Scientific Method and the Atkins diet

The BBQ Pit
101

Ketosis could well be the “magic bullet” of the Atkins diet, but it’s not the whole story. You must also understand the role of insulin and other hormones…

First, understand the difference between type I and type II diabetes: In type I, you cannot produce insulin at all (or scant amounts). In type II, also known as adult onset diabetes, you can produce insulin, but your body cells have become insulin resistant.

Why do cells become insulin resistant? Probably multiple factors, but the outcome is hyperinsulinemia (chronically high levels of insulin as the pancreas overcompensates for the resistance).

Insulin Resistance and Hyperinsulemia:

Not all cells become resistant (wherein the high insulin damages them), and not all cells become resistant at the same time (liver cells will usually become resistant before fat cells, which is why obesity, or excess fat storage, occurs).

It’s even more complex than I am outlining here, which is probably why it’s not fully explained in a diet book or program outline. But I believe that this is the key to the success of a low carb diet - with or without inducing ketosis.

I’ve heard various figures, but diabetes.net estimates that 1 in 4 people in the US are insulin resistant. So there are a lot of people who will do well on a low carb diet right there. And even if you are not clinically IR, taking a break from high carbs gives your cells a chance to “re-sensitise” over time (there have been studies showing enhanced insulin sensitivity as a result of a low carb diet).

I agree with those who are sceptical of claims and theories, but I have to say I’m also sceptical of the low carb debunkers. Weight loss is a cash cow, but so is the market for wheat, corn and sugar products. If people get the idea that carbs are unhealthy, what happens to all those amber waves of grain being produced? In truth, we don’t need to eat wheat or corn products at all - not even those “healthy” whole grain products. So I’m not holding my breath waiting for those “unbiased” studies…

102

blowerr - it wasn’t a personal attack. You said that Atkins says that ALL carbs must be severely restricted.

I feel this is an inaccurate statement. Being allowed to eat three cups of vegetables a day from day one does not qualify as a severe restriction.

If you meant “refined carbs” such as sugar, white bread and pasta, then yes they must be severely restricted, and preferably eliminated. In fairness to you, many people regard “carbs” as bread/cake/grain/potatoes, and put fruit and vegetables into a separate category (IIRC the food pyramid does too). Atkins does not: he counts all vegetable produce as the carbs in a diet.

103

blowerO. My “err” sorry :wink:

104

Part of the reason I remain skeptical is that Atkins proponents can’t
even agree on why they think it’s a valid diet. Some say
it’s “just healthy, commonsense eating”; some say ketosis is crucial;
some say ketosis is irrelevant; some say lowering carbs is crucial
because of the effect on your metabolism; some say it’s not the carbs
per se, but it works just because it satiates you and allows you to
stop overeating. People are all over the map as to what they think is
so great about the Atkins diet. When you start getting contradictory
claims like that, it should sound a big alarm bell in your head -
“Danger, anecdotal evidence alert”. A lot of people think astrology
works, but try asking them why it works - you get as many
answers as there are people. Until you have some scientific proof that
it’s actually doing what people claim, the anecdotal evidence is worth
nothing. The mantra of the Atkins fan seems to be, “You don’t believe
it because you don’t understand it”. But obviously the Atkins fans are
the ones who don’t understand it, because they all claim different (in
many cases mutually contradictory) things.

Do people’s anecdotal success stories prove that this is the best diet
ever? Well, since every fad diet in history has had its
proponents, and many of these diets have since fallen out of favor, I
say no. You can’t tell anything just by saying “Gee, it seems to be
working for a lot of people”. I think time will tell. More good
studies will be done, and if there’s anything to it, even the stubborn
naysayers will eventually have to concede the validity of the diet.
But more work has to be done.

In a sense, I agree with you - there is a certain resistance to
changing established thinking in the scientific community. This is as
it should be; otherwise we’d be too quick to embrace every flash-in-the-
pan theory. But as for your implication that it’s some sort of
conspiracy, I think you’re going a little overboard. Do you have any
evidence that any scientists are in the pocket of the grain industry?
It’s possible; for example, I remember hearing about the Dairy
Council being behind the “Four Food Groups” recommendation where dairy
products were supposed to be consumed equally with the other 3 groups.
It’s now considered erroneous, and was replaced by the “Food Pyramid”.
I’d certainly be skeptical of an Atkins study funded by wheat farmers,
for example, but I’d like to see your evidence before I’m convinced of
a conspiracy.

