What I don’t understand is why Atkins was considered “new”. Heck my older sisters had carb counter books back in the sixties.
Atkins is ketogenic. It makes you slightly nauseated and thus you take less in. It avoid high peaks and valleys in blood sugar so you take less in.
Take less in and you lose weight.
BTW, most docs I know endorse Medit. diets.
So, if there are multitudinous studies- post a link to one that shows evidence of long term danger from the Atkins diet (which is more than a “high fat” diet). Oh, and be sure to send it to the NEJM, since they clearly don’t know such a study exists. I gave you two peer- reviewed/double-blind studies, both published in one of the worlds most respected Medical Journals. You have gioven me exactly= 0. It’s “put up or shut up” time.
Again, like I said- there appear to be no studies at all on the long terms risks of the Atkins diet… or at least that is what the NEJM has said. Thus, other than “evidence” like the dudes at the Fortean times would use, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the Atkins diet has any long term dangers. Sure, it could… or not.
Dude. Show me some sign that you’ve read my post, and then you can ask me for evidence to back up what I actually claimed, rather than some straw man you’re setting up.
Daniel
Your reply to my statement that “there is absolutly no evidence such (long term) risks (of the Atkins diet) exist”. Thus, if my statement that there is “no evidence of long term risks from the Atkins diet” is" Utterly false", then what is your claim? I can’t see this as anything but claiming there IS evidence of long term risks from the Atkins diet. Or, do you retract this statement? Do you now concede that there is no scientific evidence of long term dangers from the Atkins diet?
Let’s back up here for a second, DrDeth.
Cite?
I want to make sure we’re talking the same thing here. My position, which you seem to be ignoring, is that:
Daniel
Show me a study that says “high fat diets” are a long term health risk. Sure, you can show me thousands of studies that show that "diets high in fat " are a long term health risk, but you are putting a different meaning on the word “diet”. “Diet” in thecase of “Atkins diet” means a regimen of limited foods- which may or may not be high in fat (the Atkins diet is a high protein diet, where fats are not restricted- there is a difference). “Diet” in the term “diet high in fat” means the sum total of what one eats, usually unrestricted except by taste & cultural flavours.
I don’t have to differential Atkins from other “high fat diets” as 1. AFAIK, there aren’t any “diets” where you are encouraged to eat mostly fat. 2. Atkins isn’t entirely a “high fat diet” (altho it CAN be a “diet high in fat”). 3. Most diets high in fat are dangerous due to cholesterol (which Atkins was shown to reduce) or obesity (again, Atkins was shown to reduce wieght).
Next, ya think the medical professionals who wrote those articles might just know about studies about high fat diets? And, yet, they never said “there are bajillions” of studies that show such diets are dangerous- in fact they don’t mention even one. Both studies say there is a need for long term studies of the Atkins or similar diets. The phrase “high fat diets have been shown to be dangerous in long term studies, thus we expect similar dangers with the Atkins diet” is conspiculously absent.
Nuh uh. A diet is a tendency to eat a certain type of food. It doesn’t particularly matter whether you’re doing it deliberately or accidentally as far as your health is concerned.
I note your lack of cite from the AHA. I presume it’s forthcoming?
Daniel
What cite from what “AHA”?
I note your total lack of any cites at all. I do not assume they are forthcoming, given your track record with cites.:rolleyes:
Gentlemen… I’m a bit lost here, help me out.
What, exactly, are you arguing about?
Are you debating whether Atkins produced weight loss?
Are you debating whether Atkins produced certain changes in blood profile?
It appears to me that you’ve both lapsed into pointless bickering over each others’ writing styles… possibly seasoned with a bit of egomania based on the need to force others to think like you do.
I’ll say two things, then let you get back to it:
We are all going to die, no matter what we eat.
Someone ELSE’s food choices don’t hurt YOU.
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
In April 2002, for example, the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) published a review of “all studies identified” that looked at diet nutrient composition and weight loss. It found over 200, with “no studies of the health and nutrition effects of popular diets in the published literature” excluded. In some, subjects were put on “ad libitum” diets, meaning they were allowed to eat as much as they wanted as long as they consumed fat, protein, and carbohydrates in the directed proportions. In others, subjects were put on controlled-calorie diets that also had directed nutrient proportions. The conclusion: Those who ate the least fat carried the least fat.
