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

Great Debates
301

Gee, a pop news story exaggerates some tentative scientific studies, insinuating that they prove far more than they actually prove? Pardon me while I pick my jaw up off the floor!

As I’ve said all along, some good, non-Atkins-funded, long-term studies may change both my mind and the state of mainstream science. A reporter looking for a story about those Wacky Scientists who are being shown up by a Clever Businessman ain’t gonna do it. Read the article: these are all short-term studies, with scarcely-surprising results.

Daniel

302

Look, I’m sorry if this is a slight hijack, but I’ve got to say something about Atkins, and this is about the only chance I’m going to get to say it.

Dr. Atkins was recently interviewed on Larry King Live. I was interested in hearing what he had to say, so I started watching the show. Within a few minutes, he said something that made my jaw hit the floor. “Larry, people didn’t have heart attacks before (the advent of processed foods).” Suddenly, I wasn’t so interested in watching.

I studied 16th century English history. Believe you me, Henry VIII suffered from heart disease. It’s widely believed among historians (Starkey, Scarisbrick et al.) that he expired of a heart attack. So did many of his contemporaries: a colleague who was writing a dissertation in medical history told me that heart disease was common even among the commoners. Cecil Himself contends that King Herod’s symptoms are those of arterioscerlosis, hardening of the arteries. It is an impossible argument that people did not suffer heart disease before the 19th century, or even in the first centuries of recorded history.

Now, there is one of two possibilities here. Either (1) Dr. Atkins does not know that people did not suffer heart attacks before the advent of processed foods, or (2) he does know, but it doesn’t suit his views. Either way, I am skeptical that he can be taken seriously if he truly believes what he says.

303

Take him as seriously as millions of people that have lost weight following his advice.

304

I run a soda distribution company. We handle one “soda” that has splenda. It is a diet root beer made by boylan’s bottleworks. It’s the best diet soda i’ve tried besides fresca. Starbucks is a national distributor of boylan’s you can probably get it there. What part of the country are you in?

Another drink that we just started carrying that has an AWESOME diet drink is Fuze. Check out www.fuzebev.com
Those two diet drinks are sweetened with splenda, and I drink them even though I’m not on a diet.

305

The very reason I haven’t taken the plunge on this diet is what you mention. Besides my once week biscuits and sausage gravy, i am afraid I would miss cornbread too much. Giving up milk will be tough too, and I don’t see whipping cream as an affordable substitute.

306

Millions? ::looks around America:: Yep, looks that way to me. :rolleyes:

307

In response to Duke, ive heard him say that same statement about heart attacks, i think many have taken it out of context. I think he’s refering to the amount, heart disease is one of the western worlds biggest killers today. Yes people have suffered heart disease in the past, but not in the same scale as today.

rogue

308

rogue: But only because most people in earlier times didn’t live long enough for heart disease to be a factor in their demise. Heart disease, after all, is mainly a problem for people 50 and older. When life expectancy was in the 40’s (not so many centuries ago, actually), the majority of the population never reached that stage anyway.

I guess this might be a good time to point out that food poisoning killed a lot of those people who never made it to an age when they had to worry about heart disease. Processed, preservative-laden food might well have prolonged their lives!

309

Uhh there is a third possibility and I cant understand for the life of my why you dont see it either. You cited 2 kings who may have died of heart related problems. Have you seen a picture of Henry the VII? Not exactly the visage that would grace Health and Fitness magazines. I imaging King herod was into a whole lot of exercise either. Maybe these 2 were on a high carb diet that would have been the “junk food” of their time? Sweets, cakes, breads, luscious fruits, ales. Only kings could afford such meals everyday, little wonder that dying from a heart attack would be a kings curse as well.

I believe that Dr Atkins meant that common work-a-day people didnt ordinarily die of heart attacks as we have them do now. That all came about 20 years after precessed flour and sugar came into the market. That steak with all its yummy fat isnt going to kill you…its that donut that will.

