Guest guest Posted December 25, 2001 Report Share Posted December 25, 2001 Re Barrett's article in Quackwatch, what he says has merit and is okay as an introduction to a book. But it really doesn't tell us much. Almost any serious ironhead could have written it. I suppose the good doctor was writing for the general couch potato public, but it seems like there is enough of this stuff taking up good bandwidth. Let's get something from these M.D.'s that more technical in nature that gives us a cud to chew on. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Rosemary Wedderburn-Vernon Marina del Rey, CA IronRoses@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2001 Report Share Posted December 25, 2001 Hi list, I'd like to wish all of you celebrating holidays at this time, a healthy, safe and enjoyable holiday. While I understand that 'most' articles written are done so with a certain amount of bias, Barrett really seems to have a bone to pick with diets 'other' than what 'he' feels is right. Barrett : <Most fad diets, if followed closely, will result in weight loss -- as a result of caloric restriction. But they are invariably too monotonous and are sometimes too dangerous for long- term use.> EVEN if it is a result of eating fewer calories, some of these diets allow dieters to feel satiated enough to eat fewer calories without feeling like they're starving! Throwing in the " sometimes too dangerous " phrase is merely an attempt to make his point 'seem' more valid. Its like when someone says " well everyone thinks that so and so is not a nice person " . How many people is " everyone " ? Often is 'may' be ONLY one and maybe not even that many. Are there any recorded deaths as a result of the Atkins diet? No. That is factual. Barrett goes on with: <Prolonged fasting is unsafe, because it causes the body to begin to digest proteins from its muscles, heart, and other internal organs.> The diet does not speak of fasting, clearly another weakly written scare tactic. Barrett <Low-carbohydrate diets also produce ketosis. As it begins, large amounts of water will be shed, leading the dieter to think that significant weight reduction is taking place.> Once again written as though this were a fact, when in fact it is NOT TRUE! The processes of this style of a diet doesn't lead a dieter to 'think' they are losing a significant amount of weight, they can and when they do, THEY DO in fact lose a significant amount of weight. It's not what they think, it is what happens. Barrett cites " The U.S. National Weight Control Registry " . Have you ever heard of the NWCR before? Not too many people have, EXCEPT for those that like to use it as though it is some type of a scientific organization IT IS NOT! People usually hear about the Registry from media releases and from word-of-mouth. This is an opt in program with NO science to back it up. Citing this is quite funny. Barrett: <Although Atkins has advocated the diet for nearly 30 years and states that more than 60,000 patients treated at his center have used his diet as their primary protocol, he has never published any study in which people who used his program were monitored over a period of several years. Scorekeeping could be done simply and inexpensively by mailing an annual questionnaire and tabulating the results. Why do you suppose he has never done this?> I interviewed Atkins and it takes money to do studies and no one (government entity) is willing to put up the money for the studies on the Atkins method and why should Atkins himself put up the money? To prove his method is right? He is making tons of money off his method without the studies, if people like Barrett are that envious (I mean concerned ;-), let them find the funding a back up the 'scare tactic's with studies. If Barrett is so interested in people who have followed low-carb methods of eating over long periods of time...with success, he needs look no further than the aesthetic fitness (body-building) industry. Most (not all...but most) aesthetic fitness advocates follow a low-carb method of eating. They do so and have done so for a great many years. If you look at the habits of the people in the fitness and body-building industry who have the aesthetics which so many people seek...their eating habits are typically a higher protein, lower carbs and moderate fats...nothing CLOSE to the recommended RDA...I'm sure they're ALL mistaken. Bob McKee wrote: <<Sounds like this person has a vendetta against Atkins>> That's probably an accurate assessment. [i doubt that is even vaguely the case. Barrett enjoys dissecting many different fads, health methods, psychic claims, therapies, beliefs and so on. Many people think that he has a vendetta against them, but Barrett, right or wrong with reference to all of his information, simply has committed himself to criticising many " quacks " or what appear to be " quacks " . Many others have attacked Atkins, ketogenic diets, Cambridge diets, etc etc diets, but they are not on some sort of committed vendetta at all - they simply see the issue from another point of view and often hope to provoke the purveyors of those diets, therapies and so on to respond with more convincing evidence. There is