An alternative method of comparing diets is a meta-analysis, which means not looking at the sum of the whole but actually combining the data. One such meta-analysis, covering 16 ad libitum studies and almost 2,000 people, appeared in the International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders in December 2000. The conclusion: Those on low-fat diets had “a greater reduction in energy intake” and a “greater weight loss than control groups.”
From here. So it looks like the Atkins is Less Effective camp is now up two hundred to two. But as already mentioned, the two studies that you’ve provided actually claim that the Atkins diet showed no advantage over high-carb diets in the long term, so the score is actually two hundred to zero.
Atkins is not sustainable long term for most people. (These studies are limited by, among other things, high drop-out rates.) Nor should it be, even if it maintained the weight loss and the cholesterol balance: a variety of substances associated with carbs are important to long term health beyond measured cholesterol: phytochemicals, etc.
It seems to me that long term weight loss and health can best be achieved by a moderate diet with at least moderate excercise. If we do not develop those lifestyle habits then we’ll be “dieting” off and on again forever. The rest is fads and rollercoasters.
This is the crap I am getting tired of. It is totally false in my case. I have counted calories several times while on Atkins and am consuming a higher amount then recommended and about the same as I was before Atkins. I was very careful in counting them and sure I did not make any mistakes. It was also quite long term (apx 3 months - every f’n day). (btw I have been on Atkins for about 10 yrs).
The biggest advantage I see on Atkins when it comes to calories is that food is digested much more slowly giving a substained energy throuout the day instead of the typical highs and lows caused by a low fat diet. If you have more energy you are more likely to get off your ass and do something, even if it’s to go up the flight of stairs to take a piss instead of taking the elevator. Another factor is that you are consuming more protein which is used more for building/repairing then energy. These are calories that are not totally used for energy and sometimes use energy to build new cells and the like.
You think it doesn’t require energy to repair or build?
OK, so how many calories were you taking in per day? How tall are you? How much lean mass do you have? How much fat mass do you have? What’s your activity level? How many grams of protein did you take in per day? What were your macronutrient ratios?
All of those questions need to be answered in order to determine whether you were burning more calories than you take in. If you were losing weight, there’s a very good chance that you were taking in fewer calories than you burned, even if it was higher than recommended. What was the recommended amount, any way?
AHA could refer to the American Humane Association, or the American Heart Assocation. I’ll let you guess which organization’s spokesperson you quoted earlier in the thread without attribution, and whose quote (indeed, whose name) I couldn’t find in a search of the organization’s website.
As for cites, get off. ITR Champion just re-offered some of the exact same information I’ve given in previous incarnations of this thread. Not my fault if you’re unwilling to scan through all the previous Atkins threads in your desire to declare early victory for the diet.
Daniel
Gee, I hate to be rational and spoil all the fun, but let me see if I can bring some agreement or at least piss EVERYONE off.
We haven’t had agriculture for that long in evolutionary terms and fast food even less so. Americans are obese because we take in way too many simple carbs in the form of Coca-Cola, French fries and Cookies. We sit on our arse way to much watching TV and typing messages to the SDMB and sucking down doughnuts.
Mmmm, Doughnuts!
That said, if you want a long term study of Atkin’s, then Study the Inuit. Eskimos as I understand were not all that healthy prior to modern importing of carb sources. They suffered rather high instance of osteoporosis. Not the kind of weight loss I’m looking for, thank you. That they were as healthy as they were is probably attributable to active life and high omega 3 sources. It just boggles me that people on either side would argue against keeping caloric intake reasonable, Insulin level steady, carbs complex, fiber high, meats lean, and keeping fat intake low and unsaturated. Take a vitamin, get some exercise. Oh and live once in a while too. Throw away your ketone strips. Throw a greasy brat on the grill this weekend and eat it with the bun and all. Knock down a couple beers already! Then go swimming after waiting the obligatory half hour. Hmmph. /rant off
Not a surprise that a diet in which you were allowed to eat anything & everything, with no restrictions has you gaining more wieght that a restricted diet.:eek: :rolleyes: But the Atkins diet is NOT such a diet. It is a “restricted diet”, it is just that carbos are restricted, rather than fats. And, it seems to do better that a fat restricted diet. Weight loss was 2>3 times as much, and “a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease”. The study you mention did NOT include a “low carb diet” as “…(Atkins) diet, no randomized controlled trails have evaluated it’s efficacy”. As of May 2003, so those studies you quote PRIOR to May 2003 are outdated.
