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 » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 14th, 2003, 05:07 PM
Diarmid Logan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

http://www.suntimes.com/output/healt...s-fside14.html


Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

October 14, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than
folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the
low-carb diet long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that
maybe Atkins was right.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet works.
''A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged,'' said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists, we need
to be open-minded.''

***********************************

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than
folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the
contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that
people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without
paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts'
surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least
in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American
Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as
many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating
less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get
so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that
low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that
maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually
can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories.
That should have added up to about seven pounds.

But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that
says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight,"
Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A
calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they
come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in
just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting
found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to
be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three
categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or
low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a
third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale
Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly
what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet
plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a
bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots
of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins
diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to
pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design,
conduct or analysis.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes.
The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and
65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent
protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb
regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories on
the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that
volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost
20 pounds.

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers,"
said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of
data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

------

EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special
correspondent for The Associated Press.

------

On the Net:

http://www.naaso.or
  #2  
Old October 14th, 2003, 11:36 PM
rosie read and post
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

the HARVARD study points out that low carb weight loss is apparently
NOT due to lowered calorie intake.

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

happiness is not a state to arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
.................................m.l. runbeck













"Trent Duke" wrote in message
...
I was hoping someone was gonna post this article and say such study

backs
the Atkins Diet. In some aspects it does, but in some ways it doesn't.

First, the study found that each diet WORKED. This is no real big

suprise
considering everyone had their calories reduced and controlled.

Second, doesn't any one else find it funny or rather disingenuous that

a
"low carb diet" is only 5% of total calories and that a "low fat diet"

is a
whopping 30%?

Almost every low fat study done consists of 30% of calories. To be

frank,
30% just isn't low enough IMO. Low is around 10%.

Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking.

Fiber
can have a profound impact on weight loss here in each group.

Fourth, how do we know that the calorie reduction wasn't greater in

one
group over the other since people were randomly chosen? This too can

have a
profound impact on the overall study results.

Fifth, were these people not allowed to exercise? Was this controlled

too,
cause the study does not say?

Just my thinking behind the study

Trent


-- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join

now @
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weightloss_health


From: (Diarmid Logan)
Organization:
http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups:

alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet,sci.med.nutrition
Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:07:44 -0700
Subject: Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

http://www.suntimes.com/output/healt...s-fside14.html


Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

October 14, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more

than
folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the
low-carb diet long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint

that
maybe Atkins was right.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of

Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as

much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet

works.
''A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged,'' said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists, we

need
to be open-minded.''

***********************************


http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more

than
folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the
contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that
people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without
paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many

experts'
surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at

least
in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard

American
Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels,

as
many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating
less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not

get
so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that
low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint

that
maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually
can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of

Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as

much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000

calories.
That should have added up to about seven pounds.

But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that
says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight,"
Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A
calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they
come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in
just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting
found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need

to
be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one

has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three
categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or
low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a
third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale
Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly
what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with

diet
plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a
bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of

lots
of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins
diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to
pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's

design,
conduct or analysis.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes.
The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein

and
65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent
protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb
regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories

on
the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was

that
volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food

lost
20 pounds.

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it

answers,"
said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots

of
data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity

organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

------

EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special
correspondent for The Associated Press.

------

On the Net:

http://www.naaso.or




  #3  
Old October 14th, 2003, 11:55 PM
Jake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:36:46 -0500, rosie read and post wrote:

the HARVARD study points out that low carb weight loss is apparently
NOT due to lowered calorie intake.

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

happiness is not a state to arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
................................m.l. runbeck













"Trent Duke" wrote in message
...
I was hoping someone was gonna post this article and say such study

backs
the Atkins Diet. In some aspects it does, but in some ways it doesn't.

First, the study found that each diet WORKED. This is no real big

suprise
considering everyone had their calories reduced and controlled.

Second, doesn't any one else find it funny or rather disingenuous that

a
"low carb diet" is only 5% of total calories and that a "low fat diet"

is a
whopping 30%?

Almost every low fat study done consists of 30% of calories. To be

frank,
30% just isn't low enough IMO. Low is around 10%.

Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking.

Fiber
can have a profound impact on weight loss here in each group.

Fourth, how do we know that the calorie reduction wasn't greater in

one
group over the other since people were randomly chosen? This too can

have a
profound impact on the overall study results.

Fifth, were these people not allowed to exercise? Was this controlled

too,
cause the study does not say?

Just my thinking behind the study

Trent


-- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join

now @
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weightloss_health


From: (Diarmid Logan)
Organization:
http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups:

alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet,sci.med.nutrition
Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:07:44 -0700
Subject: Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

http://www.suntimes.com/output/healt...s-fside14.html


Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

October 14, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more

than
folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the
low-carb diet long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint

that
maybe Atkins was right.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of

Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as

much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet

works.
''A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged,'' said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists, we

need
to be open-minded.''

