For practical weight loss in the individual case it might not seem to matter but knowing the real reasons is important to science. Consider this - centuries ago British ships used to carry lots of limes on long voyages. Drinking the juice or eating the limes was known to prevent scurvy. But why? No one knew. One might have assumed that limes contained some mystical substance “anti-scurvium” or something that was unique to limes. Later, of course, scientists discovered Vitamin-C. Now we know you can eat lots of things to prevent scurvy, or just take a pill in fact. Other examples might be the old medical theories about about how different “airs” affected health. Bad “airs” in crowded cities caused disease. Moving to the country to get better “airs” made you healthy. Now we know the “bad air” was just microbes spreading contagion and going to country worked because it got you away from plague carriers and so forth.
I’m not adding anything more to this thread, but I will agree with you. That’s exactly the crux of the issue, and it’s what most of us have been saying all along here.
It wasn’t a scientific point. It was a (perhaps too subtle) reminder that special interests have some bearing on the govt/corporatist endorsed food pyramids and dietary guidelines.
I agree with you about the real issue, but I have to wonder who will subsidise the studies needed to learn the truth.
Here’s something that might interest you:
Some questions I have are:
Do we really need to eat cereal/grain carbohydrates at all as part of a healthy diet? What is the scientific basis for the currently recommended 6 to 12 servings per day?
What sort of diet will lead to a “more efficient fat processing metabolism” if not a reduced carb (ketogenic) diet?
Insulin uptake is already a proven factor, but what is the role of other hormones in this equation? Some recent studies on leptin have been in the news recently:
I’m aware of the research done on caloric restriction and longevity. Current CR practices do not involve a simple minded reduction in the mere size of the diet. The emphasis is on cutting calories while getting a superior nutrient content from the food eaten. The CR people seem, in fact, to be eating pretty much like I am now. Here are some links on it.
CR link 1 CR link 2 I started my diet just to lose weight though, not as part of a CR program (though I will consider it).
I doubt we need any grains at all. Humans probably never even ate them until 10,000 years ago or so. They did eat fruit, nuts, roots and other plant matter that contained higher levels of carbohydrate than you will see in Atkins, though. No one denies that the modern starch and sugar rich diet is a disaster.
I will reiterate my earlier point. It is my understanding that ketosis is simply what happens when energy needs exceed energy intake. It should be happening to anyone who is losing fat weight, even if they are on my hypothetical and disastrously unhealthy all sugar diet. The contention that ketosis is somehow unique to low-carb practices is not true as I understand it.
The CR studies in mice and now many other animals have all focused on, well, calorie restriction rather than carb-restriction. Regardless of what percentage of their calories came from carbs the calorie restricted animals were definitely not allowed to gorge themselves on unlimited amounts of food as long as it wasn’t carbs. Their total caloric budget was cut. Contrast this with the typical low-carb diet’s claim that you can eat virtually all you want as long as it’s not carbs. Of course this stuff about longevity is interesting but the debate here seems to be about dieting to lose weight rather than for long term life extension (granted losing weight will add to life expectancy for well known reasons).
So you read betterhumans too? Dorky name, very interesting site with a transhumanist flavor.
What is a “resting insulin count”? It can’t be in mg/dl and be considered “high”, and 30-40 mg/dl is low enough that I risk seeing all my dead relatives. It’s not in mmol/l, because 1 mmol/L = 18 mg/dl, so… 
I Googled and can’t find out what this means. What units is it in?
Bear in mind that the real measurement which counts is blood glucose level. Insulin remember is a “response hormone” to the presence of too much blood glucose. And herein lays the inherent logic flaw which argues that the Atkins Diet allows a practitioner to constantly be in a state of ketosis - that is, breaking down body fat into glycogen and blood glucose.
The problem with the logic is this - if the body is supposedly constantly in ketosis, as in 24 hours a day, this in turn means that the body’s insulin levels are being 100% negated by the body’s “glucagon hormone” - that is, the opposite hormone produced by the pancreas to actually “top up” the body’s blood glucose levels. OK, fine - however - what is beyond dispute is this - blood glucose levels are utterly independant of where the energy came from. The digestive system inarguably digests certain simple carbohydrates faster than others, but ultimately, all digestible foods - regardless of whether they started out as fats or proteins or carbohydrates end up as blood glucose eventually - just some faster than others. The issue hence is this - the body tries to keep it’s blood glucose levels within a safe operating range. If the body is in ketosis, this reflects not what diet a person is eating - rather it reflects simply that the blood glucose levels need topping due to a shortfall of blood glucose.
