I’ve not been on a low-carb diet (I’m too poor and refined carbs are cheap, but that’s for another thread) but my SO’s parents and sister have.
The problem I see with the Atkins diet isn’t the diet. It’s the dieters. They don’t follow the plan, they stay in induction for years (an online friend has been on it for two years and still eats less than 8 grams a day) and they destroy their bodies in the process. Also, from what I’ve read, no distinction is made between saturated and unsaturated fats as in other diets.
The atrociously named “South Beach Diet” seems a little more sensible to me (mainly because you never go into ketosis as you do during Atkins induction phase, afaik) It works a bit slower but it seems to be a little better on your heart. (I am not a doctor, this is not medical advice).
Ardred’s parents are now up to higher more ‘normal’ amounts of refined and unrefined carbs today and are maintaining weight just fine. His sister is doing better but is still disturbingly over zealous about the amount of any type of fiber that goes into her body.
“Yes, I know carbs are what give us energy, but since cutting way back on carbs and refined sugar, and eating lots more protein and veggies, I have a lot more energy than I ever had before.”
Any food source can be used for energy (which is why the Atkins Diet can work). Fats are broken down into 2-carbon chunks and fed into the Kreb’s Cycle. Proteins are deaminated, chopped up, and fed into the glycolysis and Kreb’s cycles at various points.
“The problem I see with the Atkins diet isn’t the diet. It’s the dieters. They don’t follow the plan …”
Almost every study critical of the Atkin’s diet has failed to take into account the fragility of the system – one candy bar can ruin two weeks of dieting. To my knowledge, all of the studies that discount Atkins cheaters have shown it is as effective at other diets (with data from their respective cheaters discarded as well).
As I see it, the facts boil down to this:
(1) Any diet does a decent job if you stick to it.
(2) The Atkins diet is less tolerant of cheating than most diets.
So, the third part of the original question, “3. Are they more or less effective than other diets?” is a toss-up.
If you are sufficiently self-controlled, and love protein-rich foods, go for the Atkins Diet.
If you are sufficiently self-controlled, but do not like protein-rich foods, choose another diet.
If you are not sufficiently self-controlled, you are likely not going to lose weight on any diet you choose.
Keep in mind that every single diet is a lifestyle change. If you cannot go without a candy bar for the rest of your life, for goodness’s sake, DON’T START
The only problem I see with Atkins is the high protein focus of the plan.
Long term if people have an underlying renal problem the protein will overtax their already stressed kidneys.
If you are going to do any diet you need a doctor’s approval and you need to do it correctly. Atkins shouldnt be anyone’s excuse for a steak and cheese orgy like some of my friends thought.
The problem I see with the Atkins diet isn’t the diet. It’s the dieters. They don’t follow the plan, they stay in induction for years (an online friend has been on it for two years and still eats less than 8 grams a day) and they destroy their bodies in the process.
Care to define “destroy their bodies?” Do they grow a new head??
Some people HAVE to stay on the Induction plan because they have no choice. It’s either 20 or so grams of carbs a day or start gaining. These people are called “metabolically resistant,” and, fortunately, aren’t the norm.
Even if someone does choose to stay on Induction for a long time: so what? Lean meats, seafood, eggs, lots of veggies, plenty of water and no sugar! OH THE HORROR!!! They’d better run to McDonald’s and buy a supersized BigMac combo before they do some real damage to their bodies by staying on Induction!!!
Starving Artist, you may not insult a fellow poster outside the BBQ Pit forum. That means saying or even implying that a fellow poster is a bozo. Don’t do it again. You are free of course to question a fellow poster’s assertions if you believe them to be in factual error.
The questions in this thread may be more debatable that anything until more scientific studies are done, but I’ll leave this thread in GQ for now. Let’s try to avoid making assertions that are not backed up by scientific evidence. It-worked-for-me and It-seems-wacky type posts are better suited to MPSIMS or IMHO than GQ or GD.
As said earlier, the long-term effects of low-carb diets haven’t been studied adequately enough. However, some doctors believe that low-carb diets put undue strain on the body’s kidneys and liver. Other suspected negative long-term effects of low-carb diets include poor long-term weight control (many people get bored of diets and drop out, but this can be true of any diet, not just low-carb), kidney stones, poor athletic performance and increased blood pressure with age. However, those who tout low-carb diets cite lowered cholesterol, rapid weight loss and lower triglycerides.
Insulin changes carbohydrates entering your body into fat. It is very important because of the role it plays in fat storage, blood sugar regulation and as a growth hormone. It also helps control the appetite and makes your kidneys retain fluid. It has a lot of other functions as well. However, if you have too much insulin in your blood, it can cause your body to produce excess cholesterol, which is why many low-carb diets claim to lower cholesterol: since you consume fewer carbs, you’re producing less insulin, and therefore less cholesterol.
