Scientific Method and the Atkins diet

[annaplurabelle]

Blowero, here is what you said:

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.

My questions regarding that statement:

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.

You chose not to respond to them. You seem to insist on missing my point - multiple related simultaneous biochemical factors make it difficult to ascertain exactly why a carb restricted/no calorie control diet works for many people. This is my point, not the nonsense you keep trying to obfuscate the debate with.

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.

And as I mentioned, Atkins is not a calorie controlled diet, so determining what X number of calories is alters the point of the diet (that you can consume more calories than recommended and still lose or maintain weight - if they are low carb calories).

As you know, in the studies that didn’t control calories, the low carb group lost as much, or more, weight than the calorie control group - even though they consumed more calories. This is the relevant factor in the debate about a low carb diet: Why is that possible?

Either you’re willing to discuss my point or not (as I mentioned, I agree with your sceptism of “fad” diet theories and certainly the need for further studies). But I’m not interested in anything else but the why (low carb efficacy) in this particular discussion. If you don’t understand the basics of biochem and metabolic processes then please shut up unless you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing… :rolleyes:

BTW, your argument (and the OP argument, to a certain extent) is sort of off the mark: The scientific and medical community, by and large, does not question if the diet works. In truth, almost all of the popular (fad?) diets work - in the short term. The important questions are: Are there health risks? AND: Will they work in the long haul (Any health prof will tell you that non-compliance is the main reason diets are not effective in the long haul).

I worked in health care for over 15 years (RN). Boo Boo Foo I understand and agree with your point:

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 (emphasis mine).

What you’re describing here goes beyond the recommended calories per kilogram of body weight, right? This is where the Atkins (and other low carb proponents) are focusing - how to achieve a metabolic advantage - without - controlling calories.

Easy for atheletes, but not the practical reality for many others. It’s a given in the scientific/health community that physical activity is an important factor in weight control. BUT - the realities (which I saw from clinical experience) is that not everyone can be an athelete, and these are the people who need an alternative approach to weight loss/maintanance. That reality is the reason why further studies in this vein are imperative.

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.

I’d have to ask you for a cite, since the ketogenic aspects of the diet are not subject to debate in the scientific community (just the health risk/efficacy aspects). You are correct about the liver/glycogen process, but maybe you’d like to tell me how many grams of carb vs. protein are necessary before the glycogen stores are “topped up”? Also, please explain what happens if the liver cells become resistant to insulin (you DO know that insulin is the trigger for glycogen production, right?).

Meanwhile, don’t leave out political realities - who will fund those studies? At a symposium on weight control sponsored by the US Dept. of Agriculture in 2000, Atkins was chided for not funding more studies on his claims (even though they would be out of pocket personal funding, but of course, certain to be viewed with sceptism because of that fact). As Libertarian said, “Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t”…

Transcript from that symposium, for those interested:
http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Seminars/GND/Proceedings.txt

The two points of agreement between the low carb and high carb proponents were: Regular exercise AND insulin control (the how best to being the debatable factor)…

[blowero]

@annaplurabelle

Blowero, here is what you said:
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.

My questions regarding that statement: 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

You chose not to respond to them.

What the fuck are you talking about? I “chose” not to respond? What utter, absolute, bullshit. Is this how you always argue? - pick some minor facet of what someone said and just keep plugging away at it, ignoring the main point?

The main point here is:

SIMULTANEITY IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO CAUSE-AND-EFFECT

I’m not a scientist. I just offered some ideas on how one might properly control a study. I readily admit that my methodology is not the end-all and be-all. Can we pretty please stop getting bogged down in your little unfalsifiable technical details? Studies are being done as we speak, but not enough evidence is in yet. Your contention that it’s impossible to do a study is hogwash.

You seem to insist on missing my point - multiple related simultaneous biochemical factors make it difficult to ascertain exactly why a carb restricted/no calorie control diet works for many people. This is my point

You DO understand that saying “It’s difficult to prove X”, doesn’t mean X is true, right? Why don’t you address my point? If Atkins is unfalsifyable, then it’s not valid. I actually have a more optimistic outlook than that; I think it can be proven, and there’s some promising-looking data. It’s just not enough yet.

Either you’re willing to discuss my point or not (as I mentioned, I agree with your sceptism of “fad” diet theories and certainly the need for further studies). But I’m not interested in anything else but the why (low carb efficacy) in this particular discussion.

Of course you’re not interested in anything else; you want to assume your conclusion, and narrow the argument to discussing why the assumption you make is true.:dubious: Otherwise, you would have to admit I’m right, and you obviously want to avoid doing so. My point all along has been that we need to view the claims with skepticism, that further studies are needed, and that those studies need to employ sound methodology. IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU KEEP ARGUING WITH ME!!!

Atkins is not a calorie controlled diet,

The ADA diet isn’t a calorie-controlled diet either, but studies must have controls.

so determining what X number of calories is alters the point of the diet (that you can consume more calories than recommended and still lose or maintain weight - if they are low carb calories).