nothing wrong with that - maybe Barrett and other critics make their own errors in these critiques, but it up to those who disagree to rebutt their arguments on the basis of even more convincing evidence. Any descent to ad hominem attacks or emotional indignation doesn't take the issue any further. At least the critics make us think twice and sometimes protect us from all the useless snake oil on the market! Mel Siff] Siscoe Montreal, Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2001 Report Share Posted December 25, 2001 I find statements as these as pure censorship of thought and extremely intelectually and ethically dishonest, " The AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition [2], Consumer Reports [3], and many individual experts have warned that the unlimited intake of saturated fats under Atkins' food plan can increase the dieter's risk of heart disease. " Has anybody noticed that these guys don't have the guts, ba.s, proof or moral high ground to say it DOES cause heart disease? Doesn't it strike anybody as a weasel way to legally not say something and at the same time imply something. Get your cake and eat it. They just say it MAY..and kill the technique as effectively as if it did cause heart disease. That is the implicit message. People who are searching for a cure and don't have to sell there freedom to a drug company or the medical business then don't even attempt a cure that is free with no strings attached and turn to the drug/medicine business instead. If any drug had the positive effects of reducing carbs on one's health it would be worth billions and billions but no one can patent " just reducing carbs " . The exhorbitant trygliceride levels, the huge cholesterol, and obesity WILL kill the poor guy who is reluctant to try something for himself because of this censorship. I think it is shameful behavior to censor with " may " (not even half truths). Read any medicine label and see what it " MAY " do.. They definitely should ask Atkins for a follow up of his patients. This is crucial info. However, longterm failure doesn't mean the stuff doesn't work. How many ex bodybuilders are still bodybuilding, or sprinters still sprinting, etc.ten years later. However, one could experiment on ways to make the eating lifestyle a longterm adaptation. After 2 years of eating with low carbs I am getting bored, however, I am beginning to use a strategy I just developed which is helping me greatly. I use carbs as a seasoning not a main staple. In other words, see a chocolate, eat a bit for flavor, for taste but fill up on protein and low carb vegs. Hope this works longterm. Diego Crespo Quito, Ecuador Low Carbohydrate Diets > Mel Siff wrote: > > <What does the group think of this article from the Quackwatch Home Page > > http://www.quackwatch.com ? > > > I dont know what the facts really are, so I would love to hear others comments. Because > from my experience, something's rotten somewhere with this article. When I went on the > Atkins diet almost three years ago, it worked very well for me. So, I am commenting > on my experience (see below). Three years ago I was almost 250lbs at 5'10 " ... For these > three years I hang from 205-215 (I would like to be 200). I don't do the diet strictly, > but I believe there is more than a grain of truth in the diet. > > My comments on different parts of the original article appear below. > > <Low-Carbohydrate Diets > Barrett, M.D. > > Many promoters of dietary schemes would have us believe that a special substance or combination > of foods will automatically result in weight reduction. That's simply not true. To lose > weight, you must eat less, or exercise more, or do both. > > > Bob McKee: > > I think I was eating more calories, and still losing weight, but I cant say for sure > because I didn't measure everything. I think the main effect of the induction phase > of the diet (first month with only 20 grams carbs per day from vegetables).... was that > it reset my appetite to normal. It was an awakening for me to realize (apparently as > Atkins said) that too many carbs in my diet was causing my appetite to go out of control. > Before the diet: I could eat a full meal, and be hungry again almost immediately, even > though I was uncomfortably full. After the diet, it seemed I would eat when hungry > (so about 2-3 weeks into the diet I found I was probably eating less). I do notice > when I have too many high carb meals in a row, they seem to add up to give me that lustful > hunger (when this happens, I reset myself by eating meat, and vegetables). > > Note that the lustful hunger seems to want carbs, which is different from the appetite > I get after weight training... where I've learned to recognize a hunger for protein (apparently). > Has anyone else noticed this, or is it my imagination? > > Barrett: > > There are about 3,500 calories in a pound of body weight. To lose one pound a week, you > must consume about 500 fewer calories per day than you metabolize. Most fad diets, if > followed closely, will result in weight loss -- as a result of caloric restriction. But > they are invariably too monotonous and are sometimes too dangerous for long- term use. > Moreover, dieters who