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 Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 24th, 2003, 09:34 PM
Valley Of Mu_n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher
wrote:

Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is
helping people with heart problems?


The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the
short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person.

How long will embarrassment over
past mistakes trump doing the right thing now?


The AHA doesn't consider it the right thing.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031021.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
  #12  
Old October 24th, 2003, 11:47 PM
Sharon Hope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works


"Valley Of Mu_n" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher
wrote:

Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is
helping people with heart problems?


The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the
short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person.


Unfortunately, the AHA didn't warn doctors about statin-induced
rhabdomyolysis until after Bayer pulled Baycol, after hundreds of deaths.

Unfortunately, the AHA didn't warn doctors about statin-induced myositis,
nor statin-induced myopathy without elevated CK, until a year after the
initial recognition of the rhabdomyolysis dangers.

Unfortunately, the AHA has yet to warn doctors (beyond a brief mention of a
speculation) about statin-induced polyneuropathy and statin-induced
peripheral neuropathy. Nor, have they determined that there is any
increased urgency in warning doctors to watch for statin-induced
polyneuropathy and statin-induced peripheral neuropathy when they are
treating diabetics - many of whom are at risk for these very conditions -
now that the FDA has approved statins for diabetics.

Unfortunately, the AHA has yet to warn doctors about statin-induced
cognitive decline, statin-induced memory loss, and statin-induced episodes
of Transcient Global Amnesia, often occuring in multiples. (No mention, yet
the Australian Drug Administration warned that statins are "Drugs that make
you forget" in 1998.) Nor, have they determined that there is any increased
urgency in warning doctors to watch for statin-induced cognitive decline,
statin-induced memory loss, and statin-induced episodes of Transcient Global
Amnesia now that the FDA has approved statins for children ages 11-17.

Then again, the AHA has known since 1985 that statins cause a Coenzyme Q10
deficiency, with mitochondrial damage and cardiac impacts, and they have yet
to warn doctors to watch for the results of this deficiency, let alone
suggest a supplement to prevent it.

What are the results of not warning doctors (or patients) about these
statin-induced adverse effects? For specific examples, see Smart Money
Magazine's November issue, on the stands now, complete with color pictures
of the disabled patients.



  #13  
Old October 25th, 2003, 12:12 AM
Patricia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works

Sharon Hope wrote:
What are the results of not warning doctors (or patients) about these
statin-induced adverse effects? For specific examples, see Smart Money
Magazine's November issue, on the stands now, complete with color pictures
of the disabled patients.

-----------------
Hi, Sharon -

I read it and it was pretty frightening.

Based on what has already been learned about Baycol it bears a
closer look. I don't want to be one of it's victims and have cut
back from 20mg. to 10mg and then every other day to nothing.

I saw my MD just a few weeks ago and mentioned the weakness in my
legs and the pain I was experiencing. He said it was probably
just leg cramps and offered a Rx. for quinine tabs to relieve
that.

Wouldn't you think HE would know if there is a problem with
Lipitor ? Guess not. 8-( I plan on consulting with someone else
on this...but where to start ?

If any permanent damage has been I'm going to be really angry.

--
Patricia
Florida-USA
  #14  
Old October 25th, 2003, 04:36 AM
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works

Valley Of Mu_n wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher
wrote:

Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is
helping people with heart problems?


The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the
short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person.

How long will embarrassment over
past mistakes trump doing the right thing now?


The AHA doesn't consider it the right thing.


The AHA is not alone.

From Dr. Barry Sears (2/24/2000):

"Finally, the longer you stay in ketosis, you begin to oxidize
lipoproteins, so these are long-term consequences which begin to explain
why high protein diets fail."

Source:

http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Seminars/GND/Proceedings.txt


Pertinent research:

http://tinyurl.com/s8mp

"This study demonstrates that incubation of AA with normal RBCs in
phosphate-buffered saline (37 degrees C for 24 h) resulted in marked GSH
depletion, oxidized
glutathione accumulation, hydroxyl radical generation, and increased
membrane lipid peroxidation."