This makes no sense. Try to follow along here: YOU say that the “point of the diet” is that you can consume more calories than recommended and still lose or maintain weight. Therefore, according to your belief, if a person on Atkins consumes X calories and loses Y pounds, then the person who is NOT on Atkins who consumes X calories will lose LESS than Y pounds. You can prove this by having a study that is controlled for X calories. AND, you can go a step further, as they did in the small study we referenced earlier, and have a THIRD group who does Atkins and consumes MORE calories than the control group.

I don’t have a problem if someone figures out another valid methodology, but a study where, for example, the Atkins group consumes 1500 calories while the control group consumes 2000 calories is obviously a bullshit study that proves nothing other than eating more calories makes you gain weight. [And please don’t nitpick the numbers, it’s just an example].

Really, if this doesn’t make sense to you, then I fear that you are utterly lacking in ability to understand logic.

As you know, in the studies that didn’t control calories, the low carb group lost as much, or more, weight than the calorie control group - even though they consumed more calories. This is the relevant factor in the debate about a low carb diet: Why is that possible?

Uh, no I DON’T know that. What I know is that there have been some small and some short-term studies that have given such results, as well as other studies that have shown the opposite. While, as I said, the positive results are encouraging, the consensus among experts is that more research needs to be done, and in fact IS being done as we speak.

Either you’re willing to discuss my point or not (as I mentioned, I agree with your sceptism of “fad” diet theories and certainly the need for further studies). But I’m not interested in anything else but the why (low carb efficacy) in this particular discussion. If you don’t understand the basics of biochem and metabolic processes then please shut up unless you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing… :rolleyes:

Fuck you. Why don’t you try addressing the real issues here, instead of spouting unproven Atkins dogma? I don’t subscribe to your religion; I only deal with facts.

BTW, your argument (and the OP argument, to a certain extent) is sort of off the mark: The scientific and medical community, by and large, does not question if the diet works. In truth, almost all of the popular (fad?) diets work - in the short term. The important questions are: Are there health risks? AND: Will they work in the long haul (Any health prof will tell you that non-compliance is the main reason diets are not effective in the long haul).

Wrong. You are misusing the word “works”. As I keep saying (and you keep ignoring), both A and B occurring does not mean A caused B. To say Atkins “works” means proving that people lose weight for the reasons claimed by Atkins, not because of some unrelated reason. This is BASIC SCIENCE.

I worked in health care for over 15 years (RN).

So what?

In spite of all your bluster, the fact remains that we are far from accepting Atkins’ theory. It is simply unproven at this point in the game. Try reading some real news sources rather than Atkins blogs:

“There is no magic combination of fat versus carbs versus protein,” [Dr. Alice Lichtenstein] said. “It doesn’t matter in the long run. The bottom line is calories, calories, calories.”

A preliminary study of three popular diets found that the composition of the eating plans didn’t have much to do with how much weight participants lost

I’m not sure what the message is for dieters right now. I’m not sure people should say everyone start doing Atkins.

[annaplurabelle]

What the fuck are you talking about? I “chose” not to respond? What utter, absolute, bullshit. Is this how you always argue? - pick some minor facet of what someone said and just keep plugging away at it, ignoring the main point?

Did you respond? No.
Bullshit? Minor fact? Hardly.
Did you bother to read the OP?

The main point here is:

SIMULTANEITY IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO CAUSE-AND-EFFECT

No dear. The main point is what is relevant to the OP, i.e. “Why can’t science explain why Atkins works”?

You can use caps and repeat yourself ad nauseum but no one here (or certainly not me) is disputing that point (simultaneity not equal to cause-and-effect). What you can’t (or won’t) grasp is that there is cause-and-effect in the questions I have asked regarding the biochem processes involved (the pesky questions you keep avoiding).

I’m not a scientist. I just offered some ideas on how one might properly control a study. I readily admit that my methodology is not the end-all and be-all. Can we pretty please stop getting bogged down in your little unfalsifiable technical details? Studies are being done as we speak, but not enough evidence is in yet. Your contention that it’s impossible to do a study is hogwash.

You’re not a scientist? I’m amazed. Technical details are irrelevant now? And where did I say impossible? I said difficult. Your misquotes and bullshit only prove my other point (that you only argue for the sake of argument).

My point all along has been that we need to view the claims with skepticism, that further studies are needed, and that those studies need to employ sound methodology. IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU KEEP ARGUING WITH ME!!!

Please point out where I’ve disagreed with the 3 points you mention above.

I don’t have a problem if someone figures out another valid methodology, but a study where, for example, the Atkins group consumes 1500 calories while the control group consumes 2000 calories is obviously a bullshit study that proves nothing other than eating more calories makes you gain weight. [And please don’t nitpick the numbers, it’s just an example].

The numbers are not a nitpick - they are the basis of the calorie per kilogram = weight loss/gain diet. I don’t believe you are too stupid to grasp this, so my “more likely” theory is that you’re grasping at straws in order to save face, now that some of your statements are being disputed.

Wrong. You are misusing the word “works”. As I keep saying (and you keep ignoring), both A and B occurring does not mean A caused B. To say Atkins “works” means proving that people lose weight for the reasons claimed by Atkins, not because of some unrelated reason. This is BASIC SCIENCE.

