Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet

Roger Zoul wrote:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::
::: aurora wrote:
::::: Excellent post.
:::::
::::: I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am convinced
::::: it is healthier than low fat/high carbohydrate most of the time.
::::: However, if you need to lose weight you must watch the calories.
:::::
::::: Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight on
::::: atkins (for many scientifically valid reasons - metabolic
::::: advantages, or reducing hyperinsulinemia which promotes decrease
::::: in used energy and increase in stored energy). However the amount
::::: is usually negligable. In the begining if you are very over
::::: weight you may find that you can stuff yourself and still lose
::::: weight. If you ever want to reach thinness, there is no way
::::: around it: you have to have to have to watch portions.
:::::
::::: The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with it. It
::::: is a wonderful plan to start with, but numerous people run into
::::: stalls. Why? They are etaing too much 90% of the time. Atkins
::::: didnt advocate portion control much because he was trying to sell
::::: his plan...
:::
::: I disagree. The problem comes down to people not knowing when to
::: quit eating and being so fearful of being the slightest bit hungry.
::
:: What is your view on why people are so fearful about being the
:: slightest bit hungry (so much so that it can become an irrational
:: obsession as evident in Bob Pastorio who continues to mutter
:: obsessively in the dark corner over there)?
::
:: Would be glad to reciprocate by sharing my view.

I can understand people not wanting to be constantly hungry....

Not wanting something and fearing something are two different things.

There are folks who are truly fearful. You have only to read the negative
testimonials on the 2PD approach webpage (http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp)
to find multiple examples of this irrational fear. Some of these folks are
seemingly so struck with this fear (Bob Pastorio for example) than they would
risk their own livelihood by posting libelous and defamatory remarks
(http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp) to oppose anything they perceive as a
threat to their state of never being hungry.

however,
being hungry a few times per day, say before mealtime, should not be too
much to ask. The fact that most of us don't like it must, I suppose, come
from conditioning -- we're just not used to it, and like something
unfamiliar, we have become afraid if it.

I believe it is much more than that. Ime, those who are the most "conditioned"
to fear hunger have actually been "brainwashed" by their environment (i.e.
satan) to avoid hunger at all costs.

In these instances, I find myself "deprogramming" them with the following 3
simple truthful statements:

(1) No one has ever died from hunger. There are folks dying from starvation.
Folks dying from starvation are not hungry.

(2) Benjamin Franklin has said "Hunger is the best pickle (used for seasoning in
his time)."

(3) Hunger is to a healthy person as the canary is to a coal miner. Just as the
canary passing out tells the coal miner that s/he has walked into a pocket of
methane, hunger's departure when one has not been eating more tells the person
that there is something wrong with his/her health (cancer, severe infection
and/or major depression).

However, for weight loss, not all
of that fear is unjustified, because some will definitely lose control after
getting too hungry when dieting, and end up blowing the day.

Actually, the fear remains unjustified though your point that it does beat
people down in their attempts to eat less to lose weight is well taken.

But generally
speaking, those of us in the US have easy access to food, so we should know
intellectually that food is only moments away.

How folks react to something psychologically can be discordant with that they
"know." Panic attacks would be a good example.


Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:14:14 GMT, "aurora"
wrote:

Excellent post.

I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am convinced it is
healthier than low fat/high carbohydrate most of the time. However, if you
need to lose weight you must watch the calories.

Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight on atkins (for
many scientifically valid reasons - metabolic advantages, or reducing
hyperinsulinemia which promotes decrease in used energy and increase in
stored energy). However the amount is usually negligable. In the begining if
you are very over weight you may find that you can stuff yourself and still
lose weight. If you ever want to reach thinness, there is no way around it:
you have to have to have to watch portions.

Sad, but true.
And yes, metabolic advantages do exist for people on low-carb. It
is NOT a hoax. Millions of us low-carbers love it because we eat
more and lose weight. At least, for the first several months.

PJx





The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with it. It is a
wonderful plan to start with, but numerous people run into stalls. Why? They
are etaing too much 90% of the time. Atkins didnt advocate portion control
much because he was trying to sell his plan... unfortunately it was a lie.
"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
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

..

Sad, but true.
And yes, metabolic advantages do exist for people on low-carb. It
is NOT a hoax. Millions of us low-carbers love it because we eat
more and lose weight. At least, for the first several months.

PJx

BULL****...you do NOT eat more....you are in fact eating LESS if you
continue to lose weight for more than 6 months. Do not confuse water shed
weight loss with fat loss.

In article ,
Alan wrote:
On 18 May 2004 16:41:59 GMT, wrote:

"But my question is what is the effect of each type of diet on a
diabetic?"

From the year long research:

" In the subgroup of 54 persons with diabetes, hemoglobin A[1c] levels
improved more with the low-carbohydrate diet, but the difference was
not statistically significant in sensitivity analyses. Both groups had
similar changes in other lipids and in insulin sensitivity."

Stern is a little more positive in:

"Glycemic Control and Insulin Sensitivity

The difference in the response of glucose and insulin sensitivity
between diet groups by 1 year was not significant (Table 3). Despite
this, the hemoglobin A1c level in the small group of persons with
diabetes (n = 54) decreased more in the low-carbohydrate group, after
adjustment for baseline differences (Table 3). This difference remained
significant after weight loss amount was added to the model (P = 0.019),
suggesting a direct effect of the low-carbohydrate diet on glycemic
control. However, the significance of the difference in the response of
hemoglobin A1c was not confirmed by an analysis that included only the
persons who completed the study (adjusted P = 0.080) or when baseline
values were carried forward for missing persons (adjusted P = 0.18). Two
persons on the low-carbohydrate diet and 4 on the conventional diet
developed diabetes at 1 year (P 0.2)."

