Glucagon is secreted from the alpha cells of the pancreas and in the GI tract. A high protein diet promotes a higher rate of glucagon production. This acts on the liver to stimulate glycogenolysis and gluconeogenisis. Glucagon is an insulin antagonist that facilitates lipolysis.
The word glucagon was brought to you by: McCance,Pathophysiology, page 644
More on why Atkin’s is not evil later. I have to go ingest protein now.
Jadis wrote:
The link Jadis provided above takes you to a page that says “Cholesterol Myths has moved”, with a new URL of http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm.
The claims on that page sound pretty revolutionary – especially item #4, which claims that “more than twenty studies have shown that people who have had a heart attack haven’t eaten more fat of any kind than other people, and degree of atherosclerosis at autopsy is unrelated with the diet.” If this is true, it completely counters all the work and thinking in the the last half-century relating heart disease with diet. Are there studies which contradict the findings of the “more than twenty studies” discussed in this item?
Please be aware that I am not trying to stop you from following Atkins diet. You have found a diet that works for you and that’s great.
Here are my points:
[ul]
[li]Atkin’s theory of ketogenics contradicts current accepted knowledge of human physiology. And the contradiction is done with the zeal of a fundamentalist arguing with evolutionary theory. This waves a red warning flag to me that this is Bad Science.[/li][li]Instead of following the usual methods of getting his theory accepted by the scientific community, he writes a book that makes a great deal of money. This is also an indication of Bad Science. It also taints any research he does. Now, he is selling specialized food for his diet.[/li][li]He paints carbohyrdates as evil, poisonous and unnecessary (unless they are accompanied by critical vitamins). Yet, there are entire cultures who eat a vegetarian diet, and above average body fat is not endemic to these cultures. However, eskimos traditionally have an almost no-carb diet. OTOH, nutritionists admit that fat is a legitimate part of diet, and even necessary - just not in the quantities our culture consumes it.[/li][li]Individual stories of success at losing weight on the diet does not validate ketogenics. As they say in GQ, the plural of anecdote is not data.[/li][li]Your success at losing weight does not validate ketogenics. There are several habits that are well known to impact body weight that you will either do automatically, or be forced to, or do in self-defense on a low-carb diet that have nothing directly to do with reducing your carbs. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if you are consuming fewer calories and less fat than you were before.[/li][li]Your success at staying on the diet does not validate ketogenics. “In two separate studies … the results showed that the majority of successful weight losers had created their own plans.”* Your success can easily be attributable to the possibility that Atkin’s is close to what you would have done if you had made up your own plan.[/li][li]Your acceptable cholesterol levels do not prove that the Atkins diet doesn’t affect cholesterol. It is well known that different people are affected by their diet in different ways[/li][li]Atkins completely contradicts the recommendations of American Institute for Cancer Research, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and the Mayo Clinic[/li][li]Atkins takes the statistic that people are getting fatter and infers a causal relationship between that and the recommendations of the nutritionists. However, people are eating more fat, more protein, more food period, and exercising less. It is invalid to draw a causal link - just because someone’s preaching hellfire doesn’t mean people stop sinning. BTW, usually such a broad inference is another sign of Bad Science[/li][/ul]
The fact is, the food pyramid is based on years of research. Atkin’s diet is based on the theories of one person who is not even a researcher - only a person who was trained to diagnose and treat illness.
I have been reading general articles on nutrition for well over 20 years. I have been reading research summaries for a good 5 or 6 years. However, the only book I have read on dieting is “Feeding On Dreams, Why America’s Diet Industry Doesn’t Work” All of my quotes are from that book
And there are no diets I have ever heard of that advocate no fat. The normal recommendation is 30% of your caloric intake, or 540 calories of fat a day if you eat 1800 calorie/day, or 60 grams of pure fat.
According to who?
These are different processes. Protein is used to build muscle, which is triggered by exercising the muscle Exercise causes the muscle cells to create new cells, and that process requires available protein.
