RE: Atkins diet - pros and cons.

[Guest guest]

I still think you miss the point.

>>is doesn't prove one way or the other that his diet is harmful,

It proves that he and his organization were/are willing to lie to the

public while representing themselves as purveyors of truth.

>>he certainly was not obese with a BMI in the 26-27 range.

I, nor anyone else said he was.

>>is is not an unhealthy BMI value; given the survival data I cited, it

is actually in the optimal range.

Lots of data has been posted here suggesting the optimal range is

18.5-22. Some have argued for the 22-24 range. I don't know of anyone

doing CR-ON who is shooting for a BMI in the 26-27 range.

>>hwever, I've been very impressed by people on low-carb forums who have

lost more than 100 lbs. on the diet, where the diet has been a

life-changing event.

And for some it has been a life ending event. The issue isnt if you

lose weight. You can lose weight and change your life taking

amphetamines, cocaine, tobacoo, or stomach sugery.

CR-ON is not about just losing weight. Its about ON also. I didn't set

the nutritional guidelines/needs of humans. But, I found it impossible

to analyse an atkins style diet and have it meet the nutrition

requirements of the body as defined by the leading health organizations

of the world.

>>think the best strategy is not to push any idea to the extremes and to

sort of keep a middle of the road approach as much as possible. We just

don't have the data right now to know which is the best approach.

Then my question is why would you be here doing CR-ON which is based on

restricting calories while providing optimum nutrition and considered by

many to be extreme in and of itself.

I understand you are trying to intellectulize your own approach to it,

and god bless you for doing it, but how can you say you are for a

" middle of the road " approach when what you are doing is based on maybe

one short term study and an approach that many would consider anything

but middle of the road in what is also considered an anything but middle

of the road endeavor. You are talking extreme (QOD) of the extreme

(CR-ON)

We have plenty of good data and that is what this list is about. Good

data. And we discuss it all the time here,

And Walford was pretty clear in his recommendations, which are the data

that started all this and, which were no where near what Atkins

recommends. If you have better data, and I mean much better data, and

not just one or two studies, than lets see it.

There are quite a few short term studies on Atkins which showed the

subjects on Atkins diet didn't do well. The one year study on Atkins

showed that those on the Atkins diet didn't do well. The 2 year study

on kids on an atkins type diet (ketogenic) showed terrible results.

There are other studies documenting problems and deaths with the diet.

I have read them all, spoken with the authors and written reviews of

them all.

These have all been posted here.

My challenge to you is simple.

Do the nutritionaly analysis of what you are considering,

recommendation, or doing. Not just sodium and potassium or calories,

but all the known nutrients. See if what you are

doing/recommending/considering or arguing for, even comes close to

meeting the needs of humans as best we know them. We can argue how

correct the estimates of the needs are at another point, but right now

they are the best we have, so lets go with them for now.

The goal is simple Creat the most nutritionaly dense diet you can on

the least amount of calories needed to maintain a healthy CR weight/BMI

and show me what you come up with.

Beyond that, I think this discussion is redundant and pointless.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

I still think you miss the point.

>>is doesn't prove one way or the other that his diet is harmful,

It proves that he and his organization were/are willing to lie to the

public while representing themselves as purveyors of truth.

>>he certainly was not obese with a BMI in the 26-27 range.

I, nor anyone else said he was.

>>is is not an unhealthy BMI value; given the survival data I cited, it

is actually in the optimal range.

Lots of data has been posted here suggesting the optimal range is

18.5-22. Some have argued for the 22-24 range. I don't know of anyone

doing CR-ON who is shooting for a BMI in the 26-27 range.

>>hwever, I've been very impressed by people on low-carb forums who have

lost more than 100 lbs. on the diet, where the diet has been a

life-changing event.

And for some it has been a life ending event. The issue isnt if you

lose weight. You can lose weight and change your life taking

amphetamines, cocaine, tobacoo, or stomach sugery.

CR-ON is not about just losing weight. Its about ON also. I didn't set

the nutritional guidelines/needs of humans. But, I found it impossible

to analyse an atkins style diet and have it meet the nutrition

requirements of the body as defined by the leading health organizations

of the world.

>>think the best strategy is not to push any idea to the extremes and to

sort of keep a middle of the road approach as much as possible. We just

don't have the data right now to know which is the best approach.

Then my question is why would you be here doing CR-ON which is based on

restricting calories while providing optimum nutrition and considered by

many to be extreme in and of itself.

I understand you are trying to intellectulize your own approach to it,

and god bless you for doing it, but how can you say you are for a

" middle of the road " approach when what you are doing is based on maybe

one short term study and an approach that many would consider anything

but middle of the road in what is also considered an anything but middle

of the road endeavor. You are talking extreme (QOD) of the extreme

(CR-ON)

We have plenty of good data and that is what this list is about. Good

data. And we discuss it all the time here,

And Walford was pretty clear in his recommendations, which are the data

that started all this and, which were no where near what Atkins

recommends. If you have better data, and I mean much better data, and

not just one or two studies, than lets see it.

There are quite a few short term studies on Atkins which showed the

subjects on Atkins diet didn't do well. The one year study on Atkins

showed that those on the Atkins diet didn't do well. The 2 year study

on kids on an atkins type diet (ketogenic) showed terrible results.

There are other studies documenting problems and deaths with the diet.

I have read them all, spoken with the authors and written reviews of

them all.

These have all been posted here.

My challenge to you is simple.

Do the nutritionaly analysis of what you are considering,

recommendation, or doing. Not just sodium and potassium or calories,

but all the known nutrients. See if what you are

doing/recommending/considering or arguing for, even comes close to

meeting the needs of humans as best we know them. We can argue how

correct the estimates of the needs are at another point, but right now

they are the best we have, so lets go with them for now.

The goal is simple Creat the most nutritionaly dense diet you can on

the least amount of calories needed to maintain a healthy CR weight/BMI

and show me what you come up with.

Beyond that, I think this discussion is redundant and pointless.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>>The randomized double-blind trials of Atkins type of diets so far, if

anything, according to my reading, have supported the claim that Atkins

is a very effective, short term way to lose weight, and blood markers of

cardiovascular risk have, if anything, been improved vs. low fat, high

carb diets. Weight loss alone will lower CRP, and so someone who winds

up losing 100 lbs on Atkins who has failed numerous other approaches may

well be better off than before.

From an article I helped write. ....

It's criminal how few health writers take the time to read - really read

- and dissect newly published scientific articles. Too often, snappy

headlines overrule substance. Recently, that's what happened with two

new studies comparing low-carb, Atkins-style diets with conventional

low-fat diets.

