Eat To Live: Atkins diet back on top

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Susan wrote:

Doug Freyburger wrote:


Glucagon is released in response to either dietary fat or protein.
Calorie for calorie, fat works better at it than protein. This is
shown in the original fat fast experiment. So it isn't either-or
making one of our statements wrong, it is bigger-littler with fat
being on the bigger side.

From http://www.endotext.org/diabetes/dia...diabetes2b.htm

********pure or high protein-containing meals stimulate glucagon release.


That's the basis of your assertion I take it. Sure. In the absence
of
carbs, eating protein does trigger glucagon.


*******Prolonged ingestion of high-carbohydrate or isocaloric high-fat
diet decreases basal and meal-stimulated plasma glucagon levels (55).******


The problem here is it is not clear what "isocaloric high-fat diet"
means.


It means the same number of calories ....

A high carb diet decreases basal and meal-stimulated plasma glucanon
levels..
and ...
An equal calorie high fat diet also decreases meal-stimulated plasma
glucanon levels.

There is absolutely no question how to intrepret isocalorie. There is a
prefix iso -

iso– or is–
pref.

1. Equal; uniform: isobar.
2. Isomeric: isopropyl.

[Greek Ä«so-, from Ä«sos, equal.]


It is far from clear that it means low carb.

It does mean _lowered_ carb because they are referring to a diet which
is high fat, rather than high carb, and the calories in both of these
diets are equal. It follows that the high fat diet (with equal calories)
will have lower carbs than a high carb diet( of equal calories). It
doesn't mean necessarily LOW CARB as in Atkins, but it could mean that.


Consider that the very
next
word is "conversely":


Conversely, low-carbohydrate diets or high-protein diets increase
basal and stimulated glucagon secretion (55).


The word conversely reflects the verbs INCREASE vs DECREASE in the two
sentences you cite.

Increase is the converse of decrease. Conversely is the adjective of
converse - relating to reversal.

con·verse2 (kən-vûrs', k�n'vûrs') pronunciation
adj.

Reversed, as in position, order, or action; contrary.
n. (k�n'vûrs')

1. Something that has been reversed; an opposite.
2. Logic. A proposition obtained by conversion.

[Latin conversus, past participle of convertere, to turn around. See
convert.]
conversely con·verse'ly adv.



It seems that they did compare almost all protein against almost all
carb and sure enough the almost all protein diet released more
glucagon.

Your next sentence is pure gibberish. You don't appear to understand the
prefix iso- and you don't appear to understand the adverb conversely.
You appear to have reached the wrong conclusions as a result.

Diarmid wrote:
:
http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDai...-104908-6834r/
:
: By JULIA WATSON
:
: UPI Food Writer
:
: WASHINGTON, March 5 (UPI) -- A friend getting ready for beach season
: has just gone back onto the Atkins Diet. How so last century. Hasn't
: she heard of the Zone? The GI diet? A mutual acquaintance swears by
: the Ornish regime.
:
: Haven't we been there, done Atkins? And wasn't it unhealthy for us,
: anyway?
:
: If we think along either of these lines, we shouldn't. A new Stanford
: University study finds the Atkins diet is most effective for reducing
: weight in women.
:
: Study leader Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford
: University's Disease Prevention Research Center in California, told
: Britain's Sunday Times, "So many people have been asking questions
: about diets for years. We think it's time to give them some answers."
:
: When his study is published this week, it will show of the four
: regimes under review, the Atkins diet resulted in the greatest weight
: loss -- with no indication of undesirable side-effects.

There was allmost an equal study about one year ago which lasted also for
one year. In that study the low-carb diet did not produce greatest weight
loss. It was concluded that the commitment to follow any diet is what
counts.

I suspect that in this newer study those following the Atkins diet did get
particularly good instructions. The success is largely influenced by the
dietary advice given by the nutritionists in a study.

--
Juhana

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:44:49 GMT, Jim Chinnis wrote:

I suspect the %carbs has risen over the years, at least in the US.

So ha has the total amount of calories, though.


+530 calories, 1970-2000.
+24.5% from from refined grain,
+9% calories from added fats and oils,
+4.7% calories from added sugars.