Sure, dudes don’t keep on the Atkins diet all the time- nor do they keep on the low fat diet- as I quote “Adherance was poor and attrition high in both groups.” (italics mine)
Daniel- I quote my OP “Today in the San Jose Mercury news…”. That’s where the quotre from the AHA came from. None of your cites or studies have studied a "high protein, high fat, low carbohydrate " diet, now have they? Thus, again, just like the NEJM has said- there is currently no evidence of long term dangers associated with the Atkins diet since: “Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long term safety and efficacy of low carbohydrate, high protein, high fat diets”.
All quotes from the NEJM.
DrDeth: sorry I missed the name Bonow in the Mercury News article. Mea culpa.
I find his concerns wholly reasonable. I might do a study that shows that a corn-flake diet leads to the growth of angry mutant heads. You might propose a corn-flake diet that involves pouring whiskey instead of milk on the corn-flakes. If you want to convince me that the angry-mutant-head risk is ameliorated by the use of whiskey instead of milk, go for it – but the burden is on you to show me that you’ve made a relevant difference in the diet.
Atkins tends to be a higher-fat diet than the one recommended by the AHA; I assume you are not so dishonest as to deny this. If the Atkins folks want to convince me that their high-fat diet is relevantly different from the high-fat diets studied over and over, I’m all ears: but it’s insufficient simply to point out differences between Atkins and other high-fat diets.
You gotta show me those differences are relevant. The best way to do that is to show me long-term studies of caliber equal to the ones suggesting that high-fat diets are unhealthful.
Dismissing the concerns of the AHA is presumptuous and stupid.
Daniel
Initial weight loss was greater, but in the longer study, no significant difference was present at the end. Kinda important, that little detail. Or did you just forget?
Ok, here’s my personal experience. Background: 57-year old type 2 diabetic, overweight, high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol, low HDL.
In January I started the Atkins diet. I’ve lost about 30 lbs., my blood glucose is not only normal. but stable. My blood pressure is normal. My LDL is less than half what it was, and my HDL is way up. My doctor is “absolutely ecstatic” about the results, and as an extra bonus, my chronic depression is way better.
A few points of clarification:
To the people who were on the diet, then went off, and gained back the weight: If you are on any weight-reduction diet, then go back to eating the way you did before, you will gain back the weight. That doesn’t mean the diet is bad, it means you shouldn’t have gone off it.
The Atkins diet is progressive, with different stages. The last stage is maintenance, where you find the amount of carbs you can eat in order to maintain your ideal weight. Many people can eat a relatively balanced diet at this stage.
No diet will be really effective without exercise, and this diet also requires some very specific supplements.
Addendum: I was recently on vacation, and premitted myself to eat anything I wanted. After 2 weeks, I only gained back 3 pounds, and when I went back on Atkins, I lost it in 3 days.
I believe the difference between other high-fat diets and the Atkin’s diet is the way that fat is treated by the digestive system. If you are eating carbs and also consuming a lot of fat, then your body will burn the carbs first, for energy, and then store the fat for future use.
Eating a lot of protein and a moderate amount of fat tells your body that it will be handling protein and fat. These types of foods take more energy to digest and are used for different things. Carbohydrates themselves are only used for energy.
The diet does not advocate eliminating the necessary nutrients. All it does is tell you where to get the nutrients from, such as supplements.
A lot of the resistence to Atkins, I think, stems from a fear that what we have discovered about nutrition to this date is, perhaps, not entirely correct. I do not think they took into account the ability of the human body to adjust to the type of food being ingested.