Debunking Atkins

[Scylla]

First off, the Atkins diet works. Why then does it need to be debunked?

For the same reason the Beverly Hills Diet needed to be debunked, or the all ice cream diet needs to be debunked.

Unbalanced, fad and crash diets give you weight loss at a cost.

The first cost of the Atkins diet is the dannger of poor nutrition, and lower energy levels. Runner's World conducted a study in their October issue wherein they placed half of a pool of runner's on the Atkins diet, and at intervals measured their performance on a treadmill against a control group. The Atkins runners reported a lower energy level, didn't feel as good, and this was confirmed by a degradation in their ability to run. Conclusion, the Atkins diet saps your energy. More important is the danger nutritionally. A high fat diet can severe health consequences long-term, and the long-term effects of the Atkins diet are not known, but based on what we do know about nutrition, they are surely not good.

The diet is nothing new. Back in the 1800s William Banting published a diet pamphlet documenting a new diet he developed with his physician. He cut out all the bread and vegetables, but ate meat and Sherry.

According to Dr. Liz Applegate, who's made a study of this and other fad diets, the underlying assumption was that Carbs make you fat. This underlying assumption colored nutritional thinking for the next 100 years or so. If you remember looking at old movies or hearing your grandfather tell you about the cholesterol mess that was commonly consumed as a "healthy diet" up until the 1970s you may remember that we Americans aren't exactly new to the concept of a high fat diet.

In the 1980s some highly publicized and well-documented studies began to teach people that fat was fattening. Gotta cut fat! People started eating more carbs and less fat. And as people sucked down those bagels and fat-free snacks they wondered why they gain weight.

The pendulum had slid the other way.

Now it's sliding back, and carbs are taking the blame again.

Dr. Applegate says:

Throughout this nutritional drama, however, one very important concept was overlooked: Calories are what count. No matter where you get them-from carbohydrate protein, or fat- if you take in too many calories relative to the number you burn each day, you'll gain weight (about 3,500 calories translates to one pound of fat.) The high protein diets of Banting and Atkins work for one key reason: As you cut the carbs from your diet, you also cut about 1,000 calories. Thus, you lose wieght. And much of the initial wieght lost is from water loss not fat loss.

Fat has twice as many calories per gram as carbohydrate. The Atkins diet works in spite of this fact because the fats that we eat tend to be more filling and cloying than the carbs we have gotten used to. Sweets and snacks like pretzels and low fat cookies can actually trigger the hunger response becasue they are absorbed so quickly. That hamburger will likely be sitting in your stomach for a long time.

The answer is that not all carbs (just like not all foods,) are good for weight loss. Fruits vegetables and whole grain breads are high in fiber, are not so quickly absorbed and are going to give you that same lasting full feeling as a hamburger.

Not all carbs are equal. Dr. Applegate cites things like white bread, plain pasta, sugary drinks and fat free treats as examples of bad carbs, and vegetables whole grains, beans and fruits as good carbs.

The same is true with high fat foods. Monounsaturated fats like those found in olive oil and fish are good for you. The saturated and trans fats (dairy products, meats, and vegetable oils) that clog your arteries and give you heart disease.

Then too, the Atkins diet works for another reason. The Ice Cream diet factor. Go on an all ice cream diet, and you will lose weight. This will happen because you get sick of ice cream and don't want it as much.

You get the exact same effect with the Atkins diet and its high-fat content foods.

Dieting alone is rarely a permanent weight loss solution. As one diets one loses fat and muscle mass. At some point one goes off the diet, and now one has less muscle to support. That means when you're done dieting your body needs less calories to maintain itself than it did when you started. You gain weight easier. Then, of course you diet again. You lose bone density, muscle mass ligature strength, in short, you lose everything with each swing of the crash diet/weight gain pendulum.

The simple fact has been and always remains that calories are what count. To maintain good health and weight one needs a balanced diet. In reality 50-60% of your daily caloric intake should be carb based to keep you healthy. The remaining 40-50% should be from fats and proteins.

Exercise while you diet, and you will build muscle mass initially, maybe even gain weight. However, it quickly becomes a geometric progression that works for you on the loss side.

The more you exercise the more calories you burn, and the more calories it takes to maintain your muscle mass. The stronger you get the more you can exercise in a given time frame, burning more calories still.

It is a hard thing to get started, to exercise when you're out of shape. It's an investment that's worth making though, as when you do start losing weight, that weight loss will tend to be permanent.

The Atkins diet is just another fad, and maybe a very dangerous one.

[Scylla]

For those who want to read more:

http://www.eagle.american.edu/section.cfm/29/7/1568

http://www.drjlgarciam.com/debunking_the_high.htm

http://www.about-obesity.com/html/the-truth-about-fad-diets.php3

http://www.chasefreedom.com/atkinsdiet.html

http://www.chasefreedom.com/atkinsreview.html

http://www.chasefreedom.com/atkinsdietmedical.html

You may notice that thes last three are from the same website. Ther's also a fourth, the positive review. I'll include it here for balance:

http://www.chasefreedom.com/atkinsdiet2.html

And here's Dr. Applegate's website:

http://www.lizapplegate.com/

She's into balls now, which are a good way to get started exercising if you're not in shape.

[The_Raven]

Howyadoin,

Using runners as a test subject for the Atkins diet may be as valid as advocating carbo-loading before you climb into the car to drive 26 miles to work. People who exercise regularly have metabolic systems that function differently than fat, lazy Type II diabetics like me. It's no surprise that a low-carb diet provides less immediately available energy, but this quick energy would only be stored as fat anyway.

That aside, I agree that a balanced diet and exercise is the ultimate goal for maintaining a healthy weight. The low-carb concept has been around for about 30 years, and there are no significant studies that point to long-term negative health effects, at least that I'm aware of. With the vested interest of the status quo in protecting their turf, there has been much interest and plenty of opportunity to find a "smoking gun" to invalidate the low-carb concept. I've yet to see conclusive evidence that a successful low-carb diet causes more long-term damage than yo-yo weight loss and recovery, for example.

Quoth:
"the long-term effects of the Atkins diet are not known, but based on what we do know about nutrition, they are surely not good"

Again, this is an assumption that I cannot abide. People in the real world, not some group of endorphin junkies, do not think in terms of "nutrition". If a short term low-carb diet works for them, followed by a transition to healthier eating once one has the psychological reinforcement that enhanced self esteem and self image brings, than let's not stigmatize it. In a world where people are so desperate to get off the roller coaster that they submit to highly dangerous elective self-mutilation in the form of gastric bypass surgery, let's not fool ourselves.

Just the cacklings of a corvid...

-Rav

[elucidator]

Scylla, I cannot purport to be an expert. But my son, heir and scion of the Elucidator empire, took up this "no carb" thing about a year ago. It is a pain in the butt. Expensive, too, with its reliance on meat. He used to be huge and fat, now he's merely huge, having lost upwards of 90 lbs. I've known entire people who didn't weigh that much!

So theres something going on here. My suspicion is "diff'rent strokes", our human digestive systems are not uniform, what works for A will kill B, and we are far from knowing why.

But how is it, if the standard orthodoxyies of diet are true, that the Eskimo thrive for months on a diet of meat and fat, without a fresh vegetable even in memory, much less on the table?

[Scylla]

Originally posted by elucidator
Scylla, I cannot purport to be an expert. But my son, heir and scion of the Elucidator empire, took up this "no carb" thing about a year ago. It is a pain in the butt. Expensive, too, with its reliance on meat. He used to be huge and fat, now he's merely huge, having lost upwards of 90 lbs. I've known entire people who didn't weigh that much!

Like I said. The diet works.

So theres something going on here. My suspicion is "diff'rent strokes", our human digestive systems are not uniform, what works for A will kill B, and we are far from knowing why.

The human digestive system is staggeringly uniform. Under the Atkins diet your son is consuming less calories than he did when he just ate whatever he wanted. He's losing weight.

But how is it, if the standard orthodoxyies of diet are true, that the Eskimo thrive for months on a diet of meat and fat, without a fresh vegetable even in memory, much less on the table?

I recall that there have been some studies about that, and it's a combination of adaptation and the fact that they do hurt for their lack of things like vitamin C during those periods.

They're not thriving, they're just going downhill very slowly

[Scylla]

Originally posted by The_Raven
People who exercise regularly have metabolic systems that function differently than fat, lazy Type II diabetics like me.

This is not true.

It's no surprise that a low-carb diet provides less immediately available energy, but this quick energy would only be stored as fat anyway.

I agree it's no surprise. Yet it's not what Atkins claims. And, it doesn't necessarily get stored as fat. Like any other food, it will depend on how much you're burning.

The low-carb concept has been around for about 30 years, and there are no significant studies that point to long-term negative health effects, at least that I'm aware of.

Also not true. We have many studies showing a clear link between diets high in saturated and trans fats and such ailments as heart disease, high blood pressure and arterisclerosis.

With the vested interest of the status quo in protecting their turf, there has been much interest and plenty of opportunity to find a "smoking gun" to invalidate the low-carb concept. I've yet to see conclusive evidence that a successful low-carb diet causes more long-term damage than yo-yo weight loss and recovery, for example.

The yo-yo is about the worst thing you can do to yourself. I agree.


Again, this is an assumption that I cannot abide. People in the real world, not some group of endorphin junkies, do not think in terms of "nutrition".

I'm not sure it's fair to categorize those like me who exercise for health as endorphin junkies, but I'd agree that a lot of health problems occur specifically because people don't think in terms of "nutrition."

Not thinkng about nutrition is a stupid way to feed your body.


If a short term low-carb diet works for them, followed by a transition to healthier eating once one has the psychological reinforcement that enhanced self esteem and self image brings, than let's not stigmatize it.

Who's stigmatizing? I'm saying it's not going to work as well as a reasonable program, and will be more prone to yo-yoing.


In a world where people are so desperate to get off the roller coaster that they submit to highly dangerous elective self-mutilation in the form of gastric bypass surgery, let's not fool ourselves.

My point exactly.

[The_Raven]

Hmmm....

Quoth:

"Metabolism is affected by your body composition. By body composition, I mean the amount of muscle you have versus the amount of fat. Muscle uses more calories to maintain itself than fat. People who are more muscular (and have a lower percentage of body fat) are said to have a higher metabolism than others that are less muscular. For example, let's say you have two people who are the exact same height and weight. One exercises on a regular basis with weights, in addition to aerobic exercise, and has a low percentage of body fat. The other never exercises and has a higher percentage of body fat. The first person who exercises will have a higher metabolism than the second person. What this basically means is that person #1's body will use more calories to sustain itself than person #2."

From http://kirtland.cc.mi.us/~balbachl/meta.htm

Also:
"We have many studies showing a clear link between diets high in saturated and trans fats and such ailments as heart disease, high blood pressure and arterisclerosis"

Please don't imply that I support a lifetime diet of steak and eggs. What I am proposing is that the use of a short term low-carb diet will prove successful in achieving weight loss. The psychological component of losing weight without resorting to food deprivation is very powerful, and if it is what is needed to get the ball rolling, as it were, we shouldn't demonize it. All the experts have pontificated, pleaded, cajoled, suggested, prescribed, operated and wrung their hands for years, and all I see is a problem that worsens every day.


Also:
"Not thinkng about nutrition is a stupid way to feed your body."

Well, not thinking about exercise is a stupid way to live one's life. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. But we are talking about the same mass of humanity that buys Ab-Masters and all that other dreck. If there is an alternative that works in a short-term role, which will encourage people to seek a more active lifestyle to make use of their newly unencumbered bodies, and therefore have a long-term effect, let's not dismiss it. After all, what progress has been achieved in the era of the "food pyramid"?

Just the cacklings of a corvid...

-Rav

[The Flying Dutchman]

I checked out some of the OP sites and either ignore the recent study just published on the Atkins diet or are dated.

For example this site, http://www.about-obesity.com/html/the-truth-about-fad-diets.php3


Atkins' high fat, low carbohydrate menus have raised many concerns amongst dieticians about the risk of heart disease increasing in people who follow the Atkins diet over long periods of time. Weight loss may be due more to total calorie restrictions than low carbohydrates per se.

Now this site was last updated in November, 2002. Totally ignores the dramatic finding in the recent study which proves that cholesterol readings are way more favourable on the Atkins diet than normal, the major cause of heart disease.

To many people ignore the French paradox, and insist on the concept that "you are what you eat" and any study which contradicts that axiom must be false. Rubbish.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Scylla
The same is true with high fat foods. Monounsaturated fats like those found in olive oil and fish are good for you. The saturated and trans fats (dairy products, meats, and vegetable oils) that clog your arteries and give you heart disease.
<nitpick>

Vegetable oils in their normal state have no more saturated fat in them than olive oil does, and have no trans fat.

It's hydrogenated (or partially hydrogenated) vegetable oils that have trans fat in them. And, incidentally, if anyone ever decided to make partially hydrogenate olive oil, it would have every bit as much trans fat in it as partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil does.

</nitpick>


And calorie-wise, all fats -- saturated, trans-unsaturated, cis-unsaturated, mono- or poly-unsaturated, or any combination of the above -- have 9 calories per gram. (Similarly, all carbohydrates, whether we're talking about sugar or oat bran, have 4 calories per gram).

[ultrafilter]

The American Heart Association has serious reservations about the latest study. Read about them here (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3006728).

[Gaudere]

I recall that there have been some studies about that, and it's a combination of adaptation and the fact that they do hurt for their lack of things like vitamin C during those periods.

Traditionally Eskimos ate only meat and fish. Why didn't they get scurvy? (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010119.html)

[Liberal]

How did your sources get the idea that Atkins forbids vegetables, nuts, and whole grains?

Even in the Induction Phase, you eat broccoli, dark green leafy veggies, green beans, cauliflower, alfalfa sprouts, cucumber, bell peppers, radishes, artichoke hearts, asparagus, tomatoes, turnips, okra, collard greens, cabbage, zucchi, pumpkin, and a whole lot more.

After Induction, nuts and whole grains are allowed.

[the_great_dalmuti]

Originally posted by elucidator
But how is it, if the standard orthodoxyies of diet are true, that the Eskimo thrive for months on a diet of meat and fat, without a fresh vegetable even in memory, much less on the table?

Eskimos also have the one of the shortest, if not the shortest life expectancies of all the earth's different cultures.

[jjimm]

I'm not a nutritionalist, and I take Atkin's own science with as much as a pinch of salt as the orthodoxy that is being challenged. But I thought I'd give this diet a go in July, and am still enjoying it. I'd just like to give you my anecdotal spiel of the positive effects on me since I began a low-carb diet: Loss of 30lbs. High energy levels, sustained throughout the day. No mid-afternoon slump, during which I could hardly keep my eyes open. Immediate cessation of the IBS cymptoms that have plagued and hospitalized me over the past 15 years. I sleep solidly though the night. No more insomnia, and no more waking during the night for a pee.I eat plenty of low-glycaemic-index veggies, but I avoid potatoes and rice, as well as white bread and sugar products. I feel better now than I have done for years.

[Epimetheus]

Originally posted by the_great_dalmuti
Eskimos also have the one of the shortest, if not the shortest life expectancies of all the earth's different cultures.

Oh? Cite please.

According to the census web page, Eskimos fall under the Native American category, and have a life expectancy of 72.8 for a male, and 82 years for females. (1999, low series) Compare this to Caucasions: 74.7/80.1 respectively. Not a big difference.
Blacks, non-hispanic- 68.3/75.1.
From here:
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t7-b.pdf

(Perhaps you got this info off vegesource.com or one of its affiliates? You know, the non-vegetarian race MUST live short lifes, because our lifestyle is the only healthy one...blah blah)

[erislover]

I didn't realize you couldn't consume other healthy products besides meat, just so long as they were not really a source of carbohydrates. Spinach and celery, for example, are probably eatable in unlimited amounts. If a person is getting their nutrients primarily from food sources, and they are losing weight, I think it might maybe a little bit should probably be considered at least sorta possible that it is ok.

Can anyone show me why it is impossible to get all your vitamins and minerals from Atkins? I don't want to hear, "Because it is a high-fat diet!" Show me that it restricts foods that prohibit one from acquiring basic nutrients. That will debunk it for me.

[ultrafilter]

I've never heard anyone claim that Atkins permits fruits, and there are a lot of nutrients in them that, to the best of my knowledge, aren't found elsewhere. There was a discussion on this around page 4 of Stoid's previous thread on low-carb diets.

[jjimm]

Here we go again.

You can eat fruit on Atkins.

The initial phase of low-carb is the harshest, but it only lasts 2 weeks. He specifically predicates against it lasting any longer. You then reintroduce moderate amounts of carbs into your diet, up to the point when you hover just out of ketosis. If those carbs happen to be fruit- or veg-based that's fine.

Please read the book, and then debunk.

[pohjonen]

I have a medical book showing sources for vitamins and minerals, and almost all of them are contained in MEAT. That's something you don't see them put on the labels. IIRC, the only vitamins listed that weren't found in meat were C, and A (although A vitamin is found in liver). Interestingly, fruit didn't contain a lot of nutrients, with the exception of bananas for potassium and oranges for vitamin C(also found in green leafy veggies and tomatoes). An apple wasn't listed on the page at all. This info found in the American Medical Association Family Health Guide. Which makes one wonder why nutrition labels don't mention all the vitamins found in meat.

Re: the argument that low-carbing results in weight loss merely because one consumes less calories is BUNK. A t-bone steak alone is probably a thousand calories alone(a guess). If your typical Atkins day is sausage and eggs for breakfast, cheese, nuts and meat for lunch, meat and salad or veggies for dinner, and cheese and nuts added throughout the day, heavy cream in your coffee, I challenge anyone on this thread to show that this is a "LOW CALORIE" day. I've done Atkins, and my cholesterol levels went DOWN not up. I guess one doesn't suffer enough losing the weight on Atkins for the food nazis. It couldn't possibly work if you ain't going hungry, right?

[Scylla]

I've read the book.

Obviously there are two different phases of Atkins being referred to in my cites.

Both are low carb. The first is basically no-carb.

Pohjonen:

Re: the argument that low-carbing results in weight loss merely because one consumes less calories is BUNK. A t-bone steak alone is probably a thousand calories alone(a guess). If your typical Atkins day is sausage and eggs for breakfast, cheese, nuts and meat for lunch, meat and salad or veggies for dinner, and cheese and nuts added throughout the day, heavy cream in your coffee, I challenge anyone on this thread to show that this is a "LOW CALORIE" day.

This is why you shouldn't guess. A three ounce serving of lean meat is about 160 calories.


http://www.reeusda.gov/ers4/srs-meatdiagrams.pdf

A half pound of Tbone is gonna be about 500 calories.

The initial phase of the Atkins diet is gonna have you 1,200 calories in a day.

The initial Ketosis will make you lose significant water weight as well (while straining your kidneys.)

I've done Atkins, and my cholesterol levels went DOWN not up. I guess one doesn't suffer enough losing the weight on Atkins for the food nazis. It couldn't possibly work if you ain't going hungry, right?

Unsurprising that your cholesterol went down seeing as you were consuming less calories.

The Ketosis may also give you some mild nausea which some report, resulting in less hunger.

