High protein, not low carbs?

As I mention in http://atkinsandme.blogspot.com, a recent TV show
makes some interesting points which may be of relevance to us,
LC'ers.

Bearing in mind the following three pillars of Atkins' theory as to how his
diet works:

a. Increased burning of calories, since fat calories require more energy to
"burn" than do carb calories
b. The ejection of fat calories as ketones in the breathe and urine
c. The increase in satiety through eating more fats

the program cites studies giving evidence for the following:

1. *All three* of the above points are FALSE. Increased fat
intake does not increase calorie burning; it does not significantly
increase ketone ejection; and not only does it not increase satiety,
it actually makes you hungrier.

But, despite all that:

2. Atkins' does work. People on low carb diets do lose weight,
and usually more effectively than people on low-cal-via-low-fat
diets

3. The reason Atkins' works is (since it's not any of the three
points above) simply that Atkins' dieters do eat fewer calories,
as a result of experiencing satiety quicker and for longer than
do people on low fat diets

However - and here's the clincher:

4. That satiety effect is not due to the high fat content of the Atkins'
diet.
It is the high *protein* content that is doing it.

So, a conclusion could be that Atkins has unknowingly stumbled
on a significant dietary effect - the appetite control effect of
high protein consumption - and mistakenly attributed that effect
to high fats.

For me, the program still left it unclear as to whether the experiments were
conclusive that it was high protein that was the beneficial factor. They
didn't seem to show evidence that it was not *low* carbohydrate.
It seems to me that the evidence could still support the hypothesis
that too high a level of high GI carbs could have a pseudo-toxic
effect on the body, with one symptom being carb addiction.
Were the high protein eaters experiencing appetite moderation
because they ate protein, or because they *didn't* eat sugar/starch?

I dunno.

One final thought. There appears to have been a noticeable change in the
nature of criticism levelled at Atkins. Until recently, the medical
establisment
focused on two points:

a. It doesn't work
b. It contributes to arterio-sclerosis

But the evidence against both of those is mounting. So now the criticisms
a

c. It harms your kidneys
d. It can give you brittle bones
and others

I can't comment on the truth in those criticisms, but I think the
"establishment" has to
accept a bit of a dent in its credibility in getting the first criticisms
wrong.

(That said, apparently the Atkins' people also seem to be shifting a little
bit, and
are now conceding that you shouldn't let your low-carbing result in
a dramatic increase in your *saturated* fat intake.)

slr

As I mention in http://atkinsandme.blogspot.com, a recent TV show

Just little things from your page to fix

3. People on low-carb diets expel no more ketones than people on
low-carb diets
4. People on low-carb diets burn no more calories than people on the
low-carb diets when the same number of calories are consumed

low-carb - low-fat ....

Thanks.
Fixed.
slr

"Mirek Fidler" wrote in message
...
As I mention in http://atkinsandme.blogspot.com, a recent TV show

Just little things from your page to fix

3. People on low-carb diets expel no more ketones than people on
low-carb diets
4. People on low-carb diets burn no more calories than people on the
low-carb diets when the same number of calories are consumed

low-carb - low-fat ....

I don't have access to the British TV show. However, I think it is fair to
point out that just because a study is the most recent, doesn't make it the
most authoritative.

Time, and corroborative or contradictory studies are needed.


"SLR" wrote in message
...
As I mention in http://atkinsandme.blogspot.com, a recent TV show
makes some interesting points which may be of relevance to us,
LC'ers.

Bearing in mind the following three pillars of Atkins' theory as to how
his
diet works:

a. Increased burning of calories, since fat calories require more energy
to
"burn" than do carb calories
b. The ejection of fat calories as ketones in the breathe and urine
c. The increase in satiety through eating more fats

the program cites studies giving evidence for the following:

1. *All three* of the above points are FALSE. Increased fat
intake does not increase calorie burning; it does not significantly
increase ketone ejection; and not only does it not increase satiety,
it actually makes you hungrier.

But, despite all that:

2. Atkins' does work. People on low carb diets do lose weight,
and usually more effectively than people on low-cal-via-low-fat
diets

3. The reason Atkins' works is (since it's not any of the three
points above) simply that Atkins' dieters do eat fewer calories,
as a result of experiencing satiety quicker and for longer than
do people on low fat diets

However - and here's the clincher:

4. That satiety effect is not due to the high fat content of the Atkins'
diet.
It is the high *protein* content that is doing it.

So, a conclusion could be that Atkins has unknowingly stumbled
on a significant dietary effect - the appetite control effect of
high protein consumption - and mistakenly attributed that effect
to high fats.

