Finally! Low-Carb/Atkins gets a little respect! About damn time!

Guin, out of curiosity, what other diet plans have you looked at?

I’m pretty convinced that you’re better off going Atkins than going McDonalds. But have you looked at the AHA guidelines, or the ADA guidelines?

They’re what I try to follow, and it allows me all sorts of tasty food. Spicy burritos, hearty French lentil soups, my tasty faux-Asian salmon, homemade pizza, roast garlic potatoes, fruit smoothies, and the like are all more-or-less regular parts of my diet. I try to avoid eating sugary sweets too often, but I’ll go out for ice cream occasionally; similarly, I avoid fried foods and ubercheesy foods except for occasional treats. I drink beer, but I rarely drink more than one a day.

It’s all about the moderation and the variety, I think. Know what foods are both healthful and delicious, and work on incorporating more of them into your diet, and you’ll be in line with mainstream nutritional guidelines.

(Guidelines, of course, subject to change. Who knows? Maybe an apples-to-apples study comparing Atkins to the ADA guidelines will be done some day and prove Atkins superior. I’m not holding my breath, however).

Daniel

Yes, you mentioned gut feelings too, but I was really referring to Atheria’s statements. I am not excluding what you said though, you did say you would rather stick to your gut feelings.

Yes, you cleared it up, everything that disagrees with you is agenda laden, even doctors websites that are not selling anything.

And I am not a Kid, 25 where I come from is old enough to vote, buy alchohol and get a discount on insurance. I can also go to porn shops and buy/rent what I want. If you consider me kid, then you must be a geriatric anomaly. :wink:

Way off base. It was, I believe, ultrafilter who first mentioned the other benefits of fruits and vegetables. I supported this by mentioning phytochemicals, as one type of nutrient that appears in fruits, vegetables, legumes, and fish oil that is currently under study and shows promise of having health benefits. You then suggest that chocolate cake might have similar mystery nutrients.

:confused:

I’m showing you a page from the American Freakin Dietetic Association talking about research into phytochemicals, and you respond by saying that chocolate cake might equally have mystery nutrients in it?

Pardon me for asking, but

cite?

The AFDA doesn’t talk about chocolate cake in thata rticle. They do talk about fruits and vegetables. Your analogy is, lacking promising research into certain nutrients in chocolate cake, balderdash, and you’d be best served by abandoning it and trying a different tack.

Now, of course, you need to explain how you’re going to gain the promising benefits of the various phytochemicals under study without eating the various foods they appear in. Alternatively, you can admit the obvious fact that this is a potential pitfall of any diet that excludes large classes of foods (e.g., many fresh fruits): if those excluded foods convey unique nutritional benefits, folks on the diet will not gain those benefits unless there’s a supplement that conveys identical benefits.

Daniel

I’m not going on ANY diet plan! LOL…I mean, I know I should cut back on the junk food (potato chips, McDonalds, skipping lunch-out of laziness-etc) and get more exercise.

That’s all. My eating habits aren’t exactly healthy.

ultra lets try this route…in your daily diet you have a piece of fruit. Say today your getting a cold and you have an apple and an orange. Say you believe that vitamin c helps with colds.<truth not relevant> Oranges have a higher vitamin c level than apples. So how do you decide what to eat? Do you eat the orange? Youll get the vitamin C that we KNOW is in there. BUT youll be missing out maybe on some mystery vitamin that may or may not be in that apple . You cant eat both…moderation remember? So what do you do? The answer is to eat the one that has the KNOWN benefits because with wildcard vitamins in every food EVERYTHING you eat is a crapshoot with 1 food probably no more or less likely to have these mystery benefits or liabilities.

Guin, I shouldn’t have used the phrase “diet plan.” The most convincing recommendations I’ve seen call them guidelines, and talk in great part about what you’re saying you should do – cut back on junk food, get more exercise.

One interesting thing about the ADA and AHA recommendations is that, rather than focusing on what you shouldn’t eat, they focus on what you should eat: a variety of foods, especially fresh fruits, lean meats, lowfat dairy products, fresh vegetables, and whole grain cereals.

I don’t like the idea of formal diets: they’re icky to me. I love food, though, and I love cooking, and I love the feeling of eating healthfully. I’m fortunate that my food proclivities are mostly in keeping with mainstream nutritional science.

Daniel

Again, :confused:

The whole point of eating a varied diet is that this morning you might eat an orange, and at lunch you’ll eat an apple, and for dessert after dinner, you’ll eat a cup of strawberries. Or you might eat apples in the autumn, oranges and bananas in the winter, strawberries in the spring, and blackberries and raspberries and blueberries in the summer. You eat a variety of foods, gaining benefits from all of them.

