Atkins diet has long-term dangers, researchers warn

"Ignoramus1166" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert wrote:

"Ignoramus26161"

You have earned your name sake.

You site a dietary study involving people with MI who have proven heart
disease. These are diseased individuals who need medical intervention.
It is
there genetic makeup along with lack of exercise along with nutritional
problems. You can not simply rely on nutritional changes to help them
out.
It does not prove anything as far as the cause of the heart disease.

Um, are you saying that all patients with MI get it due to "genetic
makeup"?

Not just genetic makeup but environmental factors in association with their
genetic makeup.


If so, why are you blaming their diet (fat intake) for MI?

Because there is fat in their arteries causing the blockage.


If you are blaming their fat intake, how come changing fat intake does
not change their mortality, as it should, if you take your words to
conclusion?
Because it is not enough a reduction in solely relying on diet. They have a
disease that needs a lot more in reducing lipids than simply diet.


You say that ``You can not simply rely on nutritional changes to help
them out''

That flatly contradicts the study, which showed that certain diet
changes involving eating a particular kind of fat, actually helps
them.

In some sure, but you can not count on everybody. Diet is the first step and
then you do successive steps.


What the study makes pretty apparent, is that telling them to eat less
fat does not work. Telling them to eat more fatty fish does work,
giving those people impressive 29% reduction in mortality.

The response rate on what does or doesn't work is based on their genetic
makeup. You can not say it will work for everybody as it is not one sole
cause. If you have high homocyteine levels fish does what? You are better
off taking folate and B vitamins. It is a combination of approaches one
takes and the one that works is the one that is usually lacking
corresponding to your genetic makeup.


So, you are wrong in saying that diet changes would not work for those
people.

I did not say that. I said diet is not the sole determinant or final end
treatment for heart disease. You have to take it on a one to one basis.

In alt.support.diet.low-carb Ignoramus1166 wrote:

2) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet does not work

That seems to be contradicted by all the people who are reporting vast
beneficial changes in their overall cholesterol and their ratios as well
due to following a low-carb diet.

Priscilla

In alt.support.diet.low-carb Ignoramus1166 wrote:

2) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet does not work

That seems to be contradicted by all the people who are reporting vast
beneficial changes in their overall cholesterol and their ratios as well
due to following a low-carb diet.

Priscilla

"Ignoramus1166"
Yes and that doesn't make it good for some of us just because our bodies
makes it.

Good point. But, again, if you check out the cholesterol myths book,
you will see that

1) Association between cholesterol and heart disease is spurious if
you do not consider 1% of people who suffer from a genetic disease
called familial hypercholesterolemia

That is a myth implying that only people with "genetic" familial
hypercholesterolemia have problems. There are many other types of genetic
abnormalities involving lipids. Some with various gene dossage.
The spurious results come from the old testing compared to the newer testing
now. A total cholesterol in one patient having a heart attack being the same
in another not having any problems. The problem is that the breakdown of the
specific types of LDL were not performed.

2) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet does not work

Who said it has to be dietary cholesterol that is the sole problem. The body
makes cholesterol on it's own and it is a genetic misprint in the balance.
Look at this logic. Glucose is not the problem in type I diabetes because a
low carb diet does not cure and people die.

3) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet and drugs does not reduce
overall mortality. There are good reasons to suspect that statins also
stimulate cancer, which takes longer to find out than any of the
studies took.

There are many studies about lowering cholesterol and the benefits. You will
not find any long term studies on newer drugs for obvious reasons, because
they are new. They are also being replaced by newer ones rendering some of
the older ones less disirable as side effect profile starts to increase with
large use.

I will be happy to supply you with references, if interested.

Our body makes a lot of things that are not good for us including
cancers and over active inflammatory diseases.

Agreed.


If you are interested, I can dig up some references and so on.

Check out this website for excerpts from the cholesterol myth book,
complete with references to actual studies mentioned.

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

A bunch of crap based on speculation that is never ending.

