Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
Roger Zoul wrote:

aurora wrote:

:: 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)?

LOL Chunglish translation to English: "Bob continues to annoy me by
proving how shallow and superficial my knowledge of nutrition is, and
how I falsified my credentials to the AMA, so I have to try to tar him
with some brush that seems to discredit him without actually saying
anything substantive that can be disproven. I have to divert attention
from my own compulsive behavior of mentioning Bob by accusing him of
exactly what I'm doing."

LOL Pointing out Chung's fakery and falsification of credentials is
somehow muttering to him. And he claims to speak English. As spoken on
Jupiter, it seems. Poor guy.

Would be glad to reciprocate by sharing my view.

Now that's funny. As though Chung hasn't trolled and spammed his
2PoundStarvationDiet all over the internet so far. His IMAX-movie
inspiration for the world's nutritional problems. Hilarious. Zany
Chung thinks he hasn't already disqualified himself with his patently
preposterous 3600 calories in 2 pounds of potatoes, his 4000 calories
in 2 pounds of bread and 200 calories expended in an hour of running
(same figure for everyone no matter size or speed or terrain).

Oh, please. Let's have Chung give his views. LOL He'll write them
on the wall with crayons.

Bob

On 5/20/04 12:58 AM, in article ,
"PJx" wrote:

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.

I think the effect you observe can be explained differently:

We have our hunger more under control with low-carbing. Thus we naturally
eat less (even if what we eat is still a lot). So the first few months we
enjoy the pleasure of rapid weight loss without counting calories.

Then, after a certain number of months, our bodies reach a new equilibrium.
Our natural hunger reduction doesn't take us all the way down to goal. So we
realize we actually have to start limiting calories too.

This doesn't mean there was a metabolic advantage at all though.

doug

On 5/20/04 4:43 AM, in article
, "Doug Freyburger"
wrote:

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.


I'm afraid that Doug Freyburger is speaking incorrectly when he attempts to
summarize what I did and did not do on my diet.

According to the ketostix I recently bought, I was still in ketosis even at
the point I decided to switch to low-calorie. I just wasn't losing weight
any longer because I was eating too many calories.

doug

On 5/20/04 4:51 AM, in article
, "Doug Freyburger"
wrote:

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.

It's not sufficient to just forbid over-eating. Atkins definitely advocated
eating until you were full. And he did NOT advocate making substitutions
with lower-calorie foods to achieve fullness. Aurora is correct when writing
that Atkins was deceptive at worst or just plain incorrect at best in that
part of his approach.

I know that I only ate when hungry and never over-stuffed. And I was in
ketosis. And I essentially stopped losing weight after six months. I was
just eating too many calories.

The bottom line is that you just can't bypass conservation of energy.

doug

Doug Lerner wrote in message ...
On 5/20/04 4:43 AM, in article
, "Doug Freyburger"
wrote:

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.


I'm afraid that Doug Freyburger is speaking incorrectly when he attempts to
summarize what I did and did not do on my diet.

According to the ketostix I recently bought, I was still in ketosis even at
the point I decided to switch to low-calorie. I just wasn't losing weight
any longer because I was eating too many calories.

http://www.news-medical.net/view_article.asp?id=1690

News-Medical.net

Comparison study shows low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet loses more
weight than low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet

Posted By: News-Medical in Medical Study News

Published: Wednesday, 19-May-2004

People who followed a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet lost more
weight than people on a low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet
during a six-month comparison study at Duke University Medical Center.
However, the researchers caution that people with medical conditions
such as diabetes and high blood pressure should not start the diet
without close medical supervision.

"This diet can be quite powerful," said lead researcher Will Yancy,
M.D., an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University Medical
Center and a research associate at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center
in Durham, N.C. "We found that the low-carb diet was more effective
for weight loss," Yancy added. "The weight loss surprised me, to be
honest with you. We also found cholesterol levels seemed to improve
more on a low-carb diet compared to a low-fat diet."

