The main problem we found out in our school with the low-carb diet is that some people want to improve or accelerate the weight loss by skipping meals entirely or in other words fasting. It does help too that these people did not bother to increase their fluid intake. It’s no wonder these students either fainted or felt to weak to sit up straight in class.
Regarding the existence of long-term studies into low-carb diets, and Atkin’s in particular? My understanding is that in the last 2 years, both Sheffield University and Copenhagen University have conducted substantial studies over a 12 month period on over 100 trial subjects. I’m happy to concede that the definition of a “long term” study is a nebulous one, and as such, the findings of the Sheffield and Copehangen studies are indeed open to conjecture, however, in the interests of fairness, my recollection of their findings were as follows…
(1) Diets which have unlimited fats (both saturated and unsaturated) do NOT affect appetite in any way.
(2) Diets which are unusually high in protein content would seem to reduce appetite substantially. It would seem that THIS is the “magic bullet” attached to the Atkin’s Diet - namely, while practitioners are theoretically allowed to eat as much as they want of certain foods, the net result is that their reduced appetites result in fewer calories ingested over the long term - ergo, weight loss takes place.
(3) Low Carb Diets are effectively a fashion cry it seems. Claims that practioners of Low Carb Diets remain in permanent ketosis etc etc are somewhat true - but NOT for the reasons being claimed. It appears that the reduced appetite brought about by large amounts of protein in one’s diet results in the fewer calories - which by extension results in the regular presence of ketosis.
Blowero mentioned calorie consumption earlier, and indeed, it remains the inarguable empirical measurement device which can be used to guage human weight gains and losses. My personal philosophy is that you can eat as much as you want so long as you’re guaranteed of burning it off. However, I’m also aware that a vast percentage of the population doesn’t have the capacity to burn 3,000 or more calories a day in exercise or manual labour - due to such real world constraints such a parental responsibilities or geographic location etc - hence, I’m happy to concede that there is indeed merit in concentrating on a HIGH PROTEIN diet to induce appetite suppression.
Interestingly, the findings of the Sheffield and Copenhagen Universities are proving to be a slow trickle feed into the public domain for some reason.
Ok then.
#1. 25yo female, on Atkins for 1 year and 2 months. 90 lbs lost, 60 to go. Cholesterol dropped 30 pts in first 6 months, haven’t been to doc lately…
Um, that wasn’t me awaiting testimonials 
I believe ya, hon.
Yes, it was a small study, but CR says it has been the only one, altho Boo Boo Foo says he heard of two others.
I read from another source that long-term studies of the effects of the Atkins diet are underway.
The CR article also says:
OK, so no matter how, it worked for six months. Dr. Brian Wansink said that the prime reason the low-carb diet worked was it was boring. “I almost guarantee that everone would lose weight on an all-pizza or all-chocolate diet.”
barbitu8, my father used to have a saying
If following Dr. Atkin’s approach allows someone to lose extra weight during the first part of the diet, this will only work to reinforce a sense of sucess, and help the dieter stay on the diet IMHO.
For those of you who have questions about Atkins and other lo carb diets you might want to check out the following bulletin board. I went there a few times when I started this thing and always got useful responses to my questions.
If interested you might also want to check out the following link. It describes the diet I’ve been following for almost two years. It sounded more compatible to me than Atkins. It probably overlaps Atkins by 80%. I’ve been amazed at how easy it’s been to follow. I was a serious junk food addict before starting it. I shot past my goal weight very quickly, have maintained at several pounds below goal, almost never crave sweets and my blood tests for LDL and HDL are pretty much off the charts in the positive direction. Also, getting back to the exercise question, my endurance got better this winter with almost no exercise.
Dr. Brian Wansink said that the prime reason the low-carb diet worked was it was boring. "I almost guarantee that everone would lose weight on an all-pizza or all-chocolate diet."
Sheeyet.
What backalley scam “medical school” bestowed an MD on this putz?
I hear you. The weakest spot in a physician’s medical knowledge is usually diet and nutrition. Your typical doctor is 10-20 years behind the latest findings, and will usually be stuck repeating whatever what was current when he was in med school. The doctor quoted in Consumer Reports sounds like he knows Atkins only from limited, second-hand information. Boring? I had pancakes and bacon for breakfast, a chocolate peanut butter nutrition bar for lunch (on the road), and beef burritos for dinner. Tomorrow, a western omelet for breakfast, ham salad for lunch, and beef stew with a tomato salad for dinner.
[QUOTE=Abbie CarmichaelWhat backalley scam “medical school” bestowed an MD on this putz?[/QUOTE]
Ummmm…he’s not a medical doctor:
So, there’s your answer.
That would explain why this “Doctor” “guarantees” that someone could lose weight on an all-chocolate diet.
OH, IF ONLY!!!
Snickers for breakfast.
A chocolate orange (Terry’s) for lunch.