For me, the program still left it unclear as to whether the experiments
were
conclusive that it was high protein that was the beneficial factor. They
didn't seem to show evidence that it was not *low* carbohydrate.
It seems to me that the evidence could still support the hypothesis
that too high a level of high GI carbs could have a pseudo-toxic
effect on the body, with one symptom being carb addiction.
Were the high protein eaters experiencing appetite moderation
because they ate protein, or because they *didn't* eat sugar/starch?

I dunno.

One final thought. There appears to have been a noticeable change in the
nature of criticism levelled at Atkins. Until recently, the medical
establisment
focused on two points:

a. It doesn't work
b. It contributes to arterio-sclerosis

But the evidence against both of those is mounting. So now the criticisms
a

c. It harms your kidneys
d. It can give you brittle bones
and others

I can't comment on the truth in those criticisms, but I think the
"establishment" has to
accept a bit of a dent in its credibility in getting the first criticisms
wrong.

(That said, apparently the Atkins' people also seem to be shifting a
little
bit, and
are now conceding that you shouldn't let your low-carbing result in
a dramatic increase in your *saturated* fat intake.)

slr

"SLR" writes:
a. Increased burning of calories, since fat calories require more energy to
"burn" than do carb calories

Nope. Calorie labels are already adjusted to compensate for the
energy needed to metabolize (that's why protein is 4kcals/g instead of
5).

b. The ejection of fat calories as ketones in the breathe and urine

Not after the first few weeks. Most people note a drastic reduction
in ketones then, and there's some evidence that the bad breath is from
too much protein, not ketosis itself.

c. The increase in satiety through eating more fats

Yes!

1. *All three* of the above points are FALSE. Increased fat
intake does not increase calorie burning; it does not significantly
increase ketone ejection; and not only does it not increase satiety,
it actually makes you hungrier.

The last one is wrong. Fat, protein, and fiber all increase satiety,
especially when taken together. Protein is the best at this.

2. Atkins' does work. People on low carb diets do lose weight,
and usually more effectively than people on low-cal-via-low-fat
diets

Some folks have messed up metabolism. Switching to a ketogenic
metabolism may be the only way for them to process calories properly.
Most LCers just happen to eat less anyway though.

3. The reason Atkins' works is (since it's not any of the three
points above) simply that Atkins' dieters do eat fewer calories,
as a result of experiencing satiety quicker and for longer than
do people on low fat diets

Yup. So?

However - and here's the clincher:

4. That satiety effect is not due to the high fat content of the
Atkins' diet. It is the high *protein* content that is doing it.

It's both, and fiber too.

So, a conclusion could be that Atkins has unknowingly stumbled
on a significant dietary effect - the appetite control effect of
high protein consumption - and mistakenly attributed that effect
to high fats.

Except that anecdotal evidence around here is that we're *not* eating
a high protein diet (20% of calories average, with 75% from fat) and
we're still getting the satiety effects.

For me, the program still left it unclear as to whether the experiments were
conclusive that it was high protein that was the beneficial factor. They
didn't seem to show evidence that it was not *low* carbohydrate.
It seems to me that the evidence could still support the hypothesis
that too high a level of high GI carbs could have a pseudo-toxic
effect on the body, with one symptom being carb addiction.
Were the high protein eaters experiencing appetite moderation
because they ate protein, or because they *didn't* eat sugar/starch?

A moderate carb diet can offer the same hunger control if you stick to
low GI foods and eat them in combination with protein and fats, like
south beach or protein power. Also, eating more smaller meals, say
5/day instead of 3/day, helps.

c. It harms your kidneys

Nope. Kidney damage happens if all three of these are true: high
carb, high protein, insufficient hydration. A diet with sufficient
hydration and low carbs won't have the types of kidney problems
they're talking about. If you *already* have kidney problems, any
type of high protein diet may be a problem.

d. It can give you brittle bones

Atkins recommends a multi-mineral. Duh. LC is a diuretic; if you
don't replenish the minerals your body will leach them out of your
bones if needed.

(That said, apparently the Atkins' people also seem to be shifting a
little bit, and are now conceding that you shouldn't let your
low-carbing result in a dramatic increase in your *saturated* fat
intake.)

If you actually read the book (except not the recipes and marketing
goo; just the actual plan) there's no real reason to think they pushed
a high sat fat diet. A lot of the foods are lean meats, fish, and
oily vegetables - all mostly unsaturated.

Hm--I don't know who they interviewed, but fat sure makes me feel
satisfied. And it definitely doesn't make me hungrier.

Also, I believe I've read something about high-protein, HIGH-carb
diets being harmful to kidneys. So I'd think twice before going that
route.

