Re: Atkins 'affects conception chances'

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:56:05 -0700

slethnobotanist@... wrote:

> This is why we need WAP/NT. Assuming the study is correct, NT has

> pointed out that protein should never exceed 30%, no matter what type

> diet or food program you are on.

>

> It would seem the Atkins folks don't get it. They should have used this

> opportunity to point out that protein intake, while varying depending on

> your lifestyle needs, should rarely exceed 30%. They should have also

> taken the opportunity to point out that its high fat Atkins folks should

> be aiming for, not high protein.

>

> Their critics don't get it because they continue to refer to the program

> as high protein, which is really a misnomer. Unfortunately it would

> appear because of the stigma saturated fat has the Atkins folks aren't

> willing to challenge them.

>

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3845791.stm

>

By the way, the criticism is still apropo even if the fertility study is

flawed.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:31:37 -0700 (PDT)

<dezinegal@...> wrote:

> --- slethnobotanist@... wrote:

> > This is why we need WAP/NT. Assuming the study is correct, NT has

> > pointed out that protein should never exceed 30%, no matter what type

> > diet or food program you are on.

> >

> > It would seem the Atkins folks don't get it. They should have used

> > this

> > opportunity to point out that protein intake, while varying depending

> > on

> > your lifestyle needs, should rarely exceed 30%. They should have also

> > taken the opportunity to point out that its high fat Atkins folks

> > should

> > be aiming for, not high protein.

> >

> > Their critics don't get it because they continue to refer to the

> > program

> > as high protein, which is really a misnomer. Unfortunately it would

> > appear because of the stigma saturated fat has the Atkins folks

> > aren't

> > willing to challenge them.

> >

> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3845791.stm

> >

> >

>

> Yes, but does this apply to drug-free weight training people?

>

> ~

Dunno. But since the bodybuilding lifestyle is by no stretch of the

imagination a NT lifestyle, " drug " free or no, as we have discussed on

this list on several occasions, it really doesn't matter.

That is why I said concerning protein intake, " while varying depending

on your lifestyle needs, should rarely exceed 30%. "

The *New* Ten Commandments

http://tinyurl.com/245sr

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

>That is why I said concerning protein intake, " while varying depending

>on your lifestyle needs, should rarely exceed 30%. "

>

>

I think there is a lot of data to support this too, besides that

one article. But I consider my diet to be " high protein " ... in that

I eat a lot of meat ... and it is really hard to get even close to 30%.

I mean, you have to be living off chicken breast and broccoli,

practically. Which some body builders do, at least for short periods.

But if a woman is a body builder, she will have very low fat percentages

in her body too ... and that will likely make her unable to conceive also.

Isn't there a minimum body fat that a woman needs in order to

menstruate?

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

I remember a study citing how common it was for extremely active women to miss a

couple of periods -- So you're probably on to something with the low body fat /

menses connection.

Aside from too much protein being harsh on the kidneys, it also pulls a lot

calcium out of the bones; these Atkins people are damaging themselves -- that

diet was created for the morbidly obese who need to loose weight immediately,

not for the general faddist populace.

-- Ken

--- In , Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@t...>

wrote:

>

> >That is why I said concerning protein intake, " while varying depending

> >on your lifestyle needs, should rarely exceed 30%. "

> >

> >

>

> I think there is a lot of data to support this too, besides that

> one article. But I consider my diet to be " high protein " ... in that

> I eat a lot of meat ... and it is really hard to get even close to 30%.

> I mean, you have to be living off chicken breast and broccoli,

> practically. Which some body builders do, at least for short periods.

>

> But if a woman is a body builder, she will have very low fat percentages

> in her body too ... and that will likely make her unable to conceive also.

> Isn't there a minimum body fat that a woman needs in order to

> menstruate?

>

> -- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:05:36 -0700 (PDT)

<dezinegal@...> wrote:

> > > Yes, but does this apply to drug-free weight training people?