By extension, the logic flaw in the Atkins Diet is that “insulin” is a response to too much blood glucose, just as “glucagon” (the reverse insulin hormone) is a response to too little blood glucose. The latter cannot be influenced by anything other than too few calories. Blood glucose levels are independant of where the calories came from.
Now, if I’m wrong there I’ll be really, REALLY surprised.
Not quite. Yes, your body can utilise your fat for fuel without ketosis, but in ketosis the exclusive fuel is fat.
Normally, your body prefers to utilise both glucose and fat.
When glycogen stores in the liver are depleted, and no glucose is available from dietary intake, the body switches to fat (lipolysis) for everything. This altered metabolism results in the production of ketones in the liver (the by-product when fatty acids are incompletely metabolised). Increased levels of beta-hydroxybutyrate (the primary ketone in the blood) acts as an appetite suppressant. Here’s my cite description again:
Your hypothetical sugar diet might induce ketosis, if the caloric intake was low enough to deplete your glycogen stores. But carbohydrate reduction is the only way to induce it without restricting calories (unless you’re pregnant or an athelete).
Note my bolding re your assertion about glucagon (in your case, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing). One word:
Gluconeogenesis
Glucagon Activates Hepatic Gluconeogenesis
The combination of low insulin/high glucagon triggers gluconeogenesis (and thereby ketosis).
Surprise!!! So sorry, but here’s a little sop for you, mate:
The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric restriction: preservation of submaximal exercise capability with reduced carbohydrate oxidation.
Apologies to anyone not a biochem freak. 
The ketosis material is interesting, it certainly seems that ketosis will occur in the absense of carbohydrate but my question and that of many of the Atkins skeptics here is simply this - what happens to all those calories? Above we heard Bambi Hassenpfeffer claim that she eats 3000-4000 cal/day and loses weight. She seemed to retract the claim later but I have heard many Atkins people make similar claims. Say the body is in ketosis due to carb restriction. You are burning up your fat to make energy, fine. You are also stuffing your face with bacon and eggs - hmm… What is happening to the protein and especially fat in that food? It doesn’t just pass through the body unmetabolized.
I don’t doubt the claim that when an Atkins person is eating a protein/fat meal they are not getting immediate energy from the food in the way they would if they were eating a candy bar. My question, of course, is what happens to all that Atkins food 3 hours later? Maybe they burn some fat off during the meal, but won’t the energy in the food just go right back to fat stores later that evening? I look at this from an energy standpoint and also from an evolutionary perspective to some extent. The claims made for low carbs seem problematical from both points of view. I particularly have trouble with idea that humans on a low carb diet will lose weight with high (or even excessive) caloric intake. I simply can’t imagine us evolving that way. It would have been contrary to survival in the distant past when food surplusses would have had to have been stored away in the most efficient way possible.
The only way I can see to salvage the low carb claims would be to assert that our metabolism of current protein/fat intake is dramatically less efficient than that of carbs so that for, say 1 cal of protein and fat eaten only 0.5 cal is converted into glucose with the result being that an energy deficit is maintained and stored fat is used to make that up. This may be the case but I haven’t seen the evidence. If protein and fat is really used much less efficiently than carbs then perhaps food labels need to say something like “effective calories”. IIRC, the current calorie figures are simply made by literally burning the food in a bomb calorimeter. A biological energy flow model of all this could probably settle the issue once and for all.
It does sound that way from your post. Congratulations on your hard work, and I wish for all the best for you in the future!
Read this, and note the dates on some of those studies.
I avoided this thread for a long while, as I try to do with all diet and health threads. The anti-carb craze makes me crazy. I finally will comment. The strong points made in this thread are directed at one goal - to lose weight (fat) - and by the fastest way possible and at any cost. So, I wonder … what is the reason to lose the fat? Why do people bother? What is the motivation? I assume people want to lose weight for health reasons. Overweight = many health risks. But judging from all the weight loss fads, it must be purely for cosmetic reasons rather than health reasons. We are starving ourselves, eating low fiber diets, taking drugs, etc., using methods that challenge the body and it’s health. If one is losing weight for health reasons, then wouldn’t one want to do it healthfully? And make a lifestyle change rather than use a temporary gimmick? But if you are just wanting to get skinny, by all means, carry on - get liposuction, eat the Atkins way, hell…use a tapeworm!
I think you’re missing the point that a lot of our Atkins dieters have been repeating: the Atkins way (when done properly) involves tons of fresh green veggies, water, and lots of lean meat, along with whole grains. It’s eating whole foods instead of chemical-laden crap. There’s nothing in that that’s inconsistent with being healthy. In point of fact, it’s a lot healthier than my eating habits, considering I’m all about the chemical-laden crap.
