Calories - Atkins -- Some Thoughts

[Guest guest]

--- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...>

wrote:

> In today's WSJ report of Harvard School of public health study that

> people could eat an extra 300 (k)cal on very low carbohydrate

> regimen and lose the same amount as those on standard low fat diet,

> in 12 week study.

*****I'll respond to several points made in this thread...

(1) First jr's point above...

what is valid for a 12-week study should not be extrapolated to be a

life-long strategy for weight loss. (It may work, life-long, but one

can't scientifically draw that conclusion from the 3 month study.)

Why do I say that? Listen to Walford: " It is noteworthy that most of

the [information regarding weight loss programs] especially that from

humans, comes from relatively short-term studies, and it is well

established that long-term calorie reduction may yield results

different from short term. Metabolic rate is a good example. On

short-term calorie reduction ... it declines, but on long term, it

returns to normal. " (p. 81 & p. 396).

(2) In response to several of 's comments...

writes, " Where has it been 'established' that Atkins is not the

way to go? I must have missed that discovery. BTW, what long term

studies are there of CRON on humans? None as well, so it seems a moot

complaint. "

*****Ok...here are the problems I see with Atkins (and all high-

protein/high-fat diets):

Unless you are eating range-free, organic animal foods, you can count

on a dramatic increase in your overall life-time risk of developing

any number of hormone-dependent cancers (e.g., breast and prostate) -

as well as cancer of the colon. Hormones implicated in these cancers

include testosterone, estrogen, in sulin, and insulinlike growth

hormones. What has this to do with Atkins? There is growing

evidence to support a link between animal fats and hormone-dependent

cancers. And Atkins' diet is LOADED with (basically) unrestricted

animal fat (and yes, I've read his most recent book, " Atkins' New

Diet Revolution " ).

So the major risk in Atkins is, in fact, its big " selling " point

(quite ironic, that!). What is the basic problem with animal fats?

Well, in farm-raised stock, animals are regularly and systematically

injected with growth hormones (to fatten them up quickly = greater

profit) and also with antibiotics (animals kept in very close

quarters may spread disease; the antibiotics lessen the chance of

this). Some of these injected substances survive the animal's

slaughter as well as the cooking process. What happens? You consume

them. End result: your body gets a constant (and unnecessary) supply

of the remnants of the injected substances. Small amounts, to be

sure, but over years and even decades, they can feed an initiated

cancer appearance, allowing it to become full-blown. Do you really

want that JUNK in you body? Do you really want to make the body work

overtime to neutralize and/or eliminate it? We have enough problems

with the pesticides on our produce!

(Also, consider that there is substantial epidemiological evidence

that societies which consume little animal flesh have much lower

cancer rates which the exception of those cultures that eat highly

salted food, like the Japanese, who have high rates of stomach

cancer.)

Is there a way around this? Yes: eat range-free, organic animal

flesh which has not been treated with antibiotics or hormones. An

added benefit is that these animals will have a significantly lower

fat content (a result of being allowed to roam freely and get more

exercise). A negative side effect: the lack of fat will make the

flesh harder to chew and less " succulent. " As the French say, *tant

pis*.

This still doesn't address two other problems with Atkins:

First, one should consider whether the high amount of protein is

needed for good health. In the long haul, over many years, it may be

injurious to (or at least hard on) the kidneys. There is some

evidence that this may be the case (although most of the data stem

from people who already had sustained some non-diet damage to their

kidneys). But large amounts of protein are plainly not needed for

optimal health (view the Okinawa diet which is - relative to Atkins -

extremely low in protein). An argument given is that protein (even

low-fat versions) has a higher satiety value and thus prevents hunger

from returning. That is one theory. Another, equally valid one, is

that unrefined foods with a low energy density (e.g., turnip greens),

foods that are bulky and packed with nutrients but low in

calories..these kinds of foods can induce a feeling of fullness at a

low energy intake (low number of calories).

Finally, although after the " induction " period, Atkins allows one to

consume more carbohydrates, it is far too few for optimal health.