OTOH, fat cells don’t need to divide, they are basically storage vats for fat. The body wants to save fat - fat cells will absorb fat passing by in the blood stream and store it.
So eating protein will not make you muscular, but is a necessary nutrient if you want to get muscular. And any fat you eat will be pre-disposed to being stored, unless you manage to use it first.
In addition, I have seen at least one research study where two groups of people were put on an 1800 calorie a day diet. The only difference between the two groups was one group ate less fat and more carbohydrates than the other group. The group that ate less fat lost more weight.
Yes, you have to eat fewer calories than you need to lose weight, but cutting fat will make you even more successful
I would like a better cite than that web page. One doctor that is picking and choosing research fits his preconceptions doesn’t cut it for me. What I have seen is studies that show that just reducing dietary fat did reduce cholesterol in people with high cholesterol. In addition, Orlistat has been shown to reduce cholesterol. Since all Orlistat does is prevent the fat you eat from being absorbed, (well, and train you to eat lower fat foods) there has to be a link between fat intake and cholesterol.
However, it’s been out for a couple of years that dietary cholesterol is not a significant contributor to high cholesterol.
I will note that doctors now recognize that estrogen protects the circulatory system from cholesterol, which is why women don’t have as much trouble with heart disease as men(something I predicted for a couple of years before it came out). However I have also read that high cholesterol(which is a pre-cursor chemical to estrogen) will cause other problems, such as really bad morning sickness if you get pregnant. Just something to be aware of. Actually, I predict that within the next ten years high cholesterol will be implicated in uterine fibroids or other menstrual problems.
Yes, if you have diabetes, you must go on a low carb diet. If you have diabetes, you had better be under a doctor’s care - it is a major health problem. Also, apparently women with PCOS have a problem with this. If you want to know what that is, do a search for it in MPSIMS (more than 30 days ago) I sincerely hope you have neither of these problems.
I didn’t read your articles; however, I read Reuter’s health new. Reuters is a new service. They do not have advertisers. I read it on Yahoo - which doesn’t have the time to censor articles for their advertisers. I will also say that the women’s magazines that I used to read had more advertisements for beef, pork and cheese than they ever did for bread.
I will also state that I find it hard to believe that the American Society for Cancer Research or any of the other organizations I noted above have advertising, or would allow donation money to suppress research/
First of a all, a fad diet is not something new, just something that has come into fashion again. Atkins has been around for at least 20 years. It’s odd how mainstream research has consistently countered his theories.
Eades may have a better technical explanation, that doesn’t mean it is good science. Velikovsky has really good explanations for his theories as well. Frankly, I’ll stick with mainstream science.
Well, like I said, eggs aren’t really a problem, and one serving of cheese a day should be quite reasonable. In fact, eggs are a good source of high quality, easily digestible protein.
I think Atkins’ version of carb restriction is not a good idea over the long haul. But low-carb eating is a very effective way of losing weight and if done in a more balanced way (Up the vegetables considerably, just make sure they are low-carb veges) can be a life plan that keeps many people healthy. Much healthier than this sugar/white bread/potato nightmare that makes up the average American diet.
For me, I couldn’t hang with Atkins for a very simple reason: I couldn’t stand the way my mouth tasted, and foods which i generally love (bacon, sausage, ground beef, etc) are really hard to enjoy without a starch, and I am very fond of fruit. VERY fond of fruit. Cutting fruit out of my life was miserable. I’d sooner give up pasta, bread and cake.
The underlying theories supporting low-carb as an effective way to lose weight have been proven many times. It does work. I can scarf insane amounts of fat and meat and lose weight, when half the calories, consumed as bread, pasta and sugar, will keep me fat or make me fatter.
It works. Not to meniton the fact that it is so much more livable in terms of eating pleasure. Give me steak and eggs over shredded wheat and nonfat milk ANY day.
stoid
I, also, restrict carbs on my diet. I did so partly to lose wieght, but mostly to control blood sugar. I went from needing 90-120 units of insulin per day to needing just 40. My cholesterol went up to 260 for a while, then came back down to normal 2 months later and has stayed down. My hemoglobin A1c tests(the true measure of diabetic control) have been excellent.