The efficacy of low carb diets depends entirely upon the dieter. While studies have shown that low carb diets help people to lose weight, recent studies have also shown that high carb, low fat diets help people lose weight. If you can stick to a low carb diet and maintain that as a lifestyle, then, by all means, do so. However, if you don’t think that a low carb diet is appropriate to your lifestyle, then try something else.
I don’t particularly like low carb diets, but some parts of those diets do make sense: ease off the refined flour and sugar and eat a lot of vegetables. If you choose not to go low carb, try to make all the grains you eat whole grains. So if you eat bread, make sure it’s whole wheat, not refined. If you eat rice, make sure it’s brown rice and not white. And instead of aiming for calorie count, aim for vegetable and fruit count. For example, don’t decide “I’m only going to eat 1500 calories today.” Try thinking more like “I’m going to eat as many servings of fruits and vegetables as possible today.” Aim for 5-9 servings of fruits & veggies and only allow yourself the junk after you’ve gotten at least 5 servings of the good stuff. If you haven’t had your 5 servings, replace your snackfood with portable fruits & veggies.
And if you are training for a major sporting event (i.e., marathon or other endurance sport) and want to go low carb anyway, check with your doctor. If you’re doing exercise beyond an hour a day, it may not be in your best interest to cut your carbs too drastically.
When we say “veggies”, we usually mean things like lettuce, brocolli, asparagus, etc. They are not carbs. They may contain carbs, but saying they are carbs is like saying people are carbon. It’s true in a sense, but not very useful. Vegetables contain cellulose, which can’t be digested. So when you eat lettuce, for example, you don’t take in very many calories. When we say “eat your veggies”, we mean the kind of veggies that are high in cellulose and low in carbohydrates (mostly the green ones). When we refer to “carbohydrates”, we mean grains like wheat, rice, corn, etc. which are high in carbohydrates.
It’s pretty well accepted that including more fresh vegetables in your diet is healthy. For one thing, if you fill up on stuff you can’t digest, like lettuce, you are taking in fewer calories, simply because you have replaced whatever you would have been eating with the vegetables. If you eat a piece of broccoli instead of a candy bar, you will lose weight. There’s really no controversy there.
The controversy is the claim that replacing carbohydrates with protein and fat is healthy. Everyone agrees that we should eat more vegetables, but now people are disagreeing over whether the remainder of what we eat should be mostly carbohydrates, or mostly fat & protein. From what I understand, the studies that have been done so far are contradictory. A lot of proponents of the low-carb approach want to appeal to anecdotal evidence, but of course any scientist will tell you that anecdotal evidence is not scientifically valid.
What seems to be a pretty mainstream opinion is that what counts is calories. There’s no “trick” to losing weight; you just have to reduce caloric consumption and/or burn more calories through exercise. I think the commonsense approach to losing weight would be to simply cut down on anything that has a lot of calories, but still maintain variety. But it seems that people are always looking for some sort of “trick” to losing weight. It’s probably just a matter of motivation; if you think you have latched on to some nifty new way to shed pounds, you’re going to be more likely to stick to it than if you realize that it’s simply going to take a lot of hard work.
You are right - veggies are carbohydrates. Other food items that have carbs in them include the obvious - cereal, grain - but things like milk and beans also have carbs in them. There are two types of carbs: complex and simple. The best kind for you are complex carbs because they provide your body with insoluble fiber, keeping your digestive tract healthy, and are harder for your body to break down, which will make you fuller longer and prevent you from overeating: Cite.
Complex carbohydrates are called “complex” because it is harder for you to process them than it is for you to process “simple” carbohydrates such as those found in more refined items, such as sugar and fruit. Since it takes longer for you to break down those complex carbs, you’re more likely to be fuller longer if you eat vegetables than you would if you ate a handful of M&Ms. Not all simple carbs are bad carbs, though. Fruit is considered a simple carb because of all the sugars, but it’s good for you because it’s a significant source of vitamins and minerals. Some fruits also can provide you with lots of fiber (which makes the line between simple and complex a little fuzzy), which is what takes complex carbs so long to break down. Fat will also make you feel full for a long time, though, since it is also takes a while for your body to break it down. But like good carbs and bad carbs, there are also good fats and bad fats.
Anyway, the idea is just to eat less refined stuff. Try to get all your sugars from natural sources such as fruits, milk and vegetables, rather than from sugar, candy and soda.
I have to second this. My wife cut out refined carbs from our diets as part of some weird detox thing she got out of some weird magazine somewhere. I wasn’t wanting to lose weight, nor really needed to, but lost a good 13 pounds, without exercising (but do now!) I’ve never looked this good, nor felt this good in all my life.
I think people are generalizing, not making the important distinction between refined and unrefined carbs, nor knowing what constitutes each. If it has a speck of ‘enriched wheat flour’ or ‘crystallized cane juice’ in it, I won’t touch it. Homemade brown rice and beans, bring it on!