Both were published in the May 18 issue of the ls of Internal

Medicine. Both groups of authors warned that the studies had serious

flaws. The first, which followed 132 obese adults at Philadelphia

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, had a very high dropout rate (34% of

the dieters) as well as " suboptimal dietary adherence of the enrolled

persons. "

In the second study, funded by the C. Atkins Foundation and

conducted at Duke University, the 120 moderately obese dieters were

followed for only 24 weeks, and the Atkins followers received

nutritional supplements that the low-fat dieters did not receive, which,

the authors feared, might have skewed results because the supplements

have favorable effects on cholesterol and triglyceride levels and weight

loss. But what we, the American public, saw in the media were headlines

like " Low- Carb Is King! " and " Low-Carb Dieters Knew It All Along. "

Unbelievable. Literally. Here are the real facts, gleaned from an

in-depth, sentence by sentence, graph by graph, analysis of the two

articles

AFTER ONE YEAR, WEIGHT LOSS WAS SIMILAR BETWEEN THE ATKINS DIETERS AND

THE LOW-FAT DIETERS.

True, at the six-month mark in both studies, the Atkins dieters had lost

more weight, but the longer of the two studies, the one that lasted a

full year, found that the low-fat dieters had caught up and shed about

the same amount of weight, 11 pounds, at year's end.

The Atkins diet, surmised lead author Dr. Yancy of Duke

University, might be harder to maintain after six months compared with

the low-fat approach. In fact, notes Dr. Kenney, " most of the people on

the Atkins meat- and fat-rich regimen were regaining lost weight by the

end of the year while the low-fat dieters continued to lose weight for

the entire first year. "

LDL " BAD " CHOLESTEROL ROSE IN 30% OF ATKINS DIETERS.

The Duke University study measured LDL cholesterol levels and found that

after one year overall changes in LDL levels did not differ between the

Atkins and low-fat dieters, but 30% of the Atkins diets did experience

increases of LDL levels of 10% or more. In fact, two of the 60 Atkins

dieters who began the study dropped out because of high LDL cholesterol

levels: one suffered an LDL increase of 182 to 219 in four weeks; the

second dieter's LDL shot up from 184 to 283 in three months. A third

Atkins participant developed chest (angina) pain and was subsequently

diagnosed with coronary heart disease.

TWO OF THE ATKINS DIETERS DIED.

Though the Philadelphia study was small in number - just 66 men and

women were on the Atkins diet - and their average age was only 53 years

old, two of the Atkins dieters died, one from hyperosmola coma five

months into the study, and the second from severe ischemic

cardiomyopathy ten months into the study. No one had died on the low-fat

diet.

THE ATKINS DIETERS SUFFERED FAR MORE SIDE EFFECTS.

In the Duke University study, twothirds of the Atkins dieters reported

constipation problems, 60% reported headaches, and 25% complained of a

general feeling of weakness. The Atkins followers were five times more

likely to suffer from muscle cramps compared to the low-fat dieters, and

three times more likely to have diarrhea.

THE LOW-FAT DIET WAS NOT AN OPTIMAL LOW-FAT DIET, NOT EVEN CLOSE.

" It's no surprise that the weight loss, cholesterol, and triglyceride

results of the low-fat diets in these studies were disappointing. The

diets themselves were the worst kind of low-fat diets, "

The Philadelphia study reported data on what the subjects actually ate,

and the numbers are illuminating. At the end of one year, notes Dr.

Kenney, " there was no significant difference in the amount of saturated

fat on the Atkins diet and the low-fat diets. " (What?! And the latter

was supposed to be low-fat and heart-healthy?!) Moreover, the total

amount of fat on the low-fat diet (about 30% of calories) was at least

twice as high as the amount of fat on the Pritikin Eating Plan and four

to five times higher in saturated and trans fats.

It appears, too, that the low-fat dieters in the Philadelphia were not

filling their plates with fruits and vegetables. The fiber content of

their diet remained constant throughout the year, " proving that their

increased carbohydrate consumption came from refined carbs, like sugar

and refined grains, " .

Lots of " bad " fat? Lots of " bad " carbs? This is not a healthy low-fat

diet, certainly not one that would impact favorably on weight loss,

blood lipids like cholesterol, and other cardiovascular risk factors,

all of which have been shown to dramatically improve on the Pritikin

Program.

AS LONG AS YOU ARE LOSING WEIGHT, YOUR BLOOD LIPIDS IMPROVE.

Atkins enthusiasts trumpeted these new studies as proving that the

Atkins diet brings down triglycerides and improves cholesterol levels,

" but weight loss, regardless of the type of diet you're on, improves

blood lipids, " Moreover, the dieters in the Atkins group took fish oil

supplements, proven to lower triglyceride levels; the other dieters took

no supplements. Hardly a fair comparison.

" The real question is: What do your arteries look like? What happens

after years of following a diet high in saturated fat?

True, the Atkins dieters in the two new studies saw their HDL " good "

levels go up, " but HDL levels are a complex issue, " . " HDL has

subfractions. Some of these subfractions are made up of the protective

'good' part of HDL, the part that returns excess cholesterol to your

liver, where it's recognized as waste material and disposed of. But some

HDL subfractions are made up of unprotective HDL. Which type did the

Atkins diet raise? We don't know. But given the fact that two of the

Atkins dieters died and one developed angina, I'm skeptical that the

rise in HDL came from the beneficial subfractions. "

Overwhelming research has proven which diet is best, one that's high in

fiber, low in fat, and with plenty of fruits and vegetables, concluded

Dr. Katz of Yale University's Preventive Medicine Research Center

in an interview with ABC News on May 17: " We have ample evidence that

this basic dietary pattern prevents heart disease, cancer, diabetes,

premature death, and obesity. We should be devoting all of our resources

and effort to making this pattern more accessible to people. "

[Guest guest]

>>>The randomized double-blind trials of Atkins type of diets so far, if

anything, according to my reading, have supported the claim that Atkins

is a very effective, short term way to lose weight, and blood markers of

cardiovascular risk have, if anything, been improved vs. low fat, high

carb diets. Weight loss alone will lower CRP, and so someone who winds

up losing 100 lbs on Atkins who has failed numerous other approaches may

well be better off than before.

From an article I helped write. ....

It's criminal how few health writers take the time to read - really read

- and dissect newly published scientific articles. Too often, snappy

headlines overrule substance. Recently, that's what happened with two

new studies comparing low-carb, Atkins-style diets with conventional

low-fat diets.