> > >

> > > ~

> >

> > Dunno. But since the bodybuilding lifestyle is by no stretch of the

> > imagination a NT lifestyle, " drug " free or no, as we have discussed

> > on

> > this list on several occasions, it really doesn't matter.

> >

> > That is why I said concerning protein intake, " while varying

> > depending

> > on your lifestyle needs, should rarely exceed 30%. "

> >

> >

>

> relax. Weight training and what you mentioned, " the

> bodybuilding lifestyle " can be and are two totally separate ways of

> living with various shades of grey in between. I weight train and eat

> NT with fat making up 50-70% of my daily diet. So yes there are

> " bodybuilders " who eat NT.

I appreciate the admonition but I don't see any need to relax since my

post (or me) was not uptight to begin with.

Yes I'm aware of the differences between folks training with weights and

people who are following the " bodybuilding lifestyle. " But those words

are often interchangeable and when the word " drug free " is used to

qualify weight training it normally refers to someone who is following

the " bodybuilding lifestyle " (i.e a bodybuilder) without some of the

things we have come to associate with the world of bodybuilding. Still

not NT but less emphasis on illegal drug use. So I responded with that

in mind. Perhaps you were unaware of that dual use.

There are many people who train with weights who follow NT principles,

myself included. I am not aware of anyone who follows the " bodybuilding

lifestyle " i.e. bodybuilders who are NT. The two " lifestyles " are

incompatible.

>

> The reason I asked about the weight training is that my nutrition

> professor made a point to say that strength training sports atheletes

> (i.e.- football players, weight lifters, wrestlers, etc.) need extra

> protein to aid in muscle repair. So if one is either trying to build

> new muscle or constantly repair the body from strenuous activity then

> one needs more protein than someone who is sedentary. Whether this ever

> translates to needing more than 30% a day of calories as protein I dont

> know, which is why I posed the question. You seem to be one of the more

> scientifically prone and well read individuals on this forum so I

> thought you might have some additional information. Now I'm sorry I

> asked.

No doubt this is true. 30% seems to be the upper end. Sedentary people

would probably require much less. Plus it is difficult (though not

impossible) to get a LOT of protein without supplementing which is

probably one of the failures of the Atkins study (and also explains why

bodybuilders supplement).

But this is one of the problems I was alluding to in another post. What

applies to elite athletes doesn't necessarily apply to everyday folk,

even everyday folk who weight train. And certainly what bodybuilders do

is beyond the pale of NT.

The *New* Ten Commandments

http://tinyurl.com/245sr

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

>> Aside from too much protein being harsh on the kidneys, it also pulls a

lot calcium out of the bones; these Atkins people are damaging themselves --

that diet was created for the morbidly obese who need to loose weight

immediately, not for the general faddist populace. <<

This is just not so. Protein doesn't damage the kidneys, but it's irrelevant

because ATKINS IS NOT A HIGH PROTEIN DIET. It's a HIGH FAT DIET.

" Atkins is not a high protein diet. It's a low cabohydrate, moderate

protein, high fat diet. " Dr. C. Atkins, " Dr. Atkins New Diet

Revolution. "

Christie

[Guest guest]

My question would be, what sort of protein did they feed the mice in the

study? I'd bet it was soy-based, rather than meat. The hormone-like

substances in that amount of soy would screw up any hormonal process,

let alone your chances of conception and successful pregnancy.

I happen to own pet rats, and unfortunately all the " high-quality " rat

foods are soy-based. The best authority on rat care is a woman named

Debbie Ducommun, who recommends feeding your rats a fresh food diet with

plenty of fresh veggies, but unfortunately her protein source is tofu.

I wrote to her about substituting hard-boiled eggs or meat, and sent her

a dozen studies on rats showing the harm soy does them, but I think she

was offended at my attack on soy. She thinks it's the bee's knees,

especially for rats. Anyway, she responded once, condescendingly, to

tell me how wonderful soy was, and then after I sent her the scientific

studies showing her how wrong she was, wouldn't respond to me anymore.