Moderation doesn’t mean, “you can’t eat both.”

Daniel

Oddly enough daniel and im sorry i dont have a cite but they just recently discovered that chocolate had new health benefits so who is to say that chocolate cake ISNT better for you? Unless of course you want to argue that the other ingredients<sugar carbs and all that other crap> sorta cancel out the benefits. And if thats the case then thats how i feel about the sugars naturally occuring in fruits.

Why not just let the EPA tell us what to eat?

So daniel your suggesting that i eat what is to me a metabolic poision<fructose> then change to a different flavor of posion in the fall and winter?

Heh, from which orifice on your body did you pull “everything that disagrees with you is agenda laden”? I don’t take Atkins’ word as gospel because he is selling something. I don’t take VegSource as gospel either because they obviously have an agenda. I’m sorry if the fact that I would not believe in the benefits of the ketosis diet without a lot of research into the long-term effects offends you, but YOU YOURSELF stated you don’t agree with it EITHER. What is your problem?
As for you saying I said I would “rather stick to my gut feelings,” if you care to scroll up, for the love o’ god, and re-read the post that you’re pretending to quote, I said “I don’t have much to add to this argument, other than that gut feeling that tells me that eating a diet extremely high in animal protein, fat, hormones, etc couldn’t possibly be any healthier than a diet consisting entirely of whole grains, legumes, fruits, and veggies.” I did not say I would “rather stick to my gut feelings” over research–I said I didn’t have any cites or sources, just an assimilation of information coming from conversations with my doctor, reading, and nutrition courses. And common sense that tells me that forcing your body into an artificial state resembling starvation is probably not the best thing in the long run. There are a lot of things that will make you lose weight, but that doesn’t mean that forty years down the road you’re not going to see some serious negative effects. I would like to see some long-term research before I decide that forcing my body into a state of ketosis is a good idea. What part of that statement offends you so much?
As for the kid thing, I call everyone kid. Including my boss, my friends, and my grandparents. It’s not intended to refer to a young person, necessarily, I use it in place of “buddy” or something similar. I myself turned 21 yesterday, so now I need to go back to bed and sleep for roughly a week and a half in order to give my poor, abused liver a chance to repair itself.

Peace,
~mixie

Also, I tend to get sick if I eat a lot of fatty, salty foods. I remember being sick as a dog after eating southern fried chicken at a family reunion (the kind you get at a deli-cooked with the skin on-drumsticks), or after I eat a McDonalds meal high in salt and fat-if I eat too much, I feel bloated and full.

However, I like eating lots of breads and pastas. My favorite would be a small salad, spaghetti with tomato sauce and garlic bread. I simply feel satisfied.

I see, I appologize then.

MixieArmadillo:

Forty years down the road, I’ll be in my eighties. If I can see then, I’ll be grateful.


Guin:

For me, it’s the opposite. Carbs make me bloated and light-headed. Protein doesn’t.

That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. :rolleyes:

No, wait. It’s not!

What I’m suggesting is that you don’t have mainstream science backing up your assertion that fructose is a “metabolic poison” for you. If you want to believe it is, no skin off my back, but you’re in the land of gut feelings.

Look. I used to date a woman who believed she was allergic to:
Wheat
Corn
Yeast
Milk
Sugar
Tomatoes
Citrus Fruits
Mushrooms
and a host of other foods. Not that she broke out in hives or anything when she ate them – she just felt woozy. Eventually she took some expensive course on getting rid of your allergies naturally, and at the end of six weeks, she no longer had any reaction to any of these foods.

It was no skin off my back then, either, except that I had to cook for her. However, I didn’t think she had good science backing up her allergy claims, either, and I suspect that she was misattributing the cause of her wooziness.

Lib, with all due respect, when did the EPA enter into this? Surely you’re not suggesting that they represent a source of reliable research on nutrition science to equal the American Dietetic Association, the American Heart Association, or the National Academy of Sciences?

Finally, jonpluc, please, either put up or shut up about the chocolate cake. If you’re seriously arguing that it’s healthful for you, then let’s see some cites, and we can discuss it – and you’d do well to dredge up some cites at least as reliable as my cite about phytochemical research. If you don’t think it’s healthful, then either demonstrate why phytochemicals don’t show promise, or admit that it’s a bankrupt analogy.