Both were published in the May 18 issue of the ls of Internal

Medicine. Both groups of authors warned that the studies had serious

flaws. The first, which followed 132 obese adults at Philadelphia

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, had a very high dropout rate (34% of

the dieters) as well as " suboptimal dietary adherence of the enrolled

persons. "

In the second study, funded by the C. Atkins Foundation and

conducted at Duke University, the 120 moderately obese dieters were

followed for only 24 weeks, and the Atkins followers received

nutritional supplements that the low-fat dieters did not receive, which,

the authors feared, might have skewed results because the supplements

have favorable effects on cholesterol and triglyceride levels and weight

loss. But what we, the American public, saw in the media were headlines

like " Low- Carb Is King! " and " Low-Carb Dieters Knew It All Along. "

Unbelievable. Literally. Here are the real facts, gleaned from an

in-depth, sentence by sentence, graph by graph, analysis of the two

articles

AFTER ONE YEAR, WEIGHT LOSS WAS SIMILAR BETWEEN THE ATKINS DIETERS AND

THE LOW-FAT DIETERS.

True, at the six-month mark in both studies, the Atkins dieters had lost

more weight, but the longer of the two studies, the one that lasted a

full year, found that the low-fat dieters had caught up and shed about

the same amount of weight, 11 pounds, at year's end.

The Atkins diet, surmised lead author Dr. Yancy of Duke

University, might be harder to maintain after six months compared with

the low-fat approach. In fact, notes Dr. Kenney, " most of the people on

the Atkins meat- and fat-rich regimen were regaining lost weight by the

end of the year while the low-fat dieters continued to lose weight for

the entire first year. "

LDL " BAD " CHOLESTEROL ROSE IN 30% OF ATKINS DIETERS.

The Duke University study measured LDL cholesterol levels and found that

after one year overall changes in LDL levels did not differ between the

Atkins and low-fat dieters, but 30% of the Atkins diets did experience

increases of LDL levels of 10% or more. In fact, two of the 60 Atkins

dieters who began the study dropped out because of high LDL cholesterol

levels: one suffered an LDL increase of 182 to 219 in four weeks; the

second dieter's LDL shot up from 184 to 283 in three months. A third

Atkins participant developed chest (angina) pain and was subsequently

diagnosed with coronary heart disease.

TWO OF THE ATKINS DIETERS DIED.

Though the Philadelphia study was small in number - just 66 men and

women were on the Atkins diet - and their average age was only 53 years

old, two of the Atkins dieters died, one from hyperosmola coma five

months into the study, and the second from severe ischemic

cardiomyopathy ten months into the study. No one had died on the low-fat

diet.

THE ATKINS DIETERS SUFFERED FAR MORE SIDE EFFECTS.

In the Duke University study, twothirds of the Atkins dieters reported

constipation problems, 60% reported headaches, and 25% complained of a

general feeling of weakness. The Atkins followers were five times more

likely to suffer from muscle cramps compared to the low-fat dieters, and

three times more likely to have diarrhea.

THE LOW-FAT DIET WAS NOT AN OPTIMAL LOW-FAT DIET, NOT EVEN CLOSE.

" It's no surprise that the weight loss, cholesterol, and triglyceride

results of the low-fat diets in these studies were disappointing. The

diets themselves were the worst kind of low-fat diets, "

The Philadelphia study reported data on what the subjects actually ate,

and the numbers are illuminating. At the end of one year, notes Dr.

Kenney, " there was no significant difference in the amount of saturated

fat on the Atkins diet and the low-fat diets. " (What?! And the latter

was supposed to be low-fat and heart-healthy?!) Moreover, the total

amount of fat on the low-fat diet (about 30% of calories) was at least

twice as high as the amount of fat on the Pritikin Eating Plan and four

to five times higher in saturated and trans fats.

It appears, too, that the low-fat dieters in the Philadelphia were not

filling their plates with fruits and vegetables. The fiber content of

their diet remained constant throughout the year, " proving that their

increased carbohydrate consumption came from refined carbs, like sugar

and refined grains, " .

Lots of " bad " fat? Lots of " bad " carbs? This is not a healthy low-fat

diet, certainly not one that would impact favorably on weight loss,

blood lipids like cholesterol, and other cardiovascular risk factors,

all of which have been shown to dramatically improve on the Pritikin

Program.

AS LONG AS YOU ARE LOSING WEIGHT, YOUR BLOOD LIPIDS IMPROVE.

Atkins enthusiasts trumpeted these new studies as proving that the

Atkins diet brings down triglycerides and improves cholesterol levels,

" but weight loss, regardless of the type of diet you're on, improves

blood lipids, " Moreover, the dieters in the Atkins group took fish oil

supplements, proven to lower triglyceride levels; the other dieters took

no supplements. Hardly a fair comparison.

" The real question is: What do your arteries look like? What happens

after years of following a diet high in saturated fat?

True, the Atkins dieters in the two new studies saw their HDL " good "

levels go up, " but HDL levels are a complex issue, " . " HDL has

subfractions. Some of these subfractions are made up of the protective

'good' part of HDL, the part that returns excess cholesterol to your

liver, where it's recognized as waste material and disposed of. But some

HDL subfractions are made up of unprotective HDL. Which type did the

Atkins diet raise? We don't know. But given the fact that two of the

Atkins dieters died and one developed angina, I'm skeptical that the

rise in HDL came from the beneficial subfractions. "

Overwhelming research has proven which diet is best, one that's high in

fiber, low in fat, and with plenty of fruits and vegetables, concluded

Dr. Katz of Yale University's Preventive Medicine Research Center

in an interview with ABC News on May 17: " We have ample evidence that

this basic dietary pattern prevents heart disease, cancer, diabetes,

premature death, and obesity. We should be devoting all of our resources

and effort to making this pattern more accessible to people. "

[Guest guest]

>>>The randomized double-blind trials of Atkins type of diets so far, if

anything, according to my reading, have supported the claim that Atkins

is a very effective, short term way to lose weight, and blood markers of

cardiovascular risk have, if anything, been improved vs. low fat, high

carb diets. Weight loss alone will lower CRP, and so someone who winds

up losing 100 lbs on Atkins who has failed numerous other approaches may

well be better off than before.

I wrote this for the FrontLine show they did about 1 1/2 years ago

called the Diet Wars. It was a " cheat sheet " for one of their

producers. I have all the attachments if you want to see any of them.

There is even newer info for every point that only futher substantiates

it that isnt included as I havent updated this sheet since the show.