Try to read studies referenced in that book.


What exactly causes heart disease is not completely clear to science.

But YOU ARE SURE IT ISN"T CHOLESTEROL. What a fool.

Insults, my friend, are not a substitute for a healthy discussion.

Ok, I had a bad day on that so I take it back.


They don't know what causes heart disease but you know it isn't
cholesterol
based on an idiotic book. Go read some more comic books.

It is not a comic book, if you bothered to read it, you may become
more informed...


Some factors, such as smoking or diabetes, increase the risk of heart
attacks, but the mechanisms have not, to my knowledge, been completely
elucidated.

The S447X polymorphism at the LPL locus interacts with both cigarette
smoking and alcohol consumption in relation to HDL-cholesterol
concentration. In terms of raising HDL-cholesterol, Homozygotes for the
S447
allele may benefit more from smoking cessation and less from increasing
alcohol intake. These observations may provide the first steps in our
ability to personalize dietary therapy to maximize the risk reduction
achievable.

PMID: 15294478 [PubMed - in process]

The metabolic syndrome (MS) poses an increased risk for the development
of
diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular events. The syndrome typically
includes
dyslipidemia, characterized by elevated plasma triglycerides and low
high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. Retrospective
analyses
of coronary artery disease outcomes trials in patient subpopulations
with
diabetes or the MS indicate that lipid-altering therapies provide
benefits
for patients with the MS at least as much as observed in patients
without
diabetes or the MS. Analyses of the effects of lipid-altering therapy on
the
lipid profile in patients with the MS also indicate that beneficial
lipid
changes are similar in patients with the MS compared with those in
patients
without the MS. The benefits of statin treatment in patients with the MS
have become increasingly clear, and it is likely that further
improvements
in treatment may be achieved with newer statins or a combination of
lipid-altering drugs. Prospective data from clinical trials examining
the
preventive effects of lipid-altering therapy in MS patients are needed
to
better define potential benefits and optimal treatment in this
population.

It is a review and I am not sure what it reviews. Do you have the full
text?

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 15178513 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


If you can correct me and know something I do not know, I
would love to see you clarify this issue as I myself took great
interest in it.

i

Try reading the new book "The myth about the myth of cholesterol"



I am not interested in your insults, if you cannot maintain a civil
discussion or discuss something of substance, then you'd be of no
interest to me.

i

"Ignoramus1166"
Yes and that doesn't make it good for some of us just because our bodies
makes it.

Good point. But, again, if you check out the cholesterol myths book,
you will see that

1) Association between cholesterol and heart disease is spurious if
you do not consider 1% of people who suffer from a genetic disease
called familial hypercholesterolemia

That is a myth implying that only people with "genetic" familial
hypercholesterolemia have problems. There are many other types of genetic
abnormalities involving lipids. Some with various gene dossage.
The spurious results come from the old testing compared to the newer testing
now. A total cholesterol in one patient having a heart attack being the same
in another not having any problems. The problem is that the breakdown of the
specific types of LDL were not performed.

2) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet does not work

Who said it has to be dietary cholesterol that is the sole problem. The body
makes cholesterol on it's own and it is a genetic misprint in the balance.
Look at this logic. Glucose is not the problem in type I diabetes because a
low carb diet does not cure and people die.

3) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet and drugs does not reduce
overall mortality. There are good reasons to suspect that statins also
stimulate cancer, which takes longer to find out than any of the
studies took.

There are many studies about lowering cholesterol and the benefits. You will
not find any long term studies on newer drugs for obvious reasons, because
they are new. They are also being replaced by newer ones rendering some of
the older ones less disirable as side effect profile starts to increase with
large use.

I will be happy to supply you with references, if interested.

Our body makes a lot of things that are not good for us including
cancers and over active inflammatory diseases.

Agreed.


If you are interested, I can dig up some references and so on.

Check out this website for excerpts from the cholesterol myth book,
complete with references to actual studies mentioned.

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

A bunch of crap based on speculation that is never ending.