Here - for the sake of eternity - is what Dr Atkins HIMSELF (not the dodgy Atkins Foundation) writes:
And also this longer passage: Dr Atkins’ “vision”:
On a side note, today’s NY Times food section has an article on Dr. Arthur Agatston and his South Beach Diet, which seems to be the other lo-carb diet that’s popular these days. Free registration is required to read the item, but here are a few quotes:
No, I am not missing the point. I know the so-called point. The flaw is the “lots of lean meat” statement (though lean is good, lots IS NOT), and this is the base of all these high protein and/or high fat-high protein diets. A proper healthy diet should promote: tons of fresh veggies (green and otherwise), fruits, whole grains, and water, and appropriate amounts of protein for body size and maintenance, i.e., approximately 40 to 65 grams daily of complete protein depending on body size, activity levels, and if there are any special dietary variations (disease conditions, deemed by a true professional, or other reasons which create the necessity for variation/imbalance in intake of what is considered normal ranges), then adjustments for optimal health can be considered. For optimal function and health, (athletic or otherwise) the ratio is 55 to 65% carbs, 12 to 15% protein, and less than 30% from fat (not more than 10% from sat. fat.), and then as stated elsewhere in this thread, calories in must = calories used. I knew this thread would make me crazy. I deal with this everyday, it is my area of expertise. Arghhhh…the misconceptions, the misinformation, the ignorance.
Some questions:
-
Where do those percentages come from?
-
Do they lead to optimal performance for strength athletes?
-
What about the thermic effect of food? How does that factor into your view of weight/fat loss?
-
They are pretty common knowledge to those of us who in this field. However, some sources to follow-up with all your questions would include these texts as well as many other reputable research materials: Fit and Well, Fahey; Fitness Theory and Practice AFAA; ACE Personal Trainer; and Decisions for Healthy Living, Pruitt and Stein. You can also go to Cooper Institute http://www.cooperinst.org/ or American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) Error 404 for good research information or the USDA site http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/.
-
Yes, the values are the same. The quality has to be there, though, in one’s diet choices. The ratios are good for everybody, endurance athletes as well as strength training athletes. The fuel used needs to be good nutritional choices, however, for optimal benefits. But with competition of long duration, there would be a need for supplemental fuel unlike a shorter duration training or person eating for health (aside from snacks for those hunger pangs) while performing (greater than 90 min). Stength training requires fuel for performance, plain and simple, just like endurance athletes, and no extra protein for muscle building that people seem to think. A little extra, say instead of the approximate .75 gm per kg of body weight, such as 1 gm per kg is not excessive and still within the guidelines.
-
The thermic effect of food/feeding (TEF) accounts for approximately 10% total daily expenditure. Resting metabolic rate (RMR) contributes about 60 to 75%. Then there is the thermic effect of activity (TEA) which can contribute 15 to 30%, depending on the variables. Some foods contain less calories than their TE (cost to process), thus some people consider them negative foods, i.e., they try to eat lots of celery to fill their bellies. A person’s RMR, TEF, and TEA all contribute to one’s overall metabolism. As far as singling out foods for their TE, to answer your question, no, I do not focus on that. However, in the sum of things, we know a healthy person, one who has a healthy lifestyle and healthy habits to include exercise/activity in recommended quantities can raise RMR, TEF and TEA which can ultimately help in the quest to keep the excess pounds off.
Ultrafilter? I’ve noticed you’ve referred to “strength athletes” a few times now. If I may, I’d like to point out that in the purest context of “calories burnt per hour”, it’s generally accepted that gym training falls into the lower 1/3rd of the most popular sporting activities.
Click here to see a highly regarded list of calories expended during exercise.
You’ll note that even the “vigorous effort” version of Weight Lifting averages 580 calories per hour or so for a guy around 200lbs. Contrast this to cross country skii-ing which can average up to 1400 calories per hour under maximum effort, or even my particular sport of elite raod cycling which averages around 1300 calories per hour.
My point is this - yes, it’s true that growing muscles need protein - but the calorie expenditure in my link also abundantly proves that the net usage of nutrients used by weight training is such that a normal, balanced, healthy diet as outlined in Krebnut’s post above will amply meet a “strength athletes” requirements.
At the risk of introducing another controversial topic, I believe that a lot of the nutritional products which are on sale in gyms are also pure bullshit too. Certainly, any claims that gym workouts are draining your body are rubbish in the context of the list published above.