I suggest that one not be two confused by the atrocious term
"statistical significance", whidh unfortunately is in the
rituals of the medical profession. If one has a small sample,
or an effective small sample (the six people who became
diabetic during the study is the effective sample size here,
unless there was a huge difference in the sizes of the groups),
it is unusual to get a significant result. On the other hand,
if there were millions in the study, it would be difficult to
find a NON-significant result.

What one should be interested in is the magnitude of the effect.
From the data presented here, I cannot even guess at this.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

In article ,
gman99 wrote:
Jackie Patti wrote:
gman99 wrote:

A year long study with 132 people does NOT a true trial make...six
months is nothing....

Feel free to fund a larger long-term study.

I'm not the QUACK who made millions selling this ****...perhaps his heirs
should fund a study...sheep

The medical people who proposed the low-fat diets have never
even had this large a study. The question has been asked
before, and nobody has come up with a study indicating that
lower amounts of fat and protein had any effect other than
fewer calories.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

gman99 wrote:

.

Sad, but true.
And yes, metabolic advantages do exist for people on low-carb. It
is NOT a hoax. Millions of us low-carbers love it because we eat
more and lose weight. At least, for the first several months.

PJx

BULL****...you do NOT eat more....you are in fact eating LESS if you
continue to lose weight for more than 6 months. Do not confuse water shed
weight loss with fat loss.

I can't speak for those who say they eat more. But speaking for myself, on
a primarily Low-Carbohydrate diet, I *feel like* I eat more, simply because
I am not hungry all the time. On other diets, in order to feel *this*
satisfied, I would have had to chow down a lot more food. So
psychologically, it's in my *head* that I've eaten far more, when in
reality it's just that I'm more satisfied, and less distracted by hunger
and urges to raid the fridge than I used to be.

Entering in my exact amounts in fitday from time to time, proves to me that
the calories consumed (for me) are a lot less than I think they are, and I
even try over-reporting to make sure I'm not underreporting.

--
The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience. Please interpret accordingly.

The medical people who proposed the low-fat diets have never
even had this large a study. The question has been asked
before, and nobody has come up with a study indicating that
lower amounts of fat and protein had any effect other than
fewer calories.

What have you been smoking...there are plenty of studies conducted on low
fat diets that show a lot more than a lowering of calories, many much
longer and more comprehensive.

Oh...guess what...in terms of losing weight, lowering CALORIC intake is
very important....some might say MOST important...

Bob in CT 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.

Did you increase your carbohydrate intake, as required by Atkins, during
this period? Did you find your critical carbohydrate level for losing?

He did not, and so he caused his own stall. He has since decided
against doing all of the work involved in repairing the metabolic
damage doing that caused and decided that caloric reduction is the
be-all and end-all of weight loss. But since caloric reduction is
working for him, good enough in his case. But the experience has
given him quite a bias on the topic.

What most people do is keep eating at 20-30 grams of carbs per day,
which is not what Atkins advocates.

Unfortunately while newbies need certainty Dr A is willing to discuss
alternatives to his core plan. Most dive face first into those
alternatives. And some get the sort of problems Doug got, falling
out of ketosis from a CCLL that dropped towards zero.

aurora wrote:

I've lost 145 lbs with low carb.

And you are keeping it off. Fabulous.

If you ever want to reach thinness, there is no way around it:
you have to have to have to watch portions.

Just like it says in the directions.

Atkins didnt advocate portion control
much because he was trying to sell his plan... unfortunately it was a lie.

Unless you read the directions.

During Induction the diretions say to eat what it takes to get
past the initial carb cravings. That exception ends the day the
carb cravings go away. Over eating is forbidden from then on.
At-kids are to eat until full, not until stuffed. I agree that
his writing about portions sucked, but his writing about a lot of
topics sucked. Forbidding over eating is advocating portion
control.

(Diarmid Logan) wrote in message . com...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995003

Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet

12:21 18 May 04

NewScientist.com news service



But critics highlight some negative findings from the Duke study.
"This new evidence confirms that levels of 'bad' cholesterol worsen in
a substantial number of low-carbohydrate dieters," said Neal Barnard
of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a vegan lobby
group in Washington DC.

New Scientist is slipping. PCRM is a militant vegan group and should
be identified as such. Just because they are "critics" doesn't mean
they should have free access to spout their naysaying. If they have
a chance then so should everyone else. Otherwise keep to selecting
qualified critics.

As for LDL, Barnard is an ignorant, biased blowhard with an agenda.
Reducing triglycerides and VLDL in the context of an increasing HDL to
LDL ratio is a success no pharmaceutical product can boast. Barnard
and other "critics" conveniently neglect the fact that a high carb
diet increases triglycerides, VLDL and LDL and at the same time
reduces HDL.

LDL is an indicator and not a cause. What is needed is actual
measurements of plaque build-up and arterial wall damage. But such
invasive observations will never be done while the test subjects are
alive.

"And the supposedly dramatic benefits of the diet do not hold up over
the long term," said Barnard, referring to the end of weight loss
after six months in the Stern study.

Another absurd absolutist statement. Many people keep on losing until
they reach ideal body weight. There is no expiration date on low
carbing. Stalls do not prove that a weight loss approach is a
failure. Listening to this idiot one would think that no other diet
has stalls.

Although broadly supportive of the Atkins regime, Yancy warns that the
diet could pose risks including the higher "bad" cholesterol, bone
loss and kidney stones. Because of this, he discourages first-time
dieters from using the regime.

What evidence is this based on? References?

Yancy is afraid of the sugar and grain pushers.