Read the symposium transcript. This is THE REALITY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

In spite of all your bluster, the fact remains that we are far from accepting Atkins’ theory. It is simply unproven at this point in the game. Try reading some real news sources rather than Atkins blogs:

The USDA site is now an Atkins blog? I never said it was proven, and in fact my point was (oh right, you’re not interested) that it was difficult to prove.

Bluster? You mean as in retorting with “Fuck you” and “So what?” ??? :rolleyes: *

*I personally dislike the rolleyes smiley, but I know that you are quite fond of it :rolleyes:

[blowero]

Why don’t you address my point? Saying something is “difficult to prove” doesn’t make it valid. It’s difficult to prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but it doesn’t mean she’s real. If it can’t be scientifically demonstrated, then it’s not scientifically valid. Assuming your conclusion does not constitute valid science. If you think it is, then you’re an idiot.

And my God - I didn’t even think YOU were obtuse enough to go ahead and nitpick some made-up numbers I used to demonstrate a general scientific principle, even after I mentioned it in advance. Your critical thinking skills are non-existent. You can’t even comprehend what the phrase “for example” means. You are incapable of understanding logic, even when I dumb it down to the simplest of terms. How sad for you.

[blowero]

Why don’t you address my point? Saying something is “difficult to prove” doesn’t make it valid. It’s difficult to prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but it doesn’t mean she’s real. If it can’t be scientifically demonstrated, then it’s not scientifically valid. Assuming your conclusion does not constitute valid science. If you think it does, then you’re an idiot.

And my God - I didn’t even think YOU were obtuse enough to go ahead and nitpick some made-up numbers I used to demonstrate a general scientific principle, even after I mentioned it in advance. Your critical thinking skills are non-existent. You can’t even comprehend what the phrase “for example” means. You are incapable of understanding logic, even when I dumb it down to the simplest of terms. How sad for you.

[annaplurabelle]

:rolleyes:

[blowero]

@annaplurabelle

Did you respond? No.

Yes, several times.

Bullshit? Minor fact? Hardly.

Did you bother to read the OP? No dear. The main point is what is relevant to the OP, i.e. “Why can’t science explain why Atkins works”?

Uh, honey, sweetie, lambchop - that question assumes its own conclusion, that Atkins works. It’s like the question, “Why haven’t you stopped beating your wife yet?”

You can use caps and repeat yourself ad nauseum but no one here (or certainly not me) is disputing that point (simultaneity not equal to cause-and-effect).

Believe me, I wish I didn’t have to keep repeating myself, but your obtuseness necessitates it.

What you can’t (or won’t) grasp is that there is cause-and-effect in the questions I have asked regarding the biochem processes involved (the pesky questions you keep avoiding).

But you don’t have to prove every aspect of every claim in order to evaluate whether the diet is effective; you only have to control for the things that are different.

I know you have a hard time comprehending analogies, but here goes anyway:

Let’s say my car is running rough and I want to diagnose it. I pull off spark plug wire #1 and the engine runs slower. I put #1 back on and pull off wire #2 - the engine runs slower. I try #3 and the engine runs slower. Then I pull off wire #4 and there is no difference in engine speed. I have determined that the cause is a faulty plug wire #4. Now let me ask you; did I need to check the fuel injectors, or the brakes, or the timing belt? No, because those other things were controlled for; they did not vary in my “experiment”.

And how did I avoid the question? I told you I didn’t know the answers, and that they’re not relevant to my point. I explained in excruciating detail what types of controls would be needed for a valid study. But you just want to get hung up on your stupid questions. If it will shut you up, I’ll try to answer them the best I can:

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

Possibility one:
Quite obviously, you don’t. My suggestions was for one group NOT to induce ketosis, in order to compare the results with the group that DOES induce ketosis. So then the former group wouldn’t be following the diet exactly, would they? (at least not phase 1). My God - wasn’t it obvious? Did I REALLY have to explain that? Are you always this picayune? THAT’S HOW YOU DO A STUDY. You use control groups where you change a crucial aspect in order to compare the difference. Like when you test a drug and you give a placebo to the control group. You’d probably say “Duh, but then they aren’t taking the drug.” Yeah, that’s the fucking POINT.

Possibility two:
Don’t worry about controlling for ketosis. Just do a study where one group does Atkins and the other group does a conventional diet, making sure both groups are taking in the same number of calories. The way I understand it, the claim is that Atkins causes you to burn fat and lose weight more efficiently than the conventional diet, so the results will tell us if Atkins works better.

Possibility three:
Some other valid methodology that I haven’t thought of.

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

I don’t know how to answer this question. Why would you have to control for that? I’m not trying to avoid answering it; I’m saying I can’t answer it because it doesn’t make any sense.

Please point out where I’ve disagreed with the 3 points you mention above.

You say Atkins works; therefore you aren’t treating the claims with skepticism. I said that a study where the Atkins group takes in fewer calories than the control group is unsound methodology, and you argued with me; therefore you don’t believe studies need proper controls. You did agree that more studies need to be done, but according to you, only to prove why Atkins works. You already assume it works.

The numbers are not a nitpick - they are the basis of the calorie per kilogram = weight loss/gain diet.

Wrong. In my example, the numbers I used were just arbitrary selections to illustrate a general point, one that has, and continues to, elude you.