***********************************


http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more

than
folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the
contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that
people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without
paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many

experts'
surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at

least
in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard

American
Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels,

as
many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating
less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not

get
so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that
low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint

that
maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually
can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of

Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as

much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000

calories.
That should have added up to about seven pounds.

But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that
says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight,"
Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A
calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they
come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in
just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting
found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need

to
be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one

has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three
categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or
low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a
third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale
Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly
what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with

diet
plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a
bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of

lots
of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins
diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to
pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's

design,
conduct or analysis.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes.
The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein

and
65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent
protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb
regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories

on
the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was

that
volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food

lost
20 pounds.

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it

answers,"
said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots

of
data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity

organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

------

EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special
correspondent for The Associated Press.

------

On the Net:

http://www.naaso.or



I think what he means is the calorie reduction of the individual dieter.
According to the study, the Atkins dieters consumed more calories per day
than the low fat dieters, but the question is how many calories each dieter
was taking in *before* the study began.

Jake

--
My favorite animal is steak.--Fran Lebowitz
  #4  
Old October 15th, 2003, 01:48 AM
Trent Duke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

I was hoping someone was gonna post this article and say such study backs
the Atkins Diet. In some aspects it does, but in some ways it doesn't.

First, the study found that each diet WORKED. This is no real big suprise
considering everyone had their calories reduced and controlled.

Second, doesn't any one else find it funny or rather disingenuous that a
"low carb diet" is only 5% of total calories and that a "low fat diet" is a
whopping 30%?

Almost every low fat study done consists of 30% of calories. To be frank,
30% just isn't low enough IMO. Low is around 10%.

Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking. Fiber
can have a profound impact on weight loss here in each group.

Fourth, how do we know that the calorie reduction wasn't greater in one
group over the other since people were randomly chosen? This too can have a
profound impact on the overall study results.

Fifth, were these people not allowed to exercise? Was this controlled too,
cause the study does not say?

Just my thinking behind the study

Trent


-- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join now @
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weightloss_health


From: (Diarmid Logan)
Organization:
http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet,sci.med.nutrition
Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:07:44 -0700
Subject: Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

http://www.suntimes.com/output/healt...s-fside14.html


Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

October 14, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than
folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the
low-carb diet long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that
maybe Atkins was right.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet works.
''A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged,'' said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists, we need
to be open-minded.''

***********************************

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than
folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the
contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that
people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without
paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts'
surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least
in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American
Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as
many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating
less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get
so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that
low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that
maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually
can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories.
That should have added up to about seven pounds.

But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that
says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight,"
Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A
calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they
come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in
just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting
found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to
be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three
categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or
low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a
third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale
Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly
what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet
plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a
bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots
of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins
diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to
pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design,
conduct or analysis.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes.
The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and
65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent
protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb
regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories on
the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that
volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost
20 pounds.

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers,"
said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of
data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

------

EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special
correspondent for The Associated Press.

------

On the Net:

http://www.naaso.or


  #5  
Old October 15th, 2003, 04:24 AM
ron lorden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

The most controversial result of the study is its challenge to the
virtually univeral belief that a calorie is a calorie is a
calorie.....and so on. I recall having read a book about thirty years
ago entitled "Calories Don't Count" wherein the author claimed to have
conducted small-scale studies in which subjects on controlled-calorie
diets lost weight when their diets where primarily comprised of fat
and virtually carb free. The assumption that all calories are treated
the same by the human body seems to be contradicted by research on the
effects of insulin. It is known that fat does not cause a significant
increase in serum glucose, and without a corresponding increase in
insulin. Carbs increase serum glucose, resulting in increased insulin
to facilitate glucose's entry into muscle and fat cells which could
result in stored body fat. Obviously, this is a serious
oversimplification of a complex phenomenon, but isn't the notion that
a calorie is a calorie, etc. an equal oversimplification?

Ron


Jake wrote in message ...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:36:46 -0500, rosie read and post wrote:

the HARVARD study points out that low carb weight loss is apparently
NOT due to lowered calorie intake.

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

happiness is not a state to arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
................................m.l. runbeck

"Trent Duke" wrote in message
...
I was hoping someone was gonna post this article and say such study

backs
the Atkins Diet. In some aspects it does, but in some ways it doesn't.

First, the study found that each diet WORKED. This is no real big

suprise
considering everyone had their calories reduced and controlled.






Second, doesn't any one else find it funny or rather disingenuous that

a
"low carb diet" is only 5% of total calories and that a "low fat diet"

is a
whopping 30%?