Try to read studies referenced in that book.


What exactly causes heart disease is not completely clear to science.

But YOU ARE SURE IT ISN"T CHOLESTEROL. What a fool.

Insults, my friend, are not a substitute for a healthy discussion.

Ok, I had a bad day on that so I take it back.


They don't know what causes heart disease but you know it isn't
cholesterol
based on an idiotic book. Go read some more comic books.

It is not a comic book, if you bothered to read it, you may become
more informed...


Some factors, such as smoking or diabetes, increase the risk of heart
attacks, but the mechanisms have not, to my knowledge, been completely
elucidated.

The S447X polymorphism at the LPL locus interacts with both cigarette
smoking and alcohol consumption in relation to HDL-cholesterol
concentration. In terms of raising HDL-cholesterol, Homozygotes for the
S447
allele may benefit more from smoking cessation and less from increasing
alcohol intake. These observations may provide the first steps in our
ability to personalize dietary therapy to maximize the risk reduction
achievable.

PMID: 15294478 [PubMed - in process]

The metabolic syndrome (MS) poses an increased risk for the development
of
diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular events. The syndrome typically
includes
dyslipidemia, characterized by elevated plasma triglycerides and low
high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. Retrospective
analyses
of coronary artery disease outcomes trials in patient subpopulations
with
diabetes or the MS indicate that lipid-altering therapies provide
benefits
for patients with the MS at least as much as observed in patients
without
diabetes or the MS. Analyses of the effects of lipid-altering therapy on
the
lipid profile in patients with the MS also indicate that beneficial
lipid
changes are similar in patients with the MS compared with those in
patients
without the MS. The benefits of statin treatment in patients with the MS
have become increasingly clear, and it is likely that further
improvements
in treatment may be achieved with newer statins or a combination of
lipid-altering drugs. Prospective data from clinical trials examining
the
preventive effects of lipid-altering therapy in MS patients are needed
to
better define potential benefits and optimal treatment in this
population.

It is a review and I am not sure what it reviews. Do you have the full
text?

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 15178513 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


If you can correct me and know something I do not know, I
would love to see you clarify this issue as I myself took great
interest in it.

i

Try reading the new book "The myth about the myth of cholesterol"



I am not interested in your insults, if you cannot maintain a civil
discussion or discuss something of substance, then you'd be of no
interest to me.

i

In alt.support.diet.low-carb Ignoramus1166 wrote:
In article , Priscilla H Ballou wrote:
In alt.support.diet.low-carb Ignoramus1166 wrote:

2) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet does not work

That seems to be contradicted by all the people who are reporting vast
beneficial changes in their overall cholesterol and their ratios as well
due to following a low-carb diet.

Thank you for correcting me. We discussed low fat diets and dangers of
fat, so, by speaking in that context, I mis-stated my assertion by
saying it too broadly.

You're welcome. Glad to be of assistance.

Priscilla

In alt.support.diet.low-carb Ignoramus1166 wrote:
In article , Priscilla H Ballou wrote:
In alt.support.diet.low-carb Ignoramus1166 wrote:

2) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet does not work

That seems to be contradicted by all the people who are reporting vast
beneficial changes in their overall cholesterol and their ratios as well
due to following a low-carb diet.

Thank you for correcting me. We discussed low fat diets and dangers of
fat, so, by speaking in that context, I mis-stated my assertion by
saying it too broadly.

You're welcome. Glad to be of assistance.

Priscilla

"Ignoramus1166" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert wrote:

"Ignoramus1166" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert wrote:

"Ignoramus26161"

You have earned your name sake.

You site a dietary study involving people with MI who have proven
heart
disease. These are diseased individuals who need medical
intervention.
It is
there genetic makeup along with lack of exercise along with
nutritional
problems. You can not simply rely on nutritional changes to help them
out.
It does not prove anything as far as the cause of the heart disease.

Um, are you saying that all patients with MI get it due to "genetic
makeup"?