Note that these are *normal* red blood cells (RBCs) incubated under
physiological
conditions with AA (acetoacetate is a ketone that *is* elevated with
ketogenic LC
dieting) resulting in measurable toxic (bad) effects on the cells.
Especially
concerning is the generation of oxygen free radicals and peroxidation of
membrane
lipids.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/




  #15  
Old October 25th, 2003, 04:41 AM
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works

Sharon Hope wrote:

"Valley Of Mu_n" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher
wrote:

Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is
helping people with heart problems?


The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the
short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person.


Unfortunately, the AHA didn't warn doctors about statin-induced
rhabdomyolysis until after Bayer pulled Baycol, after hundreds of deaths.


So you better take heed when the AHA warns you about something. They tend to be
late about doing it according to Ms. Hope.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com


  #16  
Old October 25th, 2003, 08:54 AM
Matti Narkia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works

Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:36:24 GMT in article
m "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" wrote:

Valley Of Mu_n wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher
wrote:

Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is
helping people with heart problems?


The AMA is not only concerned with your heart. They do care about the
short and long term effects of any diet on the whole of the person.

How long will embarrassment over
past mistakes trump doing the right thing now?


The AHA doesn't consider it the right thing.


The AHA is not alone.

From Dr. Barry Sears (2/24/2000):

"Finally, the longer you stay in ketosis, you begin to oxidize
lipoproteins, so these are long-term consequences which begin to explain
why high protein diets fail."

Source:

http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Seminars/GND/Proceedings.txt

That is your "evidence"?. Barry Sears' unsubstantiated oral statement over
three years ago without any references whatsoever to back it up? You have to
do "much" better than that.

Pertinent research:

http://tinyurl.com/s8mp

"This study demonstrates that incubation of AA with normal RBCs in
phosphate-buffered saline (37 degrees C for 24 h) resulted in marked GSH
depletion, oxidized
glutathione accumulation, hydroxyl radical generation, and increased
membrane lipid peroxidation."

Note that these are *normal* red blood cells (RBCs) incubated under
physiological
conditions with AA (acetoacetate is a ketone that *is* elevated with
ketogenic LC
dieting) resulting in measurable toxic (bad) effects on the cells.
Especially
concerning is the generation of oxygen free radicals and peroxidation of
membrane
lipids.

As ha already been shown, this applies only to type 1 diabetes patients as
authors mention in their conclusion. The full text of this study is at

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org.../48/9/1850.pdf

A quote from there gives one explanation why this study applies only to type
1 diabetes:

"The blood concentration of ketone bodies may reach 10 mmol/l in
diabetic patients with severe ketosis, versus 0.5 mmol/l in normal
people (24,25)."


--
Matti Narkia
  #17  
Old October 25th, 2003, 02:13 PM
cheesegator
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works

Please see the last couple paragraphs of this news item.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...3-lowcarb.html

Although the hypotheses I stated are my own, the intuitive logic is
compelling--as the above-reference researcher illustrates. To me, this is
by far the most obvious reason why LCers may consume more calories (than
LFers) and yet lose more weight. It may not ultimately prove to be true,
but isn't this the logical place to begin the research?

The converse to my simple hypothesis would be:
"All foods (i.e. no exceptions, ever, anywhere, under any circumstances) are
metabolized in EXACTLY the same way, or at least have EXACTLY the same net
metabolic effect on EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING".

Not particularly likely, IMHO.


"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
cheesegator wrote:
:: Why is this such a controversy? Whether or not there truly exists a
:: "Metabolic Advantage" as Dr. Atkins used the term, there is another
:: very simple explanation.
::
:: For some people, if not all people, it MUST be true that:
::
:: Consuming 1,000 Kcal of Fructose is NOT metabolically equivalent to
:: consuming 1,000 Kcal of Bacon grease.
::
::
:: Why not???? I'll tell you why:
::
:: 1. Not all foods have EXACTLY the same absorption in the gut. Most
:: of the fructose calories will be used by the body, while a greater
:: percentage of the bacon grease calories will end up in the toilet.