105

Istara, I see you want to nitpick this to death as to what I mean by “carbohydrate”. The consensus used to be that eating a diet of WHOLE grains, lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, lean meats, and eating sugar and saturated fats only sparingly was a healthy way to eat. But the Atkins diet has you cut back on the grains, even the whole grains. That’s what I meant by all carbohydrates. Let’s please not get all caught up in whether vegetables have carbohydrates; you know perfectly goddam well what I mean when I say “carbs”. :rolleyes: If you can’t even concede that the Atkins diet is about cutting carbs relative to what the ADA recommends, then I give up with you. I think you’d say anything, no matter how contrived, to try to win the argument. I have no interest in such meaningless little pissing matches.

106

Blowero: I am not arguing with you, I am explaining why I misinterpreted your earlier post. The issue with Atkins is that he groups fruit and vegetables as carbs (because that’s where Atkins people get their carbs from). Traditionally, fruit and vegetables are considered a different group to carbs. I have no problem with “conceding” that the Atkins diet recommends cutting starch-carbs relative to (I’m not US, so don’t have experience of ADA) conventional dietary advice, if we are talking of the “food pyramid” and stuff. That’s exactly why the diet is revolutionary - controversial - different - and the reason for the existence of the entire thread.

I stand by what I say, which was nothing more than a clarification. From an Atkins perspective - which is where I was coming from - “all carbs” is not accurate as regards the assertion that all carbs are severely restricted because fruit and veg are included as carbs. From a conventional dietary perspective, “carbs” tends to refer to grains/sugars/starches, as I pointed out in my previous post, when I acknowledged realisation of this being your actual meaning. We had a misunderstanding, we don’t have an argument.

107

Boscibo, thanks for replying earlier, and sidle too. Sorry I haven’t been back for a while.

I did what you said, got the book and read the whole thing. It explained a lot ! Nothing like going to the horses mouth for the info about it. It’s also nice to hear personal stories from those who’ve tried it, so thanks to all who’ve posted.

108

Blowero, people started to eat grains en masse only since the dawn of agricultural societies, about 10,000 years ago. Prior to that, people were hunter/gatherers, eating things they could forage and hunt for. Ergo, (the theory goes) people have not had sufficient time to evolve digestively so as to receive proper nourishment from grains. While Atkins doesn’t really promote giving up grain products altogether (and even recommends things like Wasa Crisp, whole-grain flatbreads, things like that), he certainly discourages consumption of refined carbohydrates like white sugar, white flour and products derived from those carbs.

109

But multiple factors aren’t necessarily contradictory, and that was sort of my point. A low carb diet can: induce ketosis AND alter hormonal output AND alter fat metabolism AND lower physiological hunger pangs AND (could also be) healthy common sense eating. So which one is the magic bullet? How do you set up the controls for all these simultaneous (mostly biochemical) factors?

Add to that the fact that we don’t know all the mechanisms of the various hormones that are affected.

Anyway, I wouldn’t want to argue with all the various proponent claims because they are, as you say, mostly ancedotal, and irrelevant to the OP as per the scientific method. It’s true that we don’t know exactly why or how the low carb diet works. But we know that it can work.

Even your own anecdote about the “no food after 7pm” diet sounds like it complies with one of the low carb theoretical factors of weight loss. Fasting for as little as 12 hours can induce ketosis…

Not all scientists are in the pocket of the wheat industry, but somebody’s gotta pay for all those big ass studies, right? You remember the dairy council incident and I remember the sugar industry funding all those studies that got cyclamates banned. Conspiracy? I think we agree - maybe. I haven’t looked for evidence though…

110

Read my post again - some of the claims I referenced are indeed mutually contradictory. For example, ketosis cannot be both crucial and irrelevant at the same time. But also remember that I merely said this should “sound an alarm in your head”. I did NOT say it proved anything. That’s why we need more studies.

I’ve already explained it - you use a control group that ingests the exact same number of calories, but does not limit carbohydrates. That will tell you if it works. Then, if you wanted to, say, evaluate the role of ketosis, you would have a control group who does not induce ketosis but still follows the rest of the diet.

You’re jumping the gun; we don’t even have good enough data to know if the diet works better than a standard diet. Find out if it works first, then worry about figuring out the exact mechanism. (And if you say “we know it works because people say so.”) I’m gonna scream.