For me, the question of whether or not the Atkins diet really does

lead to PERMANENT weight loss is only a small part of the issue. As

Francesca points out, HEALTH and VITALITY are the critical things to

be concerned with here. Certainly being significantly overweight

robs one of health and vitality. I don't dispute that. One should

get the weight off. However, the research that I find most credible

is the data published in Walford's book and The Okinawa Program. The

goal is LOTS of vegetables and moderate amounts of fruit...up to 70%

of the diet. Over and over again, responsible and scientifically

based research points to the protective properties of veggies and

fruits (and, to a lesser extent, whole, unrefined grains). These

foods protect against cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes - the

major killers of " modern " society.

You can't get that on Atkins. No way. Once the induction period of

his diet ends (i.e., you reach your optimal weight), you are allowed

to consume more and more carbs. However, everyone I know experiences

a weight gain in the weeks that follow. Some gain a lot of weight;

others moderate amounts. So...what does Atkins suggest for this

reaction? At point when weight gain begins, Atkins advises one to

stop adding carbs (or cut back again, if necessary).

Why this universal weight gain (I know of no one who hasn't had this

happen once they left the " induction " phase of Atkins)? Because when

one leaves the ketogenic state imposed by the induction phase, the

body begins to store more water (bonded to the carbs which have been

re-introduced into the diet). That extra water produces weight

gain. Sure, it may not be fat; it may be primarily water. But

Atkins' instructions don't differentiate that. He says that when

find's one's weight going up, it is time to cut back on the carbs.

Now, to give Atkins some credit: he staunchly urges his readers to

avoid what we would all call " lousy " carbs (sugary, refined carbs)

and encourages us to eat what we all would label " healthy " carbs:

vegetables, modest amounts of low-glycemic fruits and a small amount

of whole, unrefined grains. The problem with his approach is that he

has reversed his emphasis (far too much fat & protein at the expense

of the life-saving veggies/fruits/grains).

comments, " Interestingly, I also saw a study that showed that

high fat breakfasts induced people to consume LESS calories as

opposed to high carb breakfasts. "

*****Whenever I read something like this I want to know: exactly what

was in the " high carb breakfast " ????

See, we now know, sans doubt, that all carbs are not created

equally. The body responds in a dramatically different way when one

consumes refined carbs vs. unrefined ones. As well, the type and

quality of carb consumed makes a PROFOUND difference in how one

experiences " rebound " hunger. Rats on a low-protein, high carb diety

*voluntarily* restrict their intake and live longer. But " high carb "

can mean white toast, sugar-laden preserves, orange juice, and coffee

with sugar and milk. This is certainly a " high carb breakfast. " It

will, however, produce a very powerful rebound hunger in 1-2 hours

(unless one gorges on the toast!). It is not what I would consider

a " healthful " high carb breakfast. It appears that appetite

regulation goes hand-in-hand with unrefined foods (whole grains,

e.g.) and that these foods confer other health benefits as well

(phytochemicals, e.g.).

comments " Your criticism of Atkins was that his diet was not

tested for long term health effects. Neither is CRON, lab tests or

not. "

*****I tend to agree with Francesca, with a caveat. CRON has not

been lab tested. That is true. But the diet consumed for several

hundred years in Okinawa is VERY close to CRON...it isn't as

scientifically adjusted to what Walford would suggest...but it is

very similar. Now, what do we find among the population consuming

the *traditional* Okinawa diet (not the modern version being eaten by

the younger generation)? We don't find the 120-year old age goal

that Walford predicts. This is probably because the Okinawa diet is

not as finely-tuned as Walford would suggest. But we DO find a

predominant collection of senior citizens, many of them in their late

80's and 90's, who are strong, alert, sharp of mind, leading vital,

active lives. For me, that is sufficient " proof. "

goes on to say " As for the Atkins being unproven long term...we

know it's been used successfully by millions of people over the last

25 years. We know that it lowers cholesterol levels (for those who

think it's relevant), triglycerides and insulin levels. We know it

doesn't increase risks of CVD. We know it helps people lose weight

(something healthy). "

*****I am not sure that these are " facts. " Specifically, " it's been

used successfully by millions of people. " That would depend on how

one defines " used successfully. " Can one lose weight on it? Surely

(one can lose weight on any crazy diet!). All the people I know who

used Atkins lost weight; some, a significant amount. However: what

is the 1, 2, and 5 year success rate? We don't have data on that.

