Breaking News..Plant-based, low-carb diet may improve cholesterol levels

http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/a...lant-based-low
-carb-diet-may-promote-weight-loss-improve-cholesterol-levels

Science Centric | News

Plant-based, low-carb diet may promote weight loss and improve
cholesterol levels

Science Centric
9 June 2009 10:12 GMT

Overweight individuals who ate a low-calorie, low-carbohydrate diet high
in plant-based proteins for four weeks lost weight and experienced
improvements in blood cholesterol levels and other heart disease risk
factors, according to a report in the 8 June issue of Archives of
Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. A
high-carbohydrate, low-fat vegetarian diet also resulted in weight loss
but without the additional cardiovascular benefits. . .

------

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20081...-impair-memory

No-Carb Diets May Impair Memory
Memory Improved When Carbs Reintroduced to Diet
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD


Dec. 12, 2008 - Eliminating carbohydrates from your diet may help you
lose weight, but it could leave you fuzzy headed and forgetful, a new
study suggests.
One week after starting a weight loss diet that severely restricted
carbohydrates, participants in the Tufts University study performed
significantly worse on memory tests than participants who followed a low
calorie, high-carbohydrate diet.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1Zunx_goz4


http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/2...ra_hass_on_the

Billy quoted:

No-Carb Diets May Impair Memory
Memory Improved When Carbs Reintroduced to Diet
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD

One week after starting a weight loss diet ...

Standard issues with researchers who haven't bothered to read
the standard books on the topic - They don't have a clue what's
normal and to be expected.

Introductory phases are two weeks for long lists of reasons.
Studies that ignore the fact do little but demonstrate the low
worth of the report.

No carb? Pfft. Yet another reason folks should read the book
for their plan of choice.

Read the book! For any plan you care to pick it has a book.
Reading the book matters far more than chosing among the
popular plans.

One week into low carb is no time to test anything, your body is still
adjusting to its different fuel.

Billy wrote:
| http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/a...lant-based-low
| -carb-diet-may-promote-weight-loss-improve-cholesterol-levels
|
| Science Centric | News
|
| Plant-based, low-carb diet may promote weight loss and improve
| cholesterol levels
|
| Science Centric
| 9 June 2009 10:12 GMT
|
| Overweight individuals who ate a low-calorie, low-carbohydrate diet
| high in plant-based proteins for four weeks lost weight and
| experienced improvements in blood cholesterol levels and other heart
| disease risk factors, according to a report in the 8 June issue of
| Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. A
| high-carbohydrate, low-fat vegetarian diet also resulted in weight
| loss but without the additional cardiovascular benefits. . .
|
| ------
|
| http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20081...-impair-memory
|
| No-Carb Diets May Impair Memory
| Memory Improved When Carbs Reintroduced to Diet
| By Salynn Boyles
| WebMD Health News
| Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD
|
|
| Dec. 12, 2008 - Eliminating carbohydrates from your diet may help you
| lose weight, but it could leave you fuzzy headed and forgetful, a new
| study suggests.
| One week after starting a weight loss diet that severely restricted
| carbohydrates, participants in the Tufts University study performed
| significantly worse on memory tests than participants who followed a
| low calorie, high-carbohydrate diet.

Billy wrote:
*Susan wrote:
FOB wrote:

One week into low carb is no time to test anything, your body is still
adjusting to its different fuel.

12 weeks minimum for the endocrine feedback loop.

I don't suppose, there is any chance, that there might be a cite to go
with this pronouncement?

Dr Atkins in the 1993 edition of DANDR stated that after 6
months on his plan 80% of people see improved cholesterol.

Dr Atkins in the 2002 edition of DANDR stated that after 3
months on his plan "most" people see improved cholesterol.

One cite of many already on tap for those who have read the
most common books in the field. I recall similar statements
in the PP books by Drs Eades as well.

For the problem of making conclusions after only one week,
you don't even have to stick to low carb. "The T-Factor Diet"
which was a very popular low fat plan for most of the 1980s
also had an initial two week start-up they called "Burn In".

In article
,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:
*Susan wrote:
FOB wrote:

One week into low carb is no time to test anything, your body is still
adjusting to its different fuel.

12 weeks minimum for the endocrine feedback loop.

I don't suppose, there is any chance, that there might be a cite to go
with this pronouncement?

Dr Atkins in the 1993 edition of DANDR stated that after 6
months on his plan 80% of people see improved cholesterol.

Dr Atkins in the 2002 edition of DANDR stated that after 3
months on his plan "most" people see improved cholesterol.

