'Put fat children on Atkins diet'

Your argument isn't really fair. Low fat has more studies only
because it's been around longer. But 20 or 30 years ago, there were
far fewer studies on low fat, and people still put their kids on it.
I suspect this is because low fat is more intuitive.


It was because there was such a huge marking ploy. that's how low fat really got
going.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message . com...
She gained weight on a cambridge bar and a tab. july 8,2003

Well the "tab" was at the local pizzeria...

Katie K.

"katie k" wrote in message
om...
"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message
. com...
She gained weight on a cambridge bar and a tab. july 8,2003

Well the "tab" was at the local pizzeria...


Hahaha.

brian lanning wrote or quoted:

Low fat has more studies only because it's been around longer.
But 20 or 30 years ago, there were far fewer studies on low fat,
and people still put their kids on it.

Back in the diet dark ages, yes.

It's true that we have no long term studies of low carb diets. But
it's just as unreasonable to assume that it's unsafe as it is to
assume that it's safe. We just don't know, long term.
That, to me, says that we need to exercise caution when
considering whether to put a child on a low carb diet.

That's what it says to me as well. We don't know what
what the risks or the benefits are. Low carb diets have
not been properly tested.

If the child is only 10 pounds overweight, for example, then maybe
it's not worth the risk. But if the child is one of these five
year olds that weighs over 100 pounds, maybe they should try it.

Why? You speak as though it was the only way to lose weight. That
is definitely not the case.

In the short term, I think it's fair to argue that the health benefits
of losing weight outweigh the possible risks.

The Atkins diet is not the only one to offer weight loss. Following
any low calorie diet will produce that effect.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

"Mark D." wrote in message
...
"Jeff" wrote in message
news:c36t9k$hl1@library1.

Actually, these work, if you do them.

Plenty of things 'work if you do them'. So what?

Do you have a better idea?

Damn right.

See if you can guess what it involves.

Thanks for your constructive comments.

I really appreciate them.

Have a great day!

Jeff

M.

Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the "low-carb"
advocates is their lack of distinction between simple carbs, i.e. sugars,
and complex carbs, i.e. fruits and vegetables.

Completely putting aside the question of whether or not eating sugars and
high-glycemic foods (that turn into sugars very quickly) injures the body
directly, one thing's for sure -- it definitely feeds the "sweet tooth" that
ATTRACTS one to over-eating. I imagine that is why the "sweet tooth"
evolved through natural selection -- because it attracted us to fruits that,
when we ate them, benefited both us (high nutrition) and them (seed
distribution).

But now, the sweet tooth attracts us mostly to "bad", manufactured foods.
The sweet taste comes from added sugars, such as the apparently-dangerous
high-fructose corn syrup, or artificial sweetener. Even though the
artificial sweeteners may have a decided advantage in not promoting diabetes
as the sugars do, the disadvantage is that they are still food-attractants,
leading us to over-eating.

Example: recently, I have been eating bite-sized shredded wheat and bran
with several kinds of fruit for breakfast. That product has 1 gm. per
serving of sugars and does not taste sweet in the least. It is just wheat &
wheat bran, period. I purchased a box of another "high-fiber" cereal that
listed 0 grams of sugars per serving. Although, after wheat bran, it listed
corn bran as a second ingredient (corn is high-glycemic), I decided to try
it.

One bite caused me to look more closely at the nutrition label because that
stuff was REALLY sweet! It contained Sucralose. Because I have grown used
to non-sweetened cereal, the taste was cloying but, still, there was also a
desire to eat more and more of it, unlike the un-sweetened cereal. I
immediately put it all down the disposal.

I went from eating foods laced with sugar to foods laced with artificial
sweetener to foods with no sweeteners of any kind. Sort of a gradual
withdrawal from sweets. Now, after some months of being off the sweet
taste, I am obviously more inclined to reject it than to look for it. But
that took some doing.

My current idea about this is that artificial sweeteners, aside from any
intrinsic dangers they may or may not pose, are something we should wean
ourselves away from if we want to practice any form of calorie restriction,
just because they are VERY powerful food-attractants and are likely to
entice us into over-eating or even to binge on the sweetened food.

mack
austin

"Tim Tyler" wrote

Among obese patients, weight loss was associated with longer diet
duration (P =.002), restriction of calorie intake (P =.03), but not
with reduced carbohydrate content (P =.90). Low-carbohydrate diets had
no significant adverse effect on serum lipid, fasting serum glucose,
and fasting serum insulin levels, or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: There
is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use
of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than
age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or
less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight
loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with
decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with
reduced carbohydrate content.''

- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12684364
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the "low-carb"
advocates is their lack of distinction between simple carbs, i.e. sugars,
and complex carbs, i.e. fruits and vegetables.

Completely putting aside the question of whether or not eating sugars and
high-glycemic foods (that turn into sugars very quickly) injures the body
directly, one thing's for sure -- it definitely feeds the "sweet tooth" that
ATTRACTS one to over-eating. I imagine that is why the "sweet tooth"
evolved through natural selection -- because it attracted us to fruits that,
when we ate them, benefited both us (high nutrition) and them (seed
distribution).