Daniel

Daniel wrote:

Ugh! I meant the FDA. Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum anyhow.

daniel-- the cite that you requested www.intemperantia.com/healthbenefits.htm Sorry im crappy at coding ,this is just for chocolate and not for the cake part but you can google health benefits for flour eggs and sugar im sure. How i can address the “mystery” nutrients that we havnt discovered yet for either food is beyond me.

Ah! The FDA makes a little more sense.

Frankly, if the FDA issues nutritional guidelines, I’ll pay them a good amount of attention. I’ll compare them to guidelines put out by other not-for-profit organizations devoted to the science of nutrition, of course, and if their guidelines are really out of pace with those of the other organizations, I’ll be a llot more skeptical of them.

I do recognize that mainstream science is innately conservative: there are a lot of nutrition scientists out there who have built their careers on the ADA-style diet, and they’re naturally resistant to any radical change in those recommendations. This is typical of any large scientific establishment: the old guard is loathe to admit change.

On the other hand, it’s the best system we’ve got now, and the ADA-style guidelines are based on the predominance of studies showing that diets rich in fresh fruits and vegetables and complex carbs and legumes and lean meats are the healthiest diets that have been studied. If the FDA agrees with this in their recommendations, that simply adds to the predominance of mainstream scientific recommendations.

Until we’ve got resolution-of-doubt-quality proof, I’ll place my bets with the predominant recommendations.

Daniel

Oh, for the love of Mary. I ask you for a cite with reliability equal to the ADA’s, and you cite an online chocolate store? Are you serious?

Give it up already!
Daniel

(Although I’d like to add a note for sheer fun: the chemicals mentioned on the chocolate-cake web site are phytochemicals, the same class of chemicals that I’ve been talking about. :D)

http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/021100puatkins.htm

Here is the text if you don’t want to click on the link:

Atkins Diet Is As Good as Chemotherapy for Weight Loss

Research released Monday, November 18, 2002, at the annual scientific meeting of the American Heart Association, showed that people on the Atkins low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight and had better cholesterol and triglyceride counts than people on a traditional Heart Association-approved low-fat diet. The study was funded by the Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation, a private nonprofit organization that funds research on carbohydrates and was founded by the author of the Atkins diet. The study was conducted by Dr. Eric Westman, an internist at Duke University’s diet and fitness center.

Studied were 120 overweight volunteers, who were randomly assigned to the Atkins diet or the Heart Association’s Step 1 diet. The Atkins diet limits carbohydrates to less than 20 grams a day, and has no limit on intake of fats or cholesterol. The diet is mostly meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and cheese. The Step 1 AHA diet is about 30% of energy (calories) from fat, 50 to 60% of energy from carbohydrate, 10 to 20% of energy from protein, and less than 300 mg cholesterol per day. This is considered a well-balanced, heart-healthy diet, and is not really intended for weight loss.

Here Are the Results (after six months):

• Thirty-one pounds lost on Atkins versus 20 pounds on an AHA low-fat diet.

• HDL (good cholesterol), up 6 mg/dl with the Atkins, down 2 mg/dl with the AHA diet.

• LDL (bad cholesterol) – little change with either diet.

• Triglycerides: down 49 % with the Atkins, down 22% with the AHA.

So What Does This Prove?

The results of the new study by Dr. Westman are not published yet, so all I have is the newspaper report. But Dr. Westman did publish results of subjects who had been 6 months on the Atkins diet in the July 2002 issue of the American Journal of Medicine (This study was also funded by Atkins).1 These results show:

Cholesterol:

Down 11 mg/dl

LDL Cholesterol:

        Down 10 mg/dl

HDL cholesterol:

        Up 10 mg/dl

Triglycerides:

        Down 56 mg/dl

Urinary Calcium:

        Up 86 mg/24 hours (a contributor to kidney stones and osteoporosis)

Symptomatic Adverse Effects:

        68% reported constipation

        63% reported bad breath

        51% reported headaches

The AHA Diet Is Almost Useless:

The American Heart Association Diet is only slightly better than the American diet and would not be expected to show impressive results. For example, 22 physician practices from communities in Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia treated a total of 450 adults with cholesterol levels in the 250 – 270 mg/dl range with the Step 1 AHA diet for 18 months.2 They showed a 5.4 mg/dl reduction in cholesterol levels in patients given usual care on the AHA diet.

Comparing a useless diet (the AHA diet) to the Atkins diet proves nothing. What they need to compare the Atkins diet with is a very healthy, very-low fat, diet like ours. In 11 days we have shown an average decrease of 29 mg/dl in subjects starting from similar levels of cholesterol.