As for not being hungry, consider how much you'd have to stuff yourself with high fiber foods to consume 500 calories.

[Scylla]

Here's a cite for ya:

http://www.savvyhealth.com/disp.asp?doc_id=157

[Epimetheus]

We typically consume about 2,000 calories each day — these diets, though, hover around the 1200 mark.


I hope this is the average with small children and women included. 2000 calories is what I burn laying around in bed all day. If this is all people eat, no wonder they get fat. Their body is suffering, and has to store every bit of excess energy as fat when It gets it (i.e ice cream cone or buffet), just so it can survive.

[Kendo]

Originally posted by Epimetheus
...2000 calories is what I burn laying around in bed all day. If this is all people eat, no wonder they get fat. Their body is suffering, and has to store every bit of excess energy as fat when It gets it (i.e ice cream cone or buffet), just so it can survive.

Perhaps I'm being crazy, but this doesn't make any sense to me.

If you consume 2000 Calories but burn more than that (I think that's what you're saying) surely your body has nothing to store.

I realise that metabolism slows down once your body thinks you're starving it but I imagined that once that happened, your body would try to prevent you from burning too many Calories and make you horribly fatigued.

So, I don't think you'd gain weight (get fat) but I agree that your body would be suffering if you're not getting close to enough calories. That's why traditional diet plans advise you to (at most) cut your caloric intake by 500 kcals.

(I have a horrible feeling I'm going to walk away from this point and be told that I'm a wally. Ah well... :))

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Epimetheus
I hope this is the average with small children and women included. 2000 calories is what I burn laying around in bed all day. If this is all people eat, no wonder they get fat. Their body is suffering, and has to store every bit of excess energy as fat when It gets it (i.e ice cream cone or buffet), just so it can survive.

Huh? So would you recommend losing weight by eating more calories than you burn?

Daniel

[istara]

Originally posted by Scylla
She's into balls now, which are a good way to get started exercising if you're not in shape.
:D

[Epimetheus]

If you ate 2k calories every day, and never ever wavered, yeah, you would lose weight. The second you cheat and eat the extra 800 calories in the form of a blizzard at DQ, fat storage, do not pass go.

Yes, losing weight healthily should be 500 calories a day, they suggest burning 250 of it, and cutting 250 from food. If all you burn every day is 2250 calories, then a 2k a day diet is great. If my BMR is 2000 (1950 actually) and I burn 1500 calories extra throughout the day, which I do, eating 2k calories is going to eat away my muscle, make my bones fragile, and tear up my immune system.

Daniel- I don't suggest losing weight by eating more calories than you burn. I didn't even suggest that lightly. I said I burn 2000 calories laying around in bed all day, as in my Basal Metabolic rate. The amount of calories my body needs to just exist. Not getting up and going to work/gym, etc. I only weigh 185lbs, 200+lb males BMR is probably higher, and trying to lose weight by eating 2000k calories is going to be detrimental to their health.

For a pretty reliable and mostly accurate site that measures the calories burned doing daily activities, with BMR included, go here:
http://www.caloriesperhour.com

They get their information from the American college of sports medicine, using data recived from tests using the K4 b² .
From thier FAQ site (http://www.caloriesperhour.com/faqs_accurate.html):


The ACSM document which is our primary source of data provides the most complete and accurate collection of data available. However, even these figures can only be used as general guidelines. Not only because of all the variables described above, but because the data was compiled from a variety of sources and in some cases where different sources provided varying data averages were taken. Also, the data for some activities was estimated from the data of activities which were believed to require similar levels of energy expenditure or METs.



Keep in mind that it is not 100% accurate, and should only be used as a general guideline, which they themselves say. However, it is fairly accurate with only certain variables that may cause inaccuracies. I rather like the site.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Epimetheus
Daniel- I don't suggest losing weight by eating more calories than you burn. I didn't even suggest that lightly. I said I burn 2000 calories laying around in bed all day, as in my Basal Metabolic rate. The amount of calories my body needs to just exist. Not getting up and going to work/gym, etc. I only weigh 185lbs, 200+lb males BMR is probably higher, and trying to lose weight by eating 2000k calories is going to be detrimental to their health.


Ah, I see! I didn't realize you were burning ~3500 calories a day. That does make a difference.

I'm a small guy, ~120 lbs, and so for me, I burn ~1500 calories at rest. A 2,000 calorie diet would pork me up in no time. So I go to the gym a couple times a week, and I eat a high-fiber, low-fat diet that fills me up with fiber instead of calories, and from which I derive my nutrition directly, rather than using supplements.

Daniel

[Liberal]

There might well be a difference between the calories you eat and the calories your body uses. Food that does not digest is calorically moot.

[sleestak]

Originally posted by Scylla
I've read the book.

The initial phase of the Atkins diet is gonna have you 1,200 calories in a day.

The initial Ketosis will make you lose significant water weight as well (while straining your kidneys.)

<post snipped>
Well, I am reading the book right now and the suggested menu for initial phase of the Atkins diet contains about 2000 calories. One of the rules in the initial phase is that you should eat until you are satisfied, not stuffed. If you are not that hungry just have a small snack. In other words the inital phase is not about counting calories in any way, it's about counting carbs, and most people are going to consume way more than 1200 calories.

My Mom started the Atkins diet about 6 months ago. She says she feels better, has more energy through out the day, sleeps better and no longer gets cravings for sweets. And she lost the weight she wanted to, which wasn't much. She also went back for blood tests and her cholestorol levels have dropped.

Slee

[Justhink]

I'm always compelled to note that your pH balance is used to determine your diet and that those with extreme alkaline based biochemestries will not fare well on this diet.

20% of the population is estimated to be raw-carnivorous in the sense that they process fat and protien for energy efficiently.

30-40% are considered raw-vegitarians in that they process carbohydrates for energy efficiently.

The in-betweens are considered omnivorous for all practical purposes, although there is a bell curve effect here.

-Justhink

[Justhink]

Oh...
acidic food = fat and protien
Carnivores have the lowest incidence of heart disease and cancer in the world (read: Eskimo's for example) as they metabolize cholestorals for hormone building more efficiently and completely than vegetarians and maintain a heathier pancreatic system to fight off the effects of free-radicals. However, a raw vegetarian diet will kick their asses pretty good - which is basically what they're being forced to eat now (Eskimo's).

alkalinic food = carbohydrates
Since the inclusion of high fat and processed foods, these are basically the most susceptable people to the effects of heart disease and cancer in the world (based solely on diet - which obviously isn't everything these days with all the crazy viruses, chemicals and radio/magnetic stuff) This is why the public hears that vegetarianism solves cancer - most of the population is vegetarian - or has a strong alkaline root to their metabolic system.

A raw vegetarin diet will kill dead as dead 20% of our population within 2-3 years.

There are means of storage utilized by Eskimos, one other aspect of note with regards to vitamin C is that they always eat the contents of the stomachs of their prey, which typically contain berries and nuts and such.

-Justhink

[tracer]

Originally posted by Justhink
Carnivores have the lowest incidence of heart disease and cancer in the world (read: Eskimo's for example)
Wait a minute --

That would mean that even those eskimos who die have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease than the rest of the population. (I mean, everybody dies eventually, right?)

If they're not dying of cancer or heart disease, what are they dying of? Salmonella?

[pohjonen]

Originally posted by Scylla


Pohjonen:

A half pound of Tbone is gonna be about 500 calories.

Unsurprising that your cholesterol went down seeing as you were consuming less calories.

The Ketosis may also give you some mild nausea which some report, resulting in less hunger.



For your first sentence, you're ASSUMING an 8 oz T-bone. A 16 oz T-bone is 1000. It's what I eat if I'm gonna have a T-bone.

Your second sentence, how the heck would you know how many calories I was eating? I didn't see you there monitoring my meals and snacks.

Your third sentence is just a wild-ass bunch of bunk. It's NOT a nausea inducing diet. But how would you know, you haven't done it. You're just spouting off things you know absolutely nothing about. So you read the book. That doesn't make you an expert on the experiences of people who have done the diet. You've just got a hair crosswise over this and a thousand people trying to tell you different based on their own experience would never make a dent.

[Justhink]

Originally posted by tracer
Wait a minute --

That would mean that even those eskimos who die have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease than the rest of the population. (I mean, everybody dies eventually, right?)

If they're not dying of cancer or heart disease, what are they dying of? Salmonella?

I'll admit that these distinctions are irrelevant from that point of veiw. It's like talking about societies and addiction, and then chiming and and saying, "Yeah, but we're all addicted to life. Let's go cold turkey on that, the withdraws are painful like any other addiction, but after-wards you will see the benefit of not having this addiction.".

Current statistics on Eskimo societies integrated with Coca-Cola and the like are showing an increased precidence of disease then their global counter-parts. For carnavores in general, sugar is quite the drug (and is highly alkalinic); there is this sense of an allergic reaction in the form of an addiction when exposed to things like alcohol, Ice-ceam and processed foods like pastries or pizzas.. Carnavores get high off of this stuff, because their bodies don't break it down very well.

-Justhink

[pohjonen]

Adiposity 101. Interesting reading regarding diet and well documented with cites.

http://www.omen.com/adipos.html

[Scylla]

Originally posted by pohjonen
For your first sentence, you're ASSUMING an 8 oz T-bone. A 16 oz T-bone is 1000. It's what I eat if I'm gonna have a T-bone.

Oh. We're talking specifically about you, are we? I was going by serving size.

Your second sentence, how the heck would you know how many calories I was eating? I didn't see you there monitoring my meals and snacks.

Again, I don't know. I'm going by an estimated serving size. I'm not talking specifically about you, either. The calorie decrease is well cited and based on an average diet. Your diet may differ.

Applegate also cites decreased calories as well as water loss for the initial weight loss associated with Atkins saying that the reduction in carbs removes about 1,000 calories from a diet.

Your third sentence is just a wild-ass bunch of bunk. It's NOT a nausea inducing diet. But how would you know, you haven't done it.

Why do you think I have the book?

Also note that I provided a cite immediately after my post by a physician which backs up my assertions for reduced calories, ketosis and the nausea.

Apparently you didn't bother to click that or any of the other cites I provided before you showed up to claim that I didn't know what I was talking about.

Your hypocrisy is ironic.


You're just spouting off things you know absolutely nothing about. So you read the book. That doesn't make you an expert on the experiences of people who have done the diet. You've just got a hair crosswise over this and a thousand people trying to tell you different based on their own experience would never make a dent. [/B]

And this is the real crux of the problem. You're being defensive about a stupid diet.

Yes, it works. Using ether to start a diesel engine will also work, it just happens to destroy the engine in the process.

I happen to know what I'm talking about because I take health and nutrition very seriously, and I'm both well-read and well-practiced on the subject.

Every credible real scientific athority agrees with me that the Atkins diet is ill-advised.

It is pseudoscience based on fraudulent assumptions, and every bit as dangerous as faith healing.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by pohjonen
Adiposity 101. Interesting reading regarding diet and well documented with cites.

http://www.omen.com/adipos.html

Ahh, I see. A cite that apparently sells software and modems. This is where I usually look for my nutritional information.

You're fucking kidding, right?

[pohjonen]

Try READING THE PAGE, Scylla. You're hopeless.

[ultrafilter]

And they're not even incredibly good modems at that.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by pohjonen
Try READING THE PAGE, Scylla. You're hopeless.

I can't seem to get too far without breaking out in giggles.

Let's see, the first link in your article is a cite too.... itself!

Would you call this an example of circular logic boys and girls? I would.

I especially like this from the executive summary:

Normal adults do not retain weight brought on by a period of overeating.


:D

The second link in your little cite is also, surprise surprise, a link to itself or rather the modem selling page. And, I can also read about "Captain Chuck's excellent flying experiences!"

Wow!

This certainly is a credible and scientific cite you've provided!

And oooH! look, here's the Fossberg picture gallery, with pictures of squirels!

And here's a picture of Fossberg himself with C3PO!


Ummm, No offense here, but are you sure we should be taking this guy's advice on weight loss? I mean he looks like a nice guy, and he sure knows how to take a picture of a duck, but he's not exactly lean.

Never mind, the ability to photograph ducks goes a long way to lending credibility in my eyes. Let's move on.

Let's see the next supportin link is also a link to itself, and next it appears that he's making the implication that carbohydrates are responsible for a perceived (but marvelously unsubstantiated) claim that average puberty ages have dropped from 17 to thirteen over some unknown sample of the population over someone unknown timeframe.

So we're three paragraphys in and we've already solved the precocious puberty conundrum?

Wonderful.

This of course is substrantiated with another link to.... you guessed it! Itself.


This is your website isn't it?

And then it goes on saying that exercise has nothing to do with weightloss, we have some mysterious "syndrome X" stuff, and....

Well.

Total bullshit, and no thanks, I don't want to buy a modem.

[pohjonen]

Blather all you like Scylla. You are still unconditionally, absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt WRONG.

You say the weight loss on low-carb is because the dieter eats less calories. WRONG!

Then you and your sources say it's merely loss of water weight. WRONG! It's patently absurb to say someone lost 50 or 60 pounds of water.

You say it's nutritionally devoid of vitamins and nutrients. WRONG!

Your sources say the high fat is not good for lipid profiles. WRONG!

So what does that leave you with. Possible kidney problems owing to the consumption of protein? Well apparently the jury is still out on that one too. Unless one already HAS kidney damage.

So show me your cites of all the people dropping like flies because of the diet and then we'll talk some more.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by pohjonen

So show me your cites of all the people dropping like flies because of the diet and then we'll talk some more.
Are you saying that a diet is only "ill-advised" if it causes people to drop like flies? Really?

Seems like an excessively restrictive criterion to me.

[Apos]

Okay, I've purchased a ZModem, and backordered some YModem. I had to smash it into smaller bits to even get to the chewing stage, but I've just now finally choked down the last piece. When do I start losing weight?

---He specifically predicates against it lasting any longer.---

Well... yeah. Hopefully no one but determined anorexics will WANT to continue with ketosis as a lifestyle. I usually like to stop just before the heart failure stage, but not before my eyeballs become sunken.

Also, this:
http://www.omen.com/varmint.html
made me cry. Thanks a bunch pohjonen.

Though the nasty swipe about poor, deluded Debbie and her unfair accusations of "double-timing" seemed a little out of place...

[Liberal]

One sure sign that a debator is drowning is when he begins to flail and slap at the water.

Scylla, I don't know of any site that self-references more than the U.S. government site. Does that make the site unreliable? When a site contains numerous articles on a variety of topics, self-reference makes for handy navigation. In fact, that's why hyperlinking was invented.

When you've reduced yourself to poking fun at the titles of articles with extremely exaggerated sarcasm, and wallowing in generic fallacies, you've effectively signaled that your argument is worthless.

Maybe you read the old book. There is a new one now (Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution), with amended guidelines and additional explanations and references. Its bibliography is extensive. And it is clear that you've not read the new book. If you have, then your comprehension and retension skills need serious attention.

[Cuckoorex]

I, too, have been using the Atkins diet and found a significant stabilization of my triglycerides and cholesterol levels, with an increase in 'good' cholesterol and decrease in 'bad' cholesterol. My blood pressure is stable, and my lipid profiles show normal/good ranges all the way through (which I couldn't say about my pre-Atkins lipid profile).

I would estimate that my diet right now is roughly 50% protein, 30-40% fat, and 10-20% carbohydrate. For myself and hopefully most of the people who try Atkins, the 'permission' to eat a lot of high-fat foods is a bit of a novelty that quickly wears off. I find that I do feel more satisfied for longer periods of time after eating an Atkins-approved meal, and I don't doubt that I'm probably consuming less calories now than I was before. The point is, though, that the reason I'm consuming less calories is because I'm satisfied with the meals and because the vast majority of truly fattening snacks (donuts, pizza, potato chips, regular ice cream, etc.,) are either very restricted or disallowed entirely.

Here's a twist, though; prior to using the Atkins diet, I was on a traditional 'low-fat' diet. And you know what? I also lost weight on that diet, although I was FAR more likely to want to cheat on that diet, and felt hungry far sooner after meals. That, ultimately, was the downfall of the low-fat approach for me.

In regards to nutrition: yes, I think that getting vitamins and minerals from whole food sources is ideal, but Atkins does advocate using vitamin supplements on the diet, which I do use. I imagine it's not much harder than a vegetarian making sure they get enough protein; either you find sources in foods or you use supplements (whey protein drinks, for example).

About serving sizes; I'm sorry, but the 'serving size' amounts listed on packages...? I know of NO ONE that consistently follows those guidelines. I think there is a bit of deception going on with food labeling at times, where 'serving size' is determined more by making the caloric and nutritional values look better than the amount of the food that the average person is likely to eat in one sitting. Go to just about ANY restaraunt and the meals they sell you will have MANY times the amount that is considered a 'single serving'. In many restaurants you can't even order a steak that is less than 9 ounces.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Cuckoorex
I imagine it's not much harder than a vegetarian making sure they get enough protein; either you find sources in foods or you use supplements (whey protein drinks, for example).


Nitpick: if you're a vegetarian, and
* If you eat a maintenance amount of calories (e.g., 2000 a day or thereabouts), and
* If you eat a variety of foods (e.g., your diet doesn't consist solely of oatmeal), and
* If you don't get most of your calories from alcohol, oils, refined sugars, or sweet potatoes, then
* You'll get all the protein you need.

Estimates for the amount of protein a diet needs range from 2.5% to 8% of one's calories. Very few whole foods derive fewer than 10% of their calories from protein. And eating a variety of foods ensures that you'll eat all the different amino acids you need for good health.

Although vegetarian gurus in the '60s and '70s thought that vegetarians needed to obsess about protein combinations, research in the '80s debunked that. A few vegetarians and vegans still come down with nasty diseases like kwashiankor (sp?) every now and then, but usually it's because they're subsisting on a junk-food diet.

Daniel

[Scylla]

Lib:

If you like the modem guy duck picture cite wherein he makes outrageous blanket statements citing himself as the athority, that's fine with me.

Personally I like cites like this:

http://www.hcrc.org/faqs/ketogen.html

This one's by a Dr.

-The initial weight loss from the Atkins diet is water loss
-long-term positive results are a function of reduced caloric intake
-No more efficacious then other diets
-potentially dangerous.

Like I've been saying all along, and like every credible medical athority has been saying all along.

[Scylla]

Oh, and here's a cite from the American Heart Association, issuing a warning, citing all of the things I've said.

-Weight loss from water,
-Reduced caloric intake
-Cholesterol levels dropping from weight loss
-Various dangers.

[Scylla]

Here's another nifty cite from quackwatch:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/lcd.html


It again says all the same things I've been saying throughout this thread, and cites a few studies.

Most interesting new piece of information is that even though the Atkins diet has been around for 30 years, it doesn't appear that anybody's actually been able to follow it and maintain weight loss.

Looks like 19 months is about the average before it all gets gained back.

[Scylla]

Researchers who compile the National Weight Control Registry analyzed the diets of 2,681 members who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. They found that less than 1% had followed a diet similar to the Atkins program. Most followed high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets, says James Hill, director for the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver.

From a USA today article also citing reduced caloric intake as the reasons for Atkins diet weight loss.

