Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet

Doug Lerner wrote:
Diarmid Logan wrote:

By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of weight,
between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins group and three and
eight kilos for the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost
all their weight in the first six months, then remained at a steady
weight.

Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins. After six months I entered
a six month stall, and have only broken that stall by switching to a
low-calorie diet.

Doug, the problem you had is not following the directions. Six months
in you came on the newsgroup and asked if ketosis matters. It appears
that staying too low too long lowered your CCLL from all of your
subsequent reports. Your approach could be a few weeks of switching
to low fat to reset your metabolism and then back to the directions,
but since you've found that low calorie works for you go with what you
already know works for you.

(Doug Freyburger) wrote:
Doug Lerner wrote:
Diarmid Logan wrote:

By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of weight,
between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins group and three and
eight kilos for the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost
all their weight in the first six months, then remained at a steady
weight.

Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins. After six months I
entered a six month stall, and have only broken that stall by switching
to a low-calorie diet.

Doug, the problem you had is not following the directions. Six months
in you came on the newsgroup and asked if ketosis matters. It appears
that staying too low too long lowered your CCLL from all of your
subsequent reports. Your approach could be a few weeks of switching
to low fat to reset your metabolism and then back to the directions,
but since you've found that low calorie works for you go with what you
already know works for you.

If you continue to lose weight on low carb past the water shed then it IS
low calorie...dumb as dirt...

On 5/19/04 1:03 AM, in article , "Peanutjake"
wrote:

Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins. After six months I entered
a six month stall, and have only broken that stall by switching to a
low-calorie diet.

doug


So maybe that is the secret for losing weight.
Go on Atkins for 6 months then switch to a lower calorie diet.

I do think that is a good idea.

doug

On 5/19/04 1:41 AM, in article , "Lee
Rodgers" wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 23:43:27 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:

On 5/18/04 10:44 PM, in article
, "Diarmid Logan"
wrote:

By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of weight,
between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins group and three and
eight kilos for the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost
all their weight in the first six months, then remained at a steady
weight.

Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins. After six months I entered
a six month stall, and have only broken that stall by switching to a
low-calorie diet.

doug
Crossposting removed
sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.d
iabetes,sci.med.cardiology

Mr. Lerner, you seem to believe that following the Atkins diet
requires one to consume great quantities of food. After six months
you entered a six month stall because you were eating too much. Do
not blame the Atkins diet. Gluttony is not on the list of rules for
the Atkins diet. Perhaps a thorough reading of the section in DANDR
titled "The Atkins and you diet" is in order. It is near the end of
most editions just before the recipe section.

I was following the rules of Atkins that said "if you are hungry eat, but do
not overstuff". You are making an incorrect assumption that I was engaged in
gluttony.

Atkins simply doesn't give enough guidance as to the *vital* role of calorie
control. That is my problem with it.

It helps control my hunger so I lose down to a certain level. Then my
natural hunger, combined with the kinds of high-calorie foods allowed on
Atkins (mayo, butter, meats, nuts, cheeses) keeps me from losing more.

That's probably what most of those people in that study experienced after
six months.

It is not a matter of gluttony - it's a matter of incorrect weight-loss
rules and guidance.

To lose weight you must consume less energy than your body uses. Atkins
cannot help you avoid conservation of energy.

doug

On 5/19/04 7:25 AM, in article
, "Doug Freyburger"
wrote:

Doug Lerner wrote:
Diarmid Logan wrote:

By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of weight,
between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins group and three and
eight kilos for the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost
all their weight in the first six months, then remained at a steady
weight.

Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins. After six months I entered
a six month stall, and have only broken that stall by switching to a
low-calorie diet.

Doug, the problem you had is not following the directions. Six months
in you came on the newsgroup and asked if ketosis matters. It appears
that staying too low too long lowered your CCLL from all of your
subsequent reports. Your approach could be a few weeks of switching
to low fat to reset your metabolism and then back to the directions,
but since you've found that low calorie works for you go with what you
already know works for you.