You are failing to understand the scientific method with respect to the difference between cause-and-effect and mere simultaneity:
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/noncausa.asp

I have explained it over and over in this thread, so if you don’t get it then you really don’t get what the scientific method is all about. To say it “can” work, but we don’t know why, is utter nonsense. If a person goes on the Atkins diet and loses weight, but we have no way of knowing whether the weight loss had anything to do with the theory behind the diet, or was merely due to some coincidental aspect of the diet that is in no way unique to Atkins (like the fact that they started eating more green vegetables and fewer calories), then we cannot logically pronounce the diet as being a success.

If I set my alarm clock for 6:00 am, and the sun also rises at 6:00 am, that doesn’t mean I am justified in claiming that my alarm clock caused the sun to rise. This concept is so utterly basic to science that I shouldn’t even have to mention it, let alone mention it over and over as I have.

I doubt it. The more likely explanation is that, by eliminating the snacks after dinner, he cut his caloric intake. Fewer calories = weight loss. Why look for a more complicated explanation than that?

So? If you say it’s the wheat industry, let’s see your proof.

111

As you said, it’s a theory. The theory is not proven just because you say so.

112

True. But all I know is that Atkins is easy and it works. No question about it.

113

But until we know why Atkins works, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the ‘badness of processed grains’. Atkins may work simply because those who succeed on it have a lower calory intake than they had without the diet. Maybe the diet leads them to cook more food themselves, somehow this in itself could be healthier (lots of people susspect processed foods are not healthy).

There seems to be little in the way of scientific data showing that Atkin’s diet works better than not dieting, let alone that it works better than a similar calory level diet containing carbohydrates at a more normal level. Except in the case of specific diabetic groups, where Atkin’s does show a good effect.

114

As I have said, you don’t “know” that it works. And for that matter, it’s not even easy, as you claim. It’s actually quite difficult to avoid carbohydrates. It takes quite a bit of planning and work, as all my friends who are on Atkins will attest.

If it motivated you and you lost weight, that’s great. People have done as much on all kinds of different diets, and some have done it without dieting at all, but merely by increasing exercise. Motivation is important, and to the extent that it did that for you, it’s a good thing. So why don’t we just leave it at that?

115

I’d have to agree with nisosbar and say that it does work and it is easy, once you understand what you can and cannot eat. I’ve lost 60 pounds on Atkins. Yes, I “know” it works. Once you know how to read and understand food labels, and get into preparing your own food, it’s quite easy to avoid carbohydrates. I still love bread, but I don’t care if I ever have pasta or potatoes again. I’ve completely lost my taste for both of them. Even potato chips. My husband was eating some the other night, and I had a couple - and they tasted funny. Regular-style, fresh, full-fat Utz-brand chips. I used to love 'em. I even had to ask him, “Are these fresh? Do they taste right to you?” and he said they were fine.
Yes, it takes more planning to plan and prepare, but it’s better for you in the end than junk food and empty calories.

It worked for me. I’ll be the first to say it’s not for everyone, but it sure as heck worked for me, and others who’ve posted here.

116

Oh really? Explain to me how you follow the Atkins diet (induction phase, which is maximum 25 grams of carb per day) without inducing ketosis.

While you’re at it, explain how you control for altered insulin output in the ketogenic subject.

And as for the “same number of calories” - that would vary by individual on the Atkins diet, since there is no calorie control as a co-commitant of the diet. Do I have to also mention that total grams of fat ingested would also vary by individual? You could take an “average” for the Atkins group, but you would be disrupting the protein-fat-carb balance of the diet in both groups, so there go one of your controls right there.

The scientific community awaits your answer…

What I said was: How do you set up the controls for all these simultaneous biochemical factors. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough for you: They are related simultanteous reactions. Again: How can you induce ketosis without altering hormonal output and fat metabolism?

And again, ketosis isn’t a necessary component of weight loss OR insulin control in all cases (speaking beyond the Atkins diet). On the other hand, ketosis is an almost certain indicator that insulin output is altered and that fat (either stored or ingested) is being utilised as the primary source of energy. This is why I said it could well be the “magic bullet”. If you don’t understand the fact that various biochemical processes are related then you won’t follow what I’m saying.

No, you shouldn’t have to mention this strawman, and I think you are doing so because you’re just looking for an argument where there is none, because you have no answers for the real questions being posed by the low carb diet. If you haven’t answered my previous questions about this then go back and do so or lay off. I’m not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing via disingenuous statements and mis-quotes.

Because it is complicated (by the multiple biochemical factors). And because it wouldn’t work according to your answer here if the person loaded up on calories prior to 7pm, in anticipation of the required fasting period. How would you explain that?