Jeff

Diet Wars Information

Myth # 1: Low-Fat Diets Have Failed

It has been repeatedly argued that low-fat diets have failed because, as

the theory goes, " the amount of fat in the US has declined while at the

same time the percent of the population that is overweight/obese has

dramatically increased. "

Facts:

The amount of fat in the American diet has not declined. It only

appears to have dropped because it has dropped as a percent of total

calories. However, the total amount of calories consumed by Americans

has risen at an even greater rate than the total amount of fat consumed,

so while the " percentage " of fat consumed has dropped slightly based on

comparing it to the total calories consumed, the actual amount of fat

and calories consumed has gone up.

Supporting Attachments:

1. " Did dietary fat intake in the United States really decline between

1989-1991 and 1994-1996? Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

July 2003 * Volume 103 * Number 7 * p867 to p872

Myth #2: High Protein Diets Can Promote Weight Loss And Do Not Adversely

Impact Blood Lipids Or The Risk Of Atherosclerosis.

Facts:

The few recent studies on high protein diets, have all been short term

(less than 6 - 12 months), had a very high drop out rate ( in some

groups over 50% didn't finish the study) and poor adherence to the

diets. Most of the beneficial effects associated with those on the high

protein diet was due to the initial weight loss. In reality, diets that

are very low in carbohydrates and high in saturated fat and cholesterol

have been shown to have very adverse effects on blood lipids when weight

is maintained. Diets high in saturated fat and cholesterol have

consistently been associated with an increased risk of clogged arteries

and heart attacks.

A one year study that compared a very low fat high fiber diet (as

advocated by Pritikin) to a low carbohydrate Atkins style diet showed

better weight loss and remarkably better improvements in all blood

lipids and other risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. (Preventative

Cardiology 5(3): 110-118, 2002)

Recently a study on children following an " Atkins Style " very low

carbohydrate, high fat diet for 6 months to 2 years found that all blood

lipids were negatively impacted with Triglycerides and LDL increasing 50

-60%

Supporting Attachment:

1. " New Atkins Studies: Beyond The Sensationalistic Headlines " Pritikin

Perspective, June/July 2003, Vol 11, No, 13

2. High-Fat, High Protein Diet Worsens Cholesterol Levels. Pritikin

Perspective, Novemeber/December 2003, Vol 11, No. 15.

3. Low-Fat Diets more Effective Than High Fat Diets For Both Weight Loss

And Health. Pritikin Perspective. October/November 2002. Vol. 11, No 9

4. Kenney JJ. Do ketogenic diets promote atherosclerosis?

Myth # 3: As Promoted In Many Best Selling Diet Books, The Key To Long

Term Successful Weight Loss Is Restricting Carbohydrate And Increasing

The Intake Of Fat And Protein.

Facts:

If anything, the opposite is more likely true. Success leaves clues.

The people who have been successful in the United States at losing

weight and keeping it off long term are part of a study called the

National Weight Control Registry (NWCR). To qualify for the NWCR,

someone must have lost at least 30lbs and kept it off for at least a

year and have it documented with before and after pictures and medical

records. The average weight loss is 65lbs and has been kept off for 6

years. There are 4500 people who now meet the criteria in the registry.

Less than 1% of the subjects in the NWCR have used a high protein, low

carbohydrate diet to lose weight and keep it off. In fact, most have

used a low-fat, high carbohydrate, high-fiber diets with exercise.

A USDA study on 10,000+ Americans found that the leanest Americans were

those following a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet full of fruits,

vegetables, grain products, low-fat dairy foods, and small amounts of

low-fat meat, poultry and fish. By contrast, Americans in the very

low-carbohydrate (high protein) group were the heaviest. (Journal of the

American College of Nutrition 2002;21:268-274.)

The scientific review: " Popular Diets: Correlation To Health, Nutrition

and Obesity. " It reviews data on 10,014 American adults and concludes

that people on low-carbohydrate diets had the highest BMI's.

The March 2003 recommendations from the World Health Organization

concluded that the optimal diet for losing weight and preventing disease

is one that is low in fat and high in natural, fiber-rich carbohydrates

like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

A study that critically reviewed the health advantages and disadvantages

of popular weight loss diets found the diets low in fat and high in

carbohydrates and fiber provide the greatest health benefits and also

lowered the risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The review

also noted that while high fat diets may promote short-term weight loss,

they increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and the progression of

atherosclerosis.

SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS

1. Wing, RR & Hill, JO. Successful Weight Loss Maintenance. Annu. Rev.

Nutr. 2001. 21:323-41

2. The Diet That Works In The Real World: What The USDA Found Out About

Successful Weight Control. Pritikin Perspective. June/July 2003. Vol.

11, No. 13.

3. Kennedy ET, et al. Popular Diets: Correlation to health, nutrition

and obesity. JADA. 2001; 101:411-420

4. Executive Summary " Joint WHO/FAO Expert Report on Diet, Nutrition and

the Prevention of Chronic Disease)

5. WHO information sheet " Obesity and Overweight. "

6. Science News: Low-Fat High Fiber Diet Can Wipe Out Obesity, U.N.

Scientists Report. Pritikin Perspective. April/May 2003. Vol 11., No

12

7. , JW. Konz, EC, , DA. Health Advantages and

Disadvantages of Weight-Reducing Diets: A Computer Analysis and Critical

Review. Journal Of The American College of Nutrition, Vol 19, No 5,

578-590 (2000)

MYTH #4: Many High Carbohydrate Foods, Like Potatoes, That Have A High

Glycemic Index, Trigger An Overproduction Of Insulin, Causing An

Increase In Hunger, Which Leads To Overeating And Obesity. These High

Carbohydrate Foods, Also Cause An Increase In Blood Sugar And Will Lead

To Diabetes.

Facts:

Claims that high-GI foods or high-glycemic load foods increase hunger

and promote overeating and obesity conflict with a lot of research.

First, a study that compared the satiety/calorie (called satiety index)

from a wide variety of foods found that the white potato had the highest

satiety index. It was considerably higher than fish, eggs, beef or

cheese and other high-protein foods. In other words, despite its high

glycemic index, it was the food least likely to lead to overeating.

The University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter reviewed the

glycemic index and the many claims made about it. The author said, " the

glycemic index is of little practical use for designing an eating plan.

Moreover, it's not even clear that avoiding foods high on the index is

even beneficial. " They concluded that " if you are trying to lose

weight, calories do count, far more than the glycemic index. "

A recent published review of the glycemic index (F Xavier Pi-Sunyer),

explains why it is not recommended to base food choices solely on the

glycemix index. The author also concludes that a more important public

message would be to recommend a decrease in total caloric intake and an

increase in physical activity.