And all the people I know who used Atkins eventually gained most - if

not all - the weight back (once they left the induction phase).

The comment about lowering cholesterol levels may not be the entire

story. Weight loss has such a powerful effect on both LDL and HDL

cholesterol that it can overcome a detrimental effect of saturated

fat (of which the Atkins is replete). In other words, LDL may climb

once people stop losing - and start trying to maintain - their weight.

Again, the changes that have been documented with Atkins are

certainly real. The questions are (again): will the changes persist

outside of the induction phase and is it wise to consume that much

fat and animal protein (due to the cancer risk)? Also, the absence

of many varied veggies and fruits reduces one's protection to a

multitude of cancers.

points out " My suspicion is that ketogenic diets lend themselves

to greater heat production instead of creating stored body fat (as in

high carbohydrate diets) because of minimal insulin production. "

*****That may be so. But again, Atkins does not recommend staying

permanently in the ketogenic (induction) state. What do you think

happens once a person leaves that phase of the diet? No ketogenesis -

--> no excess heat production = re-storage of body fat. And then the

cycle begins again (go on the induction phase, lose weight, etc.). A

futile cycle if you ask me.

just my two cents. :-)

~ andy

[Guest guest]

Andy: as usual an excellent post summarising the main points. Your post has

been made into a file titled: " Atkins vs. CRON " .

on 10/14/2003 6:56 PM, Andy at endofthedream@... wrote:

>

> *****I'll respond to several points made in this thread...

>

> (1) First jr's point above...

>

> what is valid for a 12-week study should not be extrapolated to be a

> life-long strategy for weight loss. (It may work, life-long, but one

> can't......(snipped)

[Guest guest]

Well, since Andy's post has been filed, it may be interesting to have

a rebuttal. (I find it somewhat bizarre that the file is called " CRON

vs Atkins " when I specifically mentioned in a previous post how the

two were possibly compatible. *sigh*)

" what is valid for a 12-week study should not be extrapolated to be a

life-long strategy for weight loss. (It may work, life-long, but one

can't scientifically draw that conclusion from the 3 month study.) "

Clearly this is dependent on WHAT is being studied. There is no reason

to believe that this refutation of the calorie is a calorie myth would

no hold true over lengthier periods of time. As such it seems somewhat

of a cop-out to say that longer term studies are needed. Longer

studies would be nice...but for now the evidence (when it comes to

losing weight) is strongly in Atkins' favor.

"

> Unless you are eating range-free, organic animal foods, you can count

> on... "

Actually, that's exactly the point made by Fallon and Enig...and a

point Atkins MAKES HIMSELF in his book. The same problem (pesticides)

is also present in vegetables and fruits...the consumer should seek

out the best sources. This is no way a flaw in the Atkins diet. It is

perhaps a criticism of it's application, but I wouldn't fault people

for not seeking out organic pasture feed animals. Afterall, it can be

quite expensive and/or complicated. Nevertheless, the Atkins diet

appears more satiating and more healthful than many diets out there.

" (Also, consider that there is substantial epidemiological evidence

that societies which consume little animal flesh have much lower

cancer rates which the exception of those cultures that eat highly

salted food, like the Japanese, who have high rates of stomach

cancer.) "

1.) Will you factor in epidemiological evidence that shows that people

consuming saturated fat almost exclusively suffer from next to zero

cardiovascular disease?

2.) Will you remain faithful to epidemiological evidence when you

consider that Japaneese smoke more on average yet have lower rates of

lung cancer? Will you consider tobacco to be an anti-carcinogen.

Whichever option you choose...this is an extremely weak attack upon

the Atkins diet.

" Is there a way around this? Yes: eat range-free, organic animal

flesh which has not been treated with antibiotics or hormones. An

added benefit is that these animals will have a significantly lower

fat content (a result of being allowed to roam freely and get more

exercise). A negative side effect: the lack of fat will make the

flesh harder to chew and less " succulent. " As the French say, *tant

pis*. "

Is there evidence that pasture fed animals will have less fat on them?