310

But Slayer, there’s a serious hole in that theory. The common man, prior to the 19th century especially, didn’t get a lot of meat in his diet. Meat was pretty much the food of royalty and lucky farmers. What the common peasant did get, in proportions we would consider seriously out of whack today, was bread, and lots of it. As Natalie Zemon Davis pointed out in an essay in Society and Culture in Early Modern France, bread was the only affordable filling food on offer. In cities, and in rural areas outside of harvest time, fresh vegetables were unavailable too. As a result, common peasants certainly ate a higher proportion of carbohydrates than the average person today, not less.

With all that bread-eating, shouldn’t the common Joe/Jacques have been dying left and right with heart attacks? Zemon Davis also notes that one certainly didn’t see any overweight peasants around–indeed, she notes that to be “fat” in the early modern period was to be considered rich. But, with all that carbo-loading, shouldn’t the peasants have become overweight (even, I know, with a much lower caloric intake than your average nobleman)? A question, I’m sure, one should pose to Dr. Atkins.

311

The common man also worked his brains out from sunrise to sunset and thats probably just half of what a common woman does. Their high enegy food sustained their hihgh energy lifestyle. Why do you think being fat meant being rich? Its because the rich didnt work for their keep and rich foods made them fat.

What I am saying is that common folk did not get heart attacks. Rich people did. Even the rich did some form of exercise, horseback riding, hunting, beating peasants, so only the really rich and lazy died of heart attacks and compared to the common folk then, we in the present with our 8 hour work day, sitting on our butts all day and night, eating “rich foods”…we are no different than the ones that died of heart attacks back then.

312

So…what exactly were the “rich foods” that rich people ate in early modern Europe? Meat, dairy products, and other fatty foods. Just the kinds of foods Dr. Atkins says it’s fine to eat.

What were the foods that the poor people ate in quantity? Bread and other grains. The kinds of carbo-loaded foods Dr. Atkins wishes us to avoid.

And, yet, you argue that the it was the rich, not the poor, who had heart attacks and other diseases. You make my point better than I could.

313

“diseases of the heart,” pardon me.

314

This is such a tired argument. First of all, are you a nutritional historian? If not, then please provide some evidence as to the constituency of rich Europeans’ diets centuries ago. There’s no more reason to suspect they ate proportionately more meats and proteins than carbohydrates than populations do today as far as I know.

As far as the working classes, remember that centuries ago life was precarious and the average peasant had an extreme caloric output just to survive. There was little or no opportunity for the average peasant to consume vast quantities of ANYTHING, and certainly not of refined carbohydrates. The breads and cereal grains consumed centuries ago by the average peasant would have been raw, unrefined, and low in net carbohydrates - certainly they were NOT eating white bread, baked potatoes and Coca Colas!

We cannot invoke the dietary habits of those who lived many centuries ago without considering their total lifestyle as well - and for most, that would have included extraordinarily strenous physical labor - hardly conducive to fat storage.

315

Ask and it shall be Googled

http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030217medieval0217p3.asp

http://www.tkukoulu.fi/WindMills/en-ruokavalio.html

http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/handouts/161023/v4.html

If meat IS the killer food that will bring an epidemic of heart attacks then the line nobility in Medieval times would be nonexistent now.

I do agree that lifestyle is a key factor. Peasants ate carbos but need that energy food to get thru the day, thus no peasants dying of heart attacks like modern average working class people in the US.

A few nobles may have died from heart attacks. I wouldnt say it was non-existant. It was a rare occurance tho, something that their diet would not completely explain.

316

I assume you mean the “line of nobility.” That’s the same line that tended to marry and pop out kids in the mid- to late teens, right? I mean, I’m not an expert on European history by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m pretty sure that most European nobility weren’t noted for bearing children well into their late forties and early fifties, the ages at which heart disease starts to become a problem.

I’ll also point out that your first cite contradicts your second cite on the reasons for spicing food, and that your first and third cites both confirm that carbohydrates, not meat, formed the bulk of a medieval diet. Your second cite looks a little bit less than academically rigorous to my non-expert eyes.

Daniel

317

Elucidator’s son here.