Another study looked specifically at the claims made in the best selling

diet book " The Zone " which is based on the glycemic index and the

control of insulin levels for weight loss. The author of the study

found that not only were the claims made in the book The Zone not

supported by the scientific literature, it found that the scientific

literature was in actual " opposition " to the claims.

Supporting Attachment:

1. Holt SHA, et al. A satiety index of common foods. European Journal

of Clinical Nutrition (1995) 49, 675-690

2. Is This Any Way To Choose Foods? The University of California

Berkeley Wellness Letter; The Newsletter of Nutrition, Fitness and

Self-Care, Vol 20. Issue 3, December 2003

3. Pi-Sunyer, FX. Glycemic Index and Disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;

76(suppl);290s-8s

4. Cheuvront, SN. The Zone Diet Phenomenon: A Closer Look at the

Science

behind the Claims. Journal Of The American College of Nutrition, Vol 22,

No 1, 9-17 (2003)

MYTH #5 All Carbohydrates Foods Turn To Sugar And Increase The Risk

For Diabetes And Heart Disease Because They Negatively Effect Blood

Lipids Like Triglycerides And LDL

Facts:

There is an important distinction about carbohydrate foods that is often

not explained by these best selling diet books and the media. There is

a big difference between unrefined/unprocessed carbohydrate foods that

are rich in fiber and water and low in calories (like peas and corn)

that are healthy and refined processed carbohydrate foods that are low

in fiber and water content and high in calories (like pretzels and

crackers). Unfortunately, both types of carbohydrates are usually

lumped together, and vilified equally in the popular diet books and

media.

The main reason that high carbohydrate diets have a presumably bad

impact on blood lipids and atherosclerosis is that in the majority of

the studies high carbohydrate diet was a diet high in refined and

processed carbohydrates. However, there are many studies that show when

a diet is based on the unprocessed, unrefined carbohydrates that are

high in fiber and low in calories, they reduce the risk for diabetes and

cardiovascular disease. Even the latest recommendations for diabetes

that was just published in the January 2004 issue of Diabetes Care, says

that a low fat, high carbohydrate, high fiber diet is beneficial for use

in the prevention and treatment of diabetes. In addition, they state

that it is also more likely to lead to weight loss than diets higher in

fat.

The distinction between unrefined unprocessed carbohydrates and refined

processed carbohydrates must be made when discussing the role and/or

success of a high carbohydrate diet in relation to weight loss and

health. Anyone who understands this difference would not advocate a

low-fat diet that is high in the refined processed carbohydrates and low

in fruits and vegetables for weight control. And, it is a distinction

that must be made clear to both the media and the general population.

In fact studies published by Pritikin and others have shown that a diet

consisting largely of whole grains, fruits and vegetables with a little

fatty fish and non-fat dairy products dramatically reduces practically

all known and suspected risk factors for coronary heart disease. Indeed,

the only diet shown to reverse coronary artery disease in most human

subjects is a very-low-fat, high carbohydrate, high-fiber diet.

Supporting Attachment:

1. American Diabetes Association. Nutrition Principles and

Recommendations in

Diabetes. Diabetes Care, Volume 27, Supplement 1, January 2004.

2. Chandalia M, et al. Beneficial Effects of High Dietary Fiber Intake

In

Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The New England Journal Of

Medicine 2000; 342:1392-8.

3. Kenney JJ, New NCEP Cholesterol Guidelines. Food and Health

Communications, 4 HR CPE Course. www.foodandhealth.com

Myth #6: High Fat Foods Are More Filling Than Carbohydrate And So Help

People Eat Fewer Calories And Lose Weight.

Fact: A carefully controlled study was done where people were allowed

to eat as much as they wanted from diets that contained similar foods

that varied only in the fat content. The result was that when similar

foods contained more fat, people consistently needed to eat far more of

the food (and so far more calories) in order for them to feel as

satisfied as when they ate the low fat versions of the same foods.

There is much discussion in the media and the popular press today about

which nutrient (protein, fat or carbohydrate) is the most filling or

what is the optimal ratio between the nutrients in order to promote the

most weight loss. In truth, as studies have shown, the nutrient or the

ratio of the nutrients is far less important than what everyone has

thought. What has turned out to be the most important issue in filling

up on the least calories is the issue of " calorie density " . Calorie

density is simply a measure of the concentration of calories in food.

Fat has the highest calorie density of the three nutrients, much higher

than either carbohydrate or protein. Therefore, the addition of any

fat to food (including the so called " good fats " ) increases the calorie

density of any food that it is added to and so leads to the over

consumption of calories.

What we are now learning from this information is that there is a far

better way to lose weight and that is to reduce the overall calorie

density of the diet and of the foods in the diet. In addition, choosing

foods that are lower in calorie density, help prevent the overeating of

foods that are higher in calorie density.

1. Lissner L, et al. Dietary fat and the regulation of energy intake in

human subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1987;46:886-92 - enclosed].

2. Bell EA, et al. Energy Density Of Foods Effects Energy Intake In

Normal Weight Women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1998. 67,

412-20.

3. Start Out With A Big Salad. Pritikin Perspective. November/December

2003. Vol 11. No. 15

[Guest guest]

>>>The randomized double-blind trials of Atkins type of diets so far, if

anything, according to my reading, have supported the claim that Atkins

is a very effective, short term way to lose weight, and blood markers of

cardiovascular risk have, if anything, been improved vs. low fat, high

carb diets. Weight loss alone will lower CRP, and so someone who winds

up losing 100 lbs on Atkins who has failed numerous other approaches may

well be better off than before.

I wrote this for the FrontLine show they did about 1 1/2 years ago

called the Diet Wars. It was a " cheat sheet " for one of their

producers. I have all the attachments if you want to see any of them.

There is even newer info for every point that only futher substantiates

it that isnt included as I havent updated this sheet since the show.

Jeff

Diet Wars Information

Myth # 1: Low-Fat Diets Have Failed

It has been repeatedly argued that low-fat diets have failed because, as

the theory goes, " the amount of fat in the US has declined while at the

same time the percent of the population that is overweight/obese has

dramatically increased. "

Facts:

The amount of fat in the American diet has not declined. It only

appears to have dropped because it has dropped as a percent of total

calories. However, the total amount of calories consumed by Americans

has risen at an even greater rate than the total amount of fat consumed,

so while the " percentage " of fat consumed has dropped slightly based on

comparing it to the total calories consumed, the actual amount of fat

and calories consumed has gone up.