The "directions" are inconsistent. Atkins *does* say you can stay at very
low levels of carbs for most of your weight loss. It's only mixed advice
here that says you shouldn't.

The problem, though, is calories. You admit that Atkins admits that calories
matter, right? And if the so-called "metabolic advantage" is non-existent or
barely measurable then the important thing *must* still be controlling
calories.

If you eat too many calories you will gain weight.

So the goal of any diet plan is to reduce calories.

Atkins by itself simply doesn't give enough guidance in that regard. It
tries to dance around the issue with metabolic fog and mirrors. That's my
objection to it.

But Atkins is *great* in getting you *started* on a diet, finding out which
foods make you hungry and which ones are filling, controlling blood sugar,
curing heartburn and acid reflux - lots of things.

Low carb is extremely good in many ways. And I intend to follow it forever.
I think it saved my life during my diabetes scare.

But for continued weight loss you MUST consider how many calories you are
eating relative to how many calories your body is using. Atkins is
definitely skimpy on that side of the equation.

doug

Doug Lerner wrote:
:: On 5/19/04 1:41 AM, in article ,
:: "Lee Rodgers" wrote:
::
::: On Tue, 18 May 2004 23:43:27 +0900, Doug Lerner
::: wrote:
:::
:::: On 5/18/04 10:44 PM, in article
:::: , "Diarmid Logan"
:::: wrote:
::::
::::: By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of weight,
::::: between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins group and three
::::: and
::::: eight kilos for the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost
::::: almost
::::: all their weight in the first six months, then remained at a
::::: steady
::::: weight.
::::
:::: Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins. After six months
:::: I entered a six month stall, and have only broken that stall by
:::: switching to a low-calorie diet.
::::
:::: doug
::: Crossposting removed
:::
sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health
..d
::: iabetes,sci.med.cardiology
:::
::: Mr. Lerner, you seem to believe that following the Atkins diet
::: requires one to consume great quantities of food. After six months
::: you entered a six month stall because you were eating too much. Do
::: not blame the Atkins diet. Gluttony is not on the list of rules for
::: the Atkins diet. Perhaps a thorough reading of the section in DANDR
::: titled "The Atkins and you diet" is in order. It is near the end of
::: most editions just before the recipe section.
::
:: I was following the rules of Atkins that said "if you are hungry
:: eat, but do not overstuff". You are making an incorrect assumption
:: that I was engaged in gluttony.
::
:: Atkins simply doesn't give enough guidance as to the *vital* role of
:: calorie control. That is my problem with it.
::
:: It helps control my hunger so I lose down to a certain level. Then my
:: natural hunger, combined with the kinds of high-calorie foods
:: allowed on
:: Atkins (mayo, butter, meats, nuts, cheeses) keeps me from losing
:: more.
::

Veggies are allowed on atkins too. Perhaps you should have picked a better
mix of allowed foods. Just because mayo, butter, meats, nuts, and cheese
are allowed, it doesn't mean those are the only foods you need to eat. And
if you eat the stuff down too quickly, you may not even realize you're
overfull. So you may not even be aware of gluttony.

:: That's probably what most of those people in that study experienced
:: after
:: six months.

Who knows that problems they had with only 13 lbs lost!

::
:: It is not a matter of gluttony - it's a matter of incorrect
:: weight-loss
:: rules and guidance.

The thing is, everyone basically knows what it takes to lose weight. You
need to be hungry sooner or later. I don't see why being hungry is
considered such a bad thing. The mere mention of not eating for a day will
send folks off the deep end, when in fact is an easy way to control intake
when you can't simply count everything you eat.