I've seen this mentioned many times but I've also heard that it's

probably a myth. In any case...interesting, but irrelevant.

" This still doesn't address two other problems with Atkins:

First, one should consider whether the high amount of protein is

needed for good health. In the long haul, over many years, it may be

injurious to (or at least hard on) the kidneys. There is some

evidence that this may be the case (although most of the data stem

from people who already had sustained some non-diet damage to their

kidneys). "

Clearly most of the evidence of kidney damage is little more than

bunk. I wouldn't rely on it as evidence, at all.

" But large amounts of protein are plainly not needed for

optimal health (view the Okinawa diet which is - relative to Atkins -

extremely low in protein). "

I fail to see what this illustrates. Lack of protein may not be

necessary for optimal health but that does not mean it deleterious to

health. It may also be that the Okinawans (who I believe ate a lot of

pork, actually) are healthy IN SPITE OF lack of protein use. Clearly

this assertion proves little to nothing.

" An argument given is that protein (even

> low-fat versions) has a higher satiety value and thus prevents hunger

> from returning. That is one theory. Another, equally valid one, is

> that unrefined foods with a low energy density (e.g., turnip greens),

> foods that are bulky and packed with nutrients but low in

> calories..these kinds of foods can induce a feeling of fullness at a

> low energy intake (low number of calories). "

Actually neither of those theories conflict when we consider that the

underlying mechanism for satiety my lie in insulin production.

" Finally, although after the " induction " period, Atkins allows one to

consume more carbohydrates, it is far too few for optimal health. "

Evidence?? Carbohydrates are not essential to life and most are

deleterious to health.

" For me, the question of whether or not the Atkins diet really does

lead to PERMANENT weight loss is only a small part of the issue. As

Francesca points out, HEALTH and VITALITY are the critical things to

be concerned with here. "

But you have shown absolutely NOTHING which would show the Atkins diet

as being unhealthy or lacking in vitality.

" You can't get that on Atkins. No way. Once the induction period of

his diet ends (i.e., you reach your optimal weight), you are allowed

to consume more and more carbs. However, everyone I know experiences

a weight gain in the weeks that follow. Some gain a lot of weight;

others moderate amounts. So...what does Atkins suggest for this

reaction? At point when weight gain begins, Atkins advises one to

stop adding carbs (or cut back again, if necessary). "

So what?

" Why this universal weight gain (I know of no one who hasn't had this

> happen once they left the " induction " phase of Atkins)? Because when

> one leaves the ketogenic state imposed by the induction phase, the

> body begins to store more water (bonded to the carbs which have been

> re-introduced into the diet). That extra water produces weight

> gain. Sure, it may not be fat; it may be primarily water. But

> Atkins' instructions don't differentiate that. He says that when

> find's one's weight going up, it is time to cut back on the carbs. "

Perhaps, but I don't see the relevance.

" Now, to give Atkins some credit: he staunchly urges his readers to

> avoid what we would all call " lousy " carbs (sugary, refined carbs)

> and encourages us to eat what we all would label " healthy " carbs:

> vegetables, modest amounts of low-glycemic fruits and a small amount

> of whole, unrefined grains. The problem with his approach is that he

> has reversed his emphasis (far too much fat & protein at the expense

> of the life-saving veggies/fruits/grains). "

What evidence is their that grains are necessary to health??? Veggies

can be eaten bountifully on the Atkins diet and fruits can be eaten in

moderation (as most CRONies do).

> " The comment about lowering cholesterol levels may not be the entire

> story. Weight loss has such a powerful effect on both LDL and HDL

> cholesterol that it can overcome a detrimental effect of saturated

> fat (of which the Atkins is replete). "

Please show me evidence of the detrimental effect of saturated fat. I

know it's beleived axiomatically here...

"

> Again, the changes that have been documented with Atkins are

> certainly real. The questions are (again): will the changes persist

> outside of the induction phase and is it wise to consume that much

> fat and animal protein (due to the cancer risk)? Also, the absence

> of many varied veggies and fruits reduces one's protection to a

> multitude of cancers. "

Straw man. Atkins does not eliminate fruits and vegetables.