Almost every low fat study done consists of 30% of calories. To be

frank,
30% just isn't low enough IMO. Low is around 10%.

Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking.

Fiber
can have a profound impact on weight loss here in each group.

Fourth, how do we know that the calorie reduction wasn't greater in

one
group over the other since people were randomly chosen? This too can

have a
profound impact on the overall study results.

Fifth, were these people not allowed to exercise? Was this controlled

too,
cause the study does not say?

Just my thinking behind the study

Trent


-- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join

now @
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weightloss_health


From: (Diarmid Logan)
Organization:
http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups:

alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet,sci.med.nutrition
Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:07:44 -0700
Subject: Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

http://www.suntimes.com/output/healt...s-fside14.html


Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

October 14, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more

than
folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the
low-carb diet long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint

that
maybe Atkins was right.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of

Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as

much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet

works.
''A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged,'' said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists, we

need
to be open-minded.''

***********************************


http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more

than
folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the
contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that
people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without
paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many

experts'
surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at

least
in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard

American
Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels,

as
many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating
less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not

get
so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that
low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint

that
maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually
can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of

Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as

much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000

calories.
That should have added up to about seven pounds.

But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that
says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight,"
Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A
calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they
come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in
just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting
found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need

to
be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one

has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three
categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or
low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a
third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale
Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly
what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with

diet
plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a
bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of

lots
of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins
diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to
pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's

design,
conduct or analysis.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes.
The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein

and
65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent
protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb
regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories

on
the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was

that
volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food

lost
20 pounds.

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it

answers,"
said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots

of
data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity

organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

------

EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special
correspondent for The Associated Press.

------

On the Net:

http://www.naaso.or


I think what he means is the calorie reduction of the individual dieter.
According to the study, the Atkins dieters consumed more calories per day
than the low fat dieters, but the question is how many calories each dieter
was taking in *before* the study began.

Jake

  #6  
Old October 15th, 2003, 05:36 AM
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

Doesn't the research behind the zone diet prove that a calorie is not a
calorie and that insulin levels determine how much fat the body stores?
Also, does 12 weeks prove anything? Maybe the atkins dieters had more
water loss? Maybe the atkins dieters lost muscle mass in addition to
fat stores?



ron lorden wrote:
The most controversial result of the study is its challenge to the
virtually univeral belief that a calorie is a calorie is a
calorie.....and so on. I recall having read a book about thirty years
ago entitled "Calories Don't Count" wherein the author claimed to have
conducted small-scale studies in which subjects on controlled-calorie
diets lost weight when their diets where primarily comprised of fat
and virtually carb free. The assumption that all calories are treated
the same by the human body seems to be contradicted by research on the
effects of insulin. It is known that fat does not cause a significant
increase in serum glucose, and without a corresponding increase in
insulin. Carbs increase serum glucose, resulting in increased insulin
to facilitate glucose's entry into muscle and fat cells which could
result in stored body fat. Obviously, this is a serious
oversimplification of a complex phenomenon, but isn't the notion that
a calorie is a calorie, etc. an equal oversimplification?

Ron


Jake wrote in message ...

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:36:46 -0500, rosie read and post wrote:


the HARVARD study points out that low carb weight loss is apparently
NOT due to lowered calorie intake.

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

happiness is not a state to arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
................................m.l. runbeck

"Trent Duke" wrote in message
...

I was hoping someone was gonna post this article and say such study


backs

the Atkins Diet. In some aspects it does, but in some ways it doesn't.

First, the study found that each diet WORKED. This is no real big


suprise

considering everyone had their calories reduced and controlled.







Second, doesn't any one else find it funny or rather disingenuous that


a

"low carb diet" is only 5% of total calories and that a "low fat diet"


is a

whopping 30%?

Almost every low fat study done consists of 30% of calories. To be


frank,

30% just isn't low enough IMO. Low is around 10%.

Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking.


Fiber

can have a profound impact on weight loss here in each group.

Fourth, how do we know that the calorie reduction wasn't greater in


one

group over the other since people were randomly chosen? This too can


have a

profound impact on the overall study results.

Fifth, were these people not allowed to exercise? Was this controlled


too,

cause the study does not say?

Just my thinking behind the study

Trent


-- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join


now @

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weightloss_health



From: (Diarmid Logan)
Organization:
http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups:


alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet,sci.med.nutrition

Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:07:44 -0700
Subject: Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

http://www.suntimes.com/output/healt...s-fside14.html


Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

October 14, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more


than

folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the
low-carb diet long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint


that

maybe Atkins was right.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of


Public

Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as


much

during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet


works.

''A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged,'' said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists, we


need

to be open-minded.''

***********************************



http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more


than

folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the
contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that
people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without
paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many


experts'

surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at


least

in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard


American

Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels,


as

many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating
less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not


get

so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that
low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint


that

maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually
can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of


Public

Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as


much

during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000


calories.

