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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
In alt.support.diet tcomeau wrote:
Wendy wrote in message ... I find it interesting that they did the OPPOSITE interpretation of Atkins than most people. I mean, the first thing Atkins people do is load up on saturated fats most of the time. I'm not sure how the Atkins people can then crow that the diet works. Do they think saturated fats and polyunsaturated fats are the same thing? Where do you get your information from? How the heck do you know that "the first thing Atkins people do is load up on saturated fats most of the time". Personal and anecdotal experience. Why, are you under the impression that the Atkins diet is low in saturated fat? My recollection is eating full-fat dairy products and full-fat beef products and bacon and liverwurst and... well, of MOST of my calories coming from saturated fats. Furthermore, that's been the big appeal to people I know personally doing the Atkins program. I don't mean to say that ALL Atkins proponants eat high-saturated fat diets, but it's always been one of the main criticisms all along. Hadn't you heard? Good point. Geez, don't you suppose that Harvard researchers might consider the amount of calories burned as being related to weight loss? Ok, so maybe all seven people on the low-fat diet were couch potatoes and all 14 on the low-carb diets ran a marathon every day. Yeah, right! How about that the people with an extra 300 calories had enough energy to fit in a workout where the ones on the same amount of high-carb calories were languishing from hunger. We all know a high-carb diet is not as satieting on the same amount of calories. I think a reasonable result of that would be less likely to go for a walk or lift weights. Also, the BMR is likely to fall on a low-protein diet by more than on a moderate-protein diet with weight-lifting. Differences in calories burned can be significant between these two factors. And with seven people in each group, significant individual differences in exercise routines can really can skew the results. Why, do you think calories burned is a negligible issue in the field of weight loss? I'm trying to figure out if the study was poorly designed on purpose or if it is just being poorly reported. It is just being poorly interpreted by individuals like yourself who wouldn't recognize the difference between good science and bad science if your lives depended on it. Sure, whatever. So far I see a weight loss study that doesn't measure calories expended, that doesn't distinguish between water, muscle and fat loss and that only includes 7 people per group. What do you see? You seem to have an agenda and any small detail seems to be enough for you to reject these findings. I don't know what you think my agenda is, but go ahead and tell me what the findings are. So far I hear worthless anecdote. I'm wondering if the "Harvard Researchers" are freshmen bio students. (An alternate possibility is that the reporting is so bad that they didn't feel the need to distinguish between "weight" and "fat" or to mention tedious exercise logs.) I will await the report, but unless they account for more factors than "weight" and "calories in" I won't see much value in it. Wendy |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
On 10/16/2003 3:03 PM, Wendy wrote: In alt.support.diet tcomeau wrote: Wendy wrote in message ... I find it interesting that they did the OPPOSITE interpretation of Atkins than most people. I mean, the first thing Atkins people do is load up on saturated fats most of the time. I'm not sure how the Atkins people can then crow that the diet works. Do they think saturated fats and polyunsaturated fats are the same thing? Where do you get your information from? How the heck do you know that "the first thing Atkins people do is load up on saturated fats most of the time". Personal and anecdotal experience. Why, are you under the impression that the Atkins diet is low in saturated fat? My recollection is eating full-fat dairy products and full-fat beef products and bacon and liverwurst and... well, of MOST of my calories coming from saturated fats. Furthermore, that's been the big appeal to people I know personally doing the Atkins program. I don't mean to say that ALL Atkins proponants eat high-saturated fat diets, but it's always been one of the main criticisms all along. Hadn't you heard? While this evidence is very indirect, sales of breakfast meats are going up up up. There's a statistic buried in this article http://newsobserver.com/business/sto...-2709794c.html "Even Food Lion, the Salisbury-based grocer, has seen the Atkins effect. Sales of breakfast meats, specifically bacon and sausage, have surged in recent months..." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
Wendy wrote in message ...
