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

Uncovering the Atkins diet secret



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 24th, 2004, 12:15 PM
rs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

(Diarmid Logan) wrote in message . com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3416637.stm

Uncovering the Atkins diet secret


There is no secret. There is clear and compelling scientific evidence
that the reason why a low-carbohydrate/low-glycemic diet leads to
weight loss is due to the reasons that Barry Sears suggests (read his
books for lists of studies), and it is related to insulin release in
response to high blood sugar (which signals fat storage) and the
body's preference for using sugar first over protein or fat for energy
when there is sugar in the bloodstream. Most nutritionists and
doctors have never even been familiarized with the literature
surrounding this and continue to recycle the same old belief that
calories are calories, regardless of the source.

The body's preference for using sugar first when protein and fat are
also present leads to problems with fat, protein, sugar and
cholesterol being left behind in the bloodstream. As an example, a
high carbohydrate diet has been proven to be the cause of abnormally
high levels of tryptophan in the blood. Also, vast histories of
experiments show that insulin drips into veins of lab animals causes
build-up of cholesterol in blood vessels and symptoms of heart
disease. This is not disputable. Sugar is being drawn into cells
leaving other things behind.

There is also pro-establishment propaganda going on which explains
much of this. It is not by accident that the guidelines in the food
pyramid developed by the department of agriculture help to maximize
profit for the food industry . People who pay attention to the news
will be aware of the numerous articles noting loss of profit for
processed food manufacturers recently due to the Atkins diet
popularity. Following a Zone, Atkins, or similar diet means touring
the periphery of the store and not going down the aisles unless it's
for atkins products. What does this mean for Betty Crocker, Nabisco,
Kellogg, OreIda, Coca-Cola?

While many of the people on the Atkin's diet are consuming less
calories than before, many people are actually consuming more and
still losing weight. The answer lies in understanding the mechanisms
of insulin signalling and sugar metabolism, and much of what has been
learned about all of this has been learned in the last decade.
Recently, aging itself has been linked to these issues, and
experiments in animals have shown that careful control of blood sugar
and insulin release can lead to slower aging and leaner animals.
There are also conditions like Syndrome X which more or less prove the
applicability to humans.
  #22  
Old January 24th, 2004, 01:35 PM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On 24 Jan 2004 03:15:56 -0800, (rs) posted:

(Diarmid Logan) wrote in message . com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3416637.stm

Uncovering the Atkins diet secret


There is no secret. There is clear and compelling scientific evidence
that the reason why a low-carbohydrate/low-glycemic diet leads to
weight loss is due to the reasons that Barry Sears suggests (read his
books for lists of studies), and it is related to insulin release in
response to high blood sugar


Where does this come from? Must be syndrome X?

(which signals fat storage) and the
body's preference for using sugar first over protein or fat for energy
when there is sugar in the bloodstream.


There is ALWAYS sugar in the bloodstream. Try hypoglycemia!
Not pleasant!

Most nutritionists and
doctors have never even been familiarized with the literature
surrounding this and continue to recycle the same old belief that
calories are calories, regardless of the source.


Huh? Have you written to a medical school about this oversight?


The body's preference for using sugar first when protein and fat are
also present leads to problems with fat, protein, sugar and
cholesterol being left behind in the bloodstream. As an example, a
high carbohydrate diet has been proven to be the cause of abnormally
high levels of tryptophan in the blood. Also, vast histories of
experiments show that insulin drips into veins of lab animals causes
build-up of cholesterol in blood vessels and symptoms of heart
disease. This is not disputable. Sugar is being drawn into cells
leaving other things behind.


Is this "voodoo" nutrition?

There is also pro-establishment propaganda going on which explains
much of this. It is not by accident that the guidelines in the food
pyramid developed by the department of agriculture help to maximize
profit for the food industry . People who pay attention to the news
will be aware of the numerous articles noting loss of profit for
processed food manufacturers recently due to the Atkins diet
popularity.


So meat, dairy, protein, and so on are not the product of the
agriculture industry? What then?

Following a Zone, Atkins, or similar diet means touring
the periphery of the store and not going down the aisles unless it's
for atkins products.


Are you equating a Zone diet, (40% carbs), with Atkins?

What does this mean for Betty Crocker, Nabisco,
Kellogg, OreIda, Coca-Cola?