A couple of personal observations:
- Protein is more satisfying. I get full faster.
- High carb foods make me hungry! They do not satisfy my hunger at all.
- It is much easier to get sick of high protein foods than high carb foods. Proof that God hates me.
I’ve been biting my tongue to stop from replying to many of the dubious claims made on this board. After all, I’ve stated my views on this before. I think Zyada makes good points. I think that ketosis and ketoacidosis are very similar.
But what I’m going to comment on is
Did you look at the footnotes? Our understanding of these things has improved since 1965, which is the date of the bulk of the articles! These highly selected data paint a very misleading picture. This is done on purpose.
Risk factors for heart attacks and acute coronary syndromes include high cholesterol, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, obesity, depression and family history. The studies that show cholesterol as a risk factor are excellent and at this point hard to question. That said, many people with heart attacks have different risk factors, such as diabetic smokers who have low cholesterol. Why should that mean cholesterol shouldn’t be lowered in people at risk?
Degree of atherosclerosis at autopsy is absolutely related to the diet and has certainly been shown so.
I do agree that eating a lower cholesterol diet probably poduces very little change in blood cholesterol in about 65% of people since most is endogenously produced. But it doesmake a difference in about 1/3 of people, who are at increased risk due to the Atkins diet.
Be very careful when one study challenges fifty years of research. One such study was the HERS trial, which showed estrogen was less cardioprotective than first thought. The rate of heart attacks among men and women seems to become more equal after menopause.
Well it had to average out to less than before or I would not have lost weight.
Bored? Me? With food? Uh no. Living on steaks smothered in sauteed onions and bell pepper is more like heaven than boredom. Thats sauteeed in real butter of course.
Nobody is claiming that atkins = magical weight loss, yes we have to eat fewer calories.
I unfortunately must disagree with you here. A calorie = a calorie carb or fat.
Timing is the key
In a recent study I took it upon myself to undertake, I assessed an Atkin’s dieter for offensive odors and found none objectionable that could be related to diet in any but the most obvious ways. No unusual BO or rotten-banana, ketoacidotic breath. Good skin turgor was assessed by rapid skin recoil over the sternum and what with one thing leading to another, Drachillix was found to be in vigorous good health. I feel this experiment bears repeating, however, and I must now reassess him and probably in the morning again. I love science.
As a person who has recently gone through a revolutionary change in her diet, I have many questions on all the facts given on this thread.
#1. I have been told by my doctors (more than one) to reduce my carb intake.
#2. Even with this reduced carb intake, I have been warned to keep the levels of carbs in my diet to at least 30% of my total caloric intake.
#3. In the 3 months since my diet has been turned upside down I have been, personally, in the worst health I have ever been in.
#4. Iron levels so low I have been threatened with hospitalization. Kidney function threatened.
#5. Rapid weight loss is not necessarily good for you. Or so I’ve been told by my physician. I reduced 12 lb in 2 weeks by reducing my carbs by simply eliminating sugared beverages. Even though I am still dangerously overweight, I have been told by more than 2 doctors that this rapid weight loss is not good for me.
You must balance the need for a healthy weight with the need for a healthy diet. Atkins is good for many Americans because we, as a country, consume much too much carbs. This does not mean that any individual should curtail carbs to levels below what is needed to drive the human engine.
Use your brains people!
Dr_Paprika wrote:
<nitpick>
The footnotes for the article in question are at http://www.ravnskov.nu/weblit.htm, items 49 through 77. The earliest date on articles 49-77 is 1953, while the most recent date is 1994. The average date seems to lie in the mid-1970s, not the mid-1960s.
</nitpick>
My doc recommended low-carb diet, as well. Actually, two of my doctors have recommended it. But one thing I’ve learned is that it is not appropriate for everyone. There is a certain type of body chemistry that is kind of “allergic” to carbs, and that has a great deal to do with why they gain weight on them so easilty. Screwed insulin response and all that.