*I personally dislike the rolleyes smiley, but I know that you are quite fond of it :rolleyes:

Well then say something intelligent for a change and I’ll stop using it.

[BiblioCat]

Okay, I think you two need to take a deep breath and walk away for a few minutes.
I agree with annaplurabelle that doing a study, and having a control group and eating the same food but not going into ketosis is impossible. I’ve lost track of the exact passages, so I’m not going to quote anything.

As I said before, and of course this is strictly anecdotal,, when I started on Atkins, I paid no attention to calories. I read labels and counted only carbohydrate grams. The first two weeks, I kept it under 20 grams.
I ate as much as I wanted of beef, chicken, pork and fish, lots of salad greens (romaine and spinach mostly), lots of broccoli, eggs, cheese, and I drank lots of water (about 80-100 ounces a day). If I wanted a snack, I had a snack. If I wanted a snack after 7:00 pm, I had one.
Again, I paid no attention to calories. I have no idea how many calories I was consuming, no clue at all. I’ve lost 60 pounds.

Is that proof enough? I know it’s just anecdotal evidence, but it worked for me. I’ll be the first to say it might not work for everyone, but I sure believe it works. Something about cutting out carbs worked for me. I used to eat lots of carbohydrates, and I mean LOTS of them; potatoes and bread and pasta and rice, not to mention too much candy and refined sugar.

I lost a lot of that weight over the summer when I was off of work (I’m a teacher), and when I went back to work, I had a lot of co-workers comment on my weight. I even had a couple of them ask if I went somewhere, as in a spa, because they thought I looked so good, so it’s not like I dropped a lot of weight and was gaunt or looked bad; apparently I look better than I have in years. I feel better than I have in years. I also don’t get migraines as much anymore - my neurologist is the one who suggested I try it in the first place.

[Malacandra]

BooBooFoo, dare I say that taking Olympic-class competitive cyclists as a sample group might just skew the data somewhat? Anecdotally, we all know people who can eat what they like and burn it off with vigorous exercise. Anecdotally, we all know people who can exercise all they like but put on five pounds if they so much as look at a digestive biscuit.

The point is that if there is such a thing as metabolic resistance to weight loss, for whatever reason, you’re not going to see much evidence of it among those who’ve already shown themselves to be superb athletes with a tremendous capacity for physical self-improvement - and what works for them won’t necessarily work for the rest of us.

As for me, I’m horribly out of shape because I like food too much and never stick to sensible eating for long enough, and get bored of exercise before it produces any permanent results. No claims to synthesise body fat out of fresh air nor anything in particular to blame except me… just FTR.

[blowero]

@BiblioCat

Okay, I think you two need to take a deep breath and walk away for a few minutes.

Hee, hee - yes, I think you’re right.

I agree with annaplurabelle that doing a study, and having a control group and eating the same food but not going into ketosis is impossible. I’ve lost track of the exact passages, so I’m not going to quote anything.

Well, I was thinking it might be possible to do a study where one group starts at Phase 2, 3 or 4. Then you could compare them to people who undergo the induction phase and it might tell you how important the induction phase is. But like I said, that’s not the point I’m making. It’s possible to do studies either way. If it doesn’t work out to control for ketosis, then don’t. I don’t see a problem with the methodology of the small study we talked about where they had a restaurant prepare the meals for the 3 study groups. That one actually came out in favor of Atkins’ theory, and if it can be done on a larger and longer term scale, they might have something. Scientists get paid to devise the methodology and spend a lot of time on it. Obviously I’m not gonna come up with an airtight methodology off the top of my head on an internet message board.

As I said before, and of course this is strictly anecdotal,, when I started on Atkins, I paid no attention to calories. I read labels and counted only carbohydrate grams. The first two weeks, I kept it under 20 grams.
I ate as much as I wanted of beef, chicken, pork and fish, lots of salad greens (romaine and spinach mostly), lots of broccoli, eggs, cheese, and I drank lots of water (about 80-100 ounces a day). If I wanted a snack, I had a snack. If I wanted a snack after 7:00 pm, I had one.
Again, I paid no attention to calories. I have no idea how many calories I was consuming, no clue at all. I’ve lost 60 pounds.

Is that proof enough?

If you’ve read any of this thread, you wouldn’t be asking that question.

I know it’s just anecdotal evidence, but it worked for me. I’ll be the first to say it might not work for everyone, but I sure believe it works. Something about cutting out carbs worked for me. I used to eat lots of carbohydrates, and I mean LOTS of them; potatoes and bread and pasta and rice, not to mention too much candy and refined sugar.

But how do you know it was cutting out carbs that did it? Frankly, it sounds like your eating habits sucked before you went on the diet. You weren’t eating a balanced diet at all. I don’t see any proof that you needed to stop eating carbohydrates, you just needed to eat less in general, cut out the junk, and add more fresh vegetables to your diet. I can think of any number of things that might have been responsible for your success other than the carb deprivation. For example, if you were eating tons of candy, and you stopped, don’t you think that would be enough in and of itself for you to lose weight? Or the fact that you started eating fresh lettuce, spinach, and broccoli? Those things have virtually zero calories; if you substitute them for the tons of crap that you used to eat, of course you’re gonna lose weight. At this point I’m just repeating myself over and over, hoping it might sink in with someone, but can’t you see how it’s unwarranted to unequivocally credit Atkins for your success, when it might very well have been any number of other factors?