Now, back to the ketosis arguement. My logic dillemna still continues - namely, how is it that world class athletes who eat balanced, varied diets as exemplified by Krebnut manage to lose weight? After all, 60% of their diet is carbohydrates - certainly mine is. And yet all I have to do is ensure that I maintain an average calorie intake of 2,600 calories per day, and if I train 400k in that week I’ll have lost 1 kg? Obviously, I’m eating lots of carbohydrates - lots of muffins, rice, pasta etc and yet my body fat is being burnt. My glycogen levels are just fine - lots of energy in the legs each morning - but the body fat falls nonetheless.
My question is this - how is the fat being burnt if NOT by ketosis? Now, if someone says - “Oh no, that’s not ketosis, that’s merely lipolysis…” I personally think we’ll have reached the point where the logic dillemna has hit the wall.
Good question. Most estimates I’ve seen of the “metabolic advantage” behind the incomplete fatty acid metabolism in ketosis is no more than 150kcal/day. It’s a bonus, but it’s not enough to explain some studies that have shown weight loss with more than 500kcal/day above recommended intake.
At a glance, there would seem to be further metabolic advantage from the insulin/glucagon balance (as it relates to triggering lipolysis).
protein metabolism expends more energy as well, but I don’t have hard number on that, nor do I think it is the “magic bullet” factor in this equation.
The appetite suppressant qualities of ketosis almost certainly play a role in most subjects on the low carb diet, but there are still more than a few exceptions - people who consume a hypercaloric diet and still lose weight. I don’t think the laws of thermodynamics are being defied here- most likely that there are variables we haven’t considered yet. More studies are needed, surely.
BTW, my explanations so far are deliberately simplistic. Technically, proteins (amino acids) are needed to produce the glucose supplied through the gluconeogenesis that kicks in along with ketosis. I mention this for the benefit of low carb dieters - if inadequate protein is ingested on this diet, the amino acids needed for gluconeogenesis will be cannibalised from muscle tissue.
The fact remains that carbohydrates per se are not essential to the human diet. Funny how they form the base of the USDA pyramid regardless, doncha think?
Well Krebnut, you parrot the USDA guidelines and disdain the “ignorance” of those who question them, but frankly, this is just disingenuous debating tactics. I am asking you to show me the science behind your claims. For example, show me the science behind the “low fat” bandwagon. The USDA and the AHA, to name two, jumped on this bandwagon even though the studies were inconclusive, and the rates of obesity and heart disease has increased ever since. Care to dispute that?
Show me the science behind your claim that “lots of lean protein” is a health risk (and define what you mean when you say “lots”, since a scientist would never accept that term as anything but subjective and useless). Optimal protein intake is still a very debatable subject - it’s a mixed bag of benefits v. risks - I assert that it’s either disingenuous or ignorant to suggest otherwise.
Based on your cites, it appears your “area of expertise” is sports medicine. I read that as “healthy people”. As an RN, my clinical experience is based on “unhealthy people”, so your advisement here is not practical. How do your advisements pertain to people who are not atheletes, or have underlying health problems/metabolic disorders?
I asked a question before, and I’ll ask it again (rephrased): Show me the science to prove your claim regarding the optimal nutrition of the USDA food pyramid (in particular the base of the pyramid that recommends cereal grains). Simply parroting and clucking doesn’t cut it, babe.
This is getting ridiculous. I explained that before, with cites to back it up. If you ever have the balls (or the cites) to refute my posts (and science cites) directly, let me know (I know you’re reading them). Otherwise, your egotistic hyperbolic posts stand as testimony to your willfull ignorance (arrogance, conceit, etc.). Frankly, I think you wouldn’t acknowledge “logic” if it bit you in your -no doubt- muscled gluteus maximus.
Oh, now I see the misunderstanding. You thought I am a scientist. I’m not. I am just a poor salior that is trying to go across the sea and not get scurvy. Is it the green in the peel, the white stuff underneath, or the juice that keeps me from getting scurvy? I don’t give a damn, I just know that the British Navy has found out that if I eat limes I won’t get scurvy.
Furthermore, I know from the British Army that if I take quinine I won’t get malaria. furthermore if I put the quinine into a tonic and add some gin, and a slice of lime, I can prevent scurvy and malaria all at the same time. (yeah I know what Cecil said on the subject)
I can only speak for myself here, by let me answer (again just for myself)
Do I want to lose weight? Yes
Quickly? Sure do, why not quickly? Hmm I can use this diet and lose 1 lb every two weeks, or this other plan and loose 2 lbs a week? Gee, which one would I choose?