[Liberal]

Scylla wrote:

If you like the modem guy duck picture cite wherein he makes outrageous blanket statements citing himself as the athority, that's fine with me.Now, that's silly, Scylla. Just because you put words in my mouth doesn't make them my words. ;)

This one's by a Dr.So is this one.

http://atkinscenter.com/

-The initial weight loss of most diets is water
-Long term positive results are a function of metabolic adjustment
-A higher success rate than all other diets
-Safe even for diabetics

[Liberal]

Scylla quoted USA Pictures Today:

Researchers who compile the National Weight Control Registry analyzed the diets of 2,681 members who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. They found that less than 1% had followed a diet similar to the Atkins program. Most followed high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets, says James Hill, director for the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver.When will they study Dr. Atkins' 10,000,000 "members"?

[Scylla]

Lib:

Atkins has apparently abandoned his credentials and devolved into quackery.

I'm sure that you will appreciate that I find it both humorous and unsurprising that Atkins is a propenent of his diet.

It is after all, his diet, and he does have books to sell.

On the other hand, there's this thing called peer review which prevents things like the cold fusion debacle.

Independant scientific athorities and nutritionists consider his "metabolic adjustment" to be a bunch of hooey.

I'm sure that Atkins claims that his diet has a higher success rate than "all other diets." This however is a total lie, as you can see from the article I quoted studying the long-term efficacy of the Atkins diet.

Less than 1% of people who maintain weight loss did it on Atkins.

Atkins is full of shit, and just like the Duck guy's cite, citing Atkins on Atkins is total bullshit.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Scylla quoted USA Pictures Today:

When will they study Dr. Atkins' 10,000,000 "members"?

Probably when they lose 30 pounds and maintain that loss for a year.

Doesn't look like it's happening, does it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a great GD'er, so I'll save my comments and save face while I'm at it. However, you may want to check out this link. It's about a fellow that has maintained his weightloss for 3 years on Atkins, as well as some general Atkins info (pro and con) and some more stats.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-12-09-life-cover_x.htm

[Justhink]

*sigh*

Scylla is correct. Benefits on the Atkin's diet are related to the biochemistry you were born with and not some system designed for all human beings. Even more, the Atkins diet necessarily selects for a smaller percentage of the population, as most people living on this earth metabolize carbohydrates (alkalinic food) with the greatest efficiency.

a.) They won't be able to break down the fat or protien from an acidic base
b.) They won't be able to efficiently draw out the nutrients of a diet with an acidic base.

Since the diet doesn't calculate pH levels of the carbohydrate end of the spectrum, the application is necessarily arbitrary and equivilent to a game of russian roulette with regards to the effects of decreased hormone production and nutrient absorbtion.

-Justhink

[Liberal]

Scylla wrote:

Atkins has apparently abandoned his credentials and devolved into quackery.That's not apparent to me.

I'm sure that you will appreciate that I find it both humorous and unsurprising that Atkins is a propenent of his diet.Odd. Most humor is born of surprise.

It is after all, his diet, and he does have books to sell.Yep. His book has been a runaway best seller. And nearly all the bitching and moaning is from people who haven't tried the diet. How many people have been dissatisfied with their Atkins results? Divide that number by 10,000,000, multiply by 100, and you'll have a rough percentage.

On the other hand, there's this thing called peer review which prevents things like the cold fusion debacle.There's also this thing called politics, which causes things like the "eggs will kill you" debacle.

Independant scientific athorities and nutritionists consider his "metabolic adjustment" to be a bunch of hooey.Few independent authorities have studied it. There is a difference between "Oh, it simply must be bad," and "Here are our data." Fortunately, there is a living, breathing database of millions of successful dieters. And of the few studies done, they've nearly all found the diet to work.

I'm sure that Atkins claims that his diet has a higher success rate than "all other diets." This however is a total lie, as you can see from the article I quoted studying the long-term efficacy of the Atkins diet.You mean quack watchers? The study of "18 Atkins dieters for a month"? :D

Less than 1% of people who maintain weight loss did it on Atkins.You mean of the couple of thousand who joined the National Weight Control Registry? That's a classic statistical fallacy.

Atkins is full of shit, and just like the Duck guy's cite, citing Atkins on Atkins is total bullshit.Genetic fallacies must be your favorite. :)

[Scylla]

Lib;

Ok. This is interesting. You cite 10,000,000 satisfied Atkins dieters. The diet has been around for 30 years.

So where are all these formerly fat people who are following the Atkins diet?

Apparently, there's one in GA.


That's not apparent to me.

That's ain't an acid test, babes.

Odd. Most humor is born of surprise.

Not true at all. Are you surprised when Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown?

That's an absurd statement.

Yep. His book has been a runaway best seller. And nearly all the bitching and moaning is from people who haven't tried the diet. How many people have been dissatisfied with their Atkins results? Divide that number by 10,000,000, multiply by 100, and you'll have a rough percentage.

I'm not interested in satisfied/dissatisfied, Lib. People are incredibly stupid and their self-satisfaction is not indicative of the efficacy and safety of the diet, but rather of Dr. Atkins marketing skills.

I'm interested

A. In the long-term health effects.
B. The likelihood of a succesful and lasting weightloss.

So far less than 1% of the people studied who have lost 30 plus pounds and maintained that loss for a year did it on Atkins.

You're 10,000,000 successful dieters assertion is just stupid. If they're representative than I guess a billion people lost 30 pounds or more last year.

There's also this thing called politics, which causes things like the "eggs will kill you" debacle.

You got a cite for the politically motivated "eggs will kill you" debacle? I don't recall any such.

Few independent authorities have studied it. There is a difference between "Oh, it simply must be bad," and "Here are our data." Fortunately, there is a living, breathing database of millions of successful dieters. And of the few studies done, they've nearly all found the diet to work.

This is denser than molybenum. Look at the second sentence (or is it the first?) of my OP.

The diet will work.

That is not the issue.

The issues are 1. Why does the diet work (answer: lowered caloric intake and initial water loss)[i]

2. Is the diet safe? [i](answer: not sure. There is reason to thinkg that is potentially harmful though, i.e. the ADAs warning, and the dangers of ketosis)

3. Is the diet the best way to lose weight [i](answer: Not a fucking chance in hell)

You mean quack watchers? The study of "18 Atkins dieters for a month"?

That's a dishonest and incomplete summary of the cite.

[Liberal]

Okay, so I'm a dishonest, stupid, and uninteresting liar. Your argument has become like a crashing helicopter. I hope everyone has enough sense to get out of the way.

(Oh, and by the way, I laughed only the first time I saw Lucy pull the football away.)

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Scylla
So where are all these formerly fat people who are following the Atkins diet?

Apparently, there's one in GA *Waves* There's one here in Dublin too. If you review the previous recent Atkins thread, you'll find a ratio of about 10:1 in favour. Granted, it's not a perfect cross-section, but the people who have tried it who contributed to that thread (and I think as many angry, dissatisfied Dopers would be motivated to write about Atkins as satisfied ones) said they were very happy with it.

[Liberal]

Would any Atkins bashers like to join Susie Orbach (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149409)'s campaign?

[Cuckoorex]

Originally posted by Scylla

You got a cite for the politically motivated "eggs will kill you" debacle? I don't recall any such.

Of course, I'm not Lib, but I will say that a variation of the 'eggs will kill you' conventional wisdom holds that saccharin is a horrific carcinogen, despite the fact that studies have long since debunked that notion...yet the warnings remain on the products that use saccharin. Politics? Bad science? I'm not sure.



The issues are 1. Why does the diet work (answer: lowered caloric intake and initial water loss)[i]

As noted before, the intial weight loss of practically any new dieting attempt is going to be 'water weight.' That shouldn't even make a difference here, should it? The real question is more like, "is weight loss (beyond 'water weight') primarily the result of calorie restriction, or because of a metabolic change as described by Atkins? Certainly I feel that I am consuming less food while on the Atkins program, and thus usually less calories, but the reason is because I feel satisfied with less food than I did on a low fat diet. " I think in order to 'debunk' Atkins, you would need to do a study with at least two groups of people, one using the Atkins diet, the other a traditional low fat diet; ensure that the daily caloric intake and exercise levels are practically identical in the two groups, and measure weight loss over the course of, say, three years. Keep testing the lipids of the test subjects during this time, and compare the results.

2. Is the diet safe? [i](answer: not sure. There is reason to thinkg that is potentially harmful though, i.e. the ADAs warning, and the dangers of ketosis)

"Not sure"...but we are sure of the short-term results, right? it works to take weight off, correct? Meanwhile, the ADAs approach to nutrition has not had any kind of spectacular success in combating obesity, has it?

What are the long term effects of obesity compared to the potential long term effects of a diet high in protein, moderate in fat, and low in carbohydrates? I can tell you that expecially in the morbidly obese, the potential benefits of spending even a few years at a significantly lower weight will be tremendous, whereas staying morbidly obese is far riskier than what might become a problem 30 years down the road as a result of the diet.

3. Is the diet the best way to lose weight [i](answer: Not a fucking chance in hell)

I think it may be the best way to lose weight for some people. A low fat diet may be the best way to lose weight for others. See, you've got to deal with many variables when it comes to individuals; some people, for whatever reason, cannot stay on a low fat diet. They just can't. If they can stay on a low carb diet for a longer period of time, they have a better chance of losing weight, weight that they might never have lost if they kept struggling with a low fat diet. And I would go out on a limb here and say that the benefits of getting the weight off are going to be tremendous. Exercise becomes easier, and that alone will open the door for better weight maintenence. I have yet to hear of anyone reporting serious problems after following a low carb diet; I've heard stories of success, and a few stories from people who just couldn't make it work for one reason or another.

You seem almost angry or bitter about the commercial success of the Atkins diet. Is there a particular reason for this, or am I reading too much into what you've been saying?

[Scylla]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Libertarian
Okay, so I'm a dishonest, stupid, and uninteresting liar.[/quote[


Yeah. So?

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Would any Atkins bashers like to join Susie Orbach (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149409)'s campaign?

Do tell, what exactly are you trying to say here?

[Liberal]

That the whole idea for this thread was Neanderthal in its conception.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Libertarian
That the whole idea for this thread was Neanderthal in its conception.

I may just be a humble unfrozen caveman lawyer confused and frightened by your modern world, but that's hardly any reason to throw ethnic slanders at me.

If you wish to hide your head in the sand and live in the pretend world, go right ahead.

My purpose here is not to belittle attempts at weight loss.

Rather it is the same as the person debunking the fraudulent faith healer. The Atkins diet is not doing what you think it does.

It is not a magic bullet.

In fact, you are putting yourself at risk when you place yourself in the hands of this fraud, Atkins, just as you are putting yourself at risk when you follow the advice of a faith healer and step away from prudent medical advice and hard-earned knowledge.

As my cites show, you will likely regain whatever weight you lose on Atkins.

Succesful people, like the ones cited in the recent USA today article, who maintain weight loss over a period of time, tend to do so because they are eating fewer calories and exercising more than they were.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Cuckoorex
the ADAs approach to nutrition has not had any kind of spectacular success in combating obesity, has it?

What are the long term effects of obesity compared to the potential long term effects of a diet high in protein, moderate in fat, and low in carbohydrates? [/quote]

It's this kind of apples-and-oranges (excuse me, Atkins fans: t-bones and lobsters) comparisons that most discredit Atkins supporters to me.

First, are you suggesting that the ADA is responsible for the obesity of people who choose not to follow its guidelines? That's a bizarre suggestion, if it's what you're saying. And if it's not what you're suggesting, what are you trying to say with that first sentence?

Second, we shouldn't be comparing the long term effects of obesity to the long term effects of the Atkins diet. We should be comparing the long-term effects of the Atkins diet to the long-term effects of a high-fiber, low-fat diet that empasizes eating moderate portions of a wide variety of whole foods.

The current scientific evidence suggests that the whole-foods diet will prove more healthful in the long-term, but the evidence is far from conclusive; that's why I really want to see such a study.

However, even if it proves that the whole-foods diet is superior, there will be people unable or unwilling to shake their unhealthy addiction to a fatty, high-protein diet. For them, the Atkins diet may be the best choice: a fatty, high-protein, low-sugar diet is of course more healthful than a fatty, high-protein, high-sugar diet.

But don't compare Atkins to obesity. That's a false choice for public policy, and a false choice for most people.

Daniel

[Scylla]

My quackwatch cite, which I'll give again here:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/lcd.html

Cites three different studies of several thousand people not just the 18 person study that Libertarian mirepresented in such egregious fashion.

The AMA says:

The AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition [2], Consumer Reports [3], and many individual experts have warned that the unlimited intake of saturated fats under Atkins' food plan can increase the dieter's risk of heart disease. Last year, experts at the University of Kentucky did a computer analysis of a week's worth of sample menus and reported:

* The diet contained 59% fat.
* The diet provided fewer servings of grains, vegetables, and fruits than recommended by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
* Although the diet can produce short-term weight loss, long-term use is likely to increase the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cancer [4].

Here's the study that Lib poh-poohs fraudulently:

Another recent study was done by researchers at the Bassett Research Institute in Cooperstown, New York, who followed 18 Atkins dieters for a month. During the 2-week induction period, the dieters consumed 1,419 calories a day, compared with 2,481 calories a day before starting the diet, and lost an average of about 8 pounds. In the next phase, dieters averaged 1,500 calories a day and lost an additional 3 pounds in two weeks. Dieters in both phases cut back on carbohydrates by more than 90%, but the actual amounts of fat and protein they ate changed little. Some patients felt tired, and some were nauseated on the plan. Most indicated that they were eager to go back to their regular diet [5].

Yet another study here:

Another study found that (a) 41 overweight people who followed the Atkins diet for six months lost an average of 10% of their initial body weight; (b) most lowered their blood cholesterol level by 5%; (c) some increased their cholesterol level; and (d) 20 subjects who continued the program had maintained their weight loss at the end of a year [6].

and yet another here:

In yet another study, researchers who compile the National Weight Control Registry analyzed the diets of 2,681 members who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. Because the Atkins diet has been used for more than 30 years, the researchers reasoned that, if it worked, its followers would be well represented. However, they found that fewer than 1% of these successful people had followed a diet with less than 24% or less of their daily calories in the form of carbohydrates. The mean duration of successful weight maintenance in this low-carbohydrate group was 19 months, whereas the mean duration of dieters who consumed more than 24% of their daily calories as carbohydrates was 36 months. Because so few Atkins dieters were found in the Registry, the researchers concluded that the Atkins diet may not create the favorable "metabolic advantage" claimed for it [7].

The AMA issues this warning:

The nutrition committee of the American Heart Association has issued a science advisory warning that high-protein diets have not been proven effective and pose health risks. The report covered the Atkins, Zone, Protein Power, Sugar Busters, and Stillman diets. The committee stated:

* Such diets may produce short-term weight loss through dehydration.
* Weight loss may also occur through caloric restriction resulting from the fact that the diets are relatively unpalatable.
* The high fat content may be harmful to the cardiovascular system in the long run.
* Any improvement in blood cholesterol levels and insulin management would be due to weight loss, not the change in composition.
* A very high-protein diet is especially risky for patients with diabetes because it can speed the progression of diabetic kidney disease [8].


Lib claims that there are 10,000,000 satisfied Atkins followers. Frankly, I consider this a lie. Atkins himself only claims 60,000 patients treated at his weight loss centers in 30 years. Maybe 10,000,000 people have bought the book. That would be a different thing than what Lib says.

Lib wonders how come nobody is including Atkins dieters in the above cites. They are. They just don't do well. Quackwatch says this about it.

[quote]Although Atkins has advocated the diet for nearly 30 years and states that more than 60,000 patients treated at his center have used his diet as their primary protocol, he has never published any study in which people who used his program were monitored over a period of several years. Scorekeeping could be done simply and inexpensively by mailing an annual questionnaire and tabulating the results.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Justhink
Originally posted by tracer
Wait a minute --

That would mean that even those eskimos who die have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease than the rest of the population. (I mean, everybody dies eventually, right?)

If they're not dying of cancer or heart disease, what are they dying of? Salmonella?

I'll admit that these distinctions are irrelevant from that point of veiw. It's like talking about societies and addiction, and then chiming and and saying, "Yeah, but we're all addicted to life. Let's go cold turkey on that, the withdraws are painful like any other addiction, but after-wards you will see the benefit of not having this addiction.".
That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

One of the reasons cancer and heart disease are so prevalent in industrialized societies is because people in industrialized societies live so damn long. Cancer and heart disease most often afflict the elderly, partly because they take so long to develop.

If eskimos usually die of, say, pneumonia, or dysintery, or whatnot, before they get old enough to have a serious chance of contracting cancer or heart disease -- or, for that matter, if eskimos don't have regular check-ups, and cancer and heart disease are actually more prevalent but we don't know about them because they aren't diagnosed in the early stages -- then that would put a serious hamper on the notion that "Eskimos have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease because they are carnivorous."

[sleestak]

Scylla,

First, you seem to ignore the personal statements by board members who have tried the diet. Apparently the fact that is has worked for those people doesn't mean jack to you because you have cites.

Second, you earlier claimed that the induction phase of the diet reduced calories down to 1200 a day. I pointed out that the sample menu contained 2000 calories, I read it straight from the book (Pgs 133 and 134 from the paperback version of 'Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution'). You ignored this fact. Refute it buddy. Ah, but you can't so that must be why you ignored it.

Third, your cites have extremely small numbers. One of your cites that 'Debunks' Atkins claims that 20 out of 41 people kept their weight off for a year. I'd bet that %50 of people on a diet keeping the weight off for a year is a damned good percentage. At the same time the cite says that "most lowered their blood cholesterol level by 5%". By GOD!!!! Their cholestorol level went DOWN!! MY GOD!1 They are gonna die now. :(

Last, for every cite you post I can post a counter cite. I'd do it but it would require my typing in the cites from the back of Atkins book and I don't have the time. One chapter of Atkins book has 70, yes 70, studies listed backing up his diet. The cites run from 1969 to 2001.

While you might think Atkins is a quack he surely knows more about what he is talking about than you do.

Slee

[Scylla]

Originally posted by sleestak
Scylla,

First, you seem to ignore the personal statements by board members who have tried the diet. Apparently the fact that is has worked for those people doesn't mean jack to you because you have cites.

Well yes. Anecdotal evidence sucks. What 2,000 people do under scrutinized circumstances is more credible than an individual opinion.
You also seem to be missing the fact that I'm saying the diet works. Just not for the reasons you think it does.

Second, you earlier claimed that the induction phase of the diet reduced calories down to 1200 a day. I pointed out that the sample menu contained 2000 calories, I read it straight from the book (Pgs 133 and 134 from the paperback version of 'Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution'). You ignored this fact. Refute it buddy. Ah, but you can't so that must be why you ignored it.

Not at all, the calorie reduction is well cited, and well studied. The only reason for any confusion is that the Atkins diet doesn't restrict portions. For example somebody that eats a 3,200 calorie diet may only consume 2,200 during Atkins. The reduction though on average seems to be 1,000 calories. The average diet is about 2,200. Hence 1,200 is a good number for averages.