fail to adopt better exercise and eating habits will regain the > lost weight -- and possibly more. > > Bob McKee: > > I've heard this argument before, but it just doesn't sound right (that every calorie > counts). I believe there are other things at work (I suspect someone on this list knows). > I would think that sugar in liguid form (like a coke for example) would have a higher > percentage of the total sugar in the intestine... find its way into your blood (and then > subsequentially attached to your butt). Also, if you are taking in both protein, and > fat, but very little carbs, would our bodies go into the low metabolism mode (like it > is starving)? I believe your body leans toward burning its own fat under these conditions > (when fat and protein is plentiful, and carbs are not). > > If one can believe (I dont know what top believe anymore... because it seems you can > choose your experts, LOL), then in the Atkins book there was a chart that showed you > would lose about the same weight on the atkins diet, as you would on a total starvation > diet. However, on the atkins diet you would only lose 10-percent muscle, while on the > starvation diet I think it was 50-percent muscle. > > Bob McKee: > > The most drastic way to reduce caloric intake is to stop eating completely. After a few > days, body fats and proteins are metabolized to produce energy. The fats are broken down > into fatty acids that can be used as fuel. In the absence of adequate carbohydrate, the > fatty acids may be incompletely metabolized, yielding ketone bodies and thus ketosis. > Prolonged fasting is unsafe, because it causes the body to begin to digest proteins from > its muscles, heart, and other internal organs. > > Low-carbohydrate diets also produce ketosis. As it begins, large amounts of water will > be shed, leading the dieter to think that significant weight reduction is taking place. > However, most of the loss is water rather than fat; the lost water is regained quickly > when eating is resumed. Appetite, often reduced during ketosis, also returns when a > balanced diet is resumed. > > Bob McKee: > > Common sense says you can only lose so much water, and I suspect this was in the first > few days. I stayed on the diet for six weeks, and lost about 25-pounds. Yes, some > of it was water, because I was not overloaded with carbs anymore. Whatever it was, > the weight stayed off. Thanks to my improved eating habits I got from the diet, I lost > another 20-pounds in the next year or so. Today, anytime I start to gain weight again > I watch my carb foods, and it works. But then again I cant really say I do the atkins > diet anymore. Rather I watch foods where there are concentrated carbs (like flour, > sugary foods, fried foods etc). Im really not sure if the fat content makes a difference > for me, but I avoid it because I fear hydrogenated oils. Maybe I should fear too much > fat in its natural state too. > > Barrett: > > Most low-carbohydrate diets do not attempt to limit the intake of proteins, fats, or > total calories. (In other words, their fat content tends to be very high.) Promoters > claim that unbalancing the diet will lead to increased metabolism of unwanted fat even > if the calories are not restricted. This is not true, but calorie reduction is likely > to occur because the diet's monotony tends to discourage overeating. > > The most widely used low-carbohydrate diet is the one advocated by C. Atkins, > M.D., of New York City. His 1972 book Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution sold millions of copies > within the first two years. His 1992 update, Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, has sold > even more. > > The current plan has four steps: a 2-week " induction " period, during which the goal > is to reduce carbohydrate intake to under 20 grams per day, and three periods during > which carbohydrate intake is progressively raised but kept below what Atkins calls " your > critical carbohydrate level " for losing or maintaining weight [1]. The dieter is permitted > to eat unlimited amounts of noncarbohydrate foods " when hungry, " but ketosis tends to > suppress appetite. The plan calls for checking one's urine for ketone bodies to ensure > that the desired level of ketosis is reached. Atkins also recommends large amounts of > nutritional supplements. > > Bob McKee: > > Sounds like this person has a vendetta against Atkins (because of his wording). Atkins > acknowleges his diet is unbalanced. He says an unbalanced diet made you fat, so an > unbalanced diet is required to lose the fat. Yes Atkins reccomends supplements during > the unbalanced phase of his diet. He also uses chromium picolonate (which I believe > works... anyone?). > > Barrett: > > The AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition [2], Consumer Reports [3], and many individual > experts have warned that the unlimited intake of saturated fats under Atkins' food plan > can increase the dieter's risk of heart disease. Last year, experts at the University > of Kentucky did a computer analysis of a week's worth of sample menus and reported: > The diet contained 59% fat. > The diet provided fewer servings of grains, vegetables, and