Anyway, “more likely” according to who - you? Isn’t this the “because I say so” method you’ve been disparaging here? Follow your own rules, bub.

Gee, I thought I said maybe, same as you.

117

I am not a doctor, and if you are going to change your diet, you ABSOLUTELY SHOULD talk with your doctor first. Ask your doctor what he thinks about you trying Atkins. It is NOT a diet for everybody. It can work for some people.

Now, did Atkins work for me? Yes. Can I prove it scientifically? No.

I know the sun will rise tomorrow. Can I prove it? No.

Doing Atkins full-throttle does kind of require that you read the book, because while I can tell you, just avoid white flour/white sugar, that’s simply not enough information to go on. Furthermore, the Induction phase is quite exacting (you even have to avoid most fruits, I believe), aside from the eggs and meat and dairy products you can eat. But after Induction, it does get very easy; you can go back to eating fruit and even other carbs.

At this point, I guess my diet is simply low in carbs, rather than following Atkins religiously, i.e., I watch my weight, and when it gets too high, I cut the carbs - bread, pasta, potatoes, rice, etc. When I get too slender, I introduce moderate amounts of whatever carbs I enjoy.

We can’t leave a discussion about an effective diet scheme at “well, we don’t know that it worked, but when you did it, you lost weight; good for you, but don’t promote that diet for morbidly obese people or others who are eating themselves to death because, after all, we can’t prove scientifically with 100% certainty that this diet works” because I don’t want to see my loved ones get diabetes or have heart attacks because they shoved mountains of macaroni & cheese (and yes, I love it, too!) and soda and bread and pasta and fries in their mouths, not knowing that this dietary imbalance is what is causing the problem.

118

You’ve got the situation hopelessly muddled now. In a nutshell, the methodology should be:

Group A - consumes X calories per day, with a low carbohydrate percentage as per whatever Atkins recommends

Group B - also consumes X calories per day, but with a normal percentage of carbohydrates

If Atkins’ theory is correct, Group A will lose more weight than Group B. If both groups lose the same amount of weight, then Atkins’ theory is not supported.

I believe it is possible to conduct such an experiment. In fact, it has already been done - just not enough times yet. The data from various studies is contradictory right now. However, if, as you seem to be suggesting, it is impossible to devise a correct methodology to test Atkins’ theory, then the theory would be unfalsifyable, and therefore worthless. Either way you lose.

Uh, not a strawman. Do you even know what a strawman is?

Hmmm…
Blowero says we don’t have the answers yet and need to do more research.

Annaplurabelle responds by saying Blowero doesn’t have the answers.

Gee, ya think?

Seems to me that’s exactly what you like to do.

I did neither. Did you?

Calm down, you’re once again missing the point. I’m trying to explain the difference between cause-and-effect and simultaneity, and you are being completely oblivious to it. The point of the story was that the company which sells the formula claims a cause-and-effect relationship between their formula and weight loss. But my friend lost weight without the formula. IT DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER how he lost the weight; the point is that it wasn’t the formula that did it.

I’m trying to explain to you that when two things occur, we can’t just assume that one thing caused the other, we have to have evidence. Your nitpicking of the example has fuck all to do with the point.

What’s more, your little nitpick isn’t even grounded in fact. We have the known fact that more calories consumed = more weight gain vs. the theory that not eating for the 4 hours after dinner induces some metabolic sleight-of-hand that that makes calories burn more quickly. I said the former is more likely because it is more likely - at least to anyone who’s not an idiot. But I don’t know it for a fact, and I didn’t say I did know it for a fact. It quite simply doesn’t matter, because it has nothing to do with the point.

Look, it’s obvious that you are incapable of looking at the situation rationally. It’s something almost approaching a religion for you. If you want to believe that anecdotal evidence is proof, go ahead - it’s no skin off my nose. However, I know that you’re wrong.

119

Man, you’re just all over the map on this. First of all, I’ve never heard of any diet that involves shoving “mountains of macaroni & cheese and soda and fries” in your mouth. This is a false dichotomy; your choice is not limited to either Atkins or “mountains of macaroni & cheese”. Here’s the Heart Association recommended diet:

Do you see soda, fries, or mac & cheese on that diet? I don’t. This diet “works”, and it works without completely depriving your body of carbohydrates. You think depriving your body of carbohydrates is the way to lose weight, and you reject the notion of trying to obtain some evidence one way or the other. That’s just silly.