Third, your cites have extremely small numbers. One of your cites that 'Debunks' Atkins claims that 20 out of 41 people kept their weight off for a year.

That's a liberal use of plural. Some of the cites have samples of several thousand.


I'd bet that %50 of people on a diet keeping the weight off for a year is a damned good percentage. At the same time the cite says that "most lowered their blood cholesterol level by 5%". By GOD!!!! Their cholestorol level went DOWN!! MY GOD!1 They are gonna die now. :(

Oh can the melodrama! Yes, those would be good successful numbers. Like I said the diet works. Cholesterol tends to drop when you lose weight even if you're consuming butter.

You will also have good success starting a diesel motor with spray starter fluid. It is generally a very bad idea, as the long term effects to the engine are significantly negative.

Similarly, the effects of an unbalanced and fat intensive diet are also potentially harmful. You are putting yourself at risk by following this diet according to every credible independant medical source including the AMA and the AHA. If yo wish to be so foolish and the risk is worth it to you then that is your choice.

Saying that the risk doesn't exist though is shammery.

Last, for every cite you post I can post a counter cite. I'd do it but it would require my typing in the cites from the back of Atkins book and I don't have the time. One chapter of Atkins book has 70, yes 70, studies listed backing up his diet. The cites run from 1969 to 2001.

Yes, and not one of them follows up the long-term results of Atkins' diet centers. And, studies that do follow long-term weight loss report dismal results for the Atkins diet.

If you've been successful with Atkins you can sign in to the National Weight loss registry. All you have to do is maintain a weight loss of 30 pounds for a year. Yet, less than 1% of those that due report a low carb diet.

I'm sure you can provide cites. We've already seen some ridiculous ones like the duck guy. Any creationist can provide cites. The question is can you provide credible impartial cites? I'm waiting.

While you might think Atkins is a quack he surely knows more about what he is talking about than you do.

Slee

Probably. That's why he's a fraud and a shyster. He should know better.

I'm sure Atkins is fully aware of the fallacies he is perpetrating. Unlike Atkins though, I'm not making this shit up. I'm citing impartial scientists, nutiritionists, government agencies, and non-profit health organizations. I am citing credible experts who have studied the claims and find them mostly false and baseless and in direct contradiction to the evidence.

Your citing a quack, and some gullible people who want to believe.

[Czarcasm]

Y'know, Libertarian, I wouldn't mind seeing independent long term studies, myself. Dismissive name-calling and anecdotal stories about short term weight loss(and yes, I consider 1 year to be short term) prove nothing. Of course, if anecdotal evidence is what you crave, try this: I was on the Atkins diet for a period of 4 months, and followed it religiously. After 2 weeks I lost a total of 8 pounds, then the weight losss stopped entirely. People kept telling me that I had to keep going and that after another week or two the weight loss would continue, but it never did. What did happen was that after I quit the Atkins diet, I decided to go on a regular sensible diet of less food, lower coloric intact and more exercise.
And I gained 20 pounds in a two week period. My doctor was angry with me that I did not tell him that I went on the diet and told me that he had seen unusual weight gains with other patients that had quit the Atkins diet, due to some sort change in body chemistry that the Atkins "diet" causes in some people.
Also, people with high blood pressure should consult with their doctor before trying any diet.

[Cuckoorex]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
the ADAs approach to nutrition has not had any kind of spectacular success in combating obesity, has it?

What are the long term effects of obesity compared to the potential long term effects of a diet high in protein, moderate in fat, and low in carbohydrates?

It's this kind of apples-and-oranges (excuse me, Atkins fans: t-bones and lobsters) comparisons that most discredit Atkins supporters to me.

First, are you suggesting that the ADA is responsible for the obesity of people who choose not to follow its guidelines? That's a bizarre suggestion, if it's what you're saying. And if it's not what you're suggesting, what are you trying to say with that first sentence?

I'm trying to say that the ADA's suggestions for controlling weight through their guidelines do not seem to be producing overwhelming success in battling the obesity 'epidemic.' I'm not saying that the ADA's guidelines won't work if they are followed; what I'm saying is, if people are not willing to follow the ADA's guidelines but they ARE willing to follow Atkins' guidelines, and either approach will take the weight off, then the Atkins approach is more effective. I'm still not sure that I explained that correctly, but the gist of it is, MOST plans will work if people are willing to stick to it; I could come out with the Nothing But Ramen Noodles diet and if people followed my plan of four packets of Ramen Noodles a day, a few multivitamins and nothing to drink but water, they would lose weight too...but it's not likely that many people will have the desire to stay on such a diet for very long. The Atkins approach, for many people has more long-term appeal than low fat diets.

Second, we shouldn't be comparing the long term effects of obesity to the long term effects of the Atkins diet. We should be comparing the long-term effects of the Atkins diet to the long-term effects of a high-fiber, low-fat diet that empasizes eating moderate portions of a wide variety of whole foods.

The current scientific evidence suggests that the whole-foods diet will prove more healthful in the long-term, but the evidence is far from conclusive; that's why I really want to see such a study.

However, even if it proves that the whole-foods diet is superior, there will be people unable or unwilling to shake their unhealthy addiction to a fatty, high-protein diet. For them, the Atkins diet may be the best choice: a fatty, high-protein, low-sugar diet is of course more healthful than a fatty, high-protein, high-sugar diet.

But don't compare Atkins to obesity. That's a false choice for public policy, and a false choice for most people.

Daniel

What I meant by that statement is this:
A lot of people in America are obese, and a growing number of them are considered morbidly obese. If they've tried low fat diets and just can't stick with them long enough to see significant results, and they decide to try the Atkins diet (or another low carb diet) and it works better for them, and they take off 50 or 60 pounds, then the benefit they are going to get from having a lower body weight and potentially more exercise is, in my admittedly unprofessional opinion, going to outweigh any fears of detrimental effects 20 or 30 years down the road, because if they DON'T lose the weight at all, then they very likely be at very high risk to be dead in 20 or 30 years anyway from their obesity co-morbidities. So for a morbidly obese person who has tried and failed on low fat diets but is even moderately successful on the Atkins diet, I think that the potential risks of remaining obese are worse than the potential risks of what MIGHT happen 20 or 30 years down the road from the diet itself.

Ultimately, these might be moot points anyway...according to most articles I've read, most dieters who follow ANY kind of diet are likely to regain all of the weight they lose, and then some...with the exception of those who undergo bariatric surgery, which of course is a whole other can of worms.



[/QUOTE]

[Liberal]

Scylla quoted from Quack:

Although Atkins has advocated the diet for nearly 30 years and states that more than 60,000 patients treated at his center have used his diet as their primary protocol, he has never published any study in which people who used his program were monitored over a period of several years.Dr. Atkins explained in his book why he hasn't published. Since you've read it, why don't you share his reason with us?

[jjimm]

Hey Scylla - here's an interesting non-Atkins diabetes specialist talking about dietary fat (http://www.diabetes-normalsugars.com/readit/chapter9-2.shtml). And carbohydrates (http://www.diabetes-normalsugars.com/readit/chapter9-3.shtml). Makes interesting reading, especially WRT insulin levels and fat storage.

[Justhink]

Origionally posted by tracer:
That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

One of the reasons cancer and heart disease are so prevalent in industrialized societies is because people in industrialized societies live so damn long. Cancer and heart disease most often afflict the elderly, partly because they take so long to develop.

Cancers don't really take that long to develop. There just happen to be a number of variables within modern society which cause it to slowly develop. The one major link to the rise of cancer is the introduction of the live polio vaccine in the first 3/4 of the last century which was tainted with SV-40, known to cause cancer and a whole host of symptoms which correlate to many of the somatic disorders and anxiety disorders seen articulated so much in written record and conversation and experience in this day and age. There is no doubt that Eskimo's were given this vaccine around that period. Even with the new 'dead' vaccine, SV-40 is still travelling throughout our society, spread through saliva contact. That's not even accounting for chemically induced, genetically induced or electrically/magnetically induced cancer.

People's bodies do just up and 'quit' after a certain while, even if they remain free of these specific diseases of the heart or immune system to effectively combat a reasonable amount of free-radical damage to the cells. There is quite a bit of evidence that Eskimo's (and numerous other cultures who made the same transition) didn't have these specific preventable diseases in their populations.

If eskimos usually die of, say, pneumonia, or dysintery, or whatnot, before they get old enough to have a serious chance of contracting cancer or heart disease -- or, for that matter, if eskimos don't have regular check-ups, and cancer and heart disease are actually more prevalent but we don't know about them because they aren't diagnosed in the early stages -- then that would put a serious hamper on the notion that "Eskimos have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease because they are carnivorous."

I totally aknowledge what you're saying here. I find that the topic is more complex than even this analysis. Hormones are made from cholestoral, so to this degree those who metabolize cholestoral more efficiently in all it's various forms are going to have greater statstical selection for a hormone translation and maintence band-aid if something comes up. On the more extreme ends however, the problem with these individuals is that they literally cannot metabolize carbohydrates very well, and this destroys their immune system. They are however much less suscptable to heart disease - that is not disputed. Even 'funnier', is that their bodies don't metabolize alcohol which makes the blood-brain phenomenon that much more of a peak experience (toxidity), and it requires them to drink more to achieve it.
Any one familiar with post-death autopsies can diagnose alcoholism from the heart, because all of the arteries are as clean as a newborns. So there is also this phenomenon which skews the percentages - carnivoires are more likely to become alcoholics or sugar-holics and die of something else as a result of immune defiency. The respective biochemistry orientations have their strengths and weaknesses, carnivores have a lot of advantages but can also be ruined with the discipline of any carbohydrate diet; including vegan and such, much quicker than vegetarian becomes ruined through a carnivores diet.

While the direct causes are complex, as each biochemistry has it's own signature; a pentad here is wisely applied and effective.

Raw Vegetarian (don't boil your vegetables!)
Moderate vegetarian
'Omnivore'
Moderate Carnivore
Raw Carnivore (don't cook your meat!)

These signatures literally tell you what you should or should not eat for the rest of your life. All of these food are determined by pH balance. Carnivores don't eat oranges or kiwi for vitamin C, they eat a root vegetale like brocolli or more pH neutral fruits like berries. The entire vegetable spectrum for carnivores consists of only root vegetables and nightshades - that's it. Not all vitamin C is created equally, as carnivores metabolize calcium carbonates of Vitamin C more efficiently than from other sources. It can mean the difference between poisoning ones self with a vitamin or surviving off of it.

I find the topic interesting.
My impression of the Atkins diet is that it targets about 30% of the population for optimum or reasonable optimum health for a standard lifecycle without much addiction or disease. Outside of that band and you start encroaching on biochemichal incompatabilities; not to suggest that it won't keep lots of people alive for quite a while though; but they'll be faced with preventable problems with regards to their health.

-Justhink

[Mort Furd]

:eek:
Holy Cats! An entire Justhink post that I can read and understand and not a single reference to suicide!
:eek:

[jjimm]

However, though vaguely relevant, alas, it's not strictly pertinent. Nor is it backed up by cites for its somewhat left-field assertions.

[Mort Furd]

Still, it is an improvement.
Sorry for the hijack.

[Justhink]

Nor is it backed up by cites for its somewhat left-field assertions.

But it's true! Every word of it is true!
I also find it extremely relevant as weight gain either comes from fat, protien or carbohydrates. A metabolic vegetarian is going to gain weight from this program.

-Justhink

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Justhink
But it's true! Every word of it is true!Oh, that's OK then. No cites required.

;)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Cuckoorex
I'm trying to say that the ADA's suggestions for controlling weight through their guidelines do not seem to be producing overwhelming success in battling the obesity 'epidemic.' I'm not saying that the ADA's guidelines won't work if they are followed; what I'm saying is, if people are not willing to follow the ADA's guidelines but they ARE willing to follow Atkins' guidelines, and either approach will take the weight off, then the Atkins approach is more effective.

I acknowledge what you're saying, but i think it's absurd. If you're going to blame the ADA for the rise in obesity in the last 30 years, even though the obesity occurs in people who don't follow the ADA guidelines, then I'm going to blame Atkins for the rise in obesity in the last 30 years, even though the obesity occurs in people who don't follow Atkins' guidelines. It's a ridiculous way to assign responsibility.

And if people are not willing to follow the Atkins' guidelines but they ARE willing to follow the ADA guidelines, and either approach will take the weight off, then the ADA approach is more effective.

See what I mean?

As I said before, if people are unwilling to follow the ADA guidelines but are willing to follow the Atkins guidelines, all that shows is that Atkins is superior to a jun-food diet. Everyone admits that. It still is likely to be inferior to a varied, low-fat diet emphasizing whole foods.

Daniel

PS I remember hearing once that Eskimos have the highest rate of colon cancer of any people on earth. I'll see if I can find a cite.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
PS I remember hearing once that Eskimos have the highest rate of colon cancer of any people on earth. I'll see if I can find a cite. If true, that's probably down to lack of fiber in their diet (http://www.tfn.net/HealthGazette/colon.html). Atkins recommends fiber supplements.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Okay, I can't find what I was remembering re: Eskimos and colon cancer. I did find a reference stating that Aleuts, a Native Alaskan people, have phenomenally high rates of colon cancer (http://members.aol.com/natamcan2/chap04.htm):

Alaska Natives living in the state of Alaska have the highest age-adjusted colon and rectum cancer incidence rate per 100,000 population for both sexes (Alaska, 1977-83) in comparison with all other racial groups, such as blacks and whites. The Alaska Natives rate is 62.6/100,000 and the white rate is 52.8/100,000. The American Indian both sexes colon and rectum cancer incidence rate is significantly lower among American Indians living in Arizona and New Mexico, with a rate of 10.2 per 100,000. When tribal and IHS Area data are reviewed, the most striking data are for Alaska Natives. Alaska Native males have a colon and rectum cancer incidence rate of 61.0 which is similar to the white male rate of 64.5. Aleut males have a colon and rectum cancer incidence rate of 114.8. Other Alaska Native male groups are significantly lower in colon and rectum incidence rates. Eskimo males have a rate of 53.2 and Athapaskan Alaska Native males have a rate of 40.4.

Granted, this is from an AOL page, but it reflects information you'll find on NIH pages -- this is simply the best summary I've been able to find of this information.

Daniel

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Scylla quoted from Quack:

Dr. Atkins explained in his book why he hasn't published. Since you've read it, why don't you share his reason with us?

Why don't you stop being pissy? I haven't memorized the book, and I'm not looking it up to satisfy your indignant hissy fit.

You want to contribute, then contribute.

[jjimm]

Have a look at the enormous number of [url=http://atkinscenter.com/science/researchsummaries/index.html]independent studies[/i] cited on Atkin's homepage. Granted, they're almost certainly selective, but no more so than any of the other research posted here.

[jjimm]

Oh bugger. Corrected link (http://atkinscenter.com/science/researchsummaries/index.html).

[Scylla]

jjimm:

Yeah I've been there.

This is germaine:

http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2002/1/11-846989.html

It backs up what I've been saying about calorie reduction in the initial phase.

[Liberal]

Originally posted by Scylla
Why don't you stop being pissy? I haven't memorized the book, and I'm not looking it up to satisfy your indignant hissy fit.

You want to contribute, then contribute. It sounds to me like you're just ranting. Why didn't you make this a Pit thread in the first place? :)

I haven't memorized the book either, but I did comprehend it. And without opening it, I can tell you that Dr. Atkins does not write research papers because he is a practicing physician with a case load that requires two-thirds of his day. He dedicates himself to his practice because he cares about his patients.

And before you protest that he found time to write his book, you should know that his book, though bearing his name, was written primarily by his staff, including Micahel Bernstein, Olivia Bell Buehl, and most of all, Bill Fryer. Other contributers were a variety of nutritionists and medical specialists.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Libertarian
It sounds to me like you're just ranting. Why didn't you make this a Pit thread in the first place?

Why don't you take a valium, and mind your own business?

I haven't memorized the book either, but I did comprehend it. And without opening it, I can tell you that Dr. Atkins does not write research papers because he is a practicing physician with a case load that requires two-thirds of his day. He dedicates himself to his practice because he cares about his patients.

And I can tell you that this is total bullshit, irresponsible, and a lie.

If you care about your patients you don't arbitrarily put them on potentially harmful dietary regimes of questionable efficacy until you have scientifically proven that it is safe and effective.

You do the research first, then you prescribe to patients.

Atkins did the opposite. He came up with some interesting ideas and put people on the diet without using scientific controls to judge the efficacy and the safety.

He's making his assertions and leaving it to everybody else to prove or disprove it. That's not the way it works.

You prove your claim before making it.

Only a shyster and a fraud would place patients on a regimen based on unproven claims.


And before you protest that he found time to write his book, you should know that his book, though bearing his name, was written primarily by his staff, including Micahel Bernstein, Olivia Bell Buehl, and most of all, Bill Fryer. Other contributers were a variety of nutritionists and medical specialists.

More total bullshit. You should have enough intelligence to know that if he had somebody write a book he could just as easily have somebody else conduct a study and publish a paper.

The question is simply one of priorities. Atkins makes money from his books. A research paper might produce unfavorable results, and wouldn't make him money, so why take the chance?

As my quackwatch cite says: following up with the 60,000 patients he treated at his centers with a simple questionaire wouldn't take that much effort, and would provide enormous value.

That Atkins makes excuses not to do it is a telling fact.

Also, if he cared about patients, as you say, you would think that a reasonable minimum standard of care would have him following up to actual see if they achieved the desired results.

You would think that there would be valuable data to be gained that would benefit present patients, and help him refine his technique.

He doesn't because he's a dangerous fraud, a shyster. He sells pseudoscience and big promises to hopeful people who really deserve a lot better.

[Cuckoorex]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
I acknowledge what you're saying, but i think it's absurd. If you're going to blame the ADA for the rise in obesity in the last 30 years, even though the obesity occurs in people who don't follow the ADA guidelines, then I'm going to blame Atkins for the rise in obesity in the last 30 years, even though the obesity occurs in people who don't follow Atkins' guidelines. It's a ridiculous way to assign responsibility.

I'm not blaming the ADA for the rise in obesity at all. I'm saying that the ADA's approach to presenting guidelines for weight loss are not meeting with spectacular success. Even the Mayo Clinic has suggested a food pyramid that is different than the standard food pyramid.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/findinformation/conditioncenters/invoke.cfm?objectid=357FAABB-312F-414A-A8D6401C15EE66B4

Personally, I think Mayo's Healthy Weight Pyramid might be the ideal "weight loss" guideline, if people follow it. I'm still unconvinced that the low carb diets have such negative consequences that they should be avoided, however.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Cuckoorex
I'm not blaming the ADA for the rise in obesity at all. I'm saying that the ADA's approach to presenting guidelines for weight loss are not meeting with spectacular success.

We may be talking past one another. If you're including people who don't follow the ADA's guidelines in your evaluation of their success, then I have to say that the Atkins diet is unsuccessful, too, because I'm including people that don't follow the Atkins diet in my evaluation of its success.

That said, the Mayo clinic's guidelines look good to me at first glance.