One more thing - I’m getting sick of repeating myself, but I still don’t think people are understanding me. Your comment about not counting calories leads me to believe that you incorrectly interpreted my earlier posts as saying that one has to count calories. I SAID NOTHING OF THE KIND. What I said was that you need to control for calories when you do a study. Let’s be real clear on the difference. See, we already know that eating fewer calories will result in weight loss. There’s no question about that. So if one does a study, but allows the Atkins group to eat fewer calories than the control group, then one isn’t doing a study of Atkins at all. All you’re doing is showing that eating fewer calories makes you lose weight, which would net you a big, fat DUH! in any medical journal. This doesn’t mean I’m saying you have to count calories; you just have to have to have controls in your experiment so you know that you’re actually proving the thing you intended to prove.

[BiblioCat]

@blowero

But how do you know it was cutting out carbs that did it? Frankly, it sounds like your eating habits sucked before you went on the diet. You weren’t eating a balanced diet at all. I don’t see any proof that you needed to stop eating carbohydrates, you just needed to eat less in general, cut out the junk, and add more fresh vegetables to your diet. I can think of any number of things that might have been responsible for your success other than the carb deprivation. For example, if you were eating tons of candy, and you stopped, don’t you think that would be enough in and of itself for you to lose weight? Or the fact that you started eating fresh lettuce, spinach, and broccoli? Those things have virtually zero calories; if you substitute them for the tons of crap that you used to eat, of course you’re gonna lose weight. At this point I’m just repeating myself over and over, hoping it might sink in with someone, but can’t you see how it’s unwarranted to unequivocally credit Atkins for your success, when it might very well have been any number of other factors?

My previous eating habits didn’t exactly suck, but I was eating too much refined sugar and too many carbs, yes. I always ate my veggies’ I like veggies. My husband is a real “meat and potatoes” type of guy; and he likes bread with every meal, too. He doesn’t quite get why he can’t have mashed potatoes and rolls and rice at dinner every night. Washed down with a beer or two. :rolleyes:
Anyway, I drank only regular soda, rather than diet, because I hated diet soda. I thought it tasted horrible. I was also using real sugar in my coffee, too, lots of sugar - I like it sweet.
I hardly ever drank plain water. Actually, never.
I cut out sodas first, and starting using Sweet & Low in coffee. I haven’t had a soda in over two years. You ought to see the looks I get when I say I don’t drink soda. I could strip naked, set my hair fire and start turning cartwheel down the street and people wouldn’t look at me as strangely as they do as when I say, “I don’t drink Coke.”
Another thing: Atkins lets you use real butter. I grew up during the 70s when basically, butter = death. No one used real butter in the 70s. It was the Era Of Margarine. My mother NEVER bought real butter. That was a real mental hurdle to get over. I started using it to put on my steamed veggies, and to saute my fish and chicken in. That had to add some fat and calories.
Good God, real butter is SO MUCH better than freaking margarine!

Anyway, I guess I’d have to say “I dunno.” I just didn’t count calories and I don’t know how many I was consuming each day. I still don’t. I’m getting about 40-50 carbs a day (I’ve cut back a little because I’ve stalled on my weight loss), but I pay no attention to calories.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

@Malacandra

BooBooFoo, dare I say that taking Olympic-class competitive cyclists as a sample group might just skew the data somewhat? Anecdotally, we all know people who can eat what they like and burn it off with vigorous exercise. Anecdotally, we all know people who can exercise all they like but put on five pounds if they so much as look at a digestive biscuit.

Oh, for sure I agree there. And indeed, you know I’m sometimes very reticent about mentioning my cycling background for fear of being a braggart, but on the odd occasion I feel I need to mention it just to amplify a certain point I’d like to make. In this instance, my point is that even to this day, as I’m getting back into “veteran’s racing” (God how I hate that term… it confirms I’m over 40 years of age) well, all I need to do is simply maintain my daily calorie intake to my base metabolic rate of 1800 calories, and then I simply let the training take care of the rest.

The rule of thumb in road racing is this - a mid intensity traing ride of two hours consumes 1,000 calories per hour. A high intensity training ride consumes 1,300 calories per hour, and a full on race pace consumes 1,500 calories per hour. Only 10K Olympic runners and Olympic cross country skiiers exceed those sort of levels I’m told. Certainly, one of the great myths which needs to be shattered is gym training which (according to my sources) averages a lowly 500-600 calories per hour because you’re sitting around so often between sets. So you can how easy it is for me to lose weight just by training. But yes, I’m also aware it takes many, many years to get to the sorts of levels of strength and fitness which we’re talking about on a racing bike.

@Malacandra

The point is that if there is such a thing as metabolic resistance to weight loss, for whatever reason, you’re not going to see much evidence of it among those who’ve already shown themselves to be superb athletes with a tremendous capacity for physical self-improvement - and what works for them won’t necessarily work for the rest of us.