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.htm
"ERS data suggest that average daily calorie intake increased by 24.5
percent, or about 530 calories, between 1970 and 2000. Of that 24.5-percent
increase, grains (mainly refined grain products) contributed 9.5 percentage
points; added fats and oils, 9.0 percentage points; added sugars, 4.7
percentage points; fruits and vegetables together, 1.5 percentage points;
meats and nuts together, 1 percentage point; and dairy products and eggs
together, -1.5 percentage point.2"

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:13:18 -0600, Tim wrote:

You make it sound like it is no problem just reducing calories. Problem
solved. Maybe you should write a book?

No one would buy that book, people want quick fixes not real
"difficult" solutions.

It can be difficult which is why there is such an obesity epidemic.
[...]

"It can be difficult"? Is that a way to say it doesn't work, in most cases,
because compliance is low?

However to fix the problem does require work and sacrifice which most
are unwilling to make.

There are ways to make a weight control diet not a sacrifice, like eating
satiating foods and hiring a good chef (or becoming one) :-)

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:46:31 -0600, Tim wrote:
[...]
It is not due to more
carbs but more food. Simple sugars allow you to eat more which causes
you to ingest more calories and become fat.
[...]

I guess you hit the nail on the head! :-)

--
Enrico C

"After fifteen minutes I wanted to marry her, and after half an hour I
completely gave up the idea of stealing her purse."
[Virgil/W.Allen,Take the Money and Run (1969)]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:33:02 +0200, "Juhana Harju"
wrote:

I suspect that in this newer study those following the Atkins diet did get
particularly good instructions.

Why do you suspect that?


--
Matti Narkia

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:33:02 +0200, Juhana Harju wrote in
:
[...]

There was allmost an equal study about one year ago which lasted also for
one year. In that study the low-carb diet did not produce greatest weight
loss. It was concluded that the commitment to follow any diet is what
counts.

I suspect that in this newer study those following the Atkins diet did get
particularly good instructions. The success is largely influenced by the
dietary advice given by the nutritionists in a study.

Generally speaking, I also suspect most people get particularly bad
instructions if they are just said "eat less calories" and given a typical
menu that is dull and boring. I guess they need a good chef more than a
dietician ;-)

Also, community support is key. Generally you find it (on the Internet,
friends, and so on) for popular diet books rather than for "official
diets".

Besides, popular diet books writers might be bad dieticians, perhaps, but
good motivational writers!


xpost
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med.cardiology,misc.hea lth.alternative

fup2 alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition

Matti Narkia wrote:
: On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:33:02 +0200, "Juhana Harju"
: wrote:
::
:: I suspect that in this newer study those following the Atkins diet
:: did get particularly good instructions.
:
: Why do you suspect that?

Differences in instructions given to diet groups is the most obvious reason
for the fact that the results differ so much from the previous comparison
study published about one year ago.

--
Juhana

Enrico C wrote:
: On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:33:02 +0200, Juhana Harju wrote:
::
:: There was allmost an equal study about one year ago which lasted
:: also for one year. In that study the low-carb diet did not produce
:: greatest weight loss. It was concluded that the commitment to follow
:: any diet is what counts.
::
:: I suspect that in this newer study those following the Atkins diet
:: did get particularly good instructions. The success is largely
:: influenced by the dietary advice given by the nutritionists in a
:: study.
:
: Generally speaking, I also suspect most people get particularly bad
: instructions if they are just said "eat less calories" and given a
: typical menu that is dull and boring. I guess they need a good chef
: more than a dietician ;-)
:
: Also, community support is key. Generally you find it (on the
: Internet, friends, and so on) for popular diet books rather than for
: "official diets".

I agree. Nowadays people on low-carb diets get particularly good community
support due to the fashionabily of these diets.

: Besides, popular diet books writers might be bad dieticians, perhaps,
: but good motivational writers!

--
Juhana

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:14:51 +0200, "Juhana Harju"
wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote:
: On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:33:02 +0200, "Juhana Harju"
: wrote:
::
:: I suspect that in this newer study those following the Atkins diet
:: did get particularly good instructions.
:
: Why do you suspect that?

Differences in instructions given to diet groups is the most obvious reason
for the fact that the results differ so much from the previous comparison
study published about one year ago.

Differences in instructions? Please elaborate. Surely different diets
need different instructions. Different studies produce different
results for a number of reasons such as different populations,
variability in the adherence to the diet, variability in the diets,
different methods used, and chance, just to mention few.

The other study you refer to was published two years ago. What makes
you think that differences in instructions did not affect one way or
other then, if you think that they did now?


--
Matti Narkia