Supporting Attachments:

1. " Did dietary fat intake in the United States really decline between

1989-1991 and 1994-1996? Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

July 2003 * Volume 103 * Number 7 * p867 to p872

Myth #2: High Protein Diets Can Promote Weight Loss And Do Not Adversely

Impact Blood Lipids Or The Risk Of Atherosclerosis.

Facts:

The few recent studies on high protein diets, have all been short term

(less than 6 - 12 months), had a very high drop out rate ( in some

groups over 50% didn't finish the study) and poor adherence to the

diets. Most of the beneficial effects associated with those on the high

protein diet was due to the initial weight loss. In reality, diets that

are very low in carbohydrates and high in saturated fat and cholesterol

have been shown to have very adverse effects on blood lipids when weight

is maintained. Diets high in saturated fat and cholesterol have

consistently been associated with an increased risk of clogged arteries

and heart attacks.

A one year study that compared a very low fat high fiber diet (as

advocated by Pritikin) to a low carbohydrate Atkins style diet showed

better weight loss and remarkably better improvements in all blood

lipids and other risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. (Preventative

Cardiology 5(3): 110-118, 2002)

Recently a study on children following an " Atkins Style " very low

carbohydrate, high fat diet for 6 months to 2 years found that all blood

lipids were negatively impacted with Triglycerides and LDL increasing 50

-60%

Supporting Attachment:

1. " New Atkins Studies: Beyond The Sensationalistic Headlines " Pritikin

Perspective, June/July 2003, Vol 11, No, 13

2. High-Fat, High Protein Diet Worsens Cholesterol Levels. Pritikin

Perspective, Novemeber/December 2003, Vol 11, No. 15.

3. Low-Fat Diets more Effective Than High Fat Diets For Both Weight Loss

And Health. Pritikin Perspective. October/November 2002. Vol. 11, No 9

4. Kenney JJ. Do ketogenic diets promote atherosclerosis?

Myth # 3: As Promoted In Many Best Selling Diet Books, The Key To Long

Term Successful Weight Loss Is Restricting Carbohydrate And Increasing

The Intake Of Fat And Protein.

Facts:

If anything, the opposite is more likely true. Success leaves clues.

The people who have been successful in the United States at losing

weight and keeping it off long term are part of a study called the

National Weight Control Registry (NWCR). To qualify for the NWCR,

someone must have lost at least 30lbs and kept it off for at least a

year and have it documented with before and after pictures and medical

records. The average weight loss is 65lbs and has been kept off for 6

years. There are 4500 people who now meet the criteria in the registry.

Less than 1% of the subjects in the NWCR have used a high protein, low

carbohydrate diet to lose weight and keep it off. In fact, most have

used a low-fat, high carbohydrate, high-fiber diets with exercise.

A USDA study on 10,000+ Americans found that the leanest Americans were

those following a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet full of fruits,

vegetables, grain products, low-fat dairy foods, and small amounts of

low-fat meat, poultry and fish. By contrast, Americans in the very

low-carbohydrate (high protein) group were the heaviest. (Journal of the

American College of Nutrition 2002;21:268-274.)

The scientific review: " Popular Diets: Correlation To Health, Nutrition

and Obesity. " It reviews data on 10,014 American adults and concludes

that people on low-carbohydrate diets had the highest BMI's.

The March 2003 recommendations from the World Health Organization

concluded that the optimal diet for losing weight and preventing disease

is one that is low in fat and high in natural, fiber-rich carbohydrates

like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

A study that critically reviewed the health advantages and disadvantages

of popular weight loss diets found the diets low in fat and high in

carbohydrates and fiber provide the greatest health benefits and also

lowered the risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The review

also noted that while high fat diets may promote short-term weight loss,

they increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and the progression of

atherosclerosis.

SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS

1. Wing, RR & Hill, JO. Successful Weight Loss Maintenance. Annu. Rev.

Nutr. 2001. 21:323-41

2. The Diet That Works In The Real World: What The USDA Found Out About

Successful Weight Control. Pritikin Perspective. June/July 2003. Vol.

11, No. 13.

3. Kennedy ET, et al. Popular Diets: Correlation to health, nutrition

and obesity. JADA. 2001; 101:411-420

4. Executive Summary " Joint WHO/FAO Expert Report on Diet, Nutrition and

the Prevention of Chronic Disease)

5. WHO information sheet " Obesity and Overweight. "

6. Science News: Low-Fat High Fiber Diet Can Wipe Out Obesity, U.N.

Scientists Report. Pritikin Perspective. April/May 2003. Vol 11., No

12

7. , JW. Konz, EC, , DA. Health Advantages and

Disadvantages of Weight-Reducing Diets: A Computer Analysis and Critical

Review. Journal Of The American College of Nutrition, Vol 19, No 5,

578-590 (2000)

MYTH #4: Many High Carbohydrate Foods, Like Potatoes, That Have A High

Glycemic Index, Trigger An Overproduction Of Insulin, Causing An

Increase In Hunger, Which Leads To Overeating And Obesity. These High

Carbohydrate Foods, Also Cause An Increase In Blood Sugar And Will Lead

To Diabetes.

Facts:

Claims that high-GI foods or high-glycemic load foods increase hunger

and promote overeating and obesity conflict with a lot of research.

First, a study that compared the satiety/calorie (called satiety index)

from a wide variety of foods found that the white potato had the highest

satiety index. It was considerably higher than fish, eggs, beef or

cheese and other high-protein foods. In other words, despite its high

glycemic index, it was the food least likely to lead to overeating.

The University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter reviewed the

glycemic index and the many claims made about it. The author said, " the

glycemic index is of little practical use for designing an eating plan.

Moreover, it's not even clear that avoiding foods high on the index is

even beneficial. " They concluded that " if you are trying to lose

weight, calories do count, far more than the glycemic index. "

A recent published review of the glycemic index (F Xavier Pi-Sunyer),

explains why it is not recommended to base food choices solely on the

glycemix index. The author also concludes that a more important public

message would be to recommend a decrease in total caloric intake and an

increase in physical activity.

Another study looked specifically at the claims made in the best selling

diet book " The Zone " which is based on the glycemic index and the

control of insulin levels for weight loss. The author of the study

found that not only were the claims made in the book The Zone not

supported by the scientific literature, it found that the scientific

literature was in actual " opposition " to the claims.