Don’t be too sure about that. By the far the majority of world class cyclists are just ordinary physiques, prone to the same sorts of traps and pitfalls as the rest of humanity. Certainly, in the last 10 years as I’ve concentrated more on my business persuits and have stopped training altogether, yes, my weight increased on a steady upward curve - as have almost every one of my colleagues from the 1980’s who have followed similar life paths. The difference between champion athletes and normal folk is this - once you’ve been at (or near) the very top, you find it much easier to pick up training once again - essentially, it’s not that hard to replace bad habits with good ones again.

@Malacandra

As for me, I’m horribly out of shape because I like food too much and never stick to sensible eating for long enough, and get bored of exercise before it produces any permanent results. No claims to synthesise body fat out of fresh air nor anything in particular to blame except me… just FTR.

Well, you know, I rather think that this is the point which blowero and I are trying to make. Obviously, if I do 140 km of high intensity training on a given day, and then, if I limit my calories for that day to just my daily allowance of 1800 calories (which I personally don’t find all that hard to do) then by extension, I can safely assume that my training ride alone consumed at least 4,000 calories - which equates to a net deficit for the day of roughly 1 pound of fat loss - and my scales reflect that too. By definition, I’m in ketosis throughout much of the day, and I will be especially if I follow up such a hard day with another 80 km the next day. So it simply becomes mathematics after a while, you know? I’m eating pretty well anything I feel like so long as the net total hovers 1800 calories. No special ratios of carbohydrates to proteins to fats. Just a good wholesome diet of mixed foods - combined with the following simply disciplines - no booze, no soda drinks, and no junk food. And BAM! The training takes care of the rest.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

I don’t see any proof that you needed to stop eating carbohydrates, you just needed to eat less in general, cut out the junk, and add more fresh vegetables to your diet

I agree 100%

How much less though? All my life I’ve eaten till I was full

The trouble with all other diets is that I am required to push the plate away before I am satisfied. Am I to be denied the pleasure of a full stomach for the rest of my life? I don’t think so.

So now I have 4 rashers of bacon and 3 eggs just about every morning . For lunch I have meat and cheese. For supper I load up on meat and vegetables. I’m full,satisfied but admit that I’m a little bit poorer financially.

If you don’t want to deny yourself the wonderful feeling that you just don’t want any more to eat then the low carb diet is for you.

grienspace—a 40# loser.

[annaplurabelle]

Well, here we can see one of the dilemmas. Grienspace claims agreement with blowero, but then goes on to express satisfaction and testimony of results with a low carb, no calorie control diet.

Even Atkins detractors don’t question the weight loss efficacy of the diet (in the short term) - the question is why. Detractors often counter with the probability that the diet is effective because it translates to a lower calorie consumption. What is downplayed is that the lowered calorie consumption (when it occurs) is voluntary. There are a multiple factors as to why this happens:

1. ketosis is an appetite suppressant
2. a high percentage protein diet is an appetite suppressant
3. the diet is monotonous, limited, and unpalatable, which translates as lower intake.
   Numbers 1 and 2 are science; 3 is subjective opinion.

Obviously, if you personally enjoy/can live with a diet of unlimited meat, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese, fat, and non-starchy vegetables/fruits, the diet will not be “unpalatable”. The first 2 factors kick in and there it is… So these people will naturally show better results on the diet.

But again, the voluntary calorie control is important, because non-compliance is the main factor in unsuccessful long term weight loss/maintenance. Simply telling people to “eat less” doesn’t work in practical reality. Enabling them to desire/learn to eat less (and hopefully “better”), via this diet protocol, increases the chances of compliance.

More about the why:

The initial (often called “rapid”) weight loss on this diet is due to water loss - ketosis leads to glycogen store depletion and with the glycogen molecules come the water molecules they are attached to (2 to 1 ratio). No scientific debate here, or with the naturally diuretic properties of a high protein diet. This “rapid” weight loss might contribute to a dieter’s positive attitude (thereby increasing odds of compliance), BUT it is not the ideal, medically speaking - the ideal is reduction of body fat, with minimal loss of lean/muscle tissue.
Studies have shown that muscle loss can be minimised by regular exercise and adequate protein intake. So the (most often slower) weight reduction that occurs after water loss can be maximised as loss of fat tissue v. muscle (this also applies to any diet, btw).

What about the “metabolic advantage”? Okay, it’s accepted that the altered fat metabolism in ketosis leads to the excretion of “unused” fat molecules/calories. With individual variation considered, this averages to about 150 calories per day. Doesn’t sound like a lot (anyone can probably cut 150 calories from their daily intake with no effort) but when it’s combined with the appetite suppressing aspects of the diet (translated as probable lowered calorie intake) it adds up. On its own it would be about 1 pound per month of weight loss, so it is a contributing factor.

Another metabolic advantage could be that protein digestion requires more energy than carb digestion, but I’ve never seen a study that can quantify that as a negative calorie balance (although the process itself is accepted).

Beyond that, you have other biochemical factors: altered hormonal or enzyme processes - not really quantifiable yet.

Bottom line: An initial weight loss will almost always occur (water). Continued compliance will lower the appetite, so lowered total intake should occur. Cutting out the empty calories of refined carbs is a given here (as with almost any diet).