Not just genetic makeup but environmental factors in association with
their
genetic makeup.

Originally, you said "it is there (sic) genetic makeup".

When you control variables by eliminating food as a variable as when you
feed everyone the same foods, then that is correct. The only variable,
assuming other environmentals are also controlled, leaves the genetic
component as the one.



If so, why are you blaming their diet (fat intake) for MI?

Because there is fat in their arteries causing the blockage.

Artierial plagues are made of several components, fat, cholesterol,
cellular waste products, and calcium.

Our livers make fat and cholesterol.

That is correct and all of those components are are targets in therapy.
Calcium channel blockers are used in blood pressure meds. You forgot
platelets which is why you take aspirin.
As far as our livers making fat and cholesterol, pathophysiology is normal
physiology gone wrong.


If you are blaming their fat intake, how come changing fat intake does
not change their mortality, as it should, if you take your words to
conclusion?

Because it is not enough a reduction in solely relying on diet. They
have a
disease that needs a lot more in reducing lipids than simply diet.

It is strange. You blame their diet (implying blaming fats in their
diet) for raising cholesterol, and yet, you admit that eating less fat
does not improve their situation!
I blame their genetics in combination of diet and environmentals as factors
and simply trying to control one might not be enough. If diet alone does the
trick then fine but it rarely does. Eating less fat is healthier with
regards to many other health issues like cancer and not only with regards to
heart disease.



You say that ``You can not simply rely on nutritional changes to help
them out''

That flatly contradicts the study, which showed that certain diet
changes involving eating a particular kind of fat, actually helps
them.

In some sure, but you can not count on everybody. Diet is the first step
and
then you do successive steps.

You are mistaken. It was a randomized study, a large random sample of
patients showed great reduction in mortality from eating FATTY
fish. There was no improvement in the group that was told to eat less
fat.

Well, the fish oils are not quite the same as saturated animals fats. They
have unique properties of serving as anticoagulants that thin the blood.
They have blood thinners which can be used as well. Fish oils can be used
They also lower blood lipids. The question of mercury contamination then
comes into play and the recommended amount of fish one should eat per week.




What the study makes pretty apparent, is that telling them to eat less
fat does not work. Telling them to eat more fatty fish does work,
giving those people impressive 29% reduction in mortality.

The response rate on what does or doesn't work is based on their genetic
makeup. You can not say it will work for everybody as it is not one sole
cause.

Of course all people are different. But, we know that in a large
sample of people reduced mortality from eating fatty fish by 29%, and
another large sample did not reduce mortality when advised to eat less
fat.

It isn't usually one or the other but both. It is best to get a good lipid
profile and see what specifically you need in one's own case and then rely
on generalizations. There are specific profiles that are helped more than
others with fish oils. In 71% of cases the fish oils did not do it's job.

So, the obvious conclusion is, advising similar patients to eat less
fat is useless, whereas advising them to eat FATTY fish is useful.

No, less fat is good and fish oils are good but even better than that is to
get a specific lipid profile and other risk factors on yourself to check for
all the risk factors of which lipids are only one. That would include CRP
and homocyteine levels. The goal is to check for all risk factors and have
them taken care of. That is especially true of family histories for heart
disease.
If you want to go blindly by generalizations involving diet then that's a
choice one can make.

So, you are wrong in saying that diet changes would not work for those
people.

I did not say that. I said diet is not the sole determinant or final end
treatment for heart disease. You have to take it on a one to one basis.

What the study showed is that eqting less fat does nothing for
treating heart disease.

i
So your point being that one should then take lipid lowering drugs to
achieve what diet reduction could not is a good point worth noting.

"Ignoramus1166" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert wrote:

"Ignoramus1166" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert wrote:

"Ignoramus26161"

You have earned your name sake.

You site a dietary study involving people with MI who have proven
heart
disease. These are diseased individuals who need medical
intervention.
It is
there genetic makeup along with lack of exercise along with
nutritional
problems. You can not simply rely on nutritional changes to help them
out.
It does not prove anything as far as the cause of the heart disease.