Supporting Attachment:

1. Holt SHA, et al. A satiety index of common foods. European Journal

of Clinical Nutrition (1995) 49, 675-690

2. Is This Any Way To Choose Foods? The University of California

Berkeley Wellness Letter; The Newsletter of Nutrition, Fitness and

Self-Care, Vol 20. Issue 3, December 2003

3. Pi-Sunyer, FX. Glycemic Index and Disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;

76(suppl);290s-8s

4. Cheuvront, SN. The Zone Diet Phenomenon: A Closer Look at the

Science

behind the Claims. Journal Of The American College of Nutrition, Vol 22,

No 1, 9-17 (2003)

MYTH #5 All Carbohydrates Foods Turn To Sugar And Increase The Risk

For Diabetes And Heart Disease Because They Negatively Effect Blood

Lipids Like Triglycerides And LDL

Facts:

There is an important distinction about carbohydrate foods that is often

not explained by these best selling diet books and the media. There is

a big difference between unrefined/unprocessed carbohydrate foods that

are rich in fiber and water and low in calories (like peas and corn)

that are healthy and refined processed carbohydrate foods that are low

in fiber and water content and high in calories (like pretzels and

crackers). Unfortunately, both types of carbohydrates are usually

lumped together, and vilified equally in the popular diet books and

media.

The main reason that high carbohydrate diets have a presumably bad

impact on blood lipids and atherosclerosis is that in the majority of

the studies high carbohydrate diet was a diet high in refined and

processed carbohydrates. However, there are many studies that show when

a diet is based on the unprocessed, unrefined carbohydrates that are

high in fiber and low in calories, they reduce the risk for diabetes and

cardiovascular disease. Even the latest recommendations for diabetes

that was just published in the January 2004 issue of Diabetes Care, says

that a low fat, high carbohydrate, high fiber diet is beneficial for use

in the prevention and treatment of diabetes. In addition, they state

that it is also more likely to lead to weight loss than diets higher in

fat.

The distinction between unrefined unprocessed carbohydrates and refined

processed carbohydrates must be made when discussing the role and/or

success of a high carbohydrate diet in relation to weight loss and

health. Anyone who understands this difference would not advocate a

low-fat diet that is high in the refined processed carbohydrates and low

in fruits and vegetables for weight control. And, it is a distinction

that must be made clear to both the media and the general population.

In fact studies published by Pritikin and others have shown that a diet

consisting largely of whole grains, fruits and vegetables with a little

fatty fish and non-fat dairy products dramatically reduces practically

all known and suspected risk factors for coronary heart disease. Indeed,

the only diet shown to reverse coronary artery disease in most human

subjects is a very-low-fat, high carbohydrate, high-fiber diet.

Supporting Attachment:

1. American Diabetes Association. Nutrition Principles and

Recommendations in

Diabetes. Diabetes Care, Volume 27, Supplement 1, January 2004.

2. Chandalia M, et al. Beneficial Effects of High Dietary Fiber Intake

In

Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The New England Journal Of

Medicine 2000; 342:1392-8.

3. Kenney JJ, New NCEP Cholesterol Guidelines. Food and Health

Communications, 4 HR CPE Course. www.foodandhealth.com

Myth #6: High Fat Foods Are More Filling Than Carbohydrate And So Help

People Eat Fewer Calories And Lose Weight.

Fact: A carefully controlled study was done where people were allowed

to eat as much as they wanted from diets that contained similar foods

that varied only in the fat content. The result was that when similar

foods contained more fat, people consistently needed to eat far more of

the food (and so far more calories) in order for them to feel as

satisfied as when they ate the low fat versions of the same foods.

There is much discussion in the media and the popular press today about

which nutrient (protein, fat or carbohydrate) is the most filling or

what is the optimal ratio between the nutrients in order to promote the

most weight loss. In truth, as studies have shown, the nutrient or the

ratio of the nutrients is far less important than what everyone has

thought. What has turned out to be the most important issue in filling

up on the least calories is the issue of " calorie density " . Calorie

density is simply a measure of the concentration of calories in food.

Fat has the highest calorie density of the three nutrients, much higher

than either carbohydrate or protein. Therefore, the addition of any

fat to food (including the so called " good fats " ) increases the calorie

density of any food that it is added to and so leads to the over

consumption of calories.

What we are now learning from this information is that there is a far

better way to lose weight and that is to reduce the overall calorie

density of the diet and of the foods in the diet. In addition, choosing

foods that are lower in calorie density, help prevent the overeating of

foods that are higher in calorie density.

1. Lissner L, et al. Dietary fat and the regulation of energy intake in

human subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1987;46:886-92 - enclosed].

2. Bell EA, et al. Energy Density Of Foods Effects Energy Intake In

Normal Weight Women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1998. 67,

412-20.

3. Start Out With A Big Salad. Pritikin Perspective. November/December

2003. Vol 11. No. 15

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

My view of Atkins is that a study needs to be done to assess the

COMPONENTS of weight lost on both a Pritikin diet and an Atkins diet.

We all know of people who have gone on an Atkins diet, have been

eating huge numbers of calories and have quickly lost appreciable

weight. Most of us here, hopefully, know that this does not make a

lot of sense. We know that a pound of body weight is associated with

about 3500 calories. So it is clear that on an Atkins diet the quick

initial weight loss is not real, caloric, weight but something else.

The logic of the situation suggests the following: Dr. Atkins

unfortunate experience in hospital confirms (even according to the

accounts of the Atkins Nutritionals people) that when someone who has

been on the Atkins diet reverts to a diet that includes normal

amounts of electrolytes and carbohydrates, sixty pounds of weight can

be added in very short order - in Dr. Atkins case less in than two

weeks I believe? Clearly, this is not real caloric weight. It is

water.

Similarly, this very strongly suggests that the weight loss

experienced in the early stages of an Atkins diet is not real caloric

weight either - how could it be with the huge caloric intake? The

weight loss that appears on the scales is largely, perhaps entirely,

accounted for by the dehydration effect of the diet.

So my hypothesis is that if such a study were conducted, and the

components of weight lost on a (GENUINE) Pritikin diet and an Atkins

diet were compared, then the following is approximately what would be

found (I hope the formatting works out in the following table - this

is not a great medium for communicating tabular information):

COMPONENTS OF WEIGHT LOST ON TWO DIET TYPES

-------------------------------------------

Months >>> -----0-----3-----6-----9-----12

-------------- --- · --- · --- · --- · ---

Atkins:

Total wt ------250---210---190---190---190

H20 lost -------0-----40----60----60----60

non-H20 --------0------0-----0-----0-----0

Pritikin:

Total wt ------250---235---220---205---190

H2O lost --------0-----0-----0-----0-----0

Non-H2O ---------0----15----30----45----60

The above data reflect what has been seen in a number of studies -

that weight is (illogically in caloric terms) lost quickly initially

on an Atkins diet, but that weight lost after twelve months is about

the same.