Westman, E.C., Yancy, W.S., Edman, J.S., et al., “Effect of 6-Month Adherence to a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Program,” American Journal of Medicine, 113(1), 2002, pages 30-36.
I am not aware of any “contradictory” evidence. If you have published, peer-reviewed studies that show that low-carb diets do not work, please present them.
That was a well publicized report, but six months do not constitute a long-term study.
While I’m here again, I wish to reply to certain posts, just to get them off my mind.
Starving Artist
If you cannot attack the facts, attack the person. The point is that there have been no long-term study performed.
That’s unfortunate, but irrelevant.
blowero
A frivolous criticism. The only pure carbs are the pure sugars (the simple sugars of glucose, fructose, lactose,etc., and the complex sugars of sucrose, galactose, etc.)
Actually, in this case six months does constitute a long-term study. The carbohydrate allowance in the study was equivalent to Induction, the first and most restrictive of four phases of the Atkins Nutrtional Approach. Induction is followed for a minimum of two weeks, after which a person can change to the less restrictive phase two, Ongoing Weight Loss. No one is required to follow Induction for six months.
barbitu8 In a thread that you posted to over at FathomSuerral (AKA SUEp du Jour) the resident MD over there answered your question
(bolding mine)
So if I understand you correctly you are asking that a low carb diet be shown to be superior in a long term study to a diet that never has never be subjected to a long term study. :rolleyes:
I had overlooked the postings to the thread referred to after my posting. Somehow, I never picked it up. Thanks for linking to it, Rick. But your question is loaded. We know carbs are necessary. A long-term study of the low fat diet also would be necessary. We also know that fats are necessary. Just there are different kinds of carbs (low-glycemic, high-glycemic, simple, complex, etc.) there are different kinds of fats (saturated, polyunsat, monounsat, transfats, omega-6’s, omega-3s,etc.) The omega-3s, especially, have recently been shown to be very beneficial in several different ways. Moderation in all things, the Greeks said. IMHO, either extreme is prima facie suspect and the lack of detriments to such should be demonstrated convincingly.
So, I’m not asking that a low carb diet be shown to be superior in a long term study to a diet that never has never be subjected to a long term study. Both should be subjects of long-term studies, and it’s not the superiority of the low carb diet over a low fat diet, but is either extreme harmful in the long run?
I know I’m opening Pandora’s Box, or at least a hornet’s nest, by resurrecting this thread, but the June 2004 issue of Consumer Reports has an article about low-carb foods. (If you’re an avid Atkins fan, don’t read it.) It states, in part, as follows:
So I await the testimonials from those who have been on it for a year or more and have maintained a statistically significant weight loss.
And this does not include any possible deleterious effects from the diet in the even longer run. One year is not enough to determine that.
I found the simplest way to explain to my mother how I eat is to tell her a very basic way. I eat 5 portions of protein and 10 portions of veggies. I eat 5 small meals a day spaced evenly. Esentially my protein tends to be a portion of steak the size of a deck of cards, or a chicken thigh [boneless is what I prefer], or a piece of fresh fish about the size of the deck of cards [you get the idea of portion size…] and 2 ice cream scoops of veggies. Of course, it may end up being a baby lettuice salad with freshly made blue cheese dressing or egg dishes like strata/quiche as the protein source but you get the idea. She was fascinated by the idea as I was getting more vegetation/non starch than is usual per the food pyramid, and she and my father are now doing it at the age of 80, and enjoying it. They add an occasional muffin, or fresh baked bread and frequently will have a sweet dessert, but they are not dieting for effect as it were. All of us have improved bloodwork and now I can relax a bit because my parents are getting lots of veggies and are kicking the metamucil habit
In the study those on the Atkins diet had lost an average of 8.4 pounds more than the low-fat dieters at the end of six months; by the end of the year the gap was so narrow as to be statistically insignificant.
A few questions:
Why is the “statistically insignificant” gap at the end of the first year a bad thing? Weight loss slows down with time; it’d be interesting to hear how much everyone in the study had to lose to begin with, and whether or not they were exercising.
Let’s pretend that, over a year, Atkins really doesn’t make you lose faster. So? Is speed of loss the only thing that makes Atkins valid or not valid? What about how people physically feel? How miserable were they as they were losing the weight? Did they stay hungry all the time? Did they have energy, sleep well, etc?
So I await the testimonials from those who have been on it for a year or more and have maintained a statistically significant weight loss.
If you stay on any diet for a year you’re going to maintain, even if you’re doing low-fat. What gets all dieters into trouble is going OFF their plan and staying off for a significant period of time
Thirty seven people is waaaaaaaaaaaay too small of a sample for this study to have any reliability. With all the money being handed out for research you’d think someone out there would be able to dig up a couple of thousand for each group and go at it.
