla wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
bren wrote:

I do not know which to try and follow. I would appreciate your help.

The starting point of the two is a bit different, but several months
in you'll probably be eating the same foods because they should both
lead you to the same place. "The direction you are headed is more
important than where you start". It's a cliche that may not work all
that great in astrophysics but it sure works great here on Earth.

I would say that South Beach can be somewhat less restrictive

Calling Atkins restrictive is a sure sign you haven't read the book or
that you missed the key concepts. Atkins is a custom tuned process
that leads each person to the level determined by their own body. That
might be restrictive and might not.

On the other hand, I've skimmed my copy of SBD but I haven't read it in
detail. From my skim I got the impression that SBD is also a process
that leads each person to their own level. If it is a one-size-fits-all
system like Protein Power not a custom tuned prcess, then that's a sure
sign that I skimmed the book without actually reading it so I missed the
key concepts. Ah, turnabout and all that.

For what it's worth, when I
started out on South Beach, I was annoyed by how little guidance was
provided in quantitative terms. I knew the sample menus were far too little
food for me but I didn't know what to do about it.

Atkins doesn't give guidance on amounts, either. He tells us to count only
carbs. He makes the assumption that few folks are actually overeaters or
undereaters if they are handed a diet that does not trigger cravings. It
is true that many overeaters stop overeating when the cravings are turned
off. Unfortunately, it is not true that when undereaters are handed a
system that turns down their appetite that they generally start eating more.

ASLDC is very good in having the breadth to be able to discuss portions,
carbs, fat, protein, calories, you name it. It comes from having folks on
many plans. Each has its own strength. Of all the plans I've read none
have had a better carb system than DANDR. Of all the plans I've read none
have had a better protein system than PP. After reading this thread it
becomes clear that SBD has a better approach to fat than other plans.

I think it's best to start out following your plan of choice, but then over
time learn about its strengths and weaknesses then look to other plans that
have strengths in the place your plan has weaknesses, and use the strengths
of all. As long as your combined plan does fit the parameters of your plan
or you switch to one that fits them all. In my case, I can follow the
protein guidelines from PP without deviating from DANDR at all, so I do.

Wow, you know what causes Alzheimer's? You had better let the scientific
community in on this news as the last I heard they still haven't figured out
what causes it.

In ,
Tabi Kasanari stated
|
| Any of the diseases caused by plaque buildup, such as heart disease
| and Alzheimer's.
|
| --
| Tabi Kasanari

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
om...
carla wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
bren wrote:

I do not know which to try and follow. I would appreciate your
help.

The starting point of the two is a bit different, but several months
in you'll probably be eating the same foods because they should both
lead you to the same place. "The direction you are headed is more
important than where you start". It's a cliche that may not work all
that great in astrophysics but it sure works great here on Earth.

I would say that South Beach can be somewhat less restrictive

Calling Atkins restrictive is a sure sign you haven't read the book or
that you missed the key concepts. Atkins is a custom tuned process
that leads each person to the level determined by their own body. That
might be restrictive and might not.

I didn't call Atkins "restrictive;" I merely stated that South Beach "can be
somewhat less restrictive," which I still believe is true. There are foods
permitted and even encouraged on South Beach that an Atkins dieter probably
would not eat. Perhaps a better way to state it would have been to say that
South Beach "can be somewhat more permissive," but I'm not sure that makes a
huge difference. It was just a comparative statement though; I intended no
placement of either on an absolute scale of restrictiveness (whatever that
would look like).

On the other hand, I've skimmed my copy of SBD but I haven't read it in
detail. From my skim I got the impression that SBD is also a process
that leads each person to their own level. If it is a one-size-fits-all
system like Protein Power not a custom tuned prcess, then that's a sure
sign that I skimmed the book without actually reading it so I missed the
key concepts. Ah, turnabout and all that.

:-) South Beach, to me, doesn't seem as process-oriented as Atkins, in the
sense that the South Beach book provides next to no guidance as to how one
should go about determining what works for them, whereas Atkins provides a
*relatively* systematic approach toward determining appropriate carb levels.
South Beach doesn't even advocate counting carbs, or tell you how to do so,
meaning that there is no way for someone reading the South Beach diet to
quantify what works for them and what doesn't.

That's not necessarily a fatal flaw, but it's a marked difference: South
Beach is not quantitative in approach at all, whereas Atkins is to some
degree.

For what it's worth, when I
started out on South Beach, I was annoyed by how little guidance was
provided in quantitative terms. I knew the sample menus were far too
little
food for me but I didn't know what to do about it.

Atkins doesn't give guidance on amounts, either. He tells us to count
only
carbs.

South Beach does not even provide that much guidance. That is all I was
referring to.

He makes the assumption that few folks are actually overeaters or
undereaters if they are handed a diet that does not trigger cravings. It
is true that many overeaters stop overeating when the cravings are turned
off. Unfortunately, it is not true that when undereaters are handed a
system that turns down their appetite that they generally start eating
more.

You have just given me an idea for a new thread on cravings. I have a
question I'd like to explore about this, and I hope you will weigh in when I
start the new thread. :-)

ASLDC is very good in having the breadth to be able to discuss portions,
carbs, fat, protein, calories, you name it. It comes from having folks on
many plans. Each has its own strength. Of all the plans I've read none
have had a better carb system than DANDR. Of all the plans I've read none
have had a better protein system than PP. After reading this thread it
becomes clear that SBD has a better approach to fat than other plans.

Can you please say more about that? Is it because of South Beach's emphasis
on good (i.e., not saturated) fats?

I think it's best to start out following your plan of choice, but then
over
time learn about its strengths and weaknesses then look to other plans
that
have strengths in the place your plan has weaknesses, and use the
strengths
of all.

I could not agree more. That is why I posted my comments on what looked to
me like the major differences between Atkins and South Beach.

As long as your combined plan does fit the parameters of your plan
or you switch to one that fits them all. In my case, I can follow the
protein guidelines from PP without deviating from DANDR at all, so I do.

Thanks for your comments.

carla
237/219/165?