Dave
Doesn't care why it works, as long as it works



"SLR" wrote in message ...
Thanks.
Fixed.
slr

"Mirek Fidler" wrote in message
...
As I mention in http://atkinsandme.blogspot.com, a recent TV show

Just little things from your page to fix

3. People on low-carb diets expel no more ketones than people on
low-carb diets
4. People on low-carb diets burn no more calories than people on the
low-carb diets when the same number of calories are consumed

low-carb - low-fat ....

DJ Delorie wrote:
:: "SLR" writes:
::: a. Increased burning of calories, since fat calories require more
::: energy to "burn" than do carb calories
::
:: Nope. Calorie labels are already adjusted to compensate for the
:: energy needed to metabolize (that's why protein is 4kcals/g instead
:: of 5).
::
::: b. The ejection of fat calories as ketones in the breathe and urine
::
:: Not after the first few weeks. Most people note a drastic reduction
:: in ketones then, and there's some evidence that the bad breath is
:: from
:: too much protein, not ketosis itself.

Where is this evidence?

::
::: c. The increase in satiety through eating more fats
::
:: Yes!
::
::: 1. *All three* of the above points are FALSE. Increased fat
::: intake does not increase calorie burning; it does not significantly
::: increase ketone ejection; and not only does it not increase satiety,
::: it actually makes you hungrier.
::
:: The last one is wrong. Fat, protein, and fiber all increase satiety,
:: especially when taken together. Protein is the best at this.
::
::: 2. Atkins' does work. People on low carb diets do lose weight,
::: and usually more effectively than people on low-cal-via-low-fat
::: diets
::
:: Some folks have messed up metabolism. Switching to a ketogenic
:: metabolism may be the only way for them to process calories properly.
:: Most LCers just happen to eat less anyway though.
::
::: 3. The reason Atkins' works is (since it's not any of the three
::: points above) simply that Atkins' dieters do eat fewer calories,
::: as a result of experiencing satiety quicker and for longer than
::: do people on low fat diets
::
:: Yup. So?
::
::: However - and here's the clincher:
:::
::: 4. That satiety effect is not due to the high fat content of the
::: Atkins' diet. It is the high *protein* content that is doing it.
::
:: It's both, and fiber too.
::
::: So, a conclusion could be that Atkins has unknowingly stumbled
::: on a significant dietary effect - the appetite control effect of
::: high protein consumption - and mistakenly attributed that effect
::: to high fats.
::
:: Except that anecdotal evidence around here is that we're *not* eating
:: a high protein diet (20% of calories average, with 75% from fat) and
:: we're still getting the satiety effects.

We could very well be eating a "higher" protein diet than pre-LC.

::
::: For me, the program still left it unclear as to whether the
::: experiments were conclusive that it was high protein that was the
::: beneficial factor. They didn't seem to show evidence that it was
::: not *low* carbohydrate.
::: It seems to me that the evidence could still support the hypothesis
::: that too high a level of high GI carbs could have a pseudo-toxic
::: effect on the body, with one symptom being carb addiction.
::: Were the high protein eaters experiencing appetite moderation
::: because they ate protein, or because they *didn't* eat sugar/starch?
::
:: A moderate carb diet can offer the same hunger control if you stick
:: to
:: low GI foods and eat them in combination with protein and fats, like
:: south beach or protein power. Also, eating more smaller meals, say
:: 5/day instead of 3/day, helps.
::
::: c. It harms your kidneys
::
:: Nope. Kidney damage happens if all three of these are true: high
:: carb, high protein, insufficient hydration. A diet with sufficient
:: hydration and low carbs won't have the types of kidney problems
:: they're talking about. If you *already* have kidney problems, any
:: type of high protein diet may be a problem.
::
::: d. It can give you brittle bones
::
:: Atkins recommends a multi-mineral. Duh. LC is a diuretic; if you
:: don't replenish the minerals your body will leach them out of your
:: bones if needed.
::
::: (That said, apparently the Atkins' people also seem to be shifting a
::: little bit, and are now conceding that you shouldn't let your
::: low-carbing result in a dramatic increase in your *saturated* fat
::: intake.)
::
:: If you actually read the book (except not the recipes and marketing
:: goo; just the actual plan) there's no real reason to think they
:: pushed
:: a high sat fat diet. A lot of the foods are lean meats, fish, and
:: oily vegetables - all mostly unsaturated.

"Roger Zoul" writes:
:: Not after the first few weeks. Most people note a drastic
:: reduction in ketones then, and there's some evidence that the bad
:: breath is from too much protein, not ketosis itself.