Um, are you saying that all patients with MI get it due to "genetic
makeup"?

Not just genetic makeup but environmental factors in association with
their
genetic makeup.

Originally, you said "it is there (sic) genetic makeup".

When you control variables by eliminating food as a variable as when you
feed everyone the same foods, then that is correct. The only variable,
assuming other environmentals are also controlled, leaves the genetic
component as the one.



If so, why are you blaming their diet (fat intake) for MI?

Because there is fat in their arteries causing the blockage.

Artierial plagues are made of several components, fat, cholesterol,
cellular waste products, and calcium.

Our livers make fat and cholesterol.

That is correct and all of those components are are targets in therapy.
Calcium channel blockers are used in blood pressure meds. You forgot
platelets which is why you take aspirin.
As far as our livers making fat and cholesterol, pathophysiology is normal
physiology gone wrong.


If you are blaming their fat intake, how come changing fat intake does
not change their mortality, as it should, if you take your words to
conclusion?

Because it is not enough a reduction in solely relying on diet. They
have a
disease that needs a lot more in reducing lipids than simply diet.

It is strange. You blame their diet (implying blaming fats in their
diet) for raising cholesterol, and yet, you admit that eating less fat
does not improve their situation!
I blame their genetics in combination of diet and environmentals as factors
and simply trying to control one might not be enough. If diet alone does the
trick then fine but it rarely does. Eating less fat is healthier with
regards to many other health issues like cancer and not only with regards to
heart disease.



You say that ``You can not simply rely on nutritional changes to help
them out''

That flatly contradicts the study, which showed that certain diet
changes involving eating a particular kind of fat, actually helps
them.

In some sure, but you can not count on everybody. Diet is the first step
and
then you do successive steps.

You are mistaken. It was a randomized study, a large random sample of
patients showed great reduction in mortality from eating FATTY
fish. There was no improvement in the group that was told to eat less
fat.

Well, the fish oils are not quite the same as saturated animals fats. They
have unique properties of serving as anticoagulants that thin the blood.
They have blood thinners which can be used as well. Fish oils can be used
They also lower blood lipids. The question of mercury contamination then
comes into play and the recommended amount of fish one should eat per week.




What the study makes pretty apparent, is that telling them to eat less
fat does not work. Telling them to eat more fatty fish does work,
giving those people impressive 29% reduction in mortality.

The response rate on what does or doesn't work is based on their genetic
makeup. You can not say it will work for everybody as it is not one sole
cause.

Of course all people are different. But, we know that in a large
sample of people reduced mortality from eating fatty fish by 29%, and
another large sample did not reduce mortality when advised to eat less
fat.

It isn't usually one or the other but both. It is best to get a good lipid
profile and see what specifically you need in one's own case and then rely
on generalizations. There are specific profiles that are helped more than
others with fish oils. In 71% of cases the fish oils did not do it's job.

So, the obvious conclusion is, advising similar patients to eat less
fat is useless, whereas advising them to eat FATTY fish is useful.

No, less fat is good and fish oils are good but even better than that is to
get a specific lipid profile and other risk factors on yourself to check for
all the risk factors of which lipids are only one. That would include CRP
and homocyteine levels. The goal is to check for all risk factors and have
them taken care of. That is especially true of family histories for heart
disease.
If you want to go blindly by generalizations involving diet then that's a
choice one can make.

So, you are wrong in saying that diet changes would not work for those
people.

I did not say that. I said diet is not the sole determinant or final end
treatment for heart disease. You have to take it on a one to one basis.

What the study showed is that eqting less fat does nothing for
treating heart disease.

i
So your point being that one should then take lipid lowering drugs to
achieve what diet reduction could not is a good point worth noting.

"Ignoramus1166" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert wrote:

"Ignoramus1166" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert wrote:

"Ignoramus26161"

You have earned your name sake.