---------

I hope I didn't reply for nothing. I appreciate Andy debating the

issue with me; hopefully we can continue fruitfully. I do have several

objections to the point's he's made. Perhaps he can clarify them..or

expand in which, great

Cheers,

-

[Guest guest]

For evidence showing the unhealthiness of saturated fat take a look

at the data from the Nurses Health Study - over 100,000 participants,

for thirty years. Willett - " Healthy Women, Healthy Lives " is one

source.

> Well, since Andy's post has been filed, it may be interesting to

have

> a rebuttal. (I find it somewhat bizarre that the file is

called " CRON

> vs Atkins " when I specifically mentioned in a previous post how the

> two were possibly compatible. *sigh*)

>

> " what is valid for a 12-week study should not be extrapolated to be

a

> life-long strategy for weight loss. (It may work, life-long, but

one

> can't scientifically draw that conclusion from the 3 month study.) "

>

> Clearly this is dependent on WHAT is being studied. There is no

reason

> to believe that this refutation of the calorie is a calorie myth

would

> no hold true over lengthier periods of time. As such it seems

somewhat

> of a cop-out to say that longer term studies are needed. Longer

> studies would be nice...but for now the evidence (when it comes to

> losing weight) is strongly in Atkins' favor.

>

> "

> > Unless you are eating range-free, organic animal foods, you can

count

> > on... "

>

> Actually, that's exactly the point made by Fallon and Enig...and a

> point Atkins MAKES HIMSELF in his book. The same problem

(pesticides)

> is also present in vegetables and fruits...the consumer should seek

> out the best sources. This is no way a flaw in the Atkins diet. It

is

> perhaps a criticism of it's application, but I wouldn't fault people

> for not seeking out organic pasture feed animals. Afterall, it can

be

> quite expensive and/or complicated. Nevertheless, the Atkins diet

> appears more satiating and more healthful than many diets out

there.

>

> " (Also, consider that there is substantial epidemiological

evidence

> that societies which consume little animal flesh have much lower

> cancer rates which the exception of those cultures that eat

highly

> salted food, like the Japanese, who have high rates of stomach

> cancer.) "

>

> 1.) Will you factor in epidemiological evidence that shows that

people

> consuming saturated fat almost exclusively suffer from next to zero

> cardiovascular disease?

>

> 2.) Will you remain faithful to epidemiological evidence when you

> consider that Japaneese smoke more on average yet have lower rates

of

> lung cancer? Will you consider tobacco to be an anti-carcinogen.

>

> Whichever option you choose...this is an extremely weak attack upon

> the Atkins diet.

>

> " Is there a way around this? Yes: eat range-free, organic animal

> flesh which has not been treated with antibiotics or hormones. An

> added benefit is that these animals will have a significantly

lower

> fat content (a result of being allowed to roam freely and get more

> exercise). A negative side effect: the lack of fat will make the

> flesh harder to chew and less " succulent. " As the French say,

*tant

> pis*. "

>

> Is there evidence that pasture fed animals will have less fat on

them?

> I've seen this mentioned many times but I've also heard that it's

> probably a myth. In any case...interesting, but irrelevant.

>

>

> " This still doesn't address two other problems with Atkins:

>

> First, one should consider whether the high amount of protein is

> needed for good health. In the long haul, over many years, it may

be

> injurious to (or at least hard on) the kidneys. There is some

> evidence that this may be the case (although most of the data stem

> from people who already had sustained some non-diet damage to

their

> kidneys). "

>

> Clearly most of the evidence of kidney damage is little more than

> bunk. I wouldn't rely on it as evidence, at all.

>

> " But large amounts of protein are plainly not needed for

> optimal health (view the Okinawa diet which is - relative to

Atkins -

> extremely low in protein). "

>

> I fail to see what this illustrates. Lack of protein may not be

> necessary for optimal health but that does not mean it deleterious

to

> health. It may also be that the Okinawans (who I believe ate a lot

of

> pork, actually) are healthy IN SPITE OF lack of protein use. Clearly

> this assertion proves little to nothing.