I saw this thread getting to page seven, and now I feel like I just gotta weigh in. First off, it should be noted that I am currently weighing in at a full one-hundred pounds less than two years ago (I probably could have lost it in half the time, if I hadn’t taken so many breaks), all thanks to Protein Power, which is very similar to Atkins. And with the help of all that abundant protein, I was able to build quite a bit of muscle too. On top of all this, the last time I checked up, my cholestorol was almost strangely low, and the two other people I know who’re on it have had the same results. But, analogous evidence aside, I admit I don’t know much more than the next monkey about how, or even if this diet works any better than the grapefruit/corn flakes/water diets.

Secondly, all this talk about whether or not the peasents were carb-intensive sort of misses the point. If you’re exercising a lot and not eating much of course you’re gonna lose weight no matter what it is you’re eating. But my theory is, the reason carbs are causing obesity now is because they’re so damn abundant, and cheap too. A can of coke has more carbs in it than an Atkins dieter is supposed to have in an entire day. The thing is, it doesn’t feel like it. Drinking soda doesn’t make you feel any less hungry than before. So the modern day man, having eaten those chips and drank those sodas (the combination of which could even have as many calories as the average meal) is not going to feel like he can skip dinner, nor would he have to since, compared to peasents, he stinkin’ rich. Peasents, however, wouldn’t have this choice. It’s bread or meat, and if he’s lucky, both. Now, on to the issue of the rich/royalty. It is true that high protein consumption has always been a privilege of the upper-class, but typically with high protein consumption comes even higher carb consumption, especially when you have the resources to afford it (see above). I disclaim any knowledge of the eating habits of medievel royalty, but based upon today’s standards of consumption, “steaks/pork chops” (low-carb) were probably a pretty rare dish compared to the “lo-mein/cheeseburger/spaghetti with meatballs” (high carb, moderate protein) equivalent. While just about everybody loves protein, they like it most when it’s doused in carbs, and a carb on the side too please!

'Course, only now does it occur to me that I don’t really care what Atkins said to Larry King about medieval heart disease since they’re both punks and I don’t who care who got heart disease, so long as it ain’t me.

Hmm, now I’m wondering if I should start an “Ask The Former Fatass Thread”…

318

Hi, Elucidator’s son! I think you’ll find very few people who deny that refined carbs are a problem: everyone from Atkins to Ornish hates Coke.

The dispute is whether a low-fat diet centered around complex carbohydrates (like those you find in whole grains, vegetables, and to a lesser degree fruits) is more healthful than a higher-fat diet centered around protein.

There’s another dispute about whether, supposing that the whole-grains diet is more healthful, it’s realistic to ask modern Americans to switch to that diet. This is a less science-oriented debate, more oriented in ethics or public policy.

But pointing to Coke as an example of why carbs are bad is, I think, a red herring. The real discussion is over whether whole wheat bread, stoneground corn, and brown rice are bad, over whether oranges are bad, over whether bean burritos are bad.

(And yes, I know that Atkins allows the consumption of some vegetables and even some grains, eventually. Please nobody bring up that red herring!)

Daniel

319

I’d like to raise one issue with respect to those who suggest that there is adequate science demonstrating that a high fat diet is unhealthy. I’ve read here (and elsewhere) on numerous occasions that “studies” unnamed prove that a high fat diet produces obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc. However, what we haven’t heard is the actual diet consumed by those in the studies? Was it a high fat, high protein, low or no-carb diet similar to Atkins? Or was it simply a high calorie diet high in fat, but also high in refined sugars and other carbohydrates? I suspect the latter - that the people in the studies were more than likely consuming vast amounts of high-fat AND high-carb foods like donuts, ice cream, potato chips, soda, etc. Of course, since the point was to prove that dietary fat was bad, that’s what caught the blame when the studies were written. But isn’t it just as possible, indeed highly more likely, that the high carbohydrate intake was responsible for the negative effect on health?

I respectfully suggest that any “studies” which purport to show that a high fat diet is unhealthy need to be examined carefully, as they are probably demonstrating the unhealthy effects of a high carbohydrate diet.

320

Name me a specific study, and I’ll try to take a look at it, to see if the scientists conducting the study were so foolish that they didn’t control for simple carbohydrates. But you need to raise this issue in a specific experiment, not get me to do your legwork for you based on a vague apprehension.

Daniel