fruits > than recommended by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. > Although the diet can produce short-term weight loss, long-term use is likely to increase > the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cancer [4]. > > Bob McKee: > > I wonder if they are taking their sample from the first few weeks of the atkins diet. > The first few weeks induction phase is only temporary. The temporary phase is to > break your habits, reset your body's chemistry, etc. I wish I could tell if these people > are comparing apples to apples (and not apples to oranges). The atkins diet clearly > steers you toward meat and vegetables (no sugar or refined carbs). In the final phase > of the diet, you dont eat anything with sugar or refined carbs of any kind. That allows > for who grains (just not too much). > > Barrett: > > Another recent study was done by researchers at the Bassett Research Institute in stown, > New York, who followed 18 Atkins dieters for a month. During the 2-week induction period, > the dieters consumed 1,419 calories a day, compared with 2,481 calories a day before > starting the diet, and lost an average of about 8 pounds. In the next phase, dieters > averaged 1,500 calories a day and lost an additional 3 pounds in two weeks. Dieters in > both phases cut back on carbohydrates by more than 90%, but the actual amounts of fat > and protein they ate changed little. Some patients felt tired, and some were nauseated > on the plan. Most indicated that they were eager to go back to their > regular diet [5]. > > Bob McKee: > > After about 2-3 weeks on the induction phase of the diet, it didn't feel like I was on > a diet at all (but it was hard at first, because of acute carb cravings). I did indeed > feel sluggish in intense workouts. > > Barrett: > > Another study found that (a) 41 overweight people who followed the Atkins diet for six > months lost an average of 10% of their initial body weight; ( most lowered their blood > cholesterol level by 5%; © some increased their cholesterol level; and (d) 20 subjects > who continued the program had maintained their weight loss at the end of a year [6]. > > In yet another study, researchers who compile the U.S. National Weight Control Registry > analyzed the diets of 2,681 members who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss > for a year or more. Because the Atkins diet has been used for more than 30 years, the > researchers reasoned that, if it worked, its followers would be well represented. > > However, they found that fewer than 1% of these successful people had followed a diet > with less than 24% or less of their daily calories in the form of carbohydrates. The > mean duration of successful weight maintenance in this low-carbohydrate group was 19 > months, whereas the mean duration of dieters who consumed more than 24% of their daily > calories as carbohydrates was 36 months. Because so few Atkins dieters were found in > the Registry, the researchers concluded that the Atkins diet may not create the favorable > " metabolic advantage " claimed for it [7]. > > Bob McKee: > > Im not sure what he is saying here. Maybe the atkins dieters have no more weight problems? > And so are not in tyhe registry. > > Barrett: > > Although Atkins has advocated the diet for nearly 30 years and states that more than > 60,000 patients treated at his center have used his diet as their primary protocol, he > has never published any study in which people who used his program were monitored over > a period of several years. Scorekeeping could be done simply and inexpensively by mailing > an annual questionnaire and tabulating the results. Why do you suppose he has never done > this? > > Bob McKee: > > Maybe we should ask him. I understand Atkins has been on the diet for over 40-years, > and is now in his 70's. > > Bob McKee > ....USA > > ----------------- > > References > > Four steps to a healthy new lifestyle. Atkins Center Web site, > accessed April 29, 2001. > > White PL. A critique of low-carbohydrate ketogenic weight reduction > regimens: A review of Dr. Atkins' diet revolution. JAMA 224:1415- > 1419, 1973. > > Top-selling diets: Lots of gimmicks, little solid advice. Consumer > Reports 63:60-61, 1998. > > JW and others. Health advantages and disadvantages of weight- > reducing diets: a computer analysis and critical review. Journal of > the American College of Nutrition 19:578-590, 2000. > > BV and others. Effects of a low carbohydrate, high protein > diet on renal function. Obesity Research 8(supplement 1):82S, 2000. > Hellmich N. Success of Atkins diet is in the calories. USA Today, Nov > 8, 2000. > > Wyatt HR and others. Long term weight loss and very low carbohydrate > diets in the National Weight Control Registry. Obesity Research 8 > (suppl 1):87S., 2000. > > ----------- > > > > > > Modify or cancel your subscription here: > > mygroups > > Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you > wish them to be published! > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2001 Report Share Posted December 26, 2001 Mel Siff wrote: <What does the group think of this article from the Quackwatch Home Page http://www.quackwatch.com ? > Bob McKee wrote: >I