But it is not the case with every overweight person. You sound like you might not be in that category, considering how ill you became with such a small reduction of carbs. On the other hand, the rapid weight loss is indicative of something.
I’m sure you are working it out with your doctors, but it sounds like you would probably be better served by a more “health food” verson of carb restricttion. Instead of cutting all carbs radically, just change the carbs you are eating: lose the sugar and the highly refined stuff, lower your fat (though not radically) and eat good quality protein, lots of high-quality vegetables, and eat high-fiber, quality nutrition carbs: whole grains, whole grain breads, beans, etc.
Sample meal (Mexican) : whole wheat tortilla, 1/2 cup refried beans, 3-5 oz of chicken, a little cheese, 1/2 cup peppers and onions.
Medical books ten years out of date are of limited use. Quoting studies from 1953 or 1975 in a science like nutrition is not that helpful. Well I didn’t calculate an average date, I seem to recall a left skew.
Toxic doses are reported in mg/kg. When you use any substance in large amounts in rats, and it turns out to be toxic, it does not necessarily follow the same dose is toxic in people who are much heavier than mice. Alcohol is carcinogenic in mice at doses that are toxic in babies and trivial in adults. Why is PUFA so special?
The low-carb diet makes sense to me, in theory. From what I know (high-school level biology), the body tends to prefer to get its energy supply from certain sources. Blood sugar is the first choice, followed by glygogen (in the liver), then stored fat, then protein (read: muscle tissue).
I’ve found that when i go on a strict fast (consuming only water), I become exhausted very easily (gasping for air after one or two flights of stairs). After a day or two, my muscles become weaker and more prone to aching and soreness. The exhaustion, I believe, is from a lack of blood sugar (no quickly available energy). The muscle soreness, as far as I know, is because my body has no protein with which to repair my muscles after a day of general wear and tear.
When I go on a more lenient fast (conuming only water and a single serving of meat per day), I am slightly less tired; my muscles give me far less trouble.
I suppose that if one were to consume only protein, then stored fat would still be the body’s preferred energy source. The protein consumed would be use for maintenance, not energy.
Perhaps the food eaten when on the Atkins diet is mostly protein, and consuming 2,000 calories’ worth of fat typically does not occur despite the dieter eating “like a pig”.
Max the Immortal
(who uses parentheses too often)
Afterthough: “Eat like a pig” is such an odd expression to me. It’s not like humans eat like humans anymore…
Max, your view is simplistic. The body changes what it burns depending on the circumstances. The best way to burn fat is not to consume protein. The best way to burn fat is to exercise for greater than 30 minutes several times a week. The body changes what it burns depending on your leel of activity. “Fat burning” cardio exercises are low intensity and last a long time since in general, during the first thirty (say) minutes of exercise you burn available carbs; after that you burn fat. However, if you are in good shape you get more fat burning from doing a higher intensity long routine since you burn more calories in total than the “fat burning” options.
Your body has ample protein to fix things if you drink water for a day or two.
People on the Atkins diet consume fewer calories than average but tend to exceed the recommended fat intakes. Your assumptions about the diet are not borne out in practice. It is true people on the diet gain the benefit of consuming more fruits and vegetables. But more than 30% of people on the diet will increase their blood cholesterol by relevant amounts. The biggest danger is atherosclerosis, which is very strongly linked to a diet high in fat. While this is true, genetics does playa strong role, and not sll fats are created equal. The Mediterranean diet HAS been shown to reduce mortality; alcohol in moderation also seems to be helpful.
Since you brought him up unnecessarily, I will reply. You can stick with mainstream science. But in 1950, as far as mainstream science was concernced, catastrophism was a ridiculous lunacy. Venus was frozen. No radio noises on Jupiter. Velikovsky said the opposite.
Today, in the above cases, mainstream science agrees with what Velikovsky said in 1950.