Daniel

[Liberal]

Scylla wrote:

And I can tell you that this is total bullshit, irresponsible, and a lie.Um, you might want to take your own advice about that valium. :D

Actually, it isn't a lie. He really is a practicing physician. And he actually based his diet on pre-existing research. Then, he began his own research, using only those patients who consented. Merely because he doesn't write research papers doesn't mean he doesn't do research.

More total bullshit. You should have enough intelligence to know that if he had somebody write a book he could just as easily have somebody else conduct a study and publish a paper.Really, it isn't bullshit. He has done exactly what your demanding, but you have said that anyone who researches on his funding, like Duke University, is biased.

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Actually, it isn't a lie. He really is a practicing physician. And he actually based his diet on pre-existing research. Then, he began his own research, using only those patients who consented. Merely because he doesn't write research papers doesn't mean he doesn't do research.

But if he doesn't publish, how are we to know that his research isn't flawed? That's the whole point of peer review.

[Scylla]

Lib:

Really, it isn't bullshit. He has done exactly what your demanding,

He has? My apologies then. Please point me to the study concerning the ongoing efficacy, and results of the 60,000 people he's treated in his centers.



but you have said that anyone who researches on his funding, like Duke University, is biased.

I said no such thing. Stop lying.

[Epimetheus]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
Nitpick: if you're a vegetarian, and
* If you eat a maintenance amount of calories (e.g., 2000 a day or thereabouts), and
* If you eat a variety of foods (e.g., your diet doesn't consist solely of oatmeal), and
* If you don't get most of your calories from alcohol, oils, refined sugars, or sweet potatoes, then
* You'll get all the protein you need.

Estimates for the amount of protein a diet needs range from 2.5% to 8% of one's calories. Very few whole foods derive fewer than 10% of their calories from protein. And eating a variety of foods ensures that you'll eat all the different amino acids you need for good health.

Although vegetarian gurus in the '60s and '70s thought that vegetarians needed to obsess about protein combinations, research in the '80s debunked that. A few vegetarians and vegans still come down with nasty diseases like kwashiankor (sp?) every now and then, but usually it's because they're subsisting on a junk-food diet.

Daniel

Hate to hijack this thread, but Daniel, I feel sorry for your muscles. I really hope you are not an active person.
According to the ACSM (http://acsm.org/), here (http://www.acsm.org/pdf/0080FS44.pdf), on Page 4:


It has been determined that the recommended daily allowance of protein for healthy adults is 0.8 g/kg/day or 12-15 percent of daily caloric intake.


And for those a bit more active, i.e athletes it goes on to suggest the usual 1.2 to 1.8 grams per kilo a day, which is supposed to still equal about 12-15%. They do not suggest the 2.0+ grams of protien per kilo of bodyweight that many suppliment providers "suggest".
I would think the American College of Sports Medicine is a pretty reliable source. ;)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Epimetheus

I would think the American College of Sports Medicine is a pretty reliable source. ;)

So is the United Nations University (http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80295e/80295E03.htm#Protein%20requirements%20for%20adults), I think; they say:

The data presented at this meeting indicate that the mean requirement for a protein source of nutritional value equal to that of egg or milk protein is approximately 0.6 g/kg/day, or a value 30 per cent greater than that proposed in the 1973 FAD/WHO report.

At any rate, most vegetable sources contain as much protein as humans need. Especially if you eat legumes and nuts regularly, you shouldn't have to worry.

(and since I eat eggs and dairy products, I'm in no danger. Thanks for your concern, though!)

Daniel

[Truth Seeker]

Geez, what a thread. Let's all calm down and have a nice, friendly religious debate on the evils of Islam instead.

Runner's World conducted a study in their October issue wherein they placed half of a pool of runner's on the Atkins diet, and at intervals measured their performance on a treadmill against a control group. The Atkins runners reported a lower energy level, didn't feel as good, and this was confirmed by a degradation in their ability to run. Conclusion, the Atkins diet saps your energy.

Scylla, what were the details of this study? If the control group was on a similarly calorie-restricted diet, it would be interesting. If the control group wasn't on any diet at all, all it says is that people on diets have less energy than people who aren't on diets.

Now I'm a firm agnostic in this area. However, I do notice a couple of things. First, it seems to me like the warning against high fat intake is elliding several different things. AFAIK, the best predictor of heart disease is high cholesterol, not fat intake. Now, it's true that high fat intake, obesity and high cholesterol are linked. BUT, if there is a way to have a high fat intake along with a low blood cholesterol level, I'm not certain that the parade of horribles usually associated with a high-fat diet necessarily follows.

One thing is clear: nobody really knows what the answers are. For example, we just learned that "yo-yo" dieting doesn't appear to cause long-term health problems. Given that obesity has been a serious problem for at least forty years, it's surprising that it has taken this long to do the research. Something similar seems to be true for the high protien, low carbohydrate approach to dieting. To quote the recent summary of the new research in USA Today,
Several years ago, government officials and obesity researchers called for scientific studies on the low-carbohydrate plan, and those results are beginning to trickle in.

To me it seems too early to say, definitively, which diets work better and what the long term health risks are.

[openzgate]

The Adkins diets, and other copycat diets, are based on the premise that ancient man's diet was mostly meat, with little plant sources. I.e., this is the diet that our bodies were brought up on on an evolutionary scale.

I can't believe this. Of course, no one knows what our ancestors' diet was like exactly, but this belief is contested by many scientists today. What makes much more common sense is that ancient man ate mostly plant sources with some meat thrown in when he/she could get it. It takes a lot of energy to catch an animal, unlike a plant. Plants were much more readily available. I'm not sure exactly how Adkins came up with this strange idea, but it falls in the face of common sense and other experts in the field.

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by openzgate
The Adkins diets, and other copycat diets, are based on the premise that ancient man's diet was mostly meat, with little plant sources. I.e., this is the diet that our bodies were brought up on on an evolutionary scale.

I can't believe this. Of course, no one knows what our ancestors' diet was like exactly, but this belief is contested by many scientists today. What makes much more common sense is that ancient man ate mostly plant sources with some meat thrown in when he/she could get it. It takes a lot of energy to catch an animal, unlike a plant. Plants were much more readily available. I'm not sure exactly how Adkins came up with this strange idea, but it falls in the face of common sense and other experts in the field.

Please cite some of these experts, and explain why common sense should overrule scientific evidence.

According to the best evidence available (see the many articles here (http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/paleodiet/index.shtml)), early man ate a lot of meat. In particular, see this article (http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1a.shtml).

Also, keep in mind that while an animal may be hard to catch, plants are much more likely to be poisonous.

[Guinastasia]

Well, in most primitive societies, meat is very rare-most people live on beans and rice, and vegetables, don't they?

[ultrafilter]

Primitive societies of today are very different from the environment of pre-agriculture humans.

[ultrafilter]

Sorry, I read "primitive" as "poor". Still, the world has changed quite a bit in the past million years.

[Czarcasm]

Please tell me, before I adopt the diet of ancient societies, what the average lifespan was back then? Did eating mostly meat keep them happy and healthy, or was it a necessary diet because that was usually all they had to eat because nomadic peoples have trouble developing an agricultural lifestyle?

[ultrafilter]

The average lifespan was low, due to high mortality rates. Beyond that, you'd do better to read the articles I linked to.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by ultrafilter
The average lifespan was low, due to high mortality rates.


DUUUUUUHHHH......... :smack:


Are ya sure?

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Czarcasm
Please tell me, before I adopt the diet of ancient societies, what the average lifespan was back then?


Let's see. I think they grew to be about 4 feet tall due to malnutrition. All their teeth rotted out by the time they were in their twenties, and then they slowly starved to death when they lost the ability to masturbate.

Wait a minute I think I got that wrong. When your teeth fell out you lose the ability to "masticate."

You lose the ability to masturbate when a saber-tooth tiger comes and bites your dick off. Then you commit suicide.

Those were the two many causes of death in primitive times.

[ultrafilter]

Ahem. Make that high *infant* mortality rates.

Smartass.

[ultrafilter]

I'm not advocating a paloelithic diet. I was responding to openzgate's assertion based on common sense that primitive man was primarily vegetarian. No more, no less.

[Truth Seeker]

Originally posted by Scylla
Let's see. I think they grew to be about 4 feet tall due to malnutrition. All their teeth rotted out by the time they were in their twenties, and then they slowly starved to death when they lost the ability to masturbate.

Wait a minute I think I got that wrong. When your teeth fell out you lose the ability to "masticate."

You lose the ability to masturbate when a saber-tooth tiger comes and bites your dick off. Then you commit suicide.

Those were the two many causes of death in primitive times.
Cite?

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
Cite?



Just don't get your penis caught (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/carnivora/smilside.gif)

[Truth Seeker]

:confused:

[the_great_dalmuti]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I haven't memorized the book either, but I did comprehend it. And without opening it, I can tell you that Dr. Atkins does not write research papers because he is a practicing physician with a case load that requires two-thirds of his day. He dedicates himself to his practice because he cares about his patients.

Dr. Ornish, the Anti-Atkins who advocates a vegetarian, whole foods diet is a practicing physician. He had time to write many books, publish many ariticles in reputable medical and nurtitional publications, and even held a governmental post. And he probably cares about his patients, too.

Epimetheus, the "how can vegetarians get enough protein" is an old wives tales. I'm a vegan, and eat more than enough protein. Surprisingly enough, if you take an intelligent stance on your diet, and make sure to eat balanced, colorful, modestly-sized, whole food meals, you'll get everything your body needs.

I'm in good shape, ride my bicycle to work evey day, 20 minutes uphill, 20 minutes downhill. No problems whatsoever. I'm muscular, but by no means one of those naturally-muscuclar mesomophs with like .06% bodyfat. I make sure to eat at least 1, though preferably 2, servings of nuts, tofu, or legumes a day.

On the same note, another such caution is "but do you get enough calcium?" Of couse I do. Green leafy vegetables, and any kind of seaweed, have ridiculous amounts of calcium.

I don't have any cites at the moment, but cow's Milk is prized much more than it should be. When a person eats excess protein, it sucks calcium out of their body. So, for every glass of milk you drink, sure you're getting calcium, but you're also containing way more protein than your body needs. It counteracts itself. It's been discovered that osteoperosis actually is provoked by the overconsumption of protein, just as much as from a lack of calcium.

But this is all off topic. Sorry about that.

Best,

TGD

[Epimetheus]

Originally posted by the_great_dalmuti
[b]Epimetheus, the "how can vegetarians get enough protein" is an old wives tales. I'm a vegan, and eat more than enough protein. Surprisingly enough, if you take an intelligent stance on your diet, and make sure to eat balanced, colorful, modestly-sized, whole food meals, you'll get everything your body needs.


I never said this. I know what a vegetarians diet is, and I am not out to "get" you guys. I see it as a quite healthy diet. I was contesting DanielW claim that only 2-8% of a diet should be protien, not saying they couldn't get enough. Nothing about vegetarians either, just that claim.
:confused:

[Mighty_Girl]

Imagine that I am an ignorant on the subject (well, I am). I red this in the Atkins website (see link below):

These are the foods you may eat liberally during Induction (2 weeks):

All fish, all fowl, all shellfish, all meat, all eggs.

You can consume three to four ounces daily of the following full-fat, firm, soft and semisoft aged cheeses.

You can have two to three cups per day of: alfalfa sprouts, daikon, mushrooms, arugula, endive, parsley, bok choy, escarole, peppers, celery, fennel, radicchio, chicory, jicama, radishes, chives, lettuce, romaine lettuce, cucumber, mâche, sorrel.

You can have one cup per day of these veggies: artichoke, celery root, pumpkin, artichoke hearts, rhubarb, asparagus, chard sauerkraut, bamboo shoots, collard greens, scallions, dandelion,
snow peas, bean sprouts, dandelion greens, spaghetti squash, beet greens, eggplant, spinach, broccoli, hearts of palm, string or wax beans, broccoli rabe, kale, summer squash, brussels, kohlrabi, tomato, bean sprouts, leeks, turnips, cabbage, okra, water chestnuts, cauliflower, onion, zucchini.

Be sure to drink a minimum of eight eight-ounce glasses of water each What is wrong with that?

[Mighty_Girl]

Bloody hell! I forgot the link :rolleyes:

http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/12/15-464579.html

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Mighty_Girl
Imagine that I am an ignorant on the subject (well, I am). I red this in the Atkins website (see link below):

What is wrong with that?

No fruits on the list (discounting things like summer squash, which are technically fruits but have different nutritional profiles from what we traditionally consider fruits).
No minimum amount of vegetables on the list.
Too much high-fat food on the list.

What's "wrong" with it is that it doesn't cohere to current mainstream knowledge about a healthful diet. I put "wrong" in quotation marks because it's possible that further research will vindicate Atkins. Currently, however, our best information about what's healthful for humans to eat runs counter to the recommendations you just quoted.

Daniel

[Truth Seeker]

What's "wrong" with it is that it doesn't cohere to current mainstream knowledge about a healthful diet.
But doesn't this beg the question? All diets designed to make you lose weight are "unhealthy" in the sense that if you were to continue on them long enough, you would die. A 1500 calorie a day diety is "unhealthy" regardless of what mix of foods you eat. Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with going on a 1500 calorie a day diet, at least for a while, as part of a weight loss program, is there?

There's a lot of things to be said about this on both sides, but does anybody really think that two weeks of skipping fruits and carbohydrates is going to have a lot of long-term medical side effects?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Truth Seeker, I'll revise my original statement: what's wrong with the 2-week induction phase is that it's part of a long-term diet that doesn't cohere to mainstream nutritional guidelines. You're right that if someone follows only the induction phase and then goes back to eating a healthful diet, there probably won't be long-term consequences. I didn't realize that's what we were arguing about.

Daniel

[Truth Seeker]

Oh. Well, the post from Mighty Girl you were responding to seemed to refer specifically to the first two-week induction phase of this diet.

[Mighty_Girl]

From Atkins' website:

Lifetime Maintenance:
If you're one of the lucky folks with low metabolic resistance, you may be able to eat most vegetables, including starchy vegetables, fruit, legumes and whole grains such as oats, barley, millet, wild rice, couscous or buckwheat. You can also begin to use recipes, such as breaded veal chops, that contain some carbohydrate ingredients. You may even be able to handle an occasional potato. But—and this is a significant distinction—that does not mean you can eat all these things in one day.

[snip]

Our suggestion to you is that you restrict your consumption of sweets made with real sugars to the occasional slice of birthday or wedding cake for really special celebrations. So, you add fruit after the two-weeks induction period and add more carbohydrate-rich fruits and veggies. I understand that each fruit provides is rich in one or two essential nutrients, and that those nutrients can be found in other vegetables. So, I am still asking the same question what is wrong with this?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Mighty_Girl
So, I am still asking the same question what is wrong with this?

I must be missing something: Scylla and I have both described many, many times throughout this thread what's wrong with the Atkin's diet. Do you object to specific points we raised?

Daniel

[Liberal]

Dalmuti wrote:

Dr. Ornish, the Anti-Atkins who advocates a vegetarian, whole foods diet is a practicing physician. He had time to write many books, publish many ariticles in reputable medical and nurtitional publications, and even held a governmental post. And he probably cares about his patients, too.How many hours a week does he practice medicine?

[the_great_dalmuti]

Lib, I've been trying to reach him on my red plastic Ornishphone, but there's no answer. I'll guess I'll have to go to the roof and shine the broccoli-shaped OrnishSignal in the sky. When I finally get a hold of him, I'll let you know.

In the meantime, you can read a short biography here (http://www.wisdomstore.com/wisdomstore/biography.asp?author_id=1761) and here (http://www.mongiello.org/ornish.htm) and here (http://my.webmd.com/medcast_channel_toc/3080), though they all say pretty much the same thing.

On the contrary, how many hours a week does Atkins practice? (Not counting all of the time he spends getting angioplasty.)

[Scylla]

So, in conclusion, there is no science to support the claims of the Atkins diet, and indeed there are many objections and concerns.

It's interesting that the one guy who's been on the diet for three years in the USA today article has been exercising regularly while he was on the diet.

This jibes with my experience as well.

The term "diet" is really a misleading concept if one is trying to lose weight.

Dieting without exercise is like trying to drive a car without tires.

The most important thing you can do to insure the success of a weight loss program is to exercise regularly.

The fact is that if you don't it probably won't work, and if it does the results will be temporary.

Back in 1999 I lost 50 pounds and kept it off by doing two things.

1. I stopped eating all junk and fast food, and tried to eat basic foods. My guideline was that if it wasn't something a caveman would be able to eat, I wouldn't eat it either. Fresh fruit, vegetable, whole grain bread, fresh meat. I didn't fry anything (except stir-fry and I used Pam instead of oil.) I avoid packaged and processed foods, and tried to take my food in the raw.

2. I started running. Back then I was at 20 miles a week. Now I'm at 50. By running 25 minutes a day, I burned around 2,500 calories per week extra, based on my weight.

That's like cutting a whole day out of your diet.


The health benefits and the results were dramatic, and long-lasting.

If you don't think it works, go hang out at a 10k or a marathon. Ask people if they used to be fat. I doubt you will find a larger instance of successful long-term weight loss than among runners.

If you can't run, there's always biking, climbing, whatever floats your boat.

The point is, eat intelligently and exercise, and the weight will come off. It won't come off at first. Chances are you will gain a little bit in the first few weeks, but then it will just begin to come off slowly and surely

Why not do something intelligent and lasting, that will make you feel good and strong while you lose weight?

Why take the chance of hurting yourself with a temporary and unrealistic fad diet?

25 minutes of exercise a day is not a hardship. Stick with it for two weeks and it is likely to become the favorite part of your day.

***

The other thing I'll mention is this:

Take the Scylla challenge. If you are overweight and want to lose it, make the commitment to complete a marathon. Take it seriously and visit a website on training for beginners. (if you want one let me know. There's lots of good ones out there.) Plan it through and stick with it.

I'll make one guarrantee. When you cross that finish line, you won't be fat.

[Liberal]

Dalmuti wrote:

When I finally get a hold of him, I'll let you know.Okay, no problem. When you do, let me know whether he's a practicing — no, really — physician.

On the contrary, how many hours a week does Atkins practice?About 60.

[Liberal]

Scylla wrote:

So, in conclusion, there is no science to support the claims of the Atkins diet, and indeed there are many objections and concerns.In all, Dr. Atkins lists 15 pages of studies that support his claims. I only have time to list a few from the first chapter. Besides, you'll dismiss and ignore them anyway.

Lui, S., et al, "A Prospective Study of Dietary Glycemic Load, Carbohydrate Intake, and Risk of Coronary Heart Kisease in U.S. Women", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 71, 2000, pp. 1455-1461.

Westman, E., et al, "Effect of a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and Nutritional Supplements on Serum Lipids in Mildly Overweight Individuals", presentation at Southern Regional Society of General Internal Medicien, February 18, 2000.

Volek, J.S., et al, "Fasting Lipoprotein and Postprandial Triacylglycerol Responses to a Low-Carbohydrate Deit Supplemented with n-3 Fatty Acids", Journal of the American College of Nutrition[i], 19(3), 2000, pp. 383-391.

