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 » Low Calorie
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Uncovering the Atkins diet secret



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 24th, 2004, 08:08 AM
Robin Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

It was an excellent show, for those in the US it should be available soon on
the BBC web

My take aways we

1) Proves the 1st law of thermodynamics still applies. Theres no magic to
weight loss its calorie deficit every time
2) That the diet supresses craving for excess calories and research should
next focus on why this is
3) There is no proof yet of long term side effects but implies it could be
bad and this too should be a focus of research

The factor it did not account for was meal frequency and metabolism. I'm
told that eating many small meals rather than few large meals, sustains
metaboloc activity, thus increases the systems average work rate. So more
calories get burnt on average

Rgds


"Diarmid Logan" wrote in message
om...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3416637.stm

Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

The controversial and popular Atkins diet works for reasons that Dr
Atkins may not have fully understood, the BBC 2 programme Horizon has
discovered.

Through a series of scientific experiments the programme shows that
although the diet allows people all the fat and protein they want,
they actually eat as few calories as people on low fat diets.

And the reason for this, according to recent research is because the
quantity of protein the regime encourages, acts like an appetite
suppressant.

The meat, fish and eggs in the Atkins diet control hunger and stop
people eating their usual quantity of calories.

The theory behind Dr Atkins' diet is that by cutting down on starchy
foods like potatoes, bread and pasta and eating mainly protein and
fats like meat, eggs and cheese you can eat as much as you want and
still lose weight.

Dr Atkins even said there was no need to worry about calories.

The idea that people could gorge on as many calories as they desire
and still lose the pounds brought Dr Atkins much criticism and even
prompted some scientists to call his diet "scientific heresy".

Horizon teamed up with the University of Kansas and commissioned a
scientific investigation to test Dr Atkins' most controversial theory.

This states that on his diet you actually burn more calories than
usual - allowing you to lose more weight.

Dr Atkins had two ideas about where the extra calories were going.
Firstly, he believed you burn more calories when your body uses fats
and proteins as fuel.

If this is true, says Dr Mary Vernon, of the Atkins Physician Council,
it makes exercise less important than usual.

"You wouldn't have to increase your exercise at all because your body
would be working harder, so that you could literally sit in your
armchair and lose weight."

Dr Atkins also believed that on his diet you lose unused calories by
peeing them away, as part of a process known as ketosis, which happens
when you stop eating starchy foods and sugar.

In Horizon's investigation identical twins were put on different
diets, one on the Atkins diet and one on a conventional low fat diet.
Each was fed identical amounts of calories for two weeks.

The twins were then locked inside a sealed chamber so that Professor
Joseph Donnelly could calculate how quickly their bodies were burning
calories.

Over 24 hours the twin on the Atkins diet did lose more calories than
the twin on low fat, but only 22.

Professor Donnelly even checked the twins' urine for calories and
found that the Atkins dieter had lost less than a single calorie more
than his brother on low fat.

Donnelly concluded that: "the differences were too small to suggest
there's anything significant going on".

Even though this research is at an early stage, there is little
evidence for Dr Atkins' wasted calorie theories.

Horizon examines other studies that reveal the real reason scientists
believe the Atkins diet is effective.

New results from research conducted on the popular BBC series 'Diet
Trials' offer the first clue.

The study examined the Atkins diet and three low fat, low calorie
diets.

All four diets worked, but Dr Joe Millward at the University of Surrey
who headed up the research, discovered the secret to why Atkins
dieters were losing weight.

"The Atkins dieters were eating less calories, in exactly the same way
as those going to the slimming clubs on their low fat diets."

Without apparently trying, people on the Atkins diet were eating less
than they would normally.

Scientists are now more interested than ever in what makes us eat
less. They have concluded that there is something about the Atkins
diet that controls hunger.

Research has shown that fat is the least filling food. But new work in
Denmark is showing exactly what kinds of food may control hunger.

Professor Arne Astrup, from the Royal Veterinary & Agricultural
University in Copenhagen, built a supermarket for a special study to
find the secret of appetite control.

Professor Astrup's study focused on being able to eat as much as you
want.