Where is this evidence?

asdlc archives. All anecdotal, of course.

:: Except that anecdotal evidence around here is that we're *not* eating
:: a high protein diet (20% of calories average, with 75% from fat) and
:: we're still getting the satiety effects.

We could very well be eating a "higher" protein diet than pre-LC.

Higher, yes. High, no.

writes:
Reference, please? You are almost certainly wrong on this. The figure
of 4 Kcals/gm is arrived at by calorimetry, not by some complex
biological calculation.

The problem is, if you use a lab calorimeter, you get 5 kcals/gm.

2. Atkins' does work. People on low carb diets do lose weight, and
usually more effectively than people on low-cal-via-low-fat diets

Some folks have messed up metabolism. Switching to a ketogenic
metabolism may be the only way for them to process calories
properly. Most LCers just happen to eat less anyway though.

Here you contradict your earlier point; namely, you now claim that
"some folks" process calories differently when not in ketosis due to
their "messed up metabolism".

I meant that their bodies can free up stored calories when needed,
rather than hoarding them and causing the body to reduce calorie usage
elsewhere. On a short term basis, it means that the food you eat is
more likely to be used to meet the caloric energy needs and less
likely to be stored.

Except that anecdotal evidence around here is that we're *not*
eating a high protein diet (20% of calories average, with 75% from
fat) and we're still getting the satiety effects.

Don't forget that the average American eats GOBS of protein, albeit
packaged along with lots of carbs and lots of fat. If upping fat, or
upping protein, was the magic elixir--the average American is already
doing that. It seems more than probable that it's not just a question
of "more of something" but also "less of something else."

Well, I know I wasn't. My doctor complained that I wasn't getting
enough protein before I switched to LC.

"SLR" wrote:

As I mention in http://atkinsandme.blogspot.com, a recent TV show
makes some interesting points which may be of relevance to us,
LC'ers.

Bearing in mind the following three pillars of Atkins' theory as to how his
diet works:

a. Increased burning of calories, since fat calories require more energy to
"burn" than do carb calories
I've found something out for myself--and it is something that Atkins
illustrates in the book. FOr me, the calories burned thing simply
doesn't add up. The info out there is either wrong or my body has
suddenly become a marvel of modern science.(!not!)

I weigh myself immediately before bed and immediately upon waking. I
average .5 to .7 lbs lost each 7-9 hour sleep. One day it was even 1
full pound. Now if we do the math, using all the scientific numbers
that the Medical community lives and dies by...

To lose just .5 pounds (the LOWEST I've lost sleeping) in 8 hours, I
would have to burn 1750 calories (unrefutable scientific fact). That
is an absolute minimum of ~200 calories per hour. A 350 lb person(me)
is supposed to only burn 105 calories per sleeping hour. Why is my
body doing double time? On the night I lost a pound, I was burning 400
cals/per hour, that's more than what I would burn walking a slow pace
of 2 mph for 8 hours!!

The math doesn't add up! SOmething else is going on in the body that
they simply aren't paying attention to. If it is burning off in heat,
it isn't being monitored and studied properly or they simply weren't
following the Atkins diet!

Here's a funny way to look at it...

If I slept all day long, basically waking up and just rolling orver to
go back to sleep for 24 hours, I would have burned 5250 calories -
while unconscious during 24 hours. HOW COULD THAT BE? The say a 340 lb
man needs 3400 calories to maintain his weight if he is normally
inactive (me). That means if I laid in bed and ate 3500 calories a day
(any type of diet) I could loose 1/2 a pound per day. Find me a doctor
who agrees with that prescription!! OBVIOUSLY that ain't true. So
there is something metabolic going on in my body that is burning
calories FAR faster than exercise can account for and it is a very
significant increase. For me this is proving the "Metabolic advantage"
that Atkins talks about.

If the study didn't detect it, they violated the rules of the diet,
had people who are highly resistant to ketosis or failed to capture
the data correctly.


b. The ejection of fat calories as ketones in the breathe and urine
While this does naturally occur and always does the amount that are
wasted has never been quantified. Atkins says that some people will
barely ever turn Ketostix purple because the level of ketones wasted
into the urine is very low.
c. The increase in satiety through eating more fats


the program cites studies giving evidence for the following:
And there have been studies that show that there are specific fat
receptors in the brain that release substances to decrease appetite.
In the past some of those against Atkins have argue that we don't have
a "sweet tooth for carbs but a fat tooth". Fat make us crave more. So
clearly depending uponwhich study you want to pay attention to almost
anything position can be supported. The specifics of the study are
what matter and most of us wil never see that.




DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)