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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
On 18 May 2004 06:44:59 -0700, (Diarmid Logan)
wrote: Cross-posts to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci .med.cardiology retained for this post. Stern's year-long study (Annals of Internal Medicine, vol 140, p778) was twice the length of any previous study. Half the patients followed the Atkins regime, limiting daily carbohydrate intake to just 30 grams. The rest tried losing weight through a conventional low-fat diet much richer in carbohydrates. Incorrect. There is no doubt that the results were "good news for Atkins dieters", as the author stated, but the study was on general lower carb dieting, not specifically the Atkins method. One of the problems with reports like this is the way meanings change with skewed repetition, in the news media and on newsgroups. The abstract of the original report from Stern is at : http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/140/10/778 It is worth reading the original, instead of the media hype. The only mention I can find in it of Atkins is : "Although it has been speculated that a low-carbohydrate diet would facilitate weight loss by promoting the metabolism of adipose tissue (13), our data suggest that weight loss differences may be explained by lower caloric intake on a low-carbohydrate diet". The reference 13 is: "13. Atkins RC. Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution. New York: Avon Books; 1998." The methodology is described as: "Diet groups met in weekly counseling sessions for 4 weeks, followed by 11 monthly sessions. Participants on the low-carbohydrate diet were instructed only to reduce carbohydrate intake to less than 30 g per day. Participants on the conventional diet were instructed to reduce caloric intake by 500 calories per day, with less than 30% of calories derived from fat, in accordance with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines (3)." At no stage is it stated that they followed the Atkins diet, although there may be obvious similarities. Unlike the similar Atkins-funded study, no mention is made of supplements or specialty foods. I found the study interesting and I hope that it leads to further research, particularly the implications for diabetic health such as glycemic control and lipids improvements. But I fear that the instant association with Atkins, rather than the wider concept of lower carb eating, will lead to it being disregarded by the medical establishment. So let's stop instantly jumping to the conclusion, as the news reporters did, that the diet studied was Atkins. Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. Remove weight and carbs to email. -- Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The 2 minute diet, a service to the public
"If that works for you, by all means go for it. It is not my loss if
something else works for you. After all, the 2PD approach is a public service on my part that addresses a real public need. Truth is simple. " It is not mine, it was released to the public service long ago, and as you say, truth is simple, as simple as 2 minutes. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
You don't have to switch to another way of eating to reduce the calories.
Just east less. I can't see how it would be beneficial to start eating things that make you hungrier. In , Peanutjake stated | | So maybe that is the secret for losing weight. | Go on Atkins for 6 months then switch to a lower calorie diet. | | But my question is what is the effect of each type of diet on a | diabetic? | | PJ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:16:50 -0400, Jackie Patti
wrote: X-posts to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci .med.cardiology retained. The second study showed significantly better glycemic control on low-carb. Which seems frankly so damned obvious to me that it seems ridiculous to need a study. People with impaired carbohydrate metabolism should limit carbs! Surprise! Um, Jackie, I totally agree with you. However, from the web-site of the American Diabetes Association (the emphasis in capitals is mine): http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-an...n/starches.jsp "The message today: EAT MORE STARCHES! It is healthiest for everyone to eat more whole grains, beans, and starchy vegetables such as peas, corn, potatoes and winter squash. Starches are good for you because they have very little fat, saturated fat, or cholesterol. They are packed with vitamins, minerals, and fiber. Yes, foods with carbohydrate -- starches, vegetables, fruits, and dairy products -- will raise your blood glucose more quickly than meats and fats, but they are the healthiest foods for you. YOUR DOCTOR MAY NEED TO ADJUST YOUR MEDICATIONS WHEN YOU EAT MORE CARBOHYDRATES. You may need to increase your activity level or try spacing carbohydrates throughout the day." As you said: Blond moments in science... That is why we need the studies, and lots more of them from reputable impartial research organisations. Because, although I'm not american, my mob seem to follow yours when it comes to dispensing this as the best advice for diabetics. Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. Remove weight and carbs to email. -- Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
I have lost 73 pounds on Atkins since last July! I did level off in
February, and my weight has not gone up or down since. I consume roughly 50 to 60 carbs a day now. My cholestorol went down from 270 to 185! I no longer eat Bread, pasta, ANY sugar, etc. etc. and have never felt better in years. I DO need to exercise more though. Just my observations. I'm a DEDICATED ATKINS fanatic! h1 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