Long term success is dependent on the individual factor: Can the individual maintain this approach and incorporate it into a lifestyle diet? Ideally, as carb intake is gradually increased, they will be “good” carbs - more vegetables, more fruits, and whole grain products. This is where you will see the “success stories”, and the maintenance diet comes closer to what is accepted by current nutritional science as a “balanced” diet.

So not much difference in the end result, but the getting there (ie compliance and long term maintenance) is the more important factor to medical researchers and health profs (especially now that the presumed health risks have been negated by the most recent studies).

[annaplurabelle]

@Boo Boo Foo

Well, you know, I rather think that this is the point which blowero and I are trying to make. Obviously, if I do 140 km of high intensity training on a given day, and then, if I limit my calories for that day to just my daily allowance of 1800 calories (which I personally don’t find all that hard to do) then by extension, I can safely assume that my training ride alone consumed at least 4,000 calories - which equates to a net deficit for the day of roughly 1 pound of fat loss - and my scales reflect that too. By definition, I’m in ketosis throughout much of the day, and I will be especially if I follow up such a hard day with another 80 km the next day. So it simply becomes mathematics after a while, you know? I’m eating pretty well anything I feel like so long as the net total hovers 1800 calories. No special ratios of carbohydrates to proteins to fats. Just a good wholesome diet of mixed foods - combined with the following simply disciplines - no booze, no soda drinks, and no junk food. And BAM! The training takes care of the rest.

With all respect, your “by definition” here does not comply with your earlier assertion that “sustained ketosis is bullshit”. To refresh your memory:

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.

Maybe you’d like to explain how you are “in ketosis throughout much of the day” when you claimed it was negated by eating “anything”.

I’m not interested in “flaming” you, but this is not good science. Care to provide either a cite or a retraction of your earlier claim?

To clear up what might be a point of confusion here: Ketosis (or a sustained ketogenic state via reduced carbs or strenuous activity) is not a subject of speculative debate in the scientific community (although the risks/benefits are). Can we acknowledge that?

[blowero]

BiblioCat, I believe current thinking is that butter isn’t any worse for you than margarine, because the trans fatty acids in margarine pretty much do the same thing as saturated fat. I just go ahead and buy butter now; I agree it tastes much better than margarine.

[blowero]

Here’s what’s funny. Atkins proponents in this thread are saying: “I do Atkins because I can eat all the yummy food I want and still lose weight.” But almost all the people I know personally who have jumped on the Atkins bandwagon say things like:

“I miss bread.”
“I get these horrible cravings for carbs.”
“I don’t feel good.”
“It’s difficult and takes a lot of planning to follow the diet.”

These people stay on the diet because they want to lose weight, and consider those things as necessary evils. However, I’m getting the impression that many experts suspect that Atkins dieters who lose weight, do so because they are actually cutting their caloric intake, not from the metabolic sleight-of-hand that Atkins claimed. It just makes me think maybe my friends are torturing themsleves for nothing. I want to say to them, “Just have a fucking slice of bread; it’s not gonna kill you.”

But some of you here are suggesting the opposite - that Atkins works because it’s so enjoyable that it allows you to maintain a reduced calorie intake. Again, more contradictory, in fact almost polar opposite, claims. Color me unconvinced at this point.

[BiblioCat]

@blowero

Here’s what’s funny. Atkins proponents in this thread are saying: “I do Atkins because I can eat all the yummy food I want and still lose weight.” But almost all the people I know personally who have jumped on the Atkins bandwagon say things like:

“I miss bread.”
“I get these horrible cravings for carbs.”
“I don’t feel good.”
“It’s difficult and takes a lot of planning to follow the diet.”

I do miss bread, and if I want a piece of bread, I have it. I got over the carb cravings after the first week or so. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t miss pasta or potatoes at all anymore. I mentioned up-thread about my husband eating potato chips and how I had a couple and they tasted funny to me. Oh, well, I don’t need them. I made spaghetti just the other night for my family, complete with garlic bread and salad. I had some of the garlic bread and salad, too, but I made a tilapa filet for myself. I didn’t even want any spaghetti.

As for feeling bad - I don’t. I feel better than I have in years. I don’t get migraines any more, and I have tons of energy. I don’t get that mid-afternoon slump, and I’m able to get out of bed in the morning much easier. I’m sleeping better and wake up rested. Obviously, not carrying around an extra 60 pounds has a lot to do with that, but I just feel so good.

I don’t think it takes that much more planning to follow, once you get used to it. It’s not difficult at all. Someone posted either in this thread or another one that they were spending 2-3 hours a night planning each day’s meals. I find that hard to believe, unless you’re incredibly unorganized or don’t know how to plan meals. If you read the book, it’s very easy to follow.

[blowero]

@annaplurabelle

Even Atkins detractors don’t question the weight loss efficacy of the diet (in the short term) - the question is why. Detractors often counter with the probability that the diet is effective because it translates to a lower calorie consumption. What is downplayed is that the lowered calorie consumption (when it occurs) is voluntary.