dont know what the facts really are, so I would love to hear others comments. Because >from my experience, something's rotten somewhere with this article. When I went on the >Atkins diet almost three years ago, it worked very well for me. So, I am commenting >on my experience (see below). Three years ago I was almost 250lbs at 5'10 " ... For these >three years I hang from 205-215 (I would like to be 200). I don't do the diet strictly, >but I believe there is more than a grain of truth in the diet. So do I. I lost 35 pounds over six months on a low carbohydrate diet, and body composition tests proved it was not water or lean mass. I was unable to stick to standard reduced calorie, low fat, high carbohydrate diets; they simply do not worl for many people, regardless of what " experts " may say. >My comments on different parts of the original article appear below. > ><Low-Carbohydrate Diets > Barrett, M.D. > >Many promoters of dietary schemes would have us believe that a special substance or combination >of foods will automatically result in weight reduction. That's simply not true. To lose >weight, you must eat less, or exercise more, or do both. > >Bob McKee: > >I think I was eating more calories, and still losing weight, but I cant say for sure >because I didn't measure everything. I think the main effect of the induction phase >of the diet (first month with only 20 grams carbs per day from vegetables).... was that >it reset my appetite to normal. It was an awakening for me to realize (apparently as >Atkins said) that too many carbs in my diet was causing my appetite to go out of control. > Before the diet: I could eat a full meal, and be hungry again almost immediately, even >though I was uncomfortably full. After the diet, it seemed I would eat when hungry >(so about 2-3 weeks into the diet I found I was probably eating less). I do notice >when I have too many high carb meals in a row, they seem to add up to give me that lustful >hunger (when this happens, I reset myself by eating meat, and vegetables). > >Note that the lustful hunger seems to want carbs, which is different from the appetite >I get after weight training... where I've learned to recognize a hunger for protein (apparently). >Has anyone else noticed this, or is it my imagination? Steve Justus: It's not your imagination; I have the same experience. I am probably eating fewer calories now that I restrict starches, but that's because I'm not hungry all the time. When I used to eat the food-pyramid approved breakfast - high fiber cereal with non-fat milk, orange juice, and fruit - I was usually ravenous within three hours, and wound up snacking on high carb foods all day long. Now that I no longer eat this sort of breakfast, I can easily last 4-5 hours before eating anything, and I have no desire to snack. If high carbs were not were not stimulating overeating, I don't know what was. Barrett: >There are about 3,500 calories in a pound of body weight. To lose one pound a week, you >must consume about 500 fewer calories per day than you metabolize. Most fad diets, if >followed closely, will result in weight loss -- as a result of caloric restriction. But >they are invariably too monotonous and are sometimes too dangerous for long- term use. >Moreover, dieters who fail to adopt better exercise and eating habits will regain the >lost weight -- and possibly more. Bob McKee: >I've heard this argument before, but it just doesn't sound right (that every calorie >counts). I believe there are other things at work (I suspect someone on this list knows). > I would think that sugar in liguid form (like a coke for example) would have a higher >percentage of the total sugar in the intestine... find its way into your blood (and then >subsequentially attached to your butt). Also, if you are taking in both protein, and >fat, but very little carbs, would our bodies go into the low metabolism mode (like it >is starving)? I believe your body leans toward burning its own fat under these conditions >(when fat and protein is plentiful, and carbs are not). > >If one can believe (I dont know what top believe anymore... because it seems you can >choose your experts, LOL), then in the Atkins book there was a chart that showed you >would lose about the same weight on the atkins diet, as you would on a total starvation >diet. However, on the atkins diet you would only lose 10-percent muscle, while on the >starvation diet I think it was 50-percent muscle. Steve Justus: I'm suspicious of this argument, too, in part because it does not fit with my experience. Regardless of how much exercise I did, I was unable to lose fat while eating a high carb diet. Not long after I reduced my carb intake, I had minor knee surgery to fix some damaged cartilege, so my exercise was restricted to fast walking on a treadmill. Even so, I was able to consistently lose 2 pounds a week, with my waistline reducing 1/ 4 " - 1/2 " every week - a sign that I was losing fat, not muscle. I was probably eating fewer calories, but I was definately burning off fewer, as well. The weight loss was too large to be explained by simple caloric reduction, because I was not eating 1200-1400 calaries a day less. I have since found that whenever