You site a dietary study involving people with MI who have proven
heart
disease. These are diseased individuals who need medical
intervention.
It is
there genetic makeup along with lack of exercise along with
nutritional
problems. You can not simply rely on nutritional changes to help them
out.
It does not prove anything as far as the cause of the heart disease.

Um, are you saying that all patients with MI get it due to "genetic
makeup"?

Not just genetic makeup but environmental factors in association with
their
genetic makeup.

Originally, you said "it is there (sic) genetic makeup".

When you control variables by eliminating food as a variable as when you
feed everyone the same foods, then that is correct. The only variable,
assuming other environmentals are also controlled, leaves the genetic
component as the one.



If so, why are you blaming their diet (fat intake) for MI?

Because there is fat in their arteries causing the blockage.

Artierial plagues are made of several components, fat, cholesterol,
cellular waste products, and calcium.

Our livers make fat and cholesterol.

That is correct and all of those components are are targets in therapy.
Calcium channel blockers are used in blood pressure meds. You forgot
platelets which is why you take aspirin.
As far as our livers making fat and cholesterol, pathophysiology is normal
physiology gone wrong.


If you are blaming their fat intake, how come changing fat intake does
not change their mortality, as it should, if you take your words to
conclusion?

Because it is not enough a reduction in solely relying on diet. They
have a
disease that needs a lot more in reducing lipids than simply diet.

It is strange. You blame their diet (implying blaming fats in their
diet) for raising cholesterol, and yet, you admit that eating less fat
does not improve their situation!
I blame their genetics in combination of diet and environmentals as factors
and simply trying to control one might not be enough. If diet alone does the
trick then fine but it rarely does. Eating less fat is healthier with
regards to many other health issues like cancer and not only with regards to
heart disease.



You say that ``You can not simply rely on nutritional changes to help
them out''

That flatly contradicts the study, which showed that certain diet
changes involving eating a particular kind of fat, actually helps
them.

In some sure, but you can not count on everybody. Diet is the first step
and
then you do successive steps.

You are mistaken. It was a randomized study, a large random sample of
patients showed great reduction in mortality from eating FATTY
fish. There was no improvement in the group that was told to eat less
fat.

Well, the fish oils are not quite the same as saturated animals fats. They
have unique properties of serving as anticoagulants that thin the blood.
They have blood thinners which can be used as well. Fish oils can be used
They also lower blood lipids. The question of mercury contamination then
comes into play and the recommended amount of fish one should eat per week.




What the study makes pretty apparent, is that telling them to eat less
fat does not work. Telling them to eat more fatty fish does work,
giving those people impressive 29% reduction in mortality.

The response rate on what does or doesn't work is based on their genetic
makeup. You can not say it will work for everybody as it is not one sole
cause.

Of course all people are different. But, we know that in a large
sample of people reduced mortality from eating fatty fish by 29%, and
another large sample did not reduce mortality when advised to eat less
fat.

It isn't usually one or the other but both. It is best to get a good lipid
profile and see what specifically you need in one's own case and then rely
on generalizations. There are specific profiles that are helped more than
others with fish oils. In 71% of cases the fish oils did not do it's job.

So, the obvious conclusion is, advising similar patients to eat less
fat is useless, whereas advising them to eat FATTY fish is useful.

No, less fat is good and fish oils are good but even better than that is to
get a specific lipid profile and other risk factors on yourself to check for
all the risk factors of which lipids are only one. That would include CRP
and homocyteine levels. The goal is to check for all risk factors and have
them taken care of. That is especially true of family histories for heart
disease.
If you want to go blindly by generalizations involving diet then that's a
choice one can make.

So, you are wrong in saying that diet changes would not work for those
people.

I did not say that. I said diet is not the sole determinant or final end
treatment for heart disease. You have to take it on a one to one basis.

What the study showed is that eqting less fat does nothing for
treating heart disease.

i
So your point being that one should then take lipid lowering drugs to
achieve what diet reduction could not is a good point worth noting.