But as I said, we already know that lower calorie consumption = weight loss. This is beyond obvious. If that’s the standard by which you judge a diet to be efficacious, then virtually every fad diet ever conceived is efficacious. Remember my example earlier about the guys I know who followed the “Fit for Life” food-combining diet. That diet not only allows, but encourages you to eat bread. It’s a completely different theory from Atkins, but it worked for these guys. It most likely worked because they had to follow a regimen which made them unwittingly reduce their calorie consumption, not because of the dubious theory that your stomach can’t digest foods when they are combined in a certain way. In my opinion, that’s merely happenstance, not efficacy. YMMV.

Here’s an idea: why not just eat less? In most of our anecdotal stories in this thread, people are saying “I used to eat tons and tons of carbs and sugar” or something of that nature. People, you were fat because you ate too much. It’s not what you ate, it’s the amount. If we’re saying Atkins is effective because it “tricks” you into eating fewer calories, that’s not really my definition of effective. Don’t get me wrong - I’m happy for you guys if you lost weight - really. I just don’t think we should be embracing Atkins’ theory until it’s proven.

[annaplurabelle]

An enjoyable diet that leads to reduced calorie intake is NOT a contradiction - it’s like comparing a meal at a French bistro to a meal at McDonalds. Which is more enjoyable: a small grilled steak (or roast chicken or fresh grilled fish), asparagus maltaise, a salad, a sample plate of good cheese, and a glass of wine OR a big mac super value meal with a “shake” and a “hot apple pie”? Compare the calories and get back to me…

Eating well takes more effort than throwing a frozen dinner in a microwave or picking up some fast food, but that’s true whether you’re dieting or not. And the fact that there is no set meal plan with this diet means you can eat what you feel like (of the allowed foods), when you want to - so where’s the special planning some are claiming? Eating out is very easy - what decent restaurant doesn’t offer meat, poultry, or fish entrees, vegetables and/or salads???

For home cooking you buy what’s fresh, what’s seasonal, what looks good to you that day (or even what’s on sale, if you’re finances are tight at the time). Here are just some vegetable dishes I prepare regularly at home: panned spinach, creamed spinach, stuffed artichokes, cauliflower au gratin, sauteed escarole with garlic and olive oil, stir-fried broccoli with ginger and garlic sauce, cauliflower livornese (an olive, onion, and caper sauce), grilled asparagus with aoli sauce, szechuan string beans, curried mustard greens, stuffed zucchini in a light tomato sauce, sauteed turnips parmesan, stuffed peppers, chilies rellenos, ratatouille… You can easily bake turnips and serve them like a baked potato (with butter or sour cream), or mash them too.
Salads (salads require effort and planning???). Antipasto or starters are easy and there are so many “allowed” choices.

I usually put more effort into the veg dishes and then prepare simple protein dishes: roast chicken, grilled or poached fish, broiled steak or chop, etc. But more elaborate proteins are possible too: seasoned meatballs or koftas (with grilled peppers and onions), chicken or fish quenelles, chicken parmesan or cacciatore, stir-fried and sauced (hunan, szechuan, or thai style), curried or stewed. Scampi. Corned beef or brisket with some cabbage and turnips. Bracciole or spiedini. Shish kebab. Stroganoff. Pot roast. Tagine. Paprikash. Vindaloo. Osso bucco. Tandoori. Carpaccio. Gravlax…

Plenty of low carb sauce options to accompany simply prepared proteins or vegetables: bernaise, hollandaise, maltaise, livornese, aurora, aoli, parisienne, green curry, red curry, hot garlic, piccata, duxelle, harissa, tahini, pesto, gremolata, oreganatta, tonatto, mornay, florentine, green or red enchilada, soubise, puttanesca, mole… (all but the egg based can be made in advance and even frozen in portions for later use).

Don’t forget soups: chicken, vegetable, consomme, green gazpacho, clam or fish chowder, bouillabaise - even creamed soups are do-able (not canned soups, but you could use canned broth if you don’t have time or inclination to make it yourself).

With eggs you’ve got quiches and souffles, omelettes and frittatas. Deviled eggs, curried eggs, pickled eggs, egg salad.

Also desserts: Gelatin parfaits, merengues and cheesecake (Italian riccota cheesecake or NY-style with strawberries). Or simply some melon and/or berries with some good cheese (not that processed orange stuff - that’s not cheese!) and some roasted nuts to crack open. I didn’t even mention all you can do with nuts…

Does this sound monotonous or unpalatable? These ingredients are hard to find??? Avoiding carbs is difficult? Basically, it’s avoid the rice, pasta, corn, bread, potatoes, and breaded foods - that’s difficult and requires planning to avoid??? And of course you can add a bit of what you want most from this group as you add your carbs back. So how long are you avoiding these foods completely, a few weeks??? Colour me unconvinced. :rolleyes:

When you eat like this for awhile you get your palate back (or develop it if you never had one). Processed foods dull the palate. If you think you hate vegetables, but your idea of vegetables are something out of a can or freezer, try again with fresh, well prepared vegetables. You don’t have to eat super fatty meats or processed meats (but neither do you have to stick to dried out chicken cutlets or canned tuna in water). Give up that processed glop they call cheese and try some good stuff (more expensive, but a little goes a long way, flavour-wise).

There could still well be a metabolic advantage beyond what we know about ketosis - the people in that study who were eating 300 extra calories a day were still losing weight, remember?