Nobels, F., et al, "Weight Reduction with a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate, Caloric Restricted Diet: Effects on Blood Pressure, Glucose and Insulin Levels," [i]Netherlands Joural of Medicine, 35(5-6), 1989, pp. 295-302.

Abbasi, F., et al, "High Carbohydrate Diets, Triglyceride Rich Lipoproteins, and Coronary Heart Disease Risk", American Journal of Cardiology, 86, 2000, pp. 45-48.

Morris, K., et al, "Glycemic Index, Cardiovascular Disease, and Obesity," [i]Nutrition Review, 50(9), 1999, pp. 273-276.

Hu, FB., et al, "Dietary Protein and Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease in Women", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70, 1999, pp. 221-227.

Jeppesen, J., et al, "Triglyceride Concentration and Ischemic Heart Disease: An Eight-Year Follow-Up in the Copenhagen Male Study", Circulation, 97(11), 1998, pp. 1029-1036.

Reaven, G.M., et al, "Hypertension Is a Disease of Carbohydrate and Lipoprotein Metabolism", American Journal of Medicine, 87(supplement 6A), 1989, pp. 2S-6S.

Gutierrex, M., et al, "Utility of a Short-Term 25% Carbohydrate Diet on Improving Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus", Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 17(6), 1998, pp. 595-600.

Fujita, Y., et al, "Basal and Post-Protein Insulin and Glucagon Levels During a High and Low Carbohydrate Intake and Their Relationships to Plasma Trigycerides", Diabetes, 24(60), 1975, pp. 552-558.

Garg, A., et al, "Comparison of Effects of High and Low Carbohydrate Diets on Plasma Lipoproteins and Insulin Sensitivity in Patients with Mild NIDDM", Diabetes, 41(10), 1002, pp. 1278-1285.

Sondike, S., et al, "The Ketogenic Diet Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular Risk: A Randomized Controlled Trial", Journal of Adolescent Health, 25, 2000, p. 91.

Kasper, H., et al, "Response of Body Weight to a Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet in Normal Obeses Subjects", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 26, 1973, pp. 197-204.

Take the Scylla challenge. If you are overweight and want to lose it, make the commitment to complete a marathon. Take it seriously and visit a website on training for beginners. (if you want one let me know. There's lots of good ones out there.) Plan it through and stick with it.

I'll make one guarrantee. When you cross that finish line, you won't be fat.Yeah. They might be dead. You really shouldn't give blanket medical advice like that. Many people, for a variety of reasons, cannot endure the running of a marathon.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Scylla wrote:

In all, Dr. Atkins lists 15 pages of studies that support his claims. I only have time to list a few from the first chapter. Besides, you'll dismiss and ignore them anyway.

Wrong again. Half wrong anyway. I can indeed dismiss them, because they are dismissable. I won't however ignore them.

If you wish to cite these studies and quote relevant portions than we would have something to talk about. Just providing a bibliography though is totally useless.

Atkins has a wonderful list of cites on his website showing recent studies.

Before I started this thread I examined them. By and large they do not support his claims. At best, they simply don't disprove them.

So, if you want to support your argument, why don't you do what you're supposed to do in GD? You've been around here long enough that you know how it works, so I consider your posting of a bibliography to be nothing more than playing games.

Cut the fat out of your argument. Put up or shove a cork in it, babes.

Quotes and cites from independant third parties that can be examined and discussed.

Quotes and cites.



Yeah. They might be dead. You really shouldn't give blanket medical advice like that. Many people, for a variety of reasons, cannot endure the running of a marathon.

Oh shut up. Obviously it goes without saying that people without legs shouldn't consider "running" a marathon (though they can do the wheelchair version. Those guys cruise.)

Obviously it goes without saying that people with medical conditions or other health issues that preclude them from doing this kind of thing shouldn't.


And, in case it's not obvious (for the exceeding stupid out there,) I wrote this:

Take it seriously and visit a website on training for beginners. (if you want one let me know. There's lots of good ones out there.) Plan it through and stick with it.

Any website or book about running a marathon for beginners is going to suggest that one speak to their doctor about the advisibility of beginning such a regimen. It's going to talk about health issues, and tell you to do it safely, or not at all.

More importantly, it will tell you how.

[Liberal]

I'm not sure how you're getting away with keeping this Pit thread in Great Debates. :)

I mean, you're not even making a pretense at debate. Telling people to push corks up their anuses. Telling them to shut up. Demanding cites, and then declaring that you can't be bothered to read them yourself. Posting either ignorant statements or lies about Dr. Atkins and the medical data. Railing and ranting ceaselessly...

No wonder you have failed to debunk the diet.

[Cuckoorex]

Why would someone want to try a 'fad' diet (or any other diet other than the 'traditional' diets that have failed them in the past)? Because for someone who is 30 years old and 450 lbs, taking off maybe 1 or 2 pounds a week, even if there are NO plateaus or setbacks, even if it's a consistent 2 pounds a week, equals almost 2 and a half years of effort, compared to the relatively quick methods that low carb diets might acheive. Consider that there are almost ALWAYS plateaus and setbacks in weight loss efforts, and you see most morbidly obese people who are trying to lose weight give up when the look at themselves 2 years after starting the effort to find that the scale has maybe shown 30 pounds dropped (or worse, that they have yo-yoed back above their initial weight) instead of the 250 they needed to drop to get close to a normal weight. Can you honestly blame people in that position for wanting to try any and every diet that shows quick and significant results?

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I'm not sure how you're getting away with keeping this Pit thread in Great Debates. :)

Because I'm debating. You're just bitching (and I'm not sure I understand your use of smilie.)

I mean, you're not even making a pretense at debate.

Lying is not nice. It's especially stupid when the proof of your lie is in this thread. I have made arguments and used credible cites to back them up. These cites have included nutritionists, Doctors, The AHA and others. I provided direct relevant quotations.

All you've done is bitch and lie.


Telling people to push corks up their anuses. Telling them to shut up.

Person. Not people. Person. Or to be more accurate, just you. I've told you to shut up (because you are lying.)

You have lied again. I did not tell you to put a cork in your anus. I told you to put a cork in "it," and I was referring to your lying mouth. Any Assphasia you're experiencing is your own dilemma.

Demanding cites, and then declaring that you can't be bothered to read them yourself.

Another lie. It's not that I can't be bothered to read them it's that you've offered nothing to read. You've provided a bibliography. period.


Posting either ignorant statements or lies about Dr. Atkins and the medical data.

Total bullshit. Rarely have I seen such egregious lying and whining, even from you.

Cite me one lie I've said about Atkins, and prove it

Just like "evolution" and "up the butt, Bob" this is one of those things where you are completely wrong but just haven't the wit to see it.

Educate yourself.


Railing and ranting ceaselessly...

Stop whining and bitching, act like a man and debate. Or, if you feel my behavior is innapropriate, notify a mod.

But, for the love of Jesus, cut the whiny bullshit.

You're whole post is just a complaint of persecution.

If you think the Atkins diet is safe and effective, prove it.

If you can't, go whine elsewhere.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Cuckoorex
Can you honestly blame people in that position for wanting to try any and every diet that shows quick and significant results?


Not in the least. I blame Atkins for victimizing them and taking advantage of them, and pushing a questionable regimen under false premises.

[Liberal]

Originally posted by Scylla


Because I'm debating. You're just bitching (and I'm not sure I understand your use of smilie.)



Lying is not nice. It's especially stupid when the proof of your lie is in this thread. I have made arguments and used credible cites to back them up. These cites have included nutritionists, Doctors, The AHA and others. I provided direct relevant quotations.

All you've done is bitch and lie.




Person. Not people. Person. Or to be more accurate, just you. I've told you to shut up (because you are lying.)

You have lied again. I did not tell you to put a cork in your anus. I told you to put a cork in "it," and I was referring to your lying mouth. Any Assphasia you're experiencing is your own dilemma.



Another lie. It's not that I can't be bothered to read them it's that you've offered nothing to read. You've provided a bibliography. period.




Total bullshit. Rarely have I seen such egregious lying and whining, even from you.

Cite me one lie I've said about Atkins, and prove it

Just like "evolution" and "up the butt, Bob" this is one of those things where you are completely wrong but just haven't the wit to see it.

Educate yourself.




Stop whining and bitching, act like a man and debate. Or, if you feel my behavior is innapropriate, notify a mod.

But, for the love of Jesus, cut the whiny bullshit.

You're whole post is just a complaint of persecution.

If you think the Atkins diet is safe and effective, prove it.

If you can't, go whine elsewhere. This is like watching a schizophrenic on crack.

You claim you have the book with all the quotes and cites. Open it up, hold it in front of your face, and move your eyes slowly from upper left to lower right. When you see words you don't know, sound them out or ask someone to help you.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Libertarian
You claim you have the book with all the quotes and cites. Open it up, hold it in front of your face, and move your eyes slowly from upper left to lower right. When you see words you don't know, sound them out or ask someone to help you.

Cut the evasions and make an argument.

A bibliography is not an argument.

Saying "read the book again" is not an argument.


I'll repeat the following:



My quackwatch cite, which I'll give again here:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quacker...Topics/lcd.html

Cites three different studies of several thousand people not just the 18 person study that Libertarian mirepresented in such egregious fashion.

The AMA says:

quote: The AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition [2], Consumer Reports [3], and many individual experts have warned that the unlimited intake of saturated fats under Atkins' food plan can increase the dieter's risk of heart disease. Last year, experts at the University of Kentucky did a computer analysis of a week's worth of sample menus and reported:

* The diet contained 59% fat.
* The diet provided fewer servings of grains, vegetables, and fruits than recommended by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
* Although the diet can produce short-term weight loss, long-term use is likely to increase the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cancer [4].

Here's the study that Lib poh-poohs fraudulently:

quote: Another recent study was done by researchers at the Bassett Research Institute in Cooperstown, New York, who followed 18 Atkins dieters for a month. During the 2-week induction period, the dieters consumed 1,419 calories a day, compared with 2,481 calories a day before starting the diet, and lost an average of about 8 pounds. In the next phase, dieters averaged 1,500 calories a day and lost an additional 3 pounds in two weeks. Dieters in both phases cut back on carbohydrates by more than 90%, but the actual amounts of fat and protein they ate changed little. Some patients felt tired, and some were nauseated on the plan. Most indicated that they were eager to go back to their regular diet [5].

Yet another study here:

quote: Another study found that (a) 41 overweight people who followed the Atkins diet for six months lost an average of 10% of their initial body weight; (b) most lowered their blood cholesterol level by 5%; (c) some increased their cholesterol level; and (d) 20 subjects who continued the program had maintained their weight loss at the end of a year [6].

and yet another here:

quote: In yet another study, researchers who compile the National Weight Control Registry analyzed the diets of 2,681 members who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. Because the Atkins diet has been used for more than 30 years, the researchers reasoned that, if it worked, its followers would be well represented. However, they found that fewer than 1% of these successful people had followed a diet with less than 24% or less of their daily calories in the form of carbohydrates. The mean duration of successful weight maintenance in this low-carbohydrate group was 19 months, whereas the mean duration of dieters who consumed more than 24% of their daily calories as carbohydrates was 36 months. Because so few Atkins dieters were found in the Registry, the researchers concluded that the Atkins diet may not create the favorable "metabolic advantage" claimed for it [7].

The AMA issues this warning:

quote: The nutrition committee of the American Heart Association has issued a science advisory warning that high-protein diets have not been proven effective and pose health risks. The report covered the Atkins, Zone, Protein Power, Sugar Busters, and Stillman diets. The committee stated:

* Such diets may produce short-term weight loss through dehydration.
* Weight loss may also occur through caloric restriction resulting from the fact that the diets are relatively unpalatable.
* The high fat content may be harmful to the cardiovascular system in the long run.
* Any improvement in blood cholesterol levels and insulin management would be due to weight loss, not the change in composition.
* A very high-protein diet is especially risky for patients with diabetes because it can speed the progression of diabetic kidney disease [8].


Lib claims that there are 10,000,000 satisfied Atkins followers. Frankly, I consider this a lie. Atkins himself only claims 60,000 patients treated at his weight loss centers in 30 years. Maybe 10,000,000 people have bought the book. That would be a different thing than what Lib says.

Lib wonders how come nobody is including Atkins dieters in the above cites. They are. They just don't do well. Quackwatch says this about it.

[quote]Although Atkins has advocated the diet for nearly 30 years and states that more than 60,000 patients treated at his center have used his diet as their primary protocol, he has never published any study in which people who used his program were monitored over a period of several years. Scorekeeping could be done simply and inexpensively by mailing an annual questionnaire and tabulating the results.

[pohjonen]

Originally from the Conference Report - North American Association for the Study of Obesity from Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology:

"A 3-center (University of Pennsylvania, University of Colorado, Washington University) randomized controlled trial comparing the Atkins Diet with a conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate plan that restricted daily caloric intake to 1200-1500 kcal for women and 1500-1800 kcal for men...."

"At 12 weeks, the researchers found that the Atkins group had a lower rate of attrition (12%)compared with that of the conventional program (30%). In addition, subjects in the Atkins group lost significantly more weight (8.5 ± 3.7%)compared with the conventional group (3.7 ± 4.0%)..."

"The researchers concluded that the Atkins Diet produced favorable effects on weight, HDL, triglycerides, and retention compared with a conventional low-fat, low-calorie program, whereas the conventional plan was associated with more favorable effects on TC and LDL cholesterol."

"A similar randomized-controlled trial from Duke University was also presented at the conference.[11] The researchers in this study also compared the effects of a low-carbohydrate low-calorie (LF) program. This kg/m2) males and females, who all received group respective diet programs. At 6 months, both attrition, but the LC group lost considerably more weight (13.3 ± 4.6%) compared with the LF group (8.6 ± 5.9%)."

"In addition, the LC group lost significantly more fat mass than the LF group..."

THAT'S FAT MASS, SCYLLA, NOT WATER!

"... (-9.7 kg for the LC group and -6.4 kg for the LF group). Both groups showed decreases in triglycerides, with the LF group also showing a significant decrease in total cholesterol (-13.5 mg/dL). The LC group showed significant increases in HDL and a significant decrease in Chol/HDL ratio. This pattern of results was similar to those of the 3-center study described above."

In other words those predicted horrible effects on lipid profiles DIDN'T HAPPEN!

And, in conclusion:

"Longer-term studies are needed to more fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of these popular diet approaches."

And here another opinion:

"The heart association's president, Dr. Robert Bonow of Northwestern University, said the organization will reconsider the Atkins diet as more research results become available.

"Having our top academic centers look at this is wonderful," he said. "We are still dealing with small numbers of patients. We just need more data."

[/B]

So the truth of the matter is that the studies to resolve this have YET TO BE DONE. The jury is still out! The studies above do not support the contention that the Atkins diet is harmful quackery. If the president of the AHA thinks Atkins is worth a second look, then JUST MAYBE it actually IS?

And, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, folks do not lose the weight on Atkins because they're eating less calories. This just isn't true. The old "calories in - calories" out saw does not hold up on the Atkins regimen. Something else is going on.

[Scylla]

Poh:

"Longer-term studies are needed to more fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of these popular diet approaches."

My point exactly. Atkins has been purveying this diet for 30 years without having demonstrated its safety or efficacy. That's not putting patients first. That's irresponsible quackery.

And, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, folks do not lose the weight on Atkins because they're eating less calories. This just isn't true. The old "calories in - calories" out saw does not hold up on the Atkins regimen. Something else is going on.

Yes. You do keep saying that. Unfortunately, you've done nothing else but say it. The study you've cited shows a calorie reduction, (men at 1800 calories,) (women at 1200.) The study I cited from Atkins' own website says that the ketosis and restrictive diet results in a loss of appetite, and cites the concurrent calorie reduction as the reason behind the weight loss, And Atkins agrees!

That's pretty much straight from the horse's mouth. What more do you want?

I'll cite it for you:

http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2002/1/11-846989.html

Here's from the summary:

Researchers attribute this weight loss to caloric restriction. The authors believed that the term "high-fat" diet was a misnomer and that the diet should more correctly be referred to as a "low-carbohydrate" diet. They concluded that a low-carbohydrate diet was satiating and did not lead to hunger. Carbohydrate does not satisfy appetite; it may even increase it.

And here's Atkins' commentary with my emphasisi:

At lower levels of carbohydrate consumption, appetite and cravings are reduced. On the low-carbohydrate diet, subjects in this study ate until they were full. Ultimately, they still took in fewer calories, which resulted in weight loss.

Please note that this is in perfect agreement with what I wrote in my OP. I'll quote it again for you:

From my OP:

Fat has twice as many calories per gram as carbohydrate. The Atkins diet works in spite of this fact because the fats that we eat tend to be more filling and cloying than the carbs we have gotten used to. Sweets and snacks like pretzels and low fat cookies can actually trigger the hunger response becasue they are absorbed so quickly. That hamburger will likely be sitting in your stomach for a long time.

This is also in concurrence with Dr. Liz Applegate, the three nutritionist commentaries I gave in the cites immediately following my OP, Quackwatch, and as many more independant medical cites as you would like me to produce (within reason.)

Since everybody agrees that less calories is the reason behind the Atkins' diet working, including Atkins himself on his own website I hope you'll reconsider your position.

Moving on:

At 12 weeks, the researchers found that the Atkins group had a lower rate of attrition (12%)compared with that of the conventional program (30%). In addition, subjects in the Atkins group lost significantly more weight (8.5 ± 3.7%)compared with the conventional group (3.7 ± 4.0%)...

Sure. I said it worked. It's easier than a regular sensible diet and you get faster earlier results.

The researchers concluded that the Atkins Diet produced favorable effects on weight, HDL, triglycerides, and retention compared with a conventional low-fat, low-calorie program, whereas the conventional plan was associated with more favorable effects on TC and LDL cholesterol.

I don't think that this is a faithful representation of what the study found. I would like to see it myself. My cites have indeed agreed that members of the Atkins diet see a significant drop in cholesterol, and this is attributed to the loss of weight. Since Atkins dieters lose weight faster (do to the starvation ketosis response) one would also expect their cholesterol and blood fats to drop faster. For example, if you go an all butter diet you will lose weight, and blood fats will drop. This will in part occur because the butter will make you sick to your stomach and you won't eat that much. Your body will be starving for nutrients and consuming itself at a rapid weight. As fat is broken down water will be released as well. You will lose both water and fat weight more rapidly than on a tradittional diet.

You will also lose weight if you starve yourself in other ways. This doesn't make it smart.

In other words those predicted horrible effects on lipid profiles DIDN'T HAPPEN!

This is a six month study. I've cited and quoted others that show that some people's cholesterol goes up, and that blood fats in general do not decrease as rapidly on the Atkins diet over a 6 month period as they do on a more traditional diet with the same amount of calories. The flaw in this study is that both groups were not consuming the same amount of calories.


"The heart association's president, Dr. Robert Bonow of Northwestern University, said the organization will reconsider the Atkins diet as more research results become available.

Yes. Because he is a responsible Doctor and scientist. If he recieves data that shows him to be in error he will adjust his stance. In the meantime the American Heart Association has a warning out against this diet.