Of course you will make up all kinds of excuses and reasons that he came up with his ideas in an illogical fashion, but Velikovsky saw that mainstream science’s idea that the world is very ordered and uniform and that planets could not collide was wrong. He took evidence from history to prove his theory.
You dispute his methods and disagree with most everything he said. But you don’t do it with respect. Of course he is a heretic and couldn’t present his radical ideas to mainstream science. They would have never accepted it for publication. He had to take his case outside the establishment. If the establishment science were so good, then why were mathematical PROOFS that heavier than air flight was impossible published by a physicist while the wright brothers couldn’t get journalists to SEE with their own eyes their physical plane taking off. Like it or not, radical ideas are not evaluated objectively by mainstream science. Some of it is bunk but some isn’t.
Although his theory was ridiculous on the face of it in 1950, the fact is in '94 at least 21 objects from a comet hit jupiter
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/gif/sl9_home.gif
You guys don’t want to give him any credit for anything but you had to redo your theories to deal with catastrophism. I have my doubts that this would have been done so fast if there wasn’t Velikovsky’s popularity and thorough research spurring you on…I’m not saying I agree with everything he said, but there’s an awful lot to learn from reading his work and he did some great work. But you need to read it with an open mind. Many of his detractors didn’t even read his books.
BTW, did you actually read any of his books? Did you read Sagan’s critique? What did you think of it?
Read the dialogue between Einstein and Velikovsky now on the web at http://www.varchive.com
Einstein said the scientists make a mistake not to study Velikovsky and you guys don’t even respect your own master enough to grant him that. Einstein read Ages in Chaos three times and was in the middle of that book on his desk when he died. There’s a lot more but, I don’t want to hijack this thread. I just didn’t like leaving your swipe on him unchallenged either. If you actually do research, there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye.
I was going to delete my post since it’s off topic or at least edit it since the comment I replied to wasn’t actually that bad on a second reading, but I guess edit is disabled here?
Anyway, sorry to take you off topic and you can ignore the post.
AnotherHeretic, I know you said we could ignore your post as it was off-topic, but I couldn’t let this sentence slip by:
You’re not talking about the old engineer’s “proof” that a bumblebee can’t fly, are you? Because if you are, Cecil Adams addressed it over 10 years ago in the following Straight Dope article: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_045.html
heh heh that’s a cute one. And very famous, but not what I’m talking about.
While the wright brothers were in the air, not being able to get any serious journalist to watch their plane fly despite thousands of regular (anecdotal) folk watching it with their own eyes, a physicist DID get published on why heavier than air flight was IMPOSSIBLE. Been awhile since I read this and I should double check the references, but I’m pretty sure it is reliable info…
Also, Apparently Scientific American finally published a story on the flying airplane…5 years after it first flew.
Me, I’m on the Scarsdale Diet.
Everytime I try to open the refrigerator, Jean Harris shoots me.
AnotherHeretic wrote:
Ah, I think I’ve found what you’re referring to:
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3p155y1977-78.pdf
The physicist’s name was Simon Newcomb, and he did indeed write in October 1903 (2 months before the Wright Flyer first took off from Kitty Hawk) that heavier-than-air flight was probably impossible. And, yes, the Wright Brothers were not taken seriously for several years.
But keep in mind that in 1903, Samuel Pierpont Langley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, used a $50,000 War Department grant to build a flying machine, which failed. Miserably. This attempt at heavier-than-air flight was taken seriously by the press and the scientific community even before it failed, and when it did fail – twice – it turned public and scientific opinion strongly against the whole concept of heavier-than-air flight. Simon Newcomb, and newspapers including the New York Times, got to shrug their shoulders and say, “I told you so.” It was in that climate, a mere nine days after Langley’s second failure, that the Wright Brothers made their claim of a 12-second heavier-than-air flight. Wouldn’t you be skeptical, too?
Incidentally, the Wright Brothers weren’t scientific heretics. They used oodles of mainstream science, plus their own engineering research, in the construction of Flyer 1. They even began their research by asking the Smithsonian Institution – Langley’s bailiwick – for a literature search on the subject of flying.