That should have added up to about seven pounds.

But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that
says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight,"
Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A
calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they
come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in
just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting
found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need


to

be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one


has

ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three
categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or
low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a
third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale
Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly
what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with


diet

plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a
bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of


lots

of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins
diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to
pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's


design,

conduct or analysis.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes.
The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein


and

65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent
protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb
regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories


on

the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was


that

volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food


lost

20 pounds.

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it


answers,"

said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots


of

data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity


organization's

president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

------

EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special
correspondent for The Associated Press.

------

On the Net:

http://www.naaso.or

I think what he means is the calorie reduction of the individual dieter.
According to the study, the Atkins dieters consumed more calories per day
than the low fat dieters, but the question is how many calories each dieter
was taking in *before* the study began.

Jake


  #8  
Old October 15th, 2003, 04:45 PM
Wendy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

In alt.support.diet Dan wrote:
Maybe the atkins dieters lost muscle mass in addition to fat stores?


Good question. I wonder why Harvard researchers couldn't be bothered to
check what KIND of weight was being lost.

Instead of lots
of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.


I find it interesting that they did the OPPOSITE interpretation of Atkins
than most people. I mean, the first thing Atkins people do is load up on
saturated fats most of the time. I'm not sure how the Atkins people can
then crow that the diet works. Do they think saturated fats and
polyunsaturated fats are the same thing?

The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent
protein and 30 percent fat.


I don't mean to quibble, but I wouldn't call this low-fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight.


Who cares. Did they lose fat? Until that is answered this is just a
meaningless journalism sideshow.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.


Good point. Geez, don't you suppose that Harvard researchers might
consider the amount of calories burned as being related to weight
loss?

I'm trying to figure out if the study was poorly designed on purpose or if
it is just being poorly reported.

Wendy
  #9  
Old October 15th, 2003, 10:08 PM
tcomeau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

Wendy wrote in message ...
In alt.support.diet Dan wrote:
Maybe the atkins dieters lost muscle mass in addition to fat stores?


Good question. I wonder why Harvard researchers couldn't be bothered to
check what KIND of weight was being lost.

Instead of lots
of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.


I find it interesting that they did the OPPOSITE interpretation of Atkins
than most people. I mean, the first thing Atkins people do is load up on
saturated fats most of the time. I'm not sure how the Atkins people can
then crow that the diet works. Do they think saturated fats and
polyunsaturated fats are the same thing?


Where do you get your information from? How the heck do you know that
"the first thing Atkins people do is load up on saturated fats most of
the time".


The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent
protein and 30 percent fat.


I don't mean to quibble, but I wouldn't call this low-fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight.


Who cares. Did they lose fat? Until that is answered this is just a
meaningless journalism sideshow.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.


Good point. Geez, don't you suppose that Harvard researchers might
consider the amount of calories burned as being related to weight
loss?


Ok, so maybe all seven people on the low-fat diet were couch potatoes
and all 14 on the low-carb diets ran a marathon every day. Yeah,
right!

Do you have any idea how absurd you guys sound?


I'm trying to figure out if the study was poorly designed on purpose or if
it is just being poorly reported.

Wendy


It is just being poorly interpreted by individuals like yourself who
wouldn't recognize the difference between good science and bad science
if your lives depended on it.

You said that you don't mean to quibble, except that that is exactly
what you are doing. You seem to have an agenda and any small detail
seems to be enough for you to reject these findings. Remember, this
was only a news report taken from a presentation. The study itself
hasn't been published yet, as far as I know. So any criticisms about
the design of the study is based on generalities and assumptions and
you really do not know exactly what all the details of the design
were.

TC
  #10  
Old October 16th, 2003, 06:55 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

The study, accepting for the moment it's results, is not a complete
justification for the atkins diet. Unlike what he provides, it was lower
in saturated fats and sources of same, which were in part replaced with
mono fats and lean "non-red" meat products. I does provide support for
changing ratios of macro nutrients. It is more directly support for other
lower carb diets which guide folk into lower saturated fat consumption.
Finally, the results can not exclude the possibility that if an atkins
diet were followed the results might have not been reported,ie. the extra
calerie consumption results and weight that make this study interesting.
 




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
Is this better than Atkins? Ferrante General Discussion 13 October 8th, 2003 08:46 PM
It's Official - Atkins Diet Can Be Deadly bicker 2003 General Discussion 23 October 5th, 2003 02:00 AM
Study: Even mid-life diet change can extend life Steve Chaney, aka Papa Gunnykins ® General Discussion 7 October 3rd, 2003 11:12 PM
Study: Low-Calorie Diet Can Extend Life bicker 2003 General Discussion 3 September 23rd, 2003 02:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 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.