>

>

> " An argument given is that protein (even

> > low-fat versions) has a higher satiety value and thus prevents

hunger

> > from returning. That is one theory. Another, equally valid one,

is

> > that unrefined foods with a low energy density (e.g., turnip

greens),

> > foods that are bulky and packed with nutrients but low in

> > calories..these kinds of foods can induce a feeling of fullness

at a

> > low energy intake (low number of calories). "

>

> Actually neither of those theories conflict when we consider that

the

> underlying mechanism for satiety my lie in insulin production.

>

>

> " Finally, although after the " induction " period, Atkins allows one

to

> consume more carbohydrates, it is far too few for optimal health. "

>

> Evidence?? Carbohydrates are not essential to life and most are

> deleterious to health.

>

> " For me, the question of whether or not the Atkins diet really

does

> lead to PERMANENT weight loss is only a small part of the issue.

As

> Francesca points out, HEALTH and VITALITY are the critical things

to

> be concerned with here. "

>

> But you have shown absolutely NOTHING which would show the Atkins

diet

> as being unhealthy or lacking in vitality.

>

>

> " You can't get that on Atkins. No way. Once the induction period

of

> his diet ends (i.e., you reach your optimal weight), you are

allowed

> to consume more and more carbs. However, everyone I know

experiences

> a weight gain in the weeks that follow. Some gain a lot of

weight;

> others moderate amounts. So...what does Atkins suggest for this

> reaction? At point when weight gain begins, Atkins advises one to

> stop adding carbs (or cut back again, if necessary). "

>

> So what?

>

> " Why this universal weight gain (I know of no one who hasn't had

this

> > happen once they left the " induction " phase of Atkins)? Because

when

> > one leaves the ketogenic state imposed by the induction phase,

the

> > body begins to store more water (bonded to the carbs which have

been

> > re-introduced into the diet). That extra water produces weight

> > gain. Sure, it may not be fat; it may be primarily water. But

> > Atkins' instructions don't differentiate that. He says that when

> > find's one's weight going up, it is time to cut back on the

carbs. "

>

> Perhaps, but I don't see the relevance.

>

>

> " Now, to give Atkins some credit: he staunchly urges his readers

to

> > avoid what we would all call " lousy " carbs (sugary, refined

carbs)

> > and encourages us to eat what we all would label " healthy " carbs:

> > vegetables, modest amounts of low-glycemic fruits and a small

amount

> > of whole, unrefined grains. The problem with his approach is

that he

> > has reversed his emphasis (far too much fat & protein at the

expense

> > of the life-saving veggies/fruits/grains). "

>

> What evidence is their that grains are necessary to health???

Veggies

> can be eaten bountifully on the Atkins diet and fruits can be eaten

in

> moderation (as most CRONies do).

>

> > " The comment about lowering cholesterol levels may not be the

entire

> > story. Weight loss has such a powerful effect on both LDL and

HDL

> > cholesterol that it can overcome a detrimental effect of

saturated

> > fat (of which the Atkins is replete). "

>

> Please show me evidence of the detrimental effect of saturated fat.

I

> know it's beleived axiomatically here...

>

> "

> > Again, the changes that have been documented with Atkins are

> > certainly real. The questions are (again): will the changes

persist

> > outside of the induction phase and is it wise to consume that

much

> > fat and animal protein (due to the cancer risk)? Also, the

absence

> > of many varied veggies and fruits reduces one's protection to a

> > multitude of cancers. "

>

> Straw man. Atkins does not eliminate fruits and vegetables.

>

> ---------

>

> I hope I didn't reply for nothing. I appreciate Andy debating the

> issue with me; hopefully we can continue fruitfully. I do have

several

> objections to the point's he's made. Perhaps he can clarify them..or

> expand in which, great

>

> Cheers,

>

> -

[Guest guest]

It's my understanding that the Okinawans only eat pork on special

occasions. Would this be considered " a lot " ?

-Dominick

> [...]

> I fail to see what this illustrates. Lack of protein may not be

> necessary for optimal health but that does not mean it deleterious to

> health. It may also be that the Okinawans (who I believe ate a lot of

> pork, actually) are healthy IN SPITE OF lack of protein use. Clearly

> this assertion proves little to nothing.

