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.
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.
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.
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:
My beliefs are currently in keeping with mainstream science; when mainstream science changes, so will my beliefs.
Your body needs fat to survive, true, but it needs very, very little fat to survive. Your body is perfectly capable of manufacturing fat.
The American Diabetes Association is probably a better source of information on diabetes than Dr. Atkins is. Check out their Advice on Healthy Eating:
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.
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.
I’ll also point folks to the Diabetes UK Web site, which says,
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[quote] Atkins doesn’t recomend transfat.
[quote]
Yes, and babies don’t shit popsicle sticks. What’s your point?
**
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.
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]"
**
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.
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].”
**
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.
Did y’all see the literature review 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.