I have to eat a high carb diet for a few days, I gain, and when I revert to lower carbs the weight drops off. If calories are all that matter, why should this be so? Bob McKee: >The most drastic way to reduce caloric intake is to stop eating completely. After a few >days, body fats and proteins are metabolized to produce energy. The fats are broken down >into fatty acids that can be used as fuel. In the absence of adequate carbohydrate, the >fatty acids may be incompletely metabolized, yielding ketone bodies and thus ketosis. >Prolonged fasting is unsafe, because it causes the body to begin to digest proteins from >its muscles, heart, and other internal organs. > > Low-carbohydrate diets also produce ketosis. As it begins, large amounts of water will >be shed, leading the dieter to think that significant weight reduction is taking place. >However, most of the loss is water rather than fat; the lost water is regained quickly > when eating is resumed. Appetite, often reduced during ketosis, also returns when a >balanced diet is resumed. Bob McKee: >Common sense says you can only lose so much water, and I suspect this was in the first >few days. I stayed on the diet for six weeks, and lost about 25-pounds. Yes, some >of it was water, because I was not overloaded with carbs anymore. Whatever it was, >the weight stayed off. Thanks to my improved eating habits I got from the diet, I lost >another 20-pounds in the next year or so. Today, anytime I start to gain weight again >I watch my carb foods, and it works. But then again I cant really say I do the atkins >diet anymore. Rather I watch foods where there are concentrated carbs (like flour, >sugary foods, fried foods etc). Im really not sure if the fat content makes a difference >for me, but I avoid it because I fear hydrogenated oils. Maybe I should fear too much >fat in its natural state too. Steve Justus: Unless something abnormal is going on, water loss is going to be restricted to the initial week or so. Losing 5-6 pounds in a week - that's mostly water. Losing 1-2 pounds a week is almost surely not water. Barrett: >Most low-carbohydrate diets do not attempt to limit the intake of proteins, fats, or >total calories. (In other words, their fat content tends to be very high.) Promoters >claim that unbalancing the diet will lead to increased metabolism of unwanted fat even >if the calories are not restricted. This is not true, but calorie reduction is likely >to occur because the diet's monotony tends to discourage overeating. > > The most widely used low-carbohydrate diet is the one advocated by C. Atkins, >M.D., of New York City. His 1972 book Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution sold millions of copies >within the first two years. His 1992 update, Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, has sold even more. > > The current plan has four steps: a 2-week " induction " period, during which the goal >is to reduce carbohydrate intake to under 20 grams per day, and three periods during >which carbohydrate intake is progressively raised but kept below what Atkins calls " your >critical carbohydrate level " for losing or maintaining weight [1]. The dieter is permitted >to eat unlimited amounts of noncarbohydrate foods " when hungry, " but ketosis tends to >suppress appetite. The plan calls for checking one's urine for ketone bodies to ensure >that the desired level of ketosis is reached. Atkins also recommends large amounts of >nutritional supplements. Bob McKee: >Sounds like this person has a vendetta against Atkins (because of his >wording). Atkins >acknowleges his diet is unbalanced. He says an unbalanced diet made you >fat, so an >unbalanced diet is required to lose the fat. Yes Atkins reccomends >supplements during >the unbalanced phase of his diet. He also uses chromium picolonate >(which I believe >works... anyone?). Steve Justus: I don't think he has anything personal against Atkins - he just seems like a knee-jerk defender of orthodoxy. This article reminds me of the ones written by MDs and PhDs in the 1970's claiming that anabolic steroids had absolutely no effect on athletes and weight training was a useless form of exercise that only gave you pumped-up muscles - aerobic exercise was all you really need. Barrett: > The AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition [2], Consumer Reports [3], and many individual >experts have warned that the unlimited intake of saturated fats under Atkins' food plan >can increase the dieter's risk of heart disease. Last year, experts at the University >of Kentucky did a computer analysis of a week's worth of sample menus and reported: > The diet contained 59% fat. The diet provided fewer servings of grains, vegetables, and fruits > than recommended by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. Although the diet can produce short-term weight loss, long-term use is >likely to increase the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cancer [4]. Bob McKee: >I wonder if they are taking their sample from the first few weeks of the >atkins diet. > The first few weeks induction phase is only temporary. The temporary >phase is to >break your habits, reset your body's chemistry, etc. I