What an Independent Study Shows on Atkins:

The only study on adults ever performed which was independent of Atkins’ financial influence was published in September of 1980 in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.3 This study of 24 men and women for 12-weeks (4 weeks on the strict Atkins diet) showed the following after 2 to 4 weeks on the diet:

Cholesterol:

        Up 12.3 mg/dl in both men and women

        Up 27.3 mg/dl in women

        Up 1.6 mg/dl in men

LDL (bad) Cholesterol:

        Up 23 mg/dl for both men and women

        Up 37.8 mg/dl for women

        Up 11.6 mg/dl for men

HDL (good) cholesterol:

        Down 2.9 mg/dl for both men and women

        Down 6.7 mg/dl for women

        Down 0.21 for men

Uric acid (kidney stones and gout):

        Up 1.8 mg/dl

Free Fatty Acids (can cause arrhythmias):

        Up 426 mEq/ml (nearly doubled)

Triglycerides:

        Down 45 mg/dl in both men and women

After 8 weeks the average weight loss was nearly 17 pounds.

Therefore, in independent research supported from a grant from the Washington Heart Association, cholesterol levels become worse with the meat, cheese, and egg-laden Atkins diet – big surprise.

How Could Cholesterol Levels Improve by Eating Cholesterol?

How did Westman get the results all your friends are talking about? The Atkins diet works by making people so sick that they eat less of all foods. The primary mechanism for this approach is to produce a condition called ketosis. In this state the appetite is suppressed and people eat less – including less cholesterol and fat – than they were eating before going on the diet.

Ketosis is a condition that occurs naturally when people become seriously ill. It is an adaptive mechanism that allows the body to recuperate during times of illness rather than being overwhelmed by a strong hunger drive, forcing them to gather and prepare food. Because the Atkins diet takes advantage of a state found with illness, I call this diet “the make yourself sick diet.”

Similar changes in body weight, cholesterol and triglyceride levels also occur when people become ill for other reasons. A classic example is cancer chemotherapy. Typically people on these toxic medications become ill, lose their appetite, eat much less food, lose weight and lower their cholesterol, blood sugars, and triglycerides. Therefore, next time, in addition to testing Atkins’ diet against a healthy plant based diet; there should also be a control group on chemotherapy for a realistic comparison.

Atkins Is the Saddam Hussein of the Diet Industry

How could anyone take seriously a diet program that served all that cholesterol and fat-laden food and caused side effects like calcium loss, constipation, bad breath, and headaches? Is it because people are so desperate to lose weight they would do anything? Even sacrifice their health? Look closely at people on the Atkins diet. They may lose a few pounds but they look like “death warmed over.” They have sallow complexions, look tired and sickly. Would you expect otherwise? They are sick from serious malnutrition.

And speaking of sick-looking people, before April of 2002 the founder of the Atkins’ diet, Robert C. Atkins, appeared grossly overweight. I would estimate 60 pounds overweight – but it was hard to tell because he always covered his protruding abdomen with a large coat. Since April of 2002, when he suffered a cardiac arrest and nearly died from cardiomyopathy, arrhythmias, and heart failure, he has been conspicuously absent from public view. I call for an inspection of Dr. Atkins’ health – this is not an unreasonable request. Such a public figure is obliged to make a public appearance – especially since recent reports of his diet proclaim it is heart healthy. Unfortunately, he has become the “Saddam Hussein of the diet world” – keeping potentially deadly secrets – the consequences on his own health of following his own diet – from the public. (See the June 2002 McDougall Newsletter to learn why I believe his own diet contributed to his heart failure.)

So What Works for Losing Weight and Gaining Health?

There is only one way to lose weight, to lower cholesterol, blood sugar, blood pressure, triglycerides, uric acid and to become healthier (looking and feeling healthy too) and that is by means of a low-fat, plant-based diet (and some clean habits and exercise). I would put the results of our diet up against any of the high protein gurus’ recommendations, as well as the recommendations of the Heart Association. Those of you who follow such a program as ours should have no doubt about the results of such a contest. Until such direct testing is done you can rely upon thousands of research papers that show without any argument that high protein diets are hazardous and a low-fat high carbohydrate diet is the road to super health and lifelong weight loss.

References:

  1. Westman E. Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program.
    Am J Med. 2002 Jul;113(1):30-6.

  2. Caggiula AW. Cholesterol-lowering intervention program. Effect of the step I diet in community office practices. Arch Intern Med. 1996 Jun 10;156(11):1205-13.

  3. Larosa JC. Effects of high-protein, low-carbohydrate dieting on plasma lipoproteins and body weight. J Am Diet Assoc. 1980 Sep;77(3):264-70.

2002 John McDougall All Rights Reserved