Atkins has not shown the same care and flexibility. He is promoting his diet and presenting claims that are not backed up by legitimate science. As your own cite shows, we don't know if the diet is safe. Mainstream research so far indicates that it's likely not. They have a warning against it. If mainstream science shows it to be safe and efficacious it will change its stance.

I repeat. Atkins has not bothered to prove his claims in the 30 years he has been promoting the diet. In fact, by his own writings the original diet was unsafe. He now recommends vitamin supplements as well as fish oil supplements.

These corrections came about because of mainstream science, not Atkins.

What other problems are there with this diet? What other dangers?

Oddly, there is something to be gained from Atkins' research. As I say in the OP, 100 years ago the high fat diet was all the rage. People got fat, and issues of cholesterol and heart disease became associated with this diet. The high-carb diet then became all the rage. People still get fat, and have heart disease.

As Dr. Applegate says, neither Carbs nor fats are bad in and of themselves. It depends on what kind you are eating, and a sensible weight loss program will encompass both.

People nowadays do eat too many carbs and the wrong kind of carbs. This doesn't mean that they should eat too many fats, though.

A balanced diet is the smart, reasonable, and safe way to go.

"Having our top academic centers look at this is wonderful," he said. "We are still dealing with small numbers of patients. We just need more data."

Try this. A drug company invents a new drug, and instead of testing it and showing it to be safe and useful they just start giving it to people. 30 years later people start to do research on the drug to see just how safe and useful it is.

That's not wonderful. That's dangerous fraud and quackery on the part of the drug company. So is it with Atkins.

So the truth of the matter is that the studies to resolve this have YET TO BE DONE. The jury is still out!

Yes! Yes! Yes!

This is VERY BAD NEWS for people who have risked their health on the potentially dangerous unknowns of the Atkins diet.

It is especially bad news since there is no reason it should be this way.

60,000 people have been treated at Atkins' centers. Not following up to see if it works, and if the people who have been treated are doing well is mind-numbingly irresponsible.

Quackwatch suggests, and my other cites agree that this ommission is not accidental. People tend not to maintain their weight loss in the long term on Atkins. They gain it back just like with any other fad diet.

f the president of the AHA thinks Atkins is worth a second look, then JUST MAYBE it actually IS?

By all means let us continue with the research that the fraudulent quack should have done 30 years ago, before he started playing games with people's health to line his pockets.

Only a fool would put themselves on this diet (once they know the facts we've discussed in this thread (no offense if they've been unwittingly suckered into it,) until the research has been done, and the diet has been shown to be both safe and effective.

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by pohjonen
And, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, folks do not lose the weight on Atkins because they're eating less calories. This just isn't true. The old "calories in - calories" out saw does not hold up on the Atkins regimen. Something else is going on.

Bullshit. Energy has to come from somewhere, and it has to go somewhere.

People seem to think that this is controversial, or just conventional wisdom. It's the first fucking law of thermodynamics! There's absolutely no reason that it could be wrong.

Now I will grant you that *maybe* not all of the calories taken in are processed--some may just be shat out. But that just means that our measuring tools are off, not that physics is about to be turned over.

And a comment about the studies: there are some studies that show a favorable effect for Atkins, and some that show no effect. Can you find any that show no effect for the AHA guidelines, when followed?

Also remember, effectiveness is not the same thing as safety, which is one of the points of contention here.

[Scylla]

I guess Lib was just here for the namecalling.

[whiteboy]

Keto > Atkins

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/keto.htm

What exactly is Ketosis? The metabolic state of ketosis simply means that the quantity of ketone bodies in the blood have reached higher than normal levels. When the body is in a ketogenic state this means that lipid energy metabolism is intact. This means that the body will start breaking down your own body fat to fuel the body's normal, every day functions.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/dorian6.htm
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/dorian7.htm

[Scylla]

Ummm. Bob is selling supplements.

No matter how much ECA Stack you buy and consume, you will still have to consume less calories than you are expending if you wish to lose weight.

[whiteboy]

Did you read any of the articles?

ECA stacks are recommended, but are in no way a key part of a Keto or ANY other type of diet.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by whiteboy
Did you read any of the articles?

ECA stacks are recommended, but are in no way a key part of a Keto or ANY other type of diet.

Yes. I read the articles.

I read the first one where's he's selling GZ45 and powerbars and then the second one, parts I & II where he's selling ECA stack.

No offense but this is like one of those "You too can have a monster penis" ad websites.

There's no science in there. It's just pretending .

Your cite is the unsupported ramblings of a bodybuilder gone to seed trying to sell supplements, and in order to do so, he throws together a bunch of pseudoscience.

Gimme a break.

[Scylla]

Personally if I'm going to go for pseudoscientific claptrap, I prefer a supplement with guarranteed instant results and much better looking models.

I prefere Thermadrol with quadraburn 100 capsules!

http://www.thermadrol.com/

[whiteboy]

I don't have the intelligence or patience to debate this, but coming from my experience and feeble understanding of nutrition:

All you have to do to lose fat is be in a caloric deficit.
Simple carbs spike glycogen, and in turn store fat.

Atkins makes it look like you can just eat farking t-bone steaks all day long and lose weight.

When I cut weight for wrestling, I eat only chicken breasts, fish, and complex carbs (oatmeal, wheat bread, etc.)

Keto looks interesting, but I've never personally tried it.

[Epimetheus]

Originally posted by Scylla
Personally if I'm going to go for pseudoscientific claptrap, I prefer a supplement with guarranteed instant results and much better looking models.

I prefere Thermadrol with quadraburn 100 capsules!

http://www.thermadrol.com/

*slap Scylla*

You did that because it has a pop up didn't you? :p

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally posted by ultrafilter
And a comment about the studies: there are some studies that show a favorable effect for Atkins, and some that show no effect. Can you find any that show no effect for the AHA guidelines, when followed?

The problem is that carefully studied diets don't work more than a couple years. Atkins could be different because, as far as I can tell, no one has ever done any long-term (5 year plus) studies. Obesity is a long-term chronic condition that last for decades. Any meaningful studies need to run that long. Instead, research is short-term, luring people into adopting diets associated with a pattern of losing and gaining lots of weight every few years.

See:

http://www.turner-white.com/pdf/jcom_may00_obesity.pdf

By the way, even weight loss surgery does not have positive weight loss at 10 or 15 year follow-up.

My wife is on the Atkins and I hope it will work long-term. The quackery tone of Atkins writings does not give much confidence. On the other hand, unlike the AHA type of diet, at least there seems to be no proof that it doesn't work.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally posted by Scylla
Atkins has been purveying this diet for 30 years without having demonstrated its safety or efficacy. That's not putting patients first. That's irresponsible quackery.

During this same 30 years that hospital based nutritionists have been purveying low-fat diets, have they ever shown that keeping to such diets is humanly possible for any substantial number of obese people, much less traced those people who do stick to it through the 30 years to see how long they live and what diseases they get? I agree that the mainstream nutritionists sound a lot more sane than Atkins, but you can talk a good game and yet be a quack who relies on meaningless short-term studies. The 1960's studies by Albert Stunkard showing that diets do not work long-term have been criticized for their small sample size but still stand unrefuted.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally posted by Czarcasm
Please tell me, before I adopt the diet of ancient societies, what the average lifespan was back then? Did eating mostly meat keep them happy and healthy, or was it a necessary diet because that was usually all they had to eat because nomadic peoples have trouble developing an agricultural lifestyle?


I'm no physician, but I know a little history, and have read a fair number of books on Arctic exploration. Before the twentieth century, explorers from Europe would arrive in the Arctic with terrible health problems due to bad food and, often, lack of vitimins, on the voyage. Then they would go onto the all-meat diet of the native Americans of the Arctic. And guess what? Their teeth would stop falling out, and they would start feeling 100% better.

There are lots of reasons why people from times past lived short lives, but diet, other than starvation, was rarely one of them.

Someone might want to compare and contrast the diets of Japanese today with those of the people of Toulouse France. The former has very little fat in the diet, the latter lots. And both have a similar long life expectency. Actually, the human body is adopted to thriving on a wide variety of diets, even if an eighteenth century shipboard diet was not one of them. However, the human mind, unlike the body, seems to run along the track that diet is destiny.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by SteveEisenberg
During this same 30 years that hospital based nutritionists have been purveying low-fat diets, have they ever shown that keeping to such diets is humanly possible for any substantial number of obese people, much less traced those people who do stick to it through the 30 years to see how long they live and what diseases they get?

Yes. I cover this back in the OP on page 1. There have been numerous studies showing the long term health effects of a high fat diet.

Second, I doubt whether anybody has studied whether it's humanly possible.
Of course it's possible to not eat shitty food. You just don't put it in your mouth.

The problem is that people almost never follow the guidelines. They want short-term results. Quick weight loss. They put themselves on crash diets that are untenable for the long term. Few people are willing to accept the fact that exercise is the other half of the equation.

Diet is a misnomer. You have to do both.

It's really not that tough. Eat a balanced diet of basic foods, reducing your caloric intake a small but reasonable amount, and exercise.

Like I said. I run 50 miles a week. For my wieght that means I'm burning an extra 6,500-7500 calories than I normally would. My metabolism runs in a high output mode and I burn more calories when not running than someone who doesn't exercise. I have more muscle mass to maintain.

I eat a LOT of food.

The cost of this is that in the winter I get up an hour early and run. During the summer when I get home after work I run for an hour.

That's it.

I eat a lot more than when I weighed 250 pounds.

If I cut back on my food intake I lose weight pretty fast.

***

If you just diet, you lose muscle as well as fat. Your metabolism slows down and your body conserves. It becomes very difficult to lose weight, and when you stop dieting, your body is still in conservation mode and you have less muscle to feed. The weight comes back very quickly.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally posted by Scylla
You just don't put it in your mouth.

Congratulations for living up to this. Or not, since Scylla says he eats more now that he is a long distance runner.

I'm just wondering about one thing. Suppose someone was to post that the problem with gay people was just lack of self-control. Wouldn't be a very popular view here, would it? I hope not. Yet similar blaming of obese people for not overcoming their biological set point seems socially accpetable.

Scylla is right about exercise being the key. Indeed , I would say that people should worry about fitness, not weight. However, most obese people would find it just as impossible to work up to the kind of lifetime exercise program Scylla has described as most gay people would find it to turn around and be a lifetime straight.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by SteveEisenberg
I'm just wondering about one thing. Suppose someone was to post that the problem with gay people was just lack of self-control. Wouldn't be a very popular view here, would it? I hope not. Yet similar blaming of obese people for not overcoming their biological set point seems socially accpetable.


Terrible analogy: if someone posted that, lots of us would come right back with, "who says there's a problem with gay people?"

I don't, however, hear anyone denying that obese people have a problem.

What people are saying is that weight is something within your control; what you choose to eat is within your control. If you choose to eat a high-fat, low-fiber diet, that's every bit as much a choice as if you choose to eat a high-fiber, low-fat diet.

There's not necessarily any blame involved at all. But there is an underlying assumption of free will.

Daniel

[Scylla]

Originally posted by SteveEisenberg

I'm just wondering about one thing. Suppose someone was to post that the problem with gay people was just lack of self-control. Wouldn't be a very popular view here, would it? I hope not. Yet similar blaming of obese people for not overcoming their biological set point seems socially accpetable.


It's a bad analogy. There's nothing wrong with gay people that they need to overcome. I would also suggest that if somebody's body is not a priority to them, that is their own business and being overweight warrants no derision.

However, if an obese person does wish to change their body, it really doesn't come down to willpower. it's not like quitting smoking. You should eat. You shouldn't go hungry. You should just make the effort to eat healthy and to exercise so that you consume more calories than you expend.

As for biological setpoints. I have seen no scientific evidence to suggest that there is such a thing.

The "biological setpoint" is really a combination of two things. First is habit. People get used to eating a certain amount and exercising a certain amount. It becomes a force of habit which is hard to change, because it is what ou're used to.

Secondly is that your body also gets used to it. Eating less or exercising more changes what your body is used to. For example, if you eat a big breakfast everyday for a month, and then skip that breakfast and eat nothing you will likely experience extreme hunger, cravings, and you may even get weak.

If you are going to get yourself healthy in an intelligent way your have to recognize that their is going to be both psychological and physiological resistance. You need to plan on it, recognize it, and learn how to mitigate it.


Scylla is right about exercise being the key. Indeed , I would say that people should worry about fitness, not weight. However, most obese people would find it just as impossible to work up to the kind of lifetime exercise program Scylla has described [/B]

The fact is that a lot of us are sedentary. An hour a day is not that much as far as your health is concerned. My hour a day is excessive though. I like to run marathons, and I enjoy running for its own sake.

A person is likely to receive a large percentage of the benefit of exercise by doing something cardiovascular for 25-30 minutes every other day. Someone who is obese is going to have to take the time to build up to it. It won't come quickly and when they begin they are likely to actually gain weight.

Imagine putting in the effort for a couple of weeks to exercise and find that you've gained weight. It would be very discouraging.

No wonder people are vulnerable to fad diets. Everybody likes quick results.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
I don't, however, hear anyone denying that obese people have a problem.

Actually, I myself denied it, in my last post in this thread. To reinterate, obesity correlates with lack of physical fitness, but only the latter is a problem. The only problem for reasonably fit obese people is the prejudice against them.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with being gay, even though it correlates with having aids.

Obese people are one of the few groups it is apparently OK to be predudiced against. The only other groups I can think of who get similar treatment from liberals are conservative Christians and, sometimes, gypsies.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by SteveEisenberg
Actually, I myself denied it, in my last post in this thread. To reinterate, obesity correlates with lack of physical fitness, but only the latter is a problem. The only problem for reasonably fit obese people is the prejudice against them.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with being gay, even though it correlates with having aids.

I think the word does not mean what you think it means. From The American Obesity Association (www.obesity.org)

Obesity is not a simple condition of eating too much. It is now recognized that obesity is a serious, chronic disease. No human condition — not race, religion, gender, ethnicity or disease state — compares to obesity in prevalence and prejudice, mortality and morbidity, sickness and stigma.

Homosexuality is not a "serious, chronic disease." It does not compare to obesity in prevalence, mortality, morbidity, or sickness -- although it may compare in terms of prejudice and stigma.

Obesity correlates to health problems in much the same way that alcoholism correlates to health problems. You could even claim that it correlates in the same way that promiscuous unprotected sex correlates to health problems. But the idea of "reasonably fit obese people" simply demonstrates that you don't know what the word means, because "reasonably fit obese people" is an oxymoron. If you're reasonably fit, by definition, you're not obese.

Daniel

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
I think the word does not mean what you think it means. . . . If you're reasonably fit, by definition, you're not obese.


If so, the word "obese" is pejorative rather than descriptive, and should not be used in the first place. Here is an article along the lines I am thinking:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/health/2001-07-17-fat-and-fit.htm

[Scylla]

Originally posted by SteveEisenberg
If so, the word "obese" is pejorative rather than descriptive, and should not be used in the first place. Here is an article along the lines I am thinking:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/health/2001-07-17-fat-and-fit.htm

That's a good article Steve.

Realize though that that article seems to consider obesity at roughly 30% body fat.

That's generally not what I would consider obese, necessarily. You'll find a lot of football players and construction workers at that level, and it's possible to be pretty fit there.

Even this carries risk like cancer, though.

I wouldn't really consider such people obese (which I think is a Dr.'s nice way of saying you're a little bit more than slightly overweight.) We might call such a person big, heavy, or maybe fat. We might say he's going to seed.

This is a different thing than morbidly obese, which is where you're heavy enough that it's become a serious and present health danger. I don't think you can be fit at that level.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by SteveEisenberg
If so, the word "obese" is pejorative rather than descriptive, and should not be used in the first place. Here is an article along the lines I am thinking:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/health/2001-07-17-fat-and-fit.htm

First, of course "obese" is not a perjorative, any more than "diabetic" is a perjorative. Describing someone as having a disease is not making a statement about their worth as a human being.

Second, interesting article indeed. However, it makes two errors that I can see:

1) It defines some obese people as "fit" simply because they're healthier than some nonobese people. That's like saying a diabetic is fit because he's healthier than this woman over here who's had a stroke.
2) It contradicts information I find elsewhere -- namely, information that calls obesity a serious, chronic disease.

A sampling of obesity-related ailments from Obesity.org:


* Overweight and obesity increase the risk of illness and death associated with coronary heart disease.
* Obesity is a major risk factor for heart attack, and is now recognized as such by the American Heart Association.
* High BMI, high calorie intake, and low physical activity are independent risk factors of colorectal cancer.
*Obesity is associated with the development of OA of the hand, hip, back and especially the knee.
* At a Body Mass Index (BMI) of > 25, the incidence of OA has been shown to steadily increase.
* Obesity has been established as a risk factor for CTS [Carpal Tunnel Syndrome].
* Obesity increases the risk of DVT [Deep Vein Thrombosis], a condition that disrupts the normal process of blood clotting.
* Obesity is an established predictor of gallbladder disease.
* Obesity contributes to the cause of gout -- the deposit of uric acid crystals in joints and tissue.
* Over 75% of hypertension cases are reported to be directly attributed to obesity.
* Obesity is associated with the increased incidence of wound infection.
* Excess weight is reported to be an independent risk factor for the development of alcohol related liver diseases including cirrhosis and acute hepatitis.
* Women with maternal obesity have more Cesarean deliveries and higher incidence of blood loss during delivery as well as infection and wound complication after surgery.
* Obesity is a predictive factor of outcome in acute pancreatitis. Obese patients with acute pancreatitis are reported to develop significantly more complications, including respiratory failure, than non-obese.
* Elevated BMI is reported to increase the risk of ischemic stroke independent of other risk factors including age and systolic blood pressure.
* Obesity is a well-documented risk factor for urinary stress incontinence, involuntary urine loss, as well as urge incontinence and urgency among women.

If you're claiming that obesity is not itself a disease, you're even farther from mainstream science than Atkins is.

Daniel

[Eddie the Dane]

Everyone in this thread has left out an important factor for those of us with diabetes. A low or (in my case none whatsoever) carb diet will prevent the horrendous up-and-down blood sugar levels associated with carbohydrate intake. This is especially important for those of us with high insulin resistance and who are faced with the unappealing possibility of having to resort to injected insulin.

The Atkins diet has been a godsend to me - even though I've only been on it for a week, my blood sugar levels have gone from being essentially uncontrolled (2 week avg. >220 mg/l prior to diet) to thoroughly controlled (1 week avg. <120 mg/l since diet). That isn't anecdotal and that isn't just water loss.

The Atkins diet has induced a significant metabolic shift in my system and as a result my blood sugar is under a very high level of control for the first time in a VERY long time. My blood sugar levels dropped dramatically within 48 hours of beginning the Atkins diet. Most importantly, they do not cycle up and down. My typical fasting blood sugar level is about 100 mg/l, as is my typical postprandial blood sugar level. My levels move very, very little as the day proceeds and I don't just imagine, but I KNOW that my body is responding very well to this diet.

I have lost 10 pounds in the week I've been on the induction phase of the diet. Since I have quite a lot of weight I could lose, I will carry the induction phase much longer than the standard two weeks.