Diarmid Logan wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995003 Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet Half the patients followed the Atkins regime, limiting daily carbohydrate intake to just 30 grams. That's not Atkins. That's hardly any different from Induction. Ye gods I'd love some study to be done on real actual Atkins what it really seriously says in the directions. The rest tried losing weight through a conventional low-fat diet much richer in carbohydrates. Yup. Few say low fat diets don't work. Many say they are hard to stick to. In the long run easy to stick to wins. By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of weight, between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins group and three and eight kilos for the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost all their weight in the first six months, then remained at a steady weight. Six months. Ah, the magic number that Dr A warned about. Not supposed to stay low for more than six months according to the book. I wonder how many hit their ideal weight and stopped losing (the best possible result) vs how many stalled because they stayed too low in carbs. This does show that skill comes into play far more in low carbing than in low fatting. Going too low in carbs does stall plenty. It would seem that going tooo low in fat doesn't have nearly that same problem. Stern says that this pattern of rapid weight loss matches that seen in an earlier but shorter study of Atkins dieters, by Gary Foster's team at the University of Pennsylvania in May 2003. "I'm impressed that they didn't gain it all back," says Stern. It's *easy* to stay at 30! Compared with the low-fat group, Atkins dieters also had lower levels of triglycerides, potentially harmful blood sugars which can trigger heart disease. Concentrations of beneficial high density cholesterols (HDLs) also held up better in the Atkins group. And these favourable changes remained till the end of the study, suggesting that there might be lasting benefits. No news to anyone who's been paying attention. "But what we really need is a study showing whether people on the low-carbohydrate diet for years have different odds of heart attacks, strokes and diabetes," she says. Absolutely. Prove it and get the naysayers handled. Just because one old guy four decades into a low carb plan was in such good health he had to slip on the ice to keep from going to work every day doesn't mean it will work that well for everyone, so it is time for a study. But critics highlight some negative findings from the Duke study. "This new evidence confirms that levels of 'bad' cholesterol worsen in a substantial number of low-carbohydrate dieters," said Neal Barnard of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a vegan lobby group in Washington DC. Ah the PCRM liars again. In fact their "substantial" actually means 20% according to Dr A. Recent studies hint that Dr A might have been conservative in his 20% claim. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3722221.stm Scientists endorse Atkins diet But he added that such diets should include healthy sources of protein and fat and incorporate regular exercise. Uh, sure, just like it says in the directions. #;^)% "Patients should focus on finding ways to eat that they can maintain indefinitely rather than seeking diets that promote rapid weight loss," he said. Agreed. I have found keeping it off much harder than losing it. Among other things keeping it off lasts a lot longer ... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
... Peanutjake wrote: But my question is what is the effect of each type of diet on a diabetic? The second study showed significantly better glycemic control on low-carb. Which seems frankly so damned obvious to me that it seems ridiculous to need a study. People with impaired carbohydrate metabolism should limit carbs! Surprise! Blond moments in science... It has always seemed rather obvious to me too. If your carbohydrate processing mechanism is impaired, why overload your kidneys and your bloodstream by eating it? The problem is that low calorie, so called "balanced" diets are very hard to stay with. For those of us who have failed at them, the problem is hunger and it is very real. Lower carb diets seem to circumvent this extreme hunger issue. The way ANY diet works is by lowering caloric intake of course. NOT being starving hungry is a big help. -- Regards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox") -- As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value. Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets. -- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
Jackie Patti wrote:
gman99 wrote: A year long study with 132 people does NOT a true trial make...six months is nothing.... Feel free to fund a larger long-term study. I'm not the QUACK who made millions selling this ****...perhaps his heirs should fund a study...sheep |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dr. ATKINS IS A QUACK | Irv Finkleman | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | March 31st, 2004 12:37 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 |
erm, is this article TRUE to any extent? | Steven C. \(Doktersteve\) | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 11 | November 29th, 2003 07:43 PM |
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 84 | November 16th, 2003 11:31 PM |