> [...]

[Guest guest]

without jumping into the atkins thread too much, i just want to point

out that low-carb doesn't entail high-protein. either high-protein

or high-fat, or some midway point for each, are consistent with low-

carb. as Fallon and Enig have discussed, traditional diets are

virtually never high-protein, and it's widely believed of course that

beyond a certain point extra protein is unnecessary. it seems people

have an instinctive stopping point with protein, and i think the

general ranges of protein intake tend to stay below 25% or so in most

cases. whereas high-protein is unnatural, there's no such thing as

too much fat, and of course fat has always been the most prized

substance for humans (until some bizarre developments in the 20th

century of course!), as it's much scarcer than protein and can be

consumed in larger quantities. by the way, humans can thrive on a

very wide range of diets, and that includes a wide range of carb

intakes, so both atkins and non-atkins can be super healthy diets,

depending on the actual foods eaten, and their quality, etc. the

traditional inuit diet was definitely an atkins diet!

mike parker

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

I love that you brought up the Nurses Study about saturated fat. It

was also mentioned to me by several CRONies...so I had a look into it.

The study, btw, was huge, and done on 86 000 people IIRC.

Firstly, the data is pretty useless in the first place, since they used

food questionaires (how often did you eat how much of a particular

item) and then made guesses at what the food actually contained (and

how much was really consumed - it wasn't measured or anything). The

data is far too coarse-grained (i.e. polyunsaturated fat is not broken

out). Note: you can find info on this study on junkscience.com!

The Nurses in questions were divided into 5 quintiles, with respect to

saturated fat consumed. 150 people were found with colon cancer. Thus

we expect to find 30 people with cancer in each quintile (the null

hypothesis). Those in the highest quintile of saturated fat had 38

cases. This is stastically significant...but nothing disasterous.