He put one group of shoppers on a high protein diet and one on a high
carbohydrate diet.

He was surprised to find that the people eating more protein lost
significantly more weight.

"The reason they lost more weight was because they consumed fewer
calories, despite the fact they had free access to all the food they
wanted."

Increasing the amount of meat, fish and eggs in the diet may not only
be the answer to our hunger pangs, but the secret to how the Atkins
diet works.

Perhaps without realising it, Dr Atkins stumbled across the secret of
appetite control, by discovering a high protein diet.

The programme also investigates whether or not the Atkins diet is
dangerous.

With no long term studies on the diet, any possible health risks of
the diet are, so far, unproven.

Horizon: The Atkins Diet will be shown Thursday January 22nd at 9pm on
BBC2.



  #2  
Old January 24th, 2004, 12:59 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
  #4  
Old January 26th, 2004, 01:02 AM
Ear Rings
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

Try an SSRI medication to help you with that feeling.

"Stephen S" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

I get suspicious of *any* cross posted thread. More than 3 groups it's
pretty much a given that trolls are involved.
--
Stephen S.
331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04
LC since 28 Sept. 03
--------------------------------




  #5  
Old January 26th, 2004, 02:38 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:52:46 GMT, posted:

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

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.


Ah, gotcha. So let me rephrase the question. Is there a troll on
ASDLCarb cross-posting to ASDLCal et al, or is there a troll on one of
those other newsgroups crossposting to ASDLCarb?


No idea.
I comment on what I see.
If tracking this down fascinates you, try looking at the OP.

In rec.org.mensa (and almost any other newsgroup), I've learned to
filter any posts cross-posted to alt.atheism or talk.origins; they're
always trolls. Apparently I need to kill cross-posts to ASDLCal now as
well.


Whatever floats your boat.

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.


As indicated in another post, the issue here is the definition of
"burn". If you include energy converted into unusable (or unused)
forms, then your statement is a tautology.


In what way a tautology?

My statement is a truism, perhaps?

In what way could the opposite of what I said pertain?

The only outcome of this
clarification is to rephrase the question: "Does a change in caloric
composition, all other things being equal, result in a change in
calories burned?"


Very minimally. Some foods may make the BMR rise marginally.
The general principle is that if energy IN is at all less than energy
OUT (and ALL forms of energy are accounted for) then the body will
lose tissue mass.

Since you have access to the chemical equations for fat metabolism and
for glucose metabolism, go ahead and post an answer in one specific case.


Metabolism to what? Fat or glucose may be stored or partially
interconverted, or metabolised to carbon dioxide and water. If you
mean the latter, the fat will yield approx 9 cal/gram, and glucose
approximately 4cal/g. This can be mechanical energy or heat, although
they all eventually relsove to heat

HTH

Moosh
  #6  
Old January 26th, 2004, 09:17 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:27:53 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
Len wrote:

As indicated in another post, the issue here is the definition of
"burn". If you include energy converted into unusable (or unused)
forms, then your statement is a tautology.


In what way a tautology?


"Energy burned" is defined to be energy consumed but not stored as
fat.


Well that's wrong for a start. Energy burned can be stored energy
burned. Expended can excreted. Playing word games doesn't change the
fact that all calories into the body (system) must be accounted for.
Some folks don't realise this, unfortunately.

Energy consumed but not burned, therefore, is defined to be
"energy stored as fat".


So long as you regard consumed as not just taken into the gut but
absorbed into the bloodstream -- the physiological understanding of IN
the body.

But energy can be consumed and excreted, for example.

With that definition of "burned", your
statement is a tautology.


Sorry, I still can't see the redundant meaning in my statement. I mean
what I say, and have not said it twice, AFAICS.

Nevertheless, it yields no information about the claim that a low-carb
and a low-fat diet with the same total caloric content will result in
exactly equal weight gains or losses--since you do not know how much
is "burned" in each case.


Measuring the CO2 output of the body is what I'm advocating. YOU don't
know how much is burned, I'm saying you can't say anything without
knowing EVERY energy IN and OUT.