Do you have a cite for this? I'm not saying it isn't true, but I've never
read anything convincing on this. I do know, however, that when I eat

lots
of fat -- stuff floats

::
:: 2. The energy USED by the body in metabolizing & processing is not
:: EXACTLY the same for all foods. Again, my hypothesis is that
:: sugary/starchy foods are much more easily processed by the body.
::
:: Even a 1% difference in NET ABSORBED CALORIES (between a low-carb
:: and a high-carb diet of equivalent GROSS calories) would be
:: significant. I would bet it's much greater than 1%.
::
:: If I'm wrong, then Atkins' "Metabolic Advantage" seems to be the only
:: logical explanation for these results.

I like your notions better than the metabolic advantage. I just don't

know
if they are true.




  #18  
Old October 25th, 2003, 08:53 PM
Sharon Hope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works

Patricia,

Glad you read it. Now you know what my husband is going through and what I
face every day.

Where to start:

Contact the UCSD Statin Study - Dr. Golomb (nearly full page photo in the
Smart Money article) has information on her website, and is collecting
adverse effects. http://medicine.ucsd.edu/statin/ click on 'contact us'.
You can email or call.

Read the website http://www.impostertrial.com/, both the section for
patients and the section for doctors. Imposter /impóster/ n. (also
im·pos´tor) 1 A web site for patients and physicians searching for
information concerning Statin Therapy and related issues 2 acronym: Is
Myopathy Part Of Statin Therapy?

Check the Statin FAQ on http://forum.ditonline.com/viewboard.php?BoardID=38
(I may also post one here again, under its own subject line)

Note that the FAQ tends to emphasize non-muscular statin adverse effects,
because I was under the erroneous illusion that the myopathy and
rhabdomyolysis problems were common knowledge. Again and again I find that
is not true, both among treating doctors and patients. (Which indicates the
doctors are not even listening to the AHA on the one adverse effect they
admit to)

Take all of the above to your doctor and DEMAND that he address your pain.
He owes you a blood test to check for elevated CK, but he also should know
that you can have statin myopathy without elevated CK. Any of the following
out of range are danger signs:
BUN high
Creatine high
low CO2
low red blood cells
high AST
high ALT
elevated CPK (aka CK)

If he won't help, check the NIH (National Institutes of Health) website for
a neuromuscular specialist or a mitochondrial specialist and have them check
into the problems.

Do not wait! My husband was on 10mg for 4 years and you read some of the
statin adverse effects that disabled him in the article (couldn't cover it
all in 6 pages - his medical records since quitting Lipitor in January 2002
are over 4 inches thick!).

Coenzyme Q10 supplements may help, but they will not be the entire answer.

Good luck, and please let me know how you are doing.

Take care,
Sharon


"Patricia" wrote in message
...
Sharon Hope wrote:
What are the results of not warning doctors (or patients) about these
statin-induced adverse effects? For specific examples, see Smart Money
Magazine's November issue, on the stands now, complete with color

pictures
of the disabled patients.

-----------------
Hi, Sharon -

I read it and it was pretty frightening.

Based on what has already been learned about Baycol it bears a
closer look. I don't want to be one of it's victims and have cut
back from 20mg. to 10mg and then every other day to nothing.

I saw my MD just a few weeks ago and mentioned the weakness in my
legs and the pain I was experiencing. He said it was probably
just leg cramps and offered a Rx. for quinine tabs to relieve
that.

Wouldn't you think HE would know if there is a problem with
Lipitor ? Guess not. 8-( I plan on consulting with someone else
on this...but where to start ?

If any permanent damage has been I'm going to be really angry.

--
Patricia
Florida-USA



  #19  
Old October 26th, 2003, 01:47 AM
Aramanth Dawe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher
wrote:
snip

"We had a tough time getting our results published - it took 18
months altogether," she says. "The big journals really couldn't
handle it. But we're not endorsing the diet: it's just our results."


That's really, really sad. Any journal that refuses to publish
research simply because it doesn't like the results should cease to
exist. They aren't supposed to be in the business of suppressing
knowledge.


It's the way ALL reputable scientific journals operate.