wish I could >tell if these people >are comparing apples to apples (and not apples to oranges). The atkins >diet clearly >steers you toward meat and vegetables (no sugar or refined carbs). In >the final phase >of the diet, you dont eat anything with sugar or refined carbs of any >kind. That allows for whole grains (just not too much). Steve Justus: I don't know of any low-carb diet that doesn't advocate eating vegetables and, to a lesser extent, fruits. Grains are a very recent addition to the human diet (in evolutionary terms) and I don't see what eating them gives you that is not available from other meats, vegetables, and fruits. Steve Justus Westminster, CO, USA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2001 Report Share Posted December 27, 2001 Rosemary, This is exactly right. You cannot imagine how much better I feel. This is why I post on this subject even though I don't need to convince myself anymore. I cannot stand to think of any people feeling as bad as I did being scared off of trying something that can literally save their life. The difference for me has been between night and day, life and death. I have gotten my life back. I train now at 38 with my 15 year old and a 17 year old and feel I will be playing better than my college days eventually. Everything has improved, including the health of my hair, skin, etc...but the worst torture of all when I used to follow the " proper " food pyramid we are teaching everyone at school is that I couldnt stay awake more than 2 hours at a time and I was always ravenously hungry. I would wake up 2-3 times a night to go to the bathroom, always had dry mouth and would wake up daily with abdominal pain.. Get the word out...high carbs are poison for many of us, although not all. I used to notice when I went to my parents' house for vacation I would eat MORE, exercise LESS and lose 20 lbs. He is a diabetic and my mom serves delicious home cooked balanced meals--not carb based. [As a matter of interest, what is typical of a good, traditional Ecuadorian diet? Mel Siff] Diego Crespo Quito, Ecuador ------------------- From: Rosemary Wedderburn-Vernon <IronRoses@...> > In reading through all the posts on this subject, it suddenly dawned on me > that something I mentioned when talking about insulin resistance may very > well be the reason for the success of the Atkins Diet and other low carb > diets. I would separate from this the group of athletes that are trying to > quickly lose body fat for some competition or meet, because they usually > revert back to whatever they were doing after their event. > > Dr. Rosedale makes some very interesting comments about carbs and insulin > resistance and the fact that people who are insulin resistant also tend to > be over fat. Possibly Atkins stumbled upon his diet without really getting > into the reasons behind it. " What primitive man ate " doesn't get down to > the biochemistry, which it doesn't appear Atkins investigated. To give him > credit, this information on the " why's " of this situation hasn't been > available for very long. Even when it was first published in medical > circles, a high carb diet was still recommended. It seems that it is only > within the last few years that people like Rosedale have come to the > conclusion that highly processed carb intake exacerbates this condition. > When he puts his patients on a moderate protein/higher fat/low carb diet > (and he means fibrous carbs such as vegetables), they improve and lose fat. > > When people understand the basis behind a low carb diet, they begin to make > more sense. Lots of adults are insulin resistant but are unaware of the > situation. I understand that many adults also have Type II diabetes long > before it's diagnosed. So if that profile fit you personally (even if you > didn't know it) and you went on a low carb diet, you would reverse the > situation and thus lose body fat and feel much better. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > Rosemary Wedderburn-Vernon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2001 Report Share Posted December 27, 2001 Dr Siff asks: <As a matter of interest, what is typical of a good, traditional Ecuadorian diet?> My response: My mother is an excellent chef. She always serves home-made food. We have always had poultry, meat or fish and she serves 2-3 types of vegetables. She serves fabulous soups, deserts are usually fruit. I wouldn't say our diet is traditional Ecuadorian. No cokes, water. (we have very different regions, jungle, Andean mountains, beaches....each with its own favorite dishes). With a poorer economy, people are relying more and more on carbs and one sees more and more obesity. It is ironic that the richest country in the world, the USA, also uses more and more carbs to increase profits and the population suffers a diet of the poor. Diego Crespo Quito, Ecuador Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Hi folks: More, in the link below, on low carbohydrate diets. The findings will not surprise most of us here. http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/low-carb-diets-linked\ -atherosclerosis-and-impaired-blood-vessel-growth Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.