It's too bad, because on other subjects she seems to be a very

responsible authority.

Margaret

[Guest guest]

A very thin woman at work wanted a baby and asked her gyn about it and

was told she was too thin to concieve. So, they just gave up and

stopped thinking about it. She's now in the 4th month...

CU Anja

> Isn't there a minimum body fat that a woman needs in order to

> menstruate?

> -- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 03:48:31 -0000

" Ken Gage " <gageken@...> wrote:

> I'm a paleolithic health nut to some degree. That doesn't mean I won't have

the occasional twinkie, though.

I stay physically active and don't worry about calories or cravings.

>

> Well I still haven't read NT. But I wouldn't pooh-pooh the strain that

excessive protein puts on the kidneys

>because you saw it pooh-poohed in a book. I haven't ruled out the

>possibility that you're right yet ... I'm highly skeptical of everything ...

>like the crazy fear of salt so many people have thanks to the anit-salt

>dogma being inculcated into an allegedly scientific medical

>establishment.

I wouldn't pooh pooh it either based on something which is poorly

referenced, but given that you haven't read NT as of yet, I'm not sure

you are in a position to make that call.

Lets flip it around. Do you have any studies that show kidney damage

from excess protein from people eating real food and not protein powders

and otherwise denatured and harmful substances?

As for salt, I don't think you will find such fear on this board. Top

posting however, well that is another story :-)

Since you top posted, and I didn't want to do any cutting and pasting to

restore logical flow to the post, I will just say to those who might not

know, that you were responding to and not me.

The *New* Ten Commandments

http://tinyurl.com/245sr

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Ken Gage " <gageken@n...>

wrote:

>But I wouldn't pooh-pooh the strain that excessive protein puts on

>the kidneys because you saw it pooh-poohed in a book.

I haven't really looked into the protein-kidney issue, but the idea

that protein leaches calcium from the bones is total bunk in my view,

not least because it makes no sense, aside from being contradicted by

empirical evidence, including both Price's work, and some new studies.

What makes more physiological sense is that a high phosphorus intake

and low calcium intake can cause an increase in osteoblast activity

to free up Ca for the blood to raise the Ca:P ratio. That might

explain why some studies have shown that " protein " can cause calcium

loss and others show the exact opposite. A high Ca with a low P

intake would be just as bad, and a diet good for the bones is one

high in Ca and P.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Maybe I was too quick in accepting the old health reports concerning the protein

- calcium loss connection. I'm an avid reader of various health news reports

and research, but I hadn't kept up on this enough to realize there were several

orthodoxies forming.

Here's an interesting URL on the subject:

http://www.mercola.com/2002/apr/20/osteoporosis.htm

I recall a Danish study which seemed to link increased calcium intake (derived

from the consumption of cow milk) with an INCREASE in bone fractures in the

elderly. I have no link to provide on that one at the moment.

Here's another good look at the subject:

http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/prot-calc/prot-calcium-loss-1a.shtml

And one more from an anti-dairy angle:

http://heart.kumu.org/calcium.html

-- Ken

http://www.health-truth.com/articles/chronic04.asp

> >But I wouldn't pooh-pooh the strain that excessive protein puts on

> >the kidneys because you saw it pooh-poohed in a book.

>

> I haven't really looked into the protein-kidney issue, but the idea

> that protein leaches calcium from the bones is total bunk in my view,

> not least because it makes no sense, aside from being contradicted by

> empirical evidence, including both Price's work, and some new studies.

>

> What makes more physiological sense is that a high phosphorus intake

> and low calcium intake can cause an increase in osteoblast activity

> to free up Ca for the blood to raise the Ca:P ratio. That might

> explain why some studies have shown that " protein " can cause calcium

> loss and others show the exact opposite. A high Ca with a low P

> intake would be just as bad, and a diet good for the bones is one

> high in Ca and P.

>

> Chris