Personal and anecdotal experience. Why, are you under the impression that the Atkins diet is low in saturated fat? My recollection is eating full-fat dairy products and full-fat beef products and bacon and liverwurst and... well, of MOST of my calories coming from saturated fats. Actually, on Atkins, when I was using fit-day, and eating pretty much any sort of food I wanted, the ratio was about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 between poly, mono and saturated fats, calorie ratio even lower because you tend to eat some protein as well, and a little bit of carbs. According to fit-day, a steak (Beef steak, braised, lean and fat eaten) provides less than 50% of it's fats as saturated fats, then there is the mono-unsaturated fat, and the protein. So even if you were eating nothing but steak all day long, about 25% of your calories would be coming from saturated fat - nowhere near the "Most" you are claiming. In reality you are going to be eating some leaner meats, nuts, and vegetables. How about that the people with an extra 300 calories had enough energy to fit in a workout where the ones on the same amount of high-carb calories were languishing from hunger. We all know a high-carb diet is not as satieting on the same amount of calories. I think a reasonable result of that would be less likely to go for a walk or lift weights. Also, the BMR is likely to fall on a low-protein diet by more than on a moderate-protein diet with weight-lifting. Differences in calories burned can be significant between these two factors. And with seven people in each group, significant individual differences in exercise routines can really can skew the results. These are arguments for the "a calories is a calorie" camp, not a arguments against Atkins or the study's results. If you can lose more weight while eating 300 calories more - why not - who cares if it is actually because you are a little bit more active, or have a higher BMR. -josh |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:36:53 GMT, Dan posted:
Doesn't the research behind the zone diet prove that a calorie is not a calorie and that insulin levels determine how much fat the body stores? Nope. Can you show us evidence of this if you believe otherwise? Calories available for storage (not burned as energy or heat) determine how much fat the body stores. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
I found this research interesting. Some people are saying now that maybe all
calories are not equal in the traditional sense, when metabolized by the body. Other people are saying that maybe the low-carbers in the study simply cheated less because their appetites are under control better. But to me, the real issue isn't whether there is a thermogenic advantage or not to low-carbing. I wouldn't be shocked to find there was, although I think there is not a consensus on this point yet. To me, the issue is a matter of degree. I am finding that even with very low carb eating that I am gaining weight. So even if I would be gaining *more* weight eating the same number of calories and higher carbs, the problem still remains. In other words, low-carbing does not shut off normal metabolism. Eating too many calories for your body still causes you to gain weight regardless. doug |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:57:21 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote: I found this research interesting. Some people are saying now that maybe all calories are not equal in the traditional sense, when metabolized by the body. Other people are saying that maybe the low-carbers in the study simply cheated less because their appetites are under control better. But to me, the real issue isn't whether there is a thermogenic advantage or not to low-carbing. I wouldn't be shocked to find there was, although I think there is not a consensus on this point yet. To me, the issue is a matter of degree. I am finding that even with very low carb eating that I am gaining weight. So even if I would be gaining *more* weight eating the same number of calories and higher carbs, the problem still remains. In other words, low-carbing does not shut off normal metabolism. Eating too many calories for your body still causes you to gain weight regardless. doug I have found that a low carb diet lets me control my eating. It is necessary to eat less even on a low carb diet to lose weight. Appetite control is what low carb is all about. Something I never successfully did on a low fat diet. Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr. Lubbock, Texas kinserlow at hotmail dot com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr. Lubbock, Texas kinserlow at hotmail dot com Ray, and anyone else from Lubbock Texas, do you know of any walking paths in the parks here. I have heard that there were some, but I can't find them Thanks, Beverly Ann |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
"BANBEVER" wrote Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr. Lubbock, Texas kinserlow at hotmail dot com Ray, and anyone else from Lubbock Texas, do you know of any walking paths in the parks here. I have heard that there were some, but I can't find them Thanks, Beverly Ann Try the cinder track at 19th & Vicksburg. -- Walking on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is this better than Atkins? | Ferrante | General Discussion | 13 | October 8th, 2003 08:46 PM |
It's Official - Atkins Diet Can Be Deadly | bicker 2003 | General Discussion | 23 | October 5th, 2003 02:00 AM |
Study: Even mid-life diet change can extend life | Steve Chaney, aka Papa Gunnykins ® | General Discussion | 7 | October 3rd, 2003 11:12 PM |
Study: Low-Calorie Diet Can Extend Life | bicker 2003 | General Discussion | 3 | September 23rd, 2003 02:02 PM |