But now, the sweet tooth attracts us mostly to "bad", manufactured foods.
The sweet taste comes from added sugars, such as the apparently-dangerous
high-fructose corn syrup, or artificial sweetener. Even though the
artificial sweeteners may have a decided advantage in not promoting diabetes
as the sugars do, the disadvantage is that they are still food-attractants,
leading us to over-eating.

Example: recently, I have been eating bite-sized shredded wheat and bran
with several kinds of fruit for breakfast. That product has 1 gm. per
serving of sugars and does not taste sweet in the least. It is just wheat &
wheat bran, period. I purchased a box of another "high-fiber" cereal that
listed 0 grams of sugars per serving. Although, after wheat bran, it listed
corn bran as a second ingredient (corn is high-glycemic), I decided to try
it.

One bite caused me to look more closely at the nutrition label because that
stuff was REALLY sweet! It contained Sucralose. Because I have grown used
to non-sweetened cereal, the taste was cloying but, still, there was also a
desire to eat more and more of it, unlike the un-sweetened cereal. I
immediately put it all down the disposal.

I went from eating foods laced with sugar to foods laced with artificial
sweetener to foods with no sweeteners of any kind. Sort of a gradual
withdrawal from sweets. Now, after some months of being off the sweet
taste, I am obviously more inclined to reject it than to look for it. But
that took some doing.

My current idea about this is that artificial sweeteners, aside from any
intrinsic dangers they may or may not pose, are something we should wean
ourselves away from if we want to practice any form of calorie restriction,
just because they are VERY powerful food-attractants and are likely to
entice us into over-eating or even to binge on the sweetened food.

mack
austin

"Tim Tyler" wrote

Among obese patients, weight loss was associated with longer diet
duration (P =.002), restriction of calorie intake (P =.03), but not
with reduced carbohydrate content (P =.90). Low-carbohydrate diets had
no significant adverse effect on serum lipid, fasting serum glucose,
and fasting serum insulin levels, or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: There
is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use
of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than
age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or
less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight
loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with
decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with
reduced carbohydrate content.''

- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12684364
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.



"Tim Tyler" wrote

Among obese patients, weight loss was associated with longer diet
duration (P =.002), restriction of calorie intake (P =.03), but not
with reduced carbohydrate content (P =.90). Low-carbohydrate diets had
no significant adverse effect on serum lipid, fasting serum glucose,
and fasting serum insulin levels, or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: There
is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use
of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than
age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or
less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight
loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with
decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with
reduced carbohydrate content.''

- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12684364
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

Tim Tyler wrote in message ...
Doug Freyburger wrote or quoted:

Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long-term
safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets.''

Absolutely. Dr Atkins stayed on his own plan over 3 decades and was
in excellent health given his virus infection. But one person does
NOT a study make! Time for more studies! Certainly.

Oh and by the way, the competition needs those exact same studies.

Not half so badly they don't. Low calorie diets and low fat diets
have both been far better studied.

Experiment on yourselves by all means - but don't claim afterwards
nobody warned you

Your own cited study says low carbing wins, so why the objection?
This is why my objection was about honesty and your response really
nailed it.

Right. After all your study claims that low carbing beats low fatting.
Yet you warn of the dangers. Where's the sense in that? [...]

Low carb /might/ beat low fat - for rapid initial weight loss.

Not that that makes them desirable - since it's fairly widely recognised
that rapid weight loss has some problems associated with it.

However even this is debatable - since last year's JAMA review basically
said that low calorie diets were what worked when losing weight - and that
low dietary carbs were not even independently associated with weight loss.

``Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a systematic review [...]

Among obese patients, weight loss was associated with longer diet
duration (P =.002), restriction of calorie intake (P =.03), but not
with reduced carbohydrate content (P =.90). Low-carbohydrate diets had
no significant adverse effect on serum lipid, fasting serum glucose,
and fasting serum insulin levels, or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: There
is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use
of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than
age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or
less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight
loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with
decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with
reduced carbohydrate content.''

- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12684364

I wonder if they do more studies, including the long term affects on
children doing it. How could I have myself or children participate
with the study. It would be interesting too to be involved in a study
for those with Fibromyalia and low carbing.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:33:06 GMT, Mack
wrote:


Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the "low-carb"
advocates is their lack of distinction between simple carbs, i.e. sugars,
and complex carbs, i.e. fruits and vegetables.


I'm on low carb and eat a lot of vegetables and avoid sugars to the exent
I can. I also eat some fruits that are low glycemic and high fiber.

I'm also a low carb advocate.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:25:27 GMT, "Mack"
wrote:

Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the "low-carb"
advocates is their lack of distinction between simple carbs, i.e. sugars,
and complex carbs, i.e. fruits and vegetables.

I agree with it. I feel good eating fruit. but not potatoes. so those are both
separate i think. other veggies don't bother me like spuds do. my idea of low
carb is low grain or now grain and no sugar if possible.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.