Give it a number -- 1000 calories -- the low carb 1000, if used, will
result in 1000 calories of heat, with a small amount of muscular work.
Same for the low fat 1000. If neither is needed, then the energy will
be stored as roughly 111g of fat, or even more glycogen depending on
the energy status of the body.

If you wish to claim that the amount burned must be the same in both
cases, then you must prove it


Or even measure it? It's been measured and measured, and guess what,
there's buggerall in it. Where have you been? You are asserting that
we don't know, I suggest that you hop down to the leebrary and start
reading. Then if you come across the sofar unknown study that shows
any significant difference, tell us about it, we will be all ears, so
to speak.

--but the second law of thermodynamics is
working against you:


In what way? Surely it applies equally to both scenarios.

one of the energy outputs is the waste due to
inefficiency,


Could you please define this inefficiency? What ratio are you
referring to? The "inefficiencies" as far as a small amount of heat in
either reaction pathway will even out in both cases.

and it is unlikely that two totally dissimilar chemical
proceses will have exactly the same efficiency.


Well 100% actually, but then it depends how you are defining these
ratios (efficiencies) Chemical reactions are 100% efficient actually.
They ALWAYS do the same thing. Some are exothermic, some are
endothermic.

Physical chemistry tells us that there is a heat af reaction
associated with every chemical reaction. It can be positive or
negative and is accurately known. Going from compound A to compound Z
by whatever set of reactions, will result in the same algebraic energy
sum. So however glucose is converted to CO2 and water, it will always
yield the figure of ~4cal/g.

The only outcome of this clarification is to rephrase the question:
"Does a change in caloric composition, all other things being
equal, result in a change in calories burned?"


Very minimally. Some foods may make the BMR rise marginally.


Okay, you're on record. Now supply the proof. Specifically, give the
energy yield in converting a mol of glucose into ATP, just for
starters.


Look it up, I don't need to know, you do apparently, unless your
childish demands are evidence that you don't think these exact numbers
exist?

Are you saying that glucose to ATP varies from day to day in its
energy component? Sure sounds like it. Please make yourself clear.

You appear to be supporting TC's assertions that consuming 3000
calories of fat and expending 2000 calories can result in fat storage
loss. Now I ask for ANY metabolic lab study (where everything is
measured) to show that this has ever happened. He can't supply any,
and neither apparently can you, but yet you are arguing about glucose
to ATP having varying efficiencies of some unyet defined type.


Moosh
  #8  
Old September 14th, 2009, 08:29 AM
nathanial nathanial is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by WeightlossBanter: Sep 2009
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Smith View Post
It was an excellent show, for those in the US it should be available soon on
the BBC web

My take aways we

1) Proves the 1st law of thermodynamics still applies. Theres no magic to
weight loss its calorie deficit every time
2) That the diet supresses craving for excess calories and research should
next focus on why this is
3) There is no proof yet of long term side effects but implies it could be
bad and this too should be a focus of research

The factor it did not account for was meal frequency and metabolism. I'm
told that eating many small meals rather than few large meals, sustains
metaboloc activity, thus increases the systems average work rate. So more
calories get burnt on average

Rgds


"Diarmid Logan" wrote in message
om...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3416637.stm

Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

The controversial and popular Atkins diet works for reasons that Dr
Atkins may not have fully understood, the BBC 2 programme Horizon has
discovered.

Through a series of scientific experiments the programme shows that
although the diet allows people all the fat and protein they want,
they actually eat as few calories as people on low fat diets.

And the reason for this, according to recent research is because the
quantity of protein the regime encourages, acts like an appetite
suppressant.

The meat, fish and eggs in the Atkins diet control hunger and stop
people eating their usual quantity of calories.

The theory behind Dr Atkins' diet is that by cutting down on starchy
foods like potatoes, bread and pasta and eating mainly protein and
fats like meat, eggs and cheese you can eat as much as you want and
still lose weight.

Dr Atkins even said there was no need to worry about calories.

The idea that people could gorge on as many calories as they desire
and still lose the pounds brought Dr Atkins much criticism and even
prompted some scientists to call his diet "scientific heresy".

Horizon teamed up with the University of Kansas and commissioned a
scientific investigation to test Dr Atkins' most controversial theory.