And for the beef industry, dairy industry? Wheat has 12% protein, BTW.

While many of the people on the Atkin's diet are consuming less
calories than before, many people are actually consuming more and
still losing weight.


So can YOU show this metabolic lab study which shows that a
hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss?

The answer lies in understanding the mechanisms
of insulin signalling and sugar metabolism, and much of what has been
learned about all of this has been learned in the last decade.


Example? I think you've missed something from decades ago.

Recently, aging itself has been linked to these issues, and
experiments in animals have shown that careful control of blood sugar
and insulin release can lead to slower aging and leaner animals.
There are also conditions like Syndrome X which more or less prove the
applicability to humans.


Well, yes....

Moosh



  #24  
Old January 24th, 2004, 01:59 PM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:18:36 GMT, posted:

"Robin Smith" writes:
1) Proves the 1st law of thermodynamics still applies. Theres no
magic to weight loss its calorie deficit every time...


Moosh wrote:
So please tell us of any metabolic lab study that shows that a
hypercaloric diet can ever result in fat storage loss.


I'm curious--when was ASDLC invaded by this crowd? I've been reading
here on-and-off for four years or more, and have never encountered
this before.


ASDLC? OK, I looked above I'm posting on smn.

In the past, it was well recognized that calories are not
irrelevant--that eating 5,000 cal/day will not result in weight
loss


It will if you burn 5,001 cal/day.

--but it was also recognized, as most of us experienced, that the
same calorie budget had different weight-loss effects depending upon
its composition. I've gained on 2200 cal/day with 50% or more of
calories from CHO, and I've lost on 2200 cal/day with ~5% of calories
from CHO. Others have had similar experiences.


So can you point us to any metabolic lab studies that confirm your
suspicions?

Lately, it appears that the majority here are convinced that calorie
deficit is the be-all, end-all of weight loss--and that the only
function of reduced CHO is to reduce apetite.


Apetite is voluntary. If you absorb more calories than you expend, you
gain weight. Never been faulted, unless you have some evidence I've
not yet seen.

Moosh also wrote:
Try protein, glucose in the blood, and stomach distension. Fat can
help maintain stomach distension a bit longer. Its effect is only
secondary


I thought we'd put the idea that a stomach full of sawdust can produce
satiety.


Huh? Doesn't really matter what it is full of (non-toxic, of course),
and that you have sufficient glucose and amino acids in the
bloodstream

Apparently that idiot Ornish is still making converts. (Hint:
many people who lack adequate nutrition adopt strategies to distend
the stomach in hopes of relieving their hunger, such as drinking as
much water as they can hold. It doesn't work.)


Well many aboriginal people actually eat things like clay, but there
you go. It won't completely make the pangs go away, but it certainly
helps, apparently.

I miss the old group. Where has it gone?


Which group are you talking about? The low cal? Haven't seen
crossposting before?

Moosh
  #25  
Old January 24th, 2004, 02:42 PM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:58:02 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:07:13 GMT,
posted:
writes:
On 23 Jan 2004 12:07:49 -0800,
(tcomeau) posted:

It has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermo. They apply to a
closed system. The human body is not a closed system.

Where does it state that the "conservation of energy principle"
applies only to a closed system?

In any text that covers thermodynamics. However, some conclusions
can be drawn anyway; the previous poster is incorrect.


Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy
transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is.


Never said otherwise.


OK, I thought you said conservation of energy only occurred in a
"closed system" (whatever that arbitrary system means exactly).

However, a locked room containing food for a month and a chemical
toilet IS a closed system.


Exactly! Draw the boundaries and measure the energy transfers.


Yup.

The human body can be studied as a closed system. It depends what you
measure and how rigorously.

Right.


I've been waiting many months for TC to point out ANY metabolic lab
study to show that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage
loss. No show, but he still persists.


I'm not sure what you mean by "hypercaloric". Nobody has ever disputed
that a normal person eating 5000 cal/day will not lose weight. What is
claimed, and some of us have measured in practice, is that changing
the source of calories WITHOUT changing the number of calories has
changed us from gaining or maintaining to losing.


So show us the metabolic lab studies to back this assetion up.
"Hypercaloric" means taking more calories into the body than are
expended by that same body. There are two other self-explanatory terms
that go with this; "Eucaloric", and "hypocaloric".