The study is the first randomized, controlled trial of an Atkins-style
diet approach, which includes vitamin and nutritional supplements.
Along with losing an average of 26 pounds, dieters assigned to the
low-carbohydrate plan lost more body fat, and lowered their
triglyceride levels and raised their HDL, or good cholesterol, more
than the low-fat dieters. The low-fat dieters lost an average of 14
pounds. Though the low-fat diet group lowered their total cholesterol
more than the low-carb dieters, the latter group nearly halved their
triglycerides and their HDL jumped five points. The low-carbohydrate
group reported more adverse physical effects, such as constipation and
headaches, but fewer people dropped out of the low-carbohydrate diet
than the low-fat diet.

The results appear in the May 18, 2004, issue of the Annals of
Internal Medicine. The research was funded by an unrestricted grant
from the Robert C. Atkins Foundation. The study authors have no
financial interest in Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.

The study builds on earlier results by the Duke University Medical
Center researchers showing a low-carbohydrate diet can lead to weight
loss -- the first study of the low carbohydrate diet since 1980. Yancy
and co-investigator Eric Westman, M.D., are currently testing whether
a low-carbohydrate diet can help diabetics control their blood sugar
levels.

Despite the considerable weight loss experienced by the
low-carbohydrate dieters, Yancy does not recommend an Atkins-style
plan for patients attempting to lose weight for the first time.

"Over six months the diet appears relatively safe, but we need to
study the safety for longer durations," Yancy said. He also cautioned
that the diet could present certain health risks, such as elevations
in LDL cholesterol levels, bone loss, or kidney stones. This and other
recent studies of the low-carbohydrate diet have not demonstrated that
these health risks occur over short durations, but they might occur in
people on the diet for long-term. It is especially important that
people on diuretic or diabetes medications be monitored by a doctor
because the low-carbohydrate diet affects hydration and blood sugar
levels, Yancy said.

The 120 study participants were randomly assigned to either the
low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet or the low-fat, low-cholesterol,
low-calorie diet. All were between 18 and 65 years old and in
generally good health, with a body mass index (BMI) between 30 and 60,
indicating obesity, and a total cholesterol level of more than 200
mg/dL. None had tried dieting or weight loss pills in the previous six
months.

The low-carbohydrate group was permitted daily unlimited amounts of
animal foods (meat, fowl, fish and shellfish); unlimited eggs; 4 oz.
of hard cheese; two cups of salad vegetables such as lettuce, spinach
or celery; and one cup of low-carbohydrate vegetables such as
broccoli, cauliflower or squash. They also received daily nutritional
supplements recommended by Atkins -- a multivitamin, essential oils, a
diet formulation and chromium picolinate. There were no restrictions
on total calories, but carbohydrates were kept below 20 grams per day
at the start of the diet.

The low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie group followed a diet
consisting of less than 30 percent of daily caloric intake from fat;
less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat; and less than 300
milligrams of cholesterol daily. They were also advised to cut back on
calories. The recommended daily calorie level was 500 to 1,000
calories less than the participant's maintenance diet -- the calories
needed to maintain current weight.

Study participants were encouraged to exercise 30 minutes at least
three times per week, but no formal exercise program was provided.
Both sets of dieters had group meetings at an outpatient research
clinic regularly for six months.

Others members of the Duke research team were Maren Olsen, Ph.D.; John
Guyton, M.D.; Ronna Bakst, R.D.; and Eric Westman, M.D., who was
co-principal investigator for the study. The researchers maintained
exclusive control of all data and analyses.

http://www.dukemednews.org

On 20 May 2004 06:38:27 -0700, (Diarmid Logan)
wrote:

snip...
News-Medical.net

Comparison study shows low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet loses more
weight than low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet

Posted By: News-Medical in Medical Study News

Published: Wednesday, 19-May-2004

People who followed a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet lost more
weight than people on a low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet
during a six-month comparison study at Duke University Medical Center.
However, the researchers caution that people with medical conditions
such as diabetes and high blood pressure should not start the diet
without close medical supervision.
This is SOOOO disingenuous. One 6 month study showed this--but a
second 12-month study corroborated the study--up to the first 6
months. However, by the end of 12-months, there was virtually no
difference, with a gradual increase in weight.