This states that on his diet you actually burn more calories than
usual - allowing you to lose more weight.

Dr Atkins had two ideas about where the extra calories were going.
Firstly, he believed you burn more calories when your body uses fats
and proteins as fuel.

If this is true, says Dr Mary Vernon, of the Atkins Physician Council,
it makes exercise less important than usual.

"You wouldn't have to increase your exercise at all because your body
would be working harder, so that you could literally sit in your
armchair and lose weight."

Dr Atkins also believed that on his diet you lose unused calories by
peeing them away, as part of a process known as ketosis, which happens
when you stop eating starchy foods and sugar.

In Horizon's investigation identical twins were put on different
diets, one on the Atkins diet and one on a conventional low fat diet.
Each was fed identical amounts of calories for two weeks.

The twins were then locked inside a sealed chamber so that Professor
Joseph Donnelly could calculate how quickly their bodies were burning
calories.

Over 24 hours the twin on the Atkins diet did lose more calories than
the twin on low fat, but only 22.

Professor Donnelly even checked the twins' urine for calories and
found that the Atkins dieter had lost less than a single calorie more
than his brother on low fat.

Donnelly concluded that: "the differences were too small to suggest
there's anything significant going on".

Even though this research is at an early stage, there is little
evidence for Dr Atkins' wasted calorie theories.

Horizon examines other studies that reveal the real reason scientists
believe the Atkins diet is effective.

New results from research conducted on the popular BBC series 'Diet
Trials' offer the first clue.

The study examined the Atkins diet and three low fat, low calorie
diets.

All four diets worked, but Dr Joe Millward at the University of Surrey
who headed up the research, discovered the secret to why Atkins
dieters were losing weight.

"The Atkins dieters were eating less calories, in exactly the same way
as those going to the slimming clubs on their low fat diets."

Without apparently trying, people on the Atkins diet were eating less
than they would normally.

Scientists are now more interested than ever in what makes us eat
less. They have concluded that there is something about the Atkins
diet that controls hunger.

Research has shown that fat is the least filling food. But new work in
Denmark is showing exactly what kinds of food may control hunger.

Professor Arne Astrup, from the Royal Veterinary & Agricultural
University in Copenhagen, built a supermarket for a special study to
find the secret of appetite control.

Professor Astrup's study focused on being able to eat as much as you
want.

He put one group of shoppers on a high protein diet and one on a high
carbohydrate diet.

He was surprised to find that the people eating more protein lost
significantly more weight.

"The reason they lost more weight was because they consumed fewer
calories, despite the fact they had free access to all the food they
wanted."

Increasing the amount of meat, fish and eggs in the diet may not only
be the answer to our hunger pangs, but the secret to how the Atkins
diet works.

Perhaps without realising it, Dr Atkins stumbled across the secret of
appetite control, by discovering a high protein diet.

The programme also investigates whether or not the Atkins diet is
dangerous.

With no long term studies on the diet, any possible health risks of
the diet are, so far, unproven.

Horizon: The Atkins Diet will be shown Thursday January 22nd at 9pm on
BBC2.
I am quite interesting in this topic hope you will elaborate more on it in future posts.
  #9  
Old October 1st, 2010, 08:50 AM
Zolan Zolan is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by WeightlossBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 1
Default

Interesting read

I have say, personally I don't see any diet programme as successful unless its sustainable for the rest of that person's life.
  #10  
Old October 15th, 2010, 02:51 PM
jassy2003 jassy2003 is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by WeightlossBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zolan View Post
Interesting read

I have say, personally I don't see any diet programme as successful unless its sustainable for the rest of that person's life.

yes you are right i also not seen any diet program here.
 




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
You want PROOF - Here's Quackery Proof. marengo Low Carbohydrate Diets 173 April 17th, 2004 11:26 PM
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret Diarmid Logan General Discussion 135 February 14th, 2004 04:56 PM
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy Diarmid Logan General Discussion 23 December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works Jim Marnott Low Carbohydrate Diets 108 December 12th, 2003 03:12 AM
Was Atkins Right After All? Ken Kubos Low Carbohydrate Diets 5 November 22nd, 2003 11:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.