Papers come in. The editors send them off to other reputable
scientists in that particular field to be reviewed - basically, the
editors want to make sure the paper is 'good science'. The editor
then takes into account the comments of the reviewer(s) as to whether
or not the paper is plausible, is well written and the experiments (if
any) described therein are good science in deciding whether to reject
the paper outright, ask for revision and resubmission or publish it.
If your work happens to be in accord with current thinking on the
topic, it's more likely to be published or at least only minor
revision before publication. If your work, no matter how well
researched, does NOT fit with current thinking it's more likely to be
rejected.

As it happens, this is a situation that effects my family on a regular
basis.

My husband is a professional Research Scientist. His paid work is as
a civilian scientist attached to the Australian Defence Force. He
publishes about 5 or so papers a year (mostly classified, or I'd point
you to them) in that field and they are rarely returned for more than
minor revision before publication. He also has (classified) Patents
in his name for his sonar enhancement system (ISHTAR - you can see
some unclassified information at
http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/corpo...industry1.html
if you're interested in what he gets up to).

His PhD work was in Tachyon Physics. His theories in this field are
VERY controversial, although they fit better with established
knowledge than do the current theories in this field. It takes him
approximately 3 years of revision and resubmission to get every paper
published. It's not that his papers in Tachyons are poorly written.
It's not that his papers are poorly researched. It's just that most
of the reviewers out there *have a vested interest in having *their*
theories be the accepted ones* so they reject papers showing that they
might have been wrong.

Since most editors of journals *don't* have the expertise to be a
peer-reviewer of *every* subject that their journal covers they have
to rely on the judgements of those who *do* have the expertise. This
is true throughout all the branches of science. And, since
scientists are no less human than anyone else you might meet (although
some people might think so) they *do* tend to unconsciously protect
their livelihoods by demanding greater proof of controversial papers
than they might of ones that support their own views.

Aramanth
  #20  
Old October 26th, 2003, 10:20 AM
Supergoof
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works

revek wrote ...
"cheesegator" wrote ...
For some people, if not all people, it MUST be true that:

Consuming 1,000 Kcal of Fructose is NOT metabolically equivalent to
consuming 1,000 Kcal of Bacon grease.

Why not???? I'll tell you why:

1. Not all foods have EXACTLY the same absorption in the gut. Most

of the
fructose calories will be used by the body, while a greater

percentage of
the bacon grease calories will end up in the toilet.


2. The energy USED by the body in metabolizing & processing is not

EXACTLY
the same for all foods. Again, my hypothesis is that sugary/starchy

foods
are much more easily processed by the body.


I doubt it is so high, myself, for 'average' folks, and I have heard
that sort of differential factoring is accounted for in the
calculations of caloric loads of different foods (for average folks).
Of course, for us overweight people, we have visual evidence that our
bodies react differently to food than 'average' folks.


It's all about the insulin ... carbs stimulate insulin, protein/fats don't,
or at least *very* little.

I'm no scientist so bear with me here, but the insulin spike you get with
the fructose (or any carbs, to a greater or lesser degree) means your body
is going to store any excess calories as fat. Too many such insulin spikes
can leave a person insulin resistant, which means the body is producing more
and more of the fat-storing insulin because it's not registering ... and if
it continues you end up with type 2 diabetes if you're not careful.

Hence the idiocy of the high-carb diet so commonly prescribed for diabetics.

I'm sure there are others here who can explain it all soooo much better than
I can! This is essentially what I can recall from reading DANDR.

When my GP told me I was insulin resistant, she said my body is extremely
efficient at gaining and retaining weight.

bloody brilliant ...

)

Rachel
(New Zealand)


 




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
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret Diarmid Logan General Discussion 135 February 14th, 2004 05:56 PM
Low carb diets General Discussion 249 January 9th, 2004 12:15 AM
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy Diarmid Logan General Discussion 23 December 14th, 2003 12:39 PM
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet Diarmid Logan General Discussion 84 November 17th, 2003 12:31 AM
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet Diarmid Logan Low Carbohydrate Diets 79 November 17th, 2003 12:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.