One cite of many already on tap for those who have read the
most common books in the field. I recall similar statements
in the PP books by Drs Eades as well.

For the problem of making conclusions after only one week,
you don't even have to stick to low carb. "The T-Factor Diet"
which was a very popular low fat plan for most of the 1980s
also had an initial two week start-up they called "Burn In".

I thank you for your civil response. I am new to Dr. Atkins, so please
bear with me. I presume that the first 3 paragraphs had to do with
forcing the body to go into a fat-burning metabolic state called ketosis,
where, presumably, cholesterol synthesis would be competing for these
same lipids? There must be some clinical conformation of this effect.
Not to seem impertinent, but word of mouth information, even from an
esteemed mouth, leaves one in the area of faith (at which I am very
poor). Are there any, on-line sources for this kind of information?
Left to my own devices, I'm sure that eventually I can find them, if
indeed they exist, but it would save me time, if someone could just
point them out.

I will check-out DANDR, so that I can, at least, expand my vocabulary
for this group.

Finally, the phrase Eco-Atkins, must be tongue in cheek, yes?
http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_ch...?storyid=21656
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1Zunx_goz4


http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/2...ra_hass_on_the

Billy wrote:

... I presume that the first 3 paragraphs had to do with
forcing the body to go into a fat-burning metabolic state called ketosis,

Sure. Force is a leading word. Consider that humans have
evolved to be the worlds top predator. Going into ketosis
equals eating the diet of a successful predator and is thus
a beneficial indicator.

You've discussed population growth and the economic
need to eat a high percentage of plant calories. Do not
confuse that which has been or probably will be mandatory
with what is healthy - Grains are not beneficial to humans
no matter that grain agriculture was the starting point of
civilization. What's beneficial to humans are the various
classes of veggies, fruit, nuts and so on among the plant
foods with careful attention to intolerance rates. Plus
animal foods that we have spent the last 5 million years
evolving to eat more and more of to the point our internal
systems are clearly omnivorous.

Economic need for grain is not the same as grain having
health benefits. The same applies to any focus that moves
towards vegitarianism. Humans are evolved to eat both so
we have the best health when we do. Both all-meat and
vegan eating plans take far more special planning than
variations on meat and veggies. While low carb plans may
involve eating more meat than vegitarians or economists
like, it's natural that maintenance phases approach some
range among 50-50 using portion sizes and 50-50 using
calorie counts. It's also natural that the early loss phases
involve more lean - Witness almost any carnivore and almost
any herbivore.

Plans that work focus on what works, not on what happens
when an eating system is forced or what is economically
viable.

where, presumably, cholesterol synthesis would be competing for these
same lipids?

Correct. A very simple model is to view triglycerides as the
body's fat transportation method. They flow in or out of fat
cells (slow in, slow out), get converted into other types of
cholesterol for all sorts of uses including many hormones,
get swept out of the blood as fuel (the acetyl-CoA process
is slow, the ketone process is fast). In this simple model
the levels are lowered once in ketosis long enough because
enough stored fat is lost that the rate flowing out of the fat
cells is lower than the rate the liver sweeps out to make both
acetyl-CoA and ketones. Like most metabolic models
there's more to it than that but it works as a simple model.

There must be some clinical conformation of this effect.
Not to seem impertinent, but word of mouth information, even from an
esteemed mouth, leaves one in the area of faith (at which I am very
poor). Are there any, on-line sources for this kind of information?

As you've seen recently, most of the studies that make the
news are badly flawed by researchers who have not bothered
to read the basic books in the subject, and/or researchers
who wish to push a specific conclusion, and/or reporters who
want sound bites.

Left to my own devices, I'm sure that eventually I can find them, if
indeed they exist, but it would save me time, if someone could just
point them out.

The better studies are more specific in topic and so much less
interesting to the press. Regulars on ASDLC scan new studies
making judgments about what's valuable. In the past there
were more regulars doing so.

I will check-out DANDR, so that I can, at least, expand my vocabulary
for this group.

Doctor Atkins New Diet Revolution on the chance you haven't
reversed the acronym yet. There's also the 1972 version with
one less word in the title DADR. Libraries usually have at least
one copy of the 1972 white cover, 1993 yellow cover, 1999 blue
cover and 2002 completely revised editions.

There a lot more books on the topic. Many far more technical
so to me they make for better follow on reading. Atkins for what
to eat, how phases generally work, how bad writing technique
can get and still be popular. Other books for the science of
insulin, glucagon, T3 thyroid, leptin, cortisone and so on in
level after level of hormonal feeback loops.