Re: Atkins proponents changing their tune?

[Guest guest]

Am I the only one who doesn't believe that Atkins died by slipping on

ice and banging his head?

Katrina.

[Guest guest]

So you think his heart attack in April of 2002 was completely

unrelated to his death one year later? And you also think it is

coincidental that the Atkins group changes their dietary

recommendations within 9 months of him dying?

Actions speak louder than words.

>

> > Am I the only one who doesn't believe that Atkins died by

slipping on

> > ice and banging his head?

> >

> > Katrina.

[Guest guest]

> sure, he fell. There is no doubt about this. Remember what the good

> doctor taught us about two events occurring together and one

causing the other?

Cause and effect is very difficult to prove, and I was not trying to

prove that. I was just pointing out that one should not believe

everything one reads - particularly when large sums of money are

involved.

> They recommend that 20% of the diet be saturated fat, to my mind

> this is a huge number!

I think they are covering themselves against legal action. But that

is just a guess on my part.

> I do think that it is interesting that the Saturated Fat % of

modern

> beef is to a large extent dictated by our modern agricultural

practices.

Indeed. Paleo man would have been eating wild meat with a fat

percentage probably as low as 4 or 5.

> We have steadily reduced the amount of grazing animals do and

replaced

> that with grain in feedlots.

You don't have to work hard to convince me that grains are not good

for animals. Every farmer knows that you feed the animals grains if

you want them to be fat for slaughter.

> Actions speak louder than words.

>

> what actions?

Having a heart attack, dying one year later, and then the group

making a public statement limiting the amount of saturated fat.

K.

[Guest guest]

His age at death was about right for someone on an Ad-lib diet. Even

if he did have an heart attack, I doubt you could prove it was the

high-fat or high-protein content that caused it.

I just think that the Atkins people are as greedy as everyone else,

and they will do everything they can to make sure as many people as

possible do the Atkins diet. This includes lying. I was not

attacking the diet itself.

I had a quote some years ago from Eades. Sr. (the father of the

author of the Protein Power books). In it, he said that his high-

protein test subjects died earlier than the control subjects, but I

can't find the exact words any more. I must have mislaid it. I'll

keep looking...

Katrina.

Dennis De Jarnette <positivedennis@m...> wrote:

>I do not see his death as related to his diet.

[Guest guest]

What I would like to know about the Atkins diet is how large losses

of weight can be achieved - which apparently they are - while still

consuming enormous numbers of calories.

This is not the only example of an apparent breakdown of the standard

equation:

" Change in weight is a function of calories in, minus calories out. "

Another example most of us will be familiar with is people who can

eat as much as they like, get little exercise and still remain

provocatively (!) slim.

This is an issue which needs scientific examination. My theory is

that it is variations in ABSORPTION (or lack of absorption) of

calories in the gut that is the most likely explanation - a factor

that for some strange reason the nutrition fraternity never seems to

consider. If one individual has an very efficient gut and has

an 'absorption factor' of 98%, s/he will have much more difficulty

maintaining weight than someone whose gut has an absorption factor of

60%, say.

If this is the explanation then the implication might be that those

who find it easy to stay slim no matter how much they eat are sick

with a nutrition absorption deficiency. In the Atkins case, perhaps

his diet in some way much reduces the absorption factor. That

shouldn't be too difficult to figure out. A test of stool would

provide the answer.

Rodney.

> >

> > > So you think his heart attack in April of 2002 was completely

> > > unrelated to his death one year later? And you also think it is

> > > coincidental that the Atkins group changes their dietary

> > > recommendations within 9 months of him dying?

> > >

> > > Actions speak louder than words.

> >

[Guest guest]

I found one quote, still looking for the other one:

" One of the most important things we've found out

about protein is its impact on life expectancy. When

you feed animals more protein, they don't live as

long. If you reduce their calories and protein, they

live longer. " -- Dr. Dean Edell

This is frustatingly vague, but it is what it is.

Katrina.

> I'll keep looking...

[Guest guest]

The study that I saw indicated that Atkins dieters could eat about 300

calories more than others and still lose weight. This is not an

astronomical amount, but no one knows yet why. Maybe the extra fat

slows absorbtion and alters the digestive pathway? I'm not a biologist.

As the research marches on, it becomes clear that things are a little

more complex than simple thermodynamic equations relating calories in

and weight. People's metabolic rates vary a lot, even for the same

person over time. Gut absorbtion probably is a factor, although I

doubt nearly as much as you postulate.

The other thing to realize is that eating fats and proteins tend to

make a person feel satiated. I suspect that many Atkins practicioners

eat less because they feel more satiated much of the time.

I don't follow Atkins, I just try to eat a healthy, balanced diet.

But I know that there are some very knowledgable people on other lists

that believe that Walford's recommendations are too low on fat and on

protein. People in weight-loss mode have higher protein needs than

normal, and especially if they are exercising a lot.

Ultimately, the only thing that is known to a certainty is that

reducing calories extends life in all animals tested. In humans,

calorie reduction itself changes things like blood profiles, white

counts, blood pressure, and body temperature. So it is not

necessarily a reasonable conclusion that just because diet A has been

shown to be less healthy in the general ad lib population, that the

same is true for a CRONie.

I think cutting calories is the main issue, and we should all support

each other in this endeavor, whatever diet we choose. Personally, I

find that eating healthy foods, and especially bulky fiber-laden foods

helps to control my appetite. I try to not eat highly glycemic foods

(something that Walford, South Beach, Atkins etc. all agree on), and

go for maximum nutritional content. Within these parameters, I don't

try to avoid fat, but it makes up 20 or 25% of my calories. I don't

worry about grams of carb, but more about quality of carb. White

flour, sugar, potatoes, white rice are out. If I eat something bad

(like drink a beer) I make sure I don't do it on an empty stomach, so

I don't get the blood sugar spike. And above all, I COUNT EVERYTHING

THAT GOES IN MY MOUTH. That's my approach so far. But I still have a

lot of weight to lose, so an argument could be made that I am not yet

" CRONing. "

Rob in Alaska

> What I would like to know about the Atkins diet is how large losses

> of weight can be achieved - which apparently they are - while still

> consuming enormous numbers of calories.

>

> This is not the only example of an apparent breakdown of the standard

> equation:

>

> " Change in weight is a function of calories in, minus calories out. "

>

> Another example most of us will be familiar with is people who can

> eat as much as they like, get little exercise and still remain

> provocatively (!) slim.

>

> This is an issue which needs scientific examination. My theory is

> that it is variations in ABSORPTION (or lack of absorption) of

> calories in the gut that is the most likely explanation - a factor

> that for some strange reason the nutrition fraternity never seems to

> consider. If one individual has an very efficient gut and has

> an 'absorption factor' of 98%, s/he will have much more difficulty

> maintaining weight than someone whose gut has an absorption factor of

> 60%, say.

>

> If this is the explanation then the implication might be that those

> who find it easy to stay slim no matter how much they eat are sick

> with a nutrition absorption deficiency. In the Atkins case, perhaps

> his diet in some way much reduces the absorption factor. That

> shouldn't be too difficult to figure out. A test of stool would

> provide the answer.

>

> Rodney.

>

>