However this study mentioned ONLY colon cancer. What about the other

types of cancer, you ask? Women with a dietary fat intake above 33%

had breast cancer at a rate of 114 cases per quintile. Now...the

shocker: the quintile with fat intake BELOW 33% had a whooping

~~~145~~~ cases of breast cancer! This is definitely stastically

significant. So if we are to accept this epedimiological data we MUST

conclude that low fat intake may cause breast cancer!

BTW, this study was done with millions upon millions of taxpayer

money. When the researchers were asked whether they tabulated the

total cancers cases in each quintile (a phenomnetally simple thing to

do) they said they did not possess such data. Is it just me...or did

they realize the data wasn't favorable and discarded it?

I think we're all going to have to realize that most facts out on

saturated fat are myths, and nothing more.

Thoughts?

-

> For evidence showing the unhealthiness of saturated fat take a look

> at the data from the Nurses Health Study - over 100,000 participants,

> for thirty years. Willett - " Healthy Women, Healthy Lives " is one

> source.

>

[Guest guest]

One of the major " findings " in this Okinawa program book was that

Okinawans consumed very little saturated fat (meaning fat containing

saturated fatty acid [sFA]), and this was supposed to be a major

benefit. The main oil used in cooking was said to be canola oil.

Since canola oil is a recent invention, becoming common only in the

last 20 years in Canada and the USA, it could hardly have been a

benefit to Okinawans who are now very old.

Professors at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, Mignon

S. and C. Geliebter, spent a month in Okinawa recently,

with special attention on food. They did not see any canola oil in

use. The common oils were peanut (16% SFA), soybean (15% SFA),

rapeseed (1% SFA) and lard (44% SFA). [ C. Enig, Know Your Fats,

Bethesda Press, 2000.]

The Okinawans also eat significant amounts of pork and moderate

amounts of chicken, both of which contain considerable SFAs. They ate

fish, rice and vegetables, but pork and lard " ...have always been the

mainstay of this people's diet " . Sally Fallon and C. Enig quoted

an Okinawan professor who wrote that the Okinawan diet was " greasy and

good " .

I'm not sure what a " lot " is though..I'd have to look into it more. It

seems certain that the Okinawans DID consume pork and definitely lard

(which was the traditional cooking oil). Maybe that is why they're so

long lived?

-

> It's my understanding that the Okinawans only eat pork on special

> occasions. Would this be considered " a lot " ?

>

> -Dominick

[Guest guest]

Canola oil **IS** rapeseed oil.

> > It's my understanding that the Okinawans only eat pork on special

> > occasions. Would this be considered " a lot " ?

> >

> > -Dominick

[Guest guest]

: I had in mind the findings regarding heart disease in the

Nurses' Health Study - which as you know accounts for many more

deaths than cancer. (Be back tomorrow).

> Rodney,

>

> I love that you brought up the Nurses Study about saturated fat. It

> was also mentioned to me by several CRONies...so I had a look into

it.

> The study, btw, was huge, and done on 86 000 people IIRC.

>

> Firstly, the data is pretty useless in the first place, since they

used

> food questionaires (how often did you eat how much of a particular

> item) and then made guesses at what the food actually contained (and

> how much was really consumed - it wasn't measured or anything). The

> data is far too coarse-grained (i.e. polyunsaturated fat is not

broken

> out). Note: you can find info on this study on junkscience.com!

>

> The Nurses in questions were divided into 5 quintiles, with respect

to

> saturated fat consumed. 150 people were found with colon cancer.

Thus

> we expect to find 30 people with cancer in each quintile (the null

> hypothesis). Those in the highest quintile of saturated fat had 38

> cases. This is stastically significant...but nothing disasterous.

> However this study mentioned ONLY colon cancer. What about the other

> types of cancer, you ask? Women with a dietary fat intake above 33%

> had breast cancer at a rate of 114 cases per quintile. Now...the

> shocker: the quintile with fat intake BELOW 33% had a whooping

> ~~~145~~~ cases of breast cancer! This is definitely stastically

> significant. So if we are to accept this epedimiological data we

MUST

> conclude that low fat intake may cause breast cancer!

>

> BTW, this study was done with millions upon millions of taxpayer

> money. When the researchers were asked whether they tabulated the

> total cancers cases in each quintile (a phenomnetally simple thing

to

> do) they said they did not possess such data. Is it just me...or did

> they realize the data wasn't favorable and discarded it?

>

> I think we're all going to have to realize that most facts out on

> saturated fat are myths, and nothing more.

>

> Thoughts?

>

> -

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> > For evidence showing the unhealthiness of saturated fat take a

look

> > at the data from the Nurses Health Study - over 100,000

participants,

> > for thirty years. Willett - " Healthy Women, Healthy Lives " is

one

> > source.

> >

[Guest guest]

Canola oil **IS NOT* rapeseed oil.

Canola oil is not rapeseed oil. Whilst it is derived from the same

species of plant, it is distinguished by lower levels of erucic acid.

By definition, the word 'canola oil' can only be used if the level of

erucic acid is less than 2%. 'Canola' oil was initially a trademarked

named used by the Canadian developers. Low-erucic acid rapeseed oil

(LEAR oil) is one of the most common edible oils in Europe. 'Canola'

has now become a global term.

-

> > > It's my understanding that the Okinawans only eat pork on special

> > > occasions. Would this be considered " a lot " ?

> > >

> > > -Dominick

[Guest guest]

Duno. There appears to be some debate about how much pork and fat the

Okinawans really eat. Pork does appear to be a focus of their diet, at

least.

" E-Mail is not to be used to pass on information or data. It should only

be used for company business. " --Dilbert

" Ahh, they have the internet on computers now " - Homer J. Simpson

" The human race has only one truely effective weapon, and that is laughter! "

- Mark Twain

>From: " Dominick " <chiprunner1995@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Calories - Atkins -- Some Thoughts

>Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:19:41 -0000

>

>It's my understanding that the Okinawans only eat pork on special

>occasions. Would this be considered " a lot " ?

>

>-Dominick

>

>

> > [...]

> > I fail to see what this illustrates. Lack of protein may not be

> > necessary for optimal health but that does not mean it deleterious to

> > health. It may also be that the Okinawans (who I believe ate a lot of

> > pork, actually) are healthy IN SPITE OF lack of protein use. Clearly

> > this assertion proves little to nothing.

> > [...]

>

_________________________________________________________________

Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan

online from McAfee.

http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963