For what reason? Several, one I was getting to the point where it was getting physically hard for me to do things. I was almost to the point where I would need a seat belt extender when I flew. I was having a hard time buying clothes (size 48 pants aren’t real common, neither are XXXL shirts)
And to be blunt, I have short arms and my gut was getting so big I was having trouble wiping my ass when I used the bathroom.
What is my motivation? I got sick and tired of not being able to do the things I wanted to do. (see above)
Was health risks a motivating factor? No, not really for me. My blood pressure was just a little on the high side of normal, but not out of control. Practical concerns far outweighed my health concerns. Of course I knew that if I stayed fat health problems were going to show up some day. That day just had not arrived yet.
As I stated above, in my case it is for practical reasons.
Healthfully? Of course that is why I never used Phen-fen or any other drugs. So here is what the question comes down to: Is it healthier to stay fat (and I mean 110 lbs more than I weighed in high school, or is it healthier to lose the weight? No brainer right? Then the next question is, well, since is it healthier to lose the weight, then can I take a risk during the weight loss, and if I do take a risk, does that increase my overall chance of premature death? If so by how much? This is a question that each person must answer for themselves. In my case I am willing to put up with a slight increase in the chance of death short term if it decreases my chance of death long term. Because being fat is a definite risk long term. No I am not saying that that the Atkins diet is risky, I am just explaining my reasoning. If anybody comes back and says that I think that Atkins is risky they had better have their flame suit on 
Healthy lifestyle vs gimmick? This is where we will have to agree to disagree. First off the Atkins program is a lifestyle change. It consists of four phases
- Induction this the part that always get the publicity, this is where carbs are limited to 20 grams / day
- Ongoing weight loss carb count is increased by 5 grams per week, weight loss tapers off until a acceptible weight loss per week is achived.
- Pre-Maintenance slowing weight loss, getting ready for the final stage
- Lifetime Maintenance Maintaining your goal weight for a lifetime.
Looking at the four phases of Atkins, what makes you say that it is a gimmick, and not a lifestyle change? This sound like a lifestyle change to me.
Get liposuction? Unless something is done about why a person is fat, liposuction is just renting skinny, not a cure. I know people that have had lipo and six months later the only thing that is still skinny is their wallet. No thanks.
Tapeworm Believe me I would have considered it. I did not know where to buy one.
Since I have been involved in this thread, I got to thinking long and hard about my weight loss, and what it has meant to me. Three months ago I was not sleeping through the night, I had the munchies all the time, I needed a nap just about all the time, I would almost fall asleep driving home (more than once I pulled over and took a nap! and this is after a full nights sleep), I had a hell of a time getting out of bed in the AM no matter how much sleep I had gotten, I weighed 270 lbs and was heading for more, My previous very strong will power which had gotten me through previous diets seems to have disappeared. My sister showed up a lot thinner last Thanksgiving and told me it was reduced carb intake. Then in January a doctor friend of mine (on another board) told me that she has recommend Atkins to some of her patients that were having trouble losing weight. At this point I bought the book and read it, cover to cover. Twice.
I went on the program on January 17th. As of last Saturday I had lost 32 lbs. But even more important that that is what has happened to my energy level. I now have more energy than I had 10 years ago. Actually my energy level is more like what it was 20 years ago. I look forward to my daily workout. Yesterday I spent 1.5 hours in the gym between the treadmill and stationary bike. Last Friday I did three hours on my mountain bike (the first time in a very long time) I am sleeping better, I don’t need naps, no munchies, and no problem getting out of bed in the AM. I am also not starving, nor do I feel deprived. Cutting my carb intake is the best thing I have ever done IMHO.
So what am I eating?
Pretty much as before meats, chicken, fish, fresh veggies, salads, eggs, and cheese.
So what am I not eating? no breads, no croutons on my salads, no zerts (cakes cookies, pie), no potato rice or pasta. I have changed my salad dressing to just oil and vinegar.
I fail to see how the removal of these items are going to have an adverse effect on my health, or end western civilization as we know it. Furthermore I think that I can make a pretty good argument that my working out for an hour or so every day, in the long run, is going to be much more beneficial to my health than my previous couch potato lifestyle, regardless of how much meat I eat.
do I miss any of these things? No not really. Once and a while I I think that some hashbrowns to go nicely with my eggs in the AM, but I have decided that no foods tastes as good as skinny feels.
But hey what do I know? I’m just a sailor trying to navigate the sea of weight loss and not get scurvy. All I know is that, for me, Atkins is my lime that keeps me from getting scurvy. And if I put in a glass with gin and some tonic it makes a pretty good drink on a hot summer day.
This post has run on too long, I gotta go hit the gym.