The low-fat diet, NOT the Atkins diet, is the fraud. Sure, on a low-fat diet, you can lose weight, because you are essentially starving yourself of nutrients your body NEEDS. Your body doesn't need carbohydrates for energy, since your liver synthesizes all the glucogen your body needs on its own.

For all diabetics who do not have liver or kidney damage (have your doctor run a full blood chemistry including lipids), I highly recommend you take a closer look at the Atkins diet - you may be able to dramatically reduce or even eliminate your need for oral medications which boost your insulin production (sulfonylureas like glyburide, glucotrol, glucovance, etc.).

[ultress]

I have read this thread with great care. I am also a diabetic. I am on Atkins 'way of living' for the rest of my life. I am not on a diet. I am on a specified way of eating. My doctor put me on this plan. Several doctors in his office (a joint medical practice) that I've seen have told me not to stop it. I'm not on it to lose weight although that would be great and it's my mindframe, they want me on it to keep my blood sugar level. Average fasting figure was around 267, three weeks on this way of living it's down to 117. There is a new book out that Dr. Atkins has just published that is specifically for those that have reached their weight loss goal and it deals with how to add back carbs, which ones are best, and how to live this way. It's a way of life, not a 'fad' diet. Although with anything I'm sure that there are lots of people are are using it as a fad diet.
I take all the suggested vitamins/mineral supplements. I exercise, and I limit my carb intake. The exercise I have always done, so no, just exercise and cutting down on calories does not work for me. I've tried every single thing you can suggest, every 'fad' diet, every type of eating including Weight Watchers. They do not work for me. I would not suggest that this way of life is for everyone. Just as all the previous efforts I've made are not for me. But to just flat out declare that this way of living is a total load of crap is certainly not true.
There are many doctors that are now putting their patients on this way of living. I'm not talking about quacks either. I am talking about well-respected doctors. Don't have cites, just personal experience with interrelations with other people.
This subject is like any other, pros and cons and you can find cites all day that declare it bad, and cites that declare there is a change of attitude coming about it.
My friend's doctor suggested that she try it. He was slightly overweight himself and when she asked him why he didn't try it his reply was that he was too much of a meat lover. That as your appetite decreases and you start to cut down on your portions of meat, he didn't because he just loved it so much. So that's why it didn't work for him.
It doesn't make people stupid or idiots to look for that plan that works for them, as long as it's under the direction of a physician, because every plan DOES NOT work for every person. And you can tell me that I"m stupid for doing this, but according to my doctor, whose word I take seriously, I'm not stupid at all.

[Scylla]

I am not a diabetic, and I know very little about the requirements and restrictions of diabetes. My nutritional expertise, if any, comes from studying the mainstream literature and science concerning healthy athletic people with no special ailments or conditions.

That being said, it sounds reasonable to me that the risks and dangers of the Atkins diet might be mitigated by the benefits that would occur to somebody with diabetes. Carbohydrates are processed quickly and provide ready, fast energy, and therefore might have more of an effect on blood sugar levels for people with diabetes.

I certainly wouldn't dare contradict anything somebody's general practitioner familiar would advise a specific patient and especially not one with diabetes.

In fact, IIRC (and I may not, it's more like a nudge in the back of my mind then a fact) wasn't the Atkins diet specifically designed originally for people with diabetic or related problems?

Dietary needs and restrictions tend to be very different for a diabetic than one without the disease.

I am not debunking Atkins as a way of controlling diabetes. I have no knowledge and hence no contentions one way or the other. I'm debunking it as a fad diet for weight loss in normal healthy people.

[Eddie the Dane]

Scylla, I don't have the specific numbers, but there is a vast number of overweight-to-obese people in this society (such as myself) who have been diagnosed with Type II diabetes or who have it and just have not been diagnosed.

The problem of Type II diabetes is that as we put on weight, our bodies become increasingly resistant to the effects of insulin and the pancreas is forced to produce more and more in order to moderate blood sugar levels. Eventually a "breakpoint" is reached where the pancreas is no longer capable of producing enough insulin to keep the blood glucose within normal range. Thus Type II diabetes with all the adverse consequences associated with it.

Add to that the metabolic effect of insulin, which, to put it simply, is to store fat, and you have the makings of a very dangerous situation.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Eddie the Dane
The low-fat diet, NOT the Atkins diet, is the fraud. Sure, on a low-fat diet, you can lose weight, because you are essentially starving yourself of nutrients your body NEEDS. Your body doesn't need carbohydrates for energy, since your liver synthesizes all the glucogen your body needs on its own.


See, you were getting all reasonable with the diabetes talk, and then you had to go and say something like this.

As Scylla said, Atkins does have provable benefits for folks with diabetes and other abnormal conditions. It's worth noting that obesity is a predictor for adult onset diabetes, and poor diet is a predictor for obesity, and that a varied, moderate, low-fat diet focusing on whole grains and vegetables and legumes is a great way to prevent obesity. But if a person has had a poor diet for years and has developed adult onset diabetes, then they may need a diet that severely restricts their access to carbohydrates.

But saying a low-fat diet is a fraud? That's plainly false. Saying that it starves your body of the nutrients it needs? Of course it doesn't: in fact, if you follow all the recommendations of the ADA and AHA and other dieticians, you'll get more nutrients than you get from an unsupplemented Atkins diet. Atkins himself admits this.

Once again, I suspect that you're conflating a sugar-and-white-flour diet with the whole-grains, high-vegetable diet recommended by mainstream science. They're very different, and of course Atkins looks better than the former.

Daniel

[Gaudere]

Realize though that that article seems to consider obesity at roughly 30% body fat.Actually, it's not 30% body fat, it's a BMI over 30, which unless you're a linebacker or bodybuilder, likely is a bit heavy. I'd have to gain 45 pounds on my 5'3" frame to hit that. However, if they did have heavily muscled people in that study, it would indeed throw the stats off.

[Eddie the Dane]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
See, you were getting all reasonable with the diabetes talk, and then you had to go and say something like this.

As Scylla said, Atkins does have provable benefits for folks with diabetes and other abnormal conditions. It's worth noting that obesity is a predictor for adult onset diabetes, and poor diet is a predictor for obesity, and that a varied, moderate, low-fat diet focusing on whole grains and vegetables and legumes is a great way to prevent obesity. But if a person has had a poor diet for years and has developed adult onset diabetes, then they may need a diet that severely restricts their access to carbohydrates.

But saying a low-fat diet is a fraud? That's plainly false. Saying that it starves your body of the nutrients it needs? Of course it doesn't: in fact, if you follow all the recommendations of the ADA and AHA and other dieticians, you'll get more nutrients than you get from an unsupplemented Atkins diet. Atkins himself admits this.

Once again, I suspect that you're conflating a sugar-and-white-flour diet with the whole-grains, high-vegetable diet recommended by mainstream science. They're very different, and of course Atkins looks better than the former.

Daniel

I stand by everything I said. How on earth you can suggest that a high carbohydrate diet, which causes your body to produce lots of insulin (the fat storing hormone), is a good thing is beyond me! And yes, that wonderful low-fat diet of yours starves your body of fat, which it DOES need. So....I think it's you who is being unreasonable.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Eddie the Dane
I stand by everything I said. How on earth you can suggest that a high carbohydrate diet, which causes your body to produce lots of insulin (the fat storing hormone), is a good thing is beyond me! And yes, that wonderful low-fat diet of yours starves your body of fat, which it DOES need. So....I think it's you who is being unreasonable.

That's fine, but reread this thread and the other Atkins thread (currently on the first page of Great Debates). A few facts remain:

1) My beliefs are currently in keeping with mainstream science; when mainstream science changes, so will my beliefs.
2) Your body needs fat to survive, true, but it needs very, very little fat to survive. Your body is perfectly capable of manufacturing fat.
3) The American Diabetes Association is probably a better source of information on diabetes than Dr. Atkins is. Check out their Advice on Healthy Eating: (http://www.diabetes.org/main/health/nutrition/eating/eating_healthy.jsp)


Carbohydrates give you energy. Healthy choices are dried beans, peas, and lentils; whole grain breads, cereals, and crackers; and fruits and vegetables.

Foods high in fiber are healthy, too. Fiber comes from plants and may help to lower blood glucose and blood-fat levels. Foods high in fiber include: bran cereals, cooked beans and peas, whole-grain bread, fruits, and vegetables.

Fat is a nutrient, and you need some fat in your diet. But too much fat isn't good for anyone. And it can be very harmful to people with diabetes. . . .

Again, check out the mainstream science. At the very worst, this science, with decades of research backing it up, may be proven wrong by future studies. But calling the low-fat, high-fiber, high-vegetable, high-whole-grains diet a "fraud" is simply incorrect.

Daniel

[Epimetheus]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
2) Your body needs fat to survive, true, but it needs very, very little fat to survive. Your body is perfectly capable of manufacturing fat.


People tend to equate low fat with no fat.

However, your body does need some fats, and depending on your activity levels, more or less. There are essential fatty acids. They are essential because your body does not manufacture them. Hence people exagerate needing 20-30% of total calories from fat into meaning eat as much fat as you want, and if you don't eat that as much as possible you will die from lack of it. A bit of a slippery slope assumption.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I'll also point folks to the Diabetes UK (http://www.diabetes.org.uk/faq/food.htm) Web site, which says,

People with diabetes can eat any kind of fruit, regardless of the sugar content. Everyone is encouraged to eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables every day. Spreading the fruit you eat through the day will avoid a sudden rise in blood glucose levels. Although some fruits have a lower glycaemic index, which shows how foods affect blood glucose levels, the important thing is to increase the amount of fruit you eat, including a wide variety of different fruits....

The diet for diabetes is a balanced healthy diet, the same kind that is recommended for the rest of the population — low in fat, sugar and salt, with plenty of fruit and vegetables and meals based on starchy foods, such as bread, potatoes, cereals, pasta and rice.

This thread is good for one thing: it hones my google skills. Not that this information is difficult to find. I'd recommend that folks who are serious about studying nutrition look for information from someone who isn't trying to sell you something.

My understanding, Epimetheus, is that the 30% of calories from fat is a cap, not a goal. If you've got the discipline, you can be perfectly healthy deriving between 8 and 10% of your calories from fat. (I'm nowhere near that disciplined myself).

Daniel

[Epimetheus]

Actually I have seen it said not to go below 20%. I can provide a few cites if you want, though I suppose you could probably provide a few yourself.

I personally eat around 23% and won't go any lower. I would rather have too much fat than not get my essential fatty acids.

I keep my saturated fats low as well. Can do well without those. It is the Omega-3/6 types I am worried about.

[ultress]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
I'll also point folks to the Diabetes UK (http://www.diabetes.org.uk/faq/food.htm) Web site, which says,


Daniel

Well not to dispute your website but that's total bullshit to say the least. My body cannot tolerate oranges or orange juice, it will run my blood sugar up 20 points like a jackrabbit. I cannot eat corn it does the same thing. When you are a diabetic you can feel it and do your stick test. To group all diabetes into one group and say they can eat all fruits is a false statement. There's a guy here at work that is diabetic that can't eat apples, for the same reason I can't eat oranges. Everybody is different and they react to food differently.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by ultress
Well not to dispute your website but that's total bullshit to say the least.

Not to dispute my website? :dubious: Looks like disputing it to me.

Which is fine. I'll freely admit here that I'm arguing from experts, not from personal experience. I also was choosing what looked like representative paragraphs from the sites, and I may have left out important caveats (one of the sites I looked at advised diabetics to spread their fruit consumption out evenly through the day, for example, and elsewhere I've read that while whole fruit is okay for diabetics, fruit juices often are not, due to their lack of fibers that modulate sugar intake or something).

But the Web site on which that article appears is (according to the site) "one of the largest funders dedicated to diabetes research in the UK," and contains information about current peer-reviewed research projects on diabetes causes, prevention, and management; and treatment of complications. In a battle of the cites, I trust them more than I trust a doctor who sells a maverick diet plan with little backing in peer-reviewed journals.

I'll say it again, though: when the peer-reviewed studies come out showing that Atkins doesn't have the long-term perils that mainstream science suggests it has, when the bulk of evidence points to Atkins's diet being more healthful than the currently recommended diet, I'll change my tune.

But not until.

Daniel

[ultress]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
[In a battle of the cites, I trust them more than I trust a doctor who sells a maverick diet plan with little backing in peer-reviewed journals.

Daniel [/B]

I happen to trust my doctor completely. He is a specialist in Nephrology & Hypertension, not just a quack of an MD. He doesn't 'sell' maverick diet plans, he looks at the results, the patient on hand, and how the 'way of living' could improve the patient's quality of life. Using Atkins' as a 'fad diet' is totally wrong. Using it as a way of life is a different story. It's evident that most people in this tread have only done limited research on the matter. But done under a physician's care, and done the right way, and if yo bother to go to the Atkins' website you will see that he discourages people from doign it the wrong way, which is do the diet during the week and then binge on weekends will do harm to your metabolism. Looks like most people only read to the point they want, state their case, and quite conveniently disregard the rest of the information. But to each his own. It's a big world with lot's of opinions. That's what makes life grand.
As for me, I'll stick with the doc and not internet websites. I use them for basic info but I don't take everything out there to heart.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

ultress, when I referred to a "maverick doctor," I was talking about Atkins, not your own doctor. I can't speak to your trust of your own doctor, or your own experiences with the diet; since I lack those experiences, I go by mainstream scientific resources. If you feel that those resources are "bullshit," that's fine; I'm certainly not telling you that your experiences were hallucinated.

Atkins does caution people against using the diet as a fad. I believe that his advice, interpreted in the most favorable light, is still out of touch with mainstream scientific dietary guidelines.

Daniel

[ultress]

Oopps, my bad. I apologize. I misunderstood what you meant when you said maverick doctor.

[kanicbird]

Not wanting to add to the vegan thread, but I am have been reading the page 1 of this GD and see that Scylla do not have a good enough understanding of the Atkins diet to be making your claims or are intentionally or unintentionally distorting the facts.

Atkins doesn't recomend transfat.

3 oz of steak might have 160 C but no one on Atkins is going to eat only 3 oz, try a pound, add to that some brockly w/ cheese sauce and you can easily get 1400 Cal in one meal.

For breakfast, I usually have 3 eggs, 6 bacon strips, the eggs are cooked in bacon fat - anything low cal about that? Did I mention the 3 slices of americal cheese I put on those eggs?

You are ignoring the insulin response for one. I doubt you have really read the book, or came to it with such an attitude that you could only see what you wanted.

Also name for me one diet that once you go off it you will not gain back the weight?

Atkins is a lifestile, not a diet in the conventional sense. My recomendation to those who are going to start Atkins is to read the maintanance section and ask yourself can you stay on that for the rest of you life? Yes - go for it, if no - find something else.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by kanicbird
Not wanting to add to the vegan thread, but I am have been reading the page 1 of this GD and see that Scylla do not have a good enough understanding of the Atkins diet to be making your claims or are intentionally or unintentionally distorting the facts.

That's total fucking bullshit. How that reads to me is "I'm not capable of refuting Scylla or the dozens of experts he's cited, so I'll just say he doesn't understand it ."

Even assuming that I am missing something, I suppose that it is also your conclusion that all of mainstream nutrition has missed that same thing.

Atkins doesn't recomend transfat.

Yes, and babies don't shit popsicle sticks. What's your point?

[quote]3 oz of steak might have 160 C but no one on Atkins is going to eat only 3 oz, try a pound, add to that some brockly w/ cheese sauce and you can easily get 1400 Cal in one meal.

For breakfast, I usually have 3 eggs, 6 bacon strips, the eggs are cooked in bacon fat - anything low cal about that? Did I mention the 3 slices of americal cheese I put on those eggs?

And this proves?
Besides, Atkins has taken advantage of some of the research that suggests people lose weight on the diet because of calorie reduction. You accuse me of not understanding Atkins, why don't you read it yourself.

http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2002/1/11-846989.html

Had you actually read the thread you would see my assertions are well-cited

For example, the AMA says

"The AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition [2], Consumer Reports [3], and many individual experts have warned that the unlimited intake of saturated fats under Atkins' food plan can increase the dieter's risk of heart disease. Last year, experts at the University of Kentucky did a computer analysis of a week's worth of sample menus and reported:

* The diet contained 59% fat.
* The diet provided fewer servings of grains, vegetables, and fruits than recommended by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
* Although the diet can produce short-term weight loss, long-term use is likely to increase the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cancer [4]"

and:

"The nutrition committee of the American Heart Association has issued a science advisory warning that high-protein diets have not been proven effective and pose health risks. The report covered the Atkins, Zone, Protein Power, Sugar Busters, and Stillman diets. The committee stated:

* Such diets may produce short-term weight loss through dehydration.
* Weight loss may also occur through caloric restriction resulting from the fact that the diets are relatively unpalatable.
* The high fat content may be harmful to the cardiovascular system in the long run.
* Any improvement in blood cholesterol levels and insulin management would be due to weight loss, not the change in composition.
* A very high-protein diet is especially risky for patients with diabetes because it can speed the progression of diabetic kidney disease [8]"



You are ignoring the insulin response for one. I doubt you have really read the book, or came to it with such an attitude that you could only see what you wanted.

This is just an incredibly stupid thing to say. You read part of one page of a four page thread and then you show up and tell me that I didn't read the book because I didn't talk about the insulin response. Read the thread first before you make accusations.

Also name for me one diet that once you go off it you will not gain back the weight?

Again, read the thread. You will find:

"In yet another study, researchers who compile the National Weight Control Registry analyzed the diets of 2,681 members who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. Because the Atkins diet has been used for more than 30 years, the researchers reasoned that, if it worked, its followers would be well represented. However, they found that fewer than 1% of these successful people had followed a diet with less than 24% or less of their daily calories in the form of carbohydrates. The mean duration of successful weight maintenance in this low-carbohydrate group was 19 months, whereas the mean duration of dieters who consumed more than 24% of their daily calories as carbohydrates was 36 months. Because so few Atkins dieters were found in the Registry, the researchers concluded that the Atkins diet may not create the favorable "metabolic advantage" claimed for it [7]."



[quote]Atkins is a lifestile, not a diet in the conventional sense. My recomendation to those who are going to start Atkins is to read the maintanance section and ask yourself can you stay on that for the rest of you life? Yes - go for it, if no - find something else.

The Beverly Hills diet was a "lifestyle" too. Every fad diet claims to be a lifestyle. My recommendation to somebody who is thinking about starting the Atkins diet is to read this thread, and investigate what mainstream nutritionists and modern medecine has to say concerning its claims and the risks of such a foolhardy regimine, and, instead of looking for a quick fix with another fad diet in which they will almost certainly fail to reach their weight loss objective, try a smart nutritionally sound combination of diet and exercise.

[ultrafilter]

Did y'all see the literature review (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/14/1837) published in JAMA last week (4/9/03)? They reviewed 107 studies on diets from the last 30 years, and found strong evidence that calorie consumption and diet duration matter, but that carb consumption doesn't.

[Boo]

Robert Atkins has just died...

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

:eek: It's true (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Obit-Atkins.html)!

It's also true that de mortuis, nil nisi bonum, but I think this obituary goes recklessly overboard on the bonum part.

Daniel