120

blowero, my friend? Count me as being at least ONE guy who totally gets where you’re coming from in this thread. I hear what you’re saying, and I utterly agree with your skepticism regarding the success of the “Atkins Diet”, or the “Wellbeing Diet”, or the “Pritikin Diet”, or even the friggin Michael Jackson diet. I mean, for crying out loud, modern cro magnon homo sapiens has been on the planet for anywhere between 80,000 to 140,000 years now - and it’s the height of intellectual conceit for someone to put their name to diet just now, in the last 30 years, as though they’ve all of sudden made the “Eureka!” discovery of what makes the human machine work.

I’m skeptical, (plus tax) about all of it… and here’s why.

When I used to race at the heighest levels of road cycling in Europe in the mid 1980’s, it never used to stop amazing me how, over a two week “stage race” that I would always (without fail) lose up to 3 or 4 kilograms off my body - no matter how much I ate. And believe me, I was eating like a fucking hog. You name it, I (and my fellow teammates) used to eat the equivalent of 6,000 or 7,000 calories a day - starting from mega rich molasses dripping cream covered pancakes in the morning, along with ultra serving of rich bacon and hash browns and then probably 10 muffins and cakes during the days racing, topped off with at least 3 large meals of rich pasta and rice and meat vegies over a 3 hour period at night. And still, we’d lose weight.

Man, I stand 6’1" OK? And I’m a very strong athletic guy. But once, just before the World Titles in Austria in 1987, I’d just finished the Peace Race in Chezchoslovakia and I was down to 148 pounds. I was so gaunt that I could pinch the skin on my face and it was like fine silk.

And the veins were popping out all over me - like Secretariat after the Kentucky Derby. And all of my fellow competitors were the same.

Bottom line? You can eat as much as you fucking want in life, IF (AND ONLY IF) you’re guaranteed of burning it off. So I ask you, when was the last time you saw a fat Tour de France rider? Take Jan Ulrich for instance. He’s finished 2nd in le Tour on 6 separate occasions. He is famous for being a guy who’s weight fluctuates over 20 pounds from off-season to peak-season every year. He’s totally relaxed about it. 6 weeks out from the Tour he starts watching what he eats - but other than that - he’s totally righteous, beer-lovin’ German dude!

So, all these people who talk about ratios of carbo-hydrates to proteins, to saturated to unsaturated fats? It’s all bullshit, OK? The maths is simple. Keep your fat-based calories to under 30% of your “base metabolic calorie needs” per day (which is a simple formula known as the Benedict Formula), and then just eat sensibly. Eat wholesome foods. It’s not bloody rocket science. Avoid booze, avoid junk food, avoid Coca Cola and Pepsi.

Check your cholesterol levels if you’re paranoid. Check your insulin levels if you’re paranoid. But mark my words… no diet in the world will save you if you’re a friggin sedentary lard ass.

Go ahead flame me, but that’s the bottom line. The human body is merely a machine which has a reserve fuel tank to store energy if we eat more than we’re burning off. Until I reached this board, I had never come across so many bullshit, self deceiving excuses for having too much fat. So many people claiming medical gland problems blah blah blah. My ultimate fave is the regular claim that even if they starve themselves, they still put on more pounds! As if fat storage can manifest itself out of nowhere?

Gimme a break! It defys physics to gain weight via fat storage UNLESS you ate an excess of calories - it’s simply an impossibility of physics. Fat storage is specifically a bio-organic energy storage mechanism - like a fuel tank - and in physics you CANNOT get something for nothing. To increase your fat storage, by extension, you must be eating an excess of calories compared to that which you’re burning off.

Also, all these people who were claiming earlier that the Atkins Diet induces a sustained state of ketosis? Again, that’s bullshit too. The human body’s primary energy fuel tank is the glycogen storage contained within the liver. The moment you eat ANYTHING, the liver is the first place which gets topped up. It’s only AFTER the liver is topped up with 12 hours or so of glycogen stores that excess fats and blood sugars are stored in fat cells.

Ketosis ONLY takes places after your entire liver glycogen stores are depleted. Trust me, as a former Olympic Cyclist I’ve known when it hits. We call it going “hunger flat” and it’s like trying to finish a 120 mile race on a flat tire - hence it’s name. When you go “hunger flat”, every last bit of available gycogen stores in the liver are used up, and the body goes into ketosis at THAT point to start metabolising body fat into blood glucose. It’s a much slower process that dispensing glycogen from the liver - hence your horsepower drops to a trickle. But the moment you eat again, no matter what it is - whether it be pure protein, or pure mayonnaise, the ketosis finishes and your liver starts doing it’s hoarding thing again.