Here the SECOND law of thermodynamics is relevant: no conversion is
100% efficient. Therefore, an easy corollary states that two different
conversion methods are a priori unlikely to exhibit the same efficiency.


The general principle of conservation of energy means that a calorie
can neither be created nor destroyed. All must be accounted for.
Efficiency is irrelevant. All calories into this system (the human
body) must exactly equal all calories out of this system. If they
don't, then the measurements are wrong, until you can get the Nobel
Prize for changing Faraday's Laws

I am unaware of any study measuring the exact conversion efficiency of
the conversion process for various fats and simple or complex carbs.


Conversion to what? All chemical reaction pathways have been studied
rigorously. There are reference books that can tell you the exact
thermal equations for every known chemical reaction.

Moosh
  #26  
Old January 24th, 2004, 04:55 PM
Mirek Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

Are you equating a Zone diet, (40% carbs), with Atkins?

Just for your information, maintainance Atkins is hardly distinguishable
from Zone...

Mirek


  #27  
Old January 24th, 2004, 07:37 PM
tcomeau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:07:13 GMT, posted:

writes:
On 23 Jan 2004 12:07:49 -0800,
(tcomeau) posted:

It has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermo. They apply to a
closed system. The human body is not a closed system.

Where does it state that the "conservation of energy principle"
applies only to a closed system?


In any text that covers thermodynamics. However, some conclusions can
be drawn anyway; the previous poster is incorrect.


Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy
transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is.

And what do you understand by a closed system?


A closed system is any system which has no energy sources or
sinks. The body is not "closed" because food provides an external
source of energy, and the toilet provides an external sink (!).

However, a locked room containing food for a month and a chemical
toilet IS a closed system.


Exactly!
Draw the boundaries and measure the energy transfers.

The human body can be studied as a closed system. It depends what you
measure and how rigorously.


Right.


I've been waiting many months for TC to point out ANY metabolic lab
study to show that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss.
No show, but he still persists.

Moosh


And I've been waiting just as long for you to show us the one seminal
metabolic lab study, or any metabolic lab study that conclusively
proves otherwise. I'm still waiting. I may not have the study to
disprove the calorie fallacy, but you do not have the study or studies
that proved it in the first place. You are placing your trust in a
theory that has never been proven scientifically, it has only been
assumed.

TC
  #28  
Old January 24th, 2004, 07:51 PM
tcomeau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jan 2004 18:02:47 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:


snip


Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little
bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans.

TC


snip


The only thing
complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to
the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never
be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans.


So show us the study. You've claimed this nonsense for years with not
a shred of evidence. Make with the evidence please. Metabolic lab
study showing hypercaloric diet results in fat storage loss.

Moosh


OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight
management in the human body, and you further insist that there is no
other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor.
If that is the case then it applies in *every* circumstance with no
exceptions. No Exceptions. That is the nature of a *Law* of physics.
No Exceptions. In this case we are not restricted to metabolic lab
studies to disprove the applicability of the Law of Thermo to weight
management in the human body. One exception, and only one exceprion,
is enough to disprove the idea that the Law of Thermo applies to
weight management in the human body.

Here is one study that shows that calories are not the last word on
weight mangement in humans.

*********************
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.
******************
  #29  
Old January 25th, 2004, 07:03 PM
Mirek Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh

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

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


I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC
waterloss...

Mirek


  #30  
Old January 25th, 2004, 07:28 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000620.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.


sigh.... you poor idiot....

Extremes do not prove or disprove anything other than the extreme.



So would you please point out any metabolic lab study that shows that
a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss as you keep
claiming?

Moosh



Great programme on BBC last week. Scientists have been puzzled by the
success of Atkins diet but conclusion is that protein food makes you
feel full but they still maintain it is dangerous. Diana (a non
dieter)
 




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
Low carb diets General Discussion 249 January 9th, 2004 12:15 AM
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy Diarmid Logan General Discussion 23 December 14th, 2003 12:39 PM
CIMT Noninvasive testing for atherosclerosis or "hardening of the arteries" Mineral Mu_n General Discussion 16 October 30th, 2003 08:40 AM
The Atkins Spousal Syndrome: Partners of Low-Carb Dieters Suffer Mars at the Mu_n's Edge General Discussion 0 October 28th, 2003 05:08 PM
Is this better than Atkins? Ferrante General Discussion 13 October 8th, 2003 08:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:37 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.