Half a bag of Sam’s Choice caramel cups for dinner.
Rick I think that is very true about low carb. You get to eat good foods, don’t feel hungry, and do drop weight quickly at the beginning and for a long while afterwards. Actually I think Atkins even said this was a good thing about low carb too.
The NEJoM had two studies also. All of the studies thus far have only been for about 6mo>1 year. There is a very good reason for that- after 6 months the number of dudes that stayed on ANY diet was too small. The Atkins diet has proven to be better at losing wieght (compared to a “low fat” diet) and perfectly healthy over a 6 mo to 1 year period. True, most dieters slipped off around then-* no matter what diet they were on* . Very very few stay on any diet longer than that. If you define “long term” as 10 years- you won’t see too many studies liek that, as too many drop off and no one wants to wait 10 years to publish, either. I would be suprised to see a 10 year study of a “low fat” diet either.
I get on Atkins, lose 20 pounds over 6 months or less, go back off for a month or two- gain back 10- go back on for six months, etc. Although I have not lost a large amount of wieght over all- I am no longer gaining 2>5 pounds every year like I was. Over a year, I lost 10 pounds. Not great, but during the 6 months “on” I had no problems staying on the diet. Easter & Xmas dooms me. From Jan 4th >Easter I lost 20 pounds. I have since regained almost 10. Next week I go back on until Thanksgiving. My only exercise is walking.
Absolutely, if you are going to be a long distance runner or something, you want to use “carbo loading”. But for the “casual-stay-healthy-20>30min-every-day” type of exercise- Atkins is fine.
Thanks, ** Q.E.D.**, you beat me to the punch.
ZipperJJ
Hmmmm. Is a mostly protein and fat diet good foods? I wonder. That goes against conventional wisdom, which recommends veggies (mostly carbs), fruits (a lot of carbs), and grains (again carbs) as the stalwart of a good diet. Somewhere in the future, people will be shaking their heads and muttering, “How stupid we were.” But that’s IMHO.
Hardly an objective article, and it is filled with non-facts and fiction.
Got the cart before the horse here. Insulin is not able to reach the cells in many cases because of obesity, which interferes with the insulin receptors’ efficacy. I won’t even mention the previous non-fact that there are two fuel delivery systems, as there are four, since I realize that that may just a simplification.
Or because the diet is so boring, perhaps?
In the first place, “low-sugar/low-starch vegetables and fruits” is an oxymoron, since that produce is mostly carbs and water. Labeling of foods nowadays refers to “net carbs,” which is the total grams of carbs minus fiber and sugar alcohols. Sugar alcohols are not digested in the small intestine, but are digested by fermentation in the large intestine. Non-soluble fiber is not digested. Nobody recommends processed foods to the exclusion of non-processed. I, personally, always buy whole-wheat bread. Sometimes it is hard to find them. You have to read the labels.
Nothing like a little plug. Those foods contain sugar alcohols.
See above. Where is this impressive evidence?
Noone recommends eliminating protein or fats. Some fats are essential, such as found in fish, nuts, etc. As to white flour, see above.
Another pitch for their vitanutrient program.
“Compelling evidence,” “A growing body of scientific literature,” etc., catch-all phrases without any substantiation. Twelve men hardly consists of compelling evidence or a growing body of scientific literature. Eight weeks?! No comment. You know what raises HDL? Primarily exercise… and a little alcohol won’t hurt.
One can exercise w/o carbs, but not strenuously. Fat takes longer to convert into fuel than sugar. And you need oxygen in good supply for the utilization. When you are breathing hard, trying to suck in oxygen, and go into oxygen debt (perhaps), you will not be able to use fat; if you don’t have enough glucose, you will not be able to do it. So, you don’t want to exercise hard? OK. But raising your HR to at least 60% of max is optimal for cardiovascular benefits.
It is not a contradiction at all. The obvious mistake you are making is in equating carbs with sugar and starches. You are probably well aware that sugars and starches are only two types of carbs. Leafy vegetables (lettuce, spinach, etc.) are low-sugar, low-starch vegetables. Peas, and potatoes are high-starch vegetables. Carrots are high-sugar vegetables. Sweet corn is both high-starch and high-sugar.
The point is the effect that sugar alcohols have on raising insulin levels. Absorbed polyols (sugar alcohols) are converted to energy by processes that require little or no insulin.
One can exercise w/o carbs, but not strenuously.
I’ll keep that in mind tomorrow when I go burn 1,000 calories at the gym in about an hour and a half
I’ve always thought that “starch” is just a complex carb. There are only three types of sugars that I’m aware of: simple, compounds, and complex. Of course, there are many types of simple sugars: ribose, glucose, fructose, etc. Leafy veggies are mostly complex carbs (fiber). They are not low sugar/low starch. I don’t know what you mean by saying carrots are high-sugar but peas and potatoes are high-starch. All veggies are complex carbs, but with different glycemic indexes.