Someone else suggested the idea of a shift from low carb to low fat
after 6 months.

The bigger trick is for people not to eat so much. Caloric intake is
too great. And WHAT those calories are--well, if they're from the
garbage pumped out by fast food franchises, it is little wonder that
there is increasing cardiovascular disease.

Hell, if Abbott, Pfizer, Roche, GSK and the lot were smart, they'd
merge with McDonald's to keep the price and use of statins high. They
might as well.

George M. Carter

GMCarter wrote:

On 20 May 2004 06:38:27 -0700, (Diarmid Logan)
wrote:

snip...
News-Medical.net

Comparison study shows low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet loses more
weight than low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet

Posted By: News-Medical in Medical Study News

Published: Wednesday, 19-May-2004

People who followed a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet lost more
weight than people on a low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet
during a six-month comparison study at Duke University Medical Center.
However, the researchers caution that people with medical conditions
such as diabetes and high blood pressure should not start the diet
without close medical supervision.
This is SOOOO disingenuous. One 6 month study showed this--but a
second 12-month study corroborated the study--up to the first 6
months. However, by the end of 12-months, there was virtually no
difference, with a gradual increase in weight.

Someone else suggested the idea of a shift from low carb to low fat
after 6 months.

The bigger trick is for people not to eat so much.

Agree.

Enter the 2PD approach:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

And, don't forget to involve your doctor before undertaking anything to
lose weight.


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 Fri, 21 May 2004 10:10:46 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

The bigger trick is for people not to eat so much.

No trick to it.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

gman99 wrote:

Herman Rubin wrote:

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...


i wouldn't be all that surprised if herman is correct

after all, diet is perhaps *the* most complex subject

stop and think about what has gone on with the
subject of fat this past 100 years...

at some point several decades ago, for whatever reason(s),
tests implicated saturated fats, and enough experts started
recommending that these fats be avoided so that it is now
very common in the news media (especially television) that
saturated fat is treated off-hand as a very bad fat

so people quit eating butter (and other fats that are saturated)
and started consuming margarines that are loaded with trans fats

but surprise surprise... now trans fats are implicated, so it seems
to me that people are likely to consume still *more* vegetable oils

which looks to me like another serious mistake which
will skew the balance of fats consumed (i.e. omega-3 vs
omega-6 vs omega-9 vs etc etc) and take another 30-to-50
years to show results

....and it won't surprise me a bit if they are bad results

one other example: about 15 years ago, McDonald's switched
their fat for french fries from tallow to a vegtable oil
*loaded* with trans fats. 2 years ago they switched again,
to another vegtable oil with less trans fats (but the oil
still has trans fats)

bill, t1 since '57

p.s. there are other experts out there...

check out the articles at:

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_you...your_fats.html

www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths.html

On Fri, 21 May 2004 12:01:47 -0400, Mosaic M_uns
wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2004 10:10:46 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

The bigger trick is for people not to eat so much.

No trick to it.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

Simple in concept, I agree! Personally for me, not a trouble.

The reality of eating is that people do it constantly. Sadly, the
foods available are mostly garbage, tasty and easily accessed.

One has to address the quasi-addictive aspects that afflict the mind
and psychology when it comes to eating. Such habits, developed over a
lifetime, shaped by the environment of a person's work, family and
recreational situations, are not readily changed. Indeed, hormonal
changes such as increased ghrellin excretion may cause biochemical
feedback loops of reward, not dissimilar to a rat fed cocaine when she
taps a lever.

It's easy for me: I don't eat a lot. But I have also had to
incorporate exercise into my daily routine. It is hard to develop NEW
habits to replace the old, dysfunctional ones and that is part of the
key. What do you do with your time/hands/attention when feeding is the
habit? Why, anything you want!! Opening to those possibilities is
sometimes daunting!

George M. Carter