::
:: To lose weight you must consume less energy than your body uses.
:: Atkins
:: cannot help you avoid conservation of energy.
::
:: doug

Um, Jackie, I totally agree with you. However, from the web-site of the
American Diabetes Association (the emphasis in capitals is mine):

http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-an...n/starches.jsp

"The message today: EAT MORE STARCHES! It is healthiest for everyone to
eat more whole grains, beans, and starchy vegetables such as peas, corn,
potatoes and winter squash. Starches are good for you because they have
very little fat, saturated fat, or cholesterol. They are packed with
vitamins, minerals, and fiber. Yes, foods with carbohydrate --
starches, vegetables, fruits, and dairy products -- will raise your
blood glucose more quickly than meats and fats, but they are the
healthiest foods for you. YOUR DOCTOR MAY NEED TO ADJUST YOUR
MEDICATIONS WHEN YOU EAT MORE CARBOHYDRATES. You may need to increase
your activity level or try spacing carbohydrates throughout the day."

I'm speechless...


LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 5'7" 265/202/140
& hubby- 6' 310/215/180

On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:58:20 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

Truth is simple.


Servant to the sickest ego in the universe, my own,

Andrew

to bad mudungchung has never spoken the truth.

don't feed the cross posting troll.

Doug Lerner wrote:
In a continued discussion...
| The "directions" are inconsistent. Atkins *does* say you can stay at
| very low levels of carbs for most of your weight loss. It's only
| mixed advice here that says you shouldn't.
|
| The problem, though, is calories. You admit that Atkins admits that
| calories matter, right? And if the so-called "metabolic advantage" is
| non-existent or barely measurable then the important thing *must*
| still be controlling calories.
|
| If you eat too many calories you will gain weight.
|
| So the goal of any diet plan is to reduce calories.
|
| Atkins by itself simply doesn't give enough guidance in that regard.
| It tries to dance around the issue with metabolic fog and mirrors.
| That's my objection to it.
|
| But Atkins is *great* in getting you *started* on a diet, finding out
| which foods make you hungry and which ones are filling, controlling
| blood sugar, curing heartburn and acid reflux - lots of things.
|
| Low carb is extremely good in many ways. And I intend to follow it
| forever. I think it saved my life during my diabetes scare.
|
| But for continued weight loss you MUST consider how many calories you
| are eating relative to how many calories your body is using. Atkins is
| definitely skimpy on that side of the equation.
|
| doug

I found Atkins most useful in dropping 35 pounds in less then six months and
keeping it off for six more. Aside from that I have lowered my
Trg/cholesterol risk factors. I have found the foods that trigger repeat
hunger and discovered a lot about myself.

It is true that Atkins had said that staying at induction was acceptable for
prolonged times. He advocated not just a diet but a method to observe what
your eating and eating healthier. You can debate if his choice of saturated
fats was healthier but I doubt anyone can now debate the usefulness of the
diet and the lifelong consequences.

Dr Atkins advocated finding your critical carb value while making wise food
choices, something that gets lost in the media coverage. Dr Atkins allowed
moderation... something that has been lost with overabundant treats and
super-sizing.

It has been reported that a preliminary finding was that a "calorie is not a
calorie" when a true low-carb diet is followed. I believe there was a
report a few months ago suggesting that the calorie adage seemed to be
flawed. It was found that Atkins followers could actually consume slightly
more. It was pointed out that calories do count, just with a little bonus.
IMO this shows that the body is a bit more complex then a furnace.

My bottom line is to continue low-carb and look toward good fat choices
including lean proteins, nuts, and fish while making wise food choices. I
will not be horrified if I decide to have a slice of pizza or a french fry
but I will take this into account on my next food choice.

IMHO

Kevin

On 5/19/04 11:29 AM, in article , "kahout"
wrote:

It has been reported that a preliminary finding was that a "calorie is not a
calorie" when a true low-carb diet is followed. I believe there was a
report a few months ago suggesting that the calorie adage seemed to be
flawed. It was found that Atkins followers could actually consume slightly
more.

My own data doesn't confirm this. At first I was all excited because I
thought I found almost a 20% "metabolic advantage" on Atkins.

But after slicing off the first week of low-cal and low-carb data from my
calculations and re-comparing, the metabolic advantange dropped to less than
4%.

And over longer term it disappeared completely.

That is very much in line with the studies that said Atkins is quicker *at
first* only.

doug