If such a study were to show the above - and in my opinion the logic

emphatically suggests that is, approximately, what it would show -

then which diet do you think stands a decent chance of showing

sustained weight loss after twelve months?

It really is a bit pie-in-the-sky to imagine that people can eat as

many calories as they want of high fat foods and lose all the weight

they want. As it turns out, though, dehydration has been a

spectacularly successful marketing tool.

JMO.

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@...>

wrote:

>

> >>>The randomized double-blind trials of Atkins type of diets so

far, if

> anything, according to my reading, have supported the claim that

Atkins

> is a very effective, short term way to lose weight, and blood

markers of

> cardiovascular risk have, if anything, been improved vs. low fat,

high

> carb diets. Weight loss alone will lower CRP, and so someone who

winds

> up losing 100 lbs on Atkins who has failed numerous other

approaches may

> well be better off than before.

>

> I wrote this for the FrontLine show they did about 1 1/2 years ago

> called the Diet Wars. It was a " cheat sheet " for one of their

> producers. I have all the attachments if you want to see any of

them.

> There is even newer info for every point that only futher

substantiates

> it that isnt included as I havent updated this sheet since the show.

>

> Jeff

>

>

>

> Diet Wars Information

>

>

> Myth # 1: Low-Fat Diets Have Failed

> It has been repeatedly argued that low-fat diets have failed

because, as

> the theory goes, " the amount of fat in the US has declined while at

the

> same time the percent of the population that is overweight/obese has

> dramatically increased. "

>

> Facts:

> The amount of fat in the American diet has not declined. It only

> appears to have dropped because it has dropped as a percent of total

> calories. However, the total amount of calories consumed by

Americans

> has risen at an even greater rate than the total amount of fat

consumed,

> so while the " percentage " of fat consumed has dropped slightly

based on

> comparing it to the total calories consumed, the actual amount of

fat

> and calories consumed has gone up.

>

> Supporting Attachments:

> 1. " Did dietary fat intake in the United States really decline

between

> 1989-1991 and 1994-1996? Journal of the American Dietetic

Association.

> July 2003 * Volume 103 * Number 7 * p867 to p872

>

>

> Myth #2: High Protein Diets Can Promote Weight Loss And Do Not

Adversely

> Impact Blood Lipids Or The Risk Of Atherosclerosis.

>

> Facts:

> The few recent studies on high protein diets, have all been short

term

> (less than 6 - 12 months), had a very high drop out rate ( in some

> groups over 50% didn't finish the study) and poor adherence to the

> diets. Most of the beneficial effects associated with those on the

high

> protein diet was due to the initial weight loss. In reality, diets

that

> are very low in carbohydrates and high in saturated fat and

cholesterol

> have been shown to have very adverse effects on blood lipids when

weight

> is maintained. Diets high in saturated fat and cholesterol have

> consistently been associated with an increased risk of clogged

arteries

> and heart attacks.

>

> A one year study that compared a very low fat high fiber diet (as

> advocated by Pritikin) to a low carbohydrate Atkins style diet

showed

> better weight loss and remarkably better improvements in all blood

> lipids and other risk factors for cardiovascular diseases.

(Preventative

> Cardiology 5(3): 110-118, 2002)

>

> Recently a study on children following an " Atkins Style " very low

> carbohydrate, high fat diet for 6 months to 2 years found that all

blood

> lipids were negatively impacted with Triglycerides and LDL

increasing 50

> -60%

>

> Supporting Attachment:

> 1. " New Atkins Studies: Beyond The Sensationalistic Headlines "

Pritikin

> Perspective, June/July 2003, Vol 11, No, 13

> 2. High-Fat, High Protein Diet Worsens Cholesterol Levels. Pritikin

> Perspective, Novemeber/December 2003, Vol 11, No. 15.

> 3. Low-Fat Diets more Effective Than High Fat Diets For Both Weight

Loss

> And Health. Pritikin Perspective. October/November 2002. Vol. 11,

No 9

> 4. Kenney JJ. Do ketogenic diets promote atherosclerosis?

>

>

> Myth # 3: As Promoted In Many Best Selling Diet Books, The Key To

Long

> Term Successful Weight Loss Is Restricting Carbohydrate And

Increasing

> The Intake Of Fat And Protein.

>

> Facts:

> If anything, the opposite is more likely true. Success leaves clues.

> The people who have been successful in the United States at losing

> weight and keeping it off long term are part of a study called the

> National Weight Control Registry (NWCR). To qualify for the NWCR,

> someone must have lost at least 30lbs and kept it off for at least a

> year and have it documented with before and after pictures and

medical

> records. The average weight loss is 65lbs and has been kept off for

6

> years. There are 4500 people who now meet the criteria in the

registry.

> Less than 1% of the subjects in the NWCR have used a high protein,

low

> carbohydrate diet to lose weight and keep it off. In fact, most have

> used a low-fat, high carbohydrate, high-fiber diets with exercise.

>

> A USDA study on 10,000+ Americans found that the leanest Americans

were

> those following a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet full of fruits,

> vegetables, grain products, low-fat dairy foods, and small amounts

of

> low-fat meat, poultry and fish. By contrast, Americans in the very

> low-carbohydrate (high protein) group were the heaviest. (Journal

of the

> American College of Nutrition 2002;21:268-274.)

>

> The scientific review: " Popular Diets: Correlation To Health,

Nutrition

> and Obesity. " It reviews data on 10,014 American adults and

concludes

> that people on low-carbohydrate diets had the highest BMI's.

>

> The March 2003 recommendations from the World Health Organization

> concluded that the optimal diet for losing weight and preventing

disease

> is one that is low in fat and high in natural, fiber-rich

carbohydrates

> like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

>

> A study that critically reviewed the health advantages and

disadvantages

> of popular weight loss diets found the diets low in fat and high in

> carbohydrates and fiber provide the greatest health benefits and

also

> lowered the risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The

review

> also noted that while high fat diets may promote short-term weight

loss,

> they increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and the

progression of

> atherosclerosis.

>

> SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS

> 1. Wing, RR & Hill, JO. Successful Weight Loss Maintenance. Annu.

Rev.

> Nutr. 2001. 21:323-41

> 2. The Diet That Works In The Real World: What The USDA Found Out

About

> Successful Weight Control. Pritikin Perspective. June/July 2003.

Vol.

> 11, No. 13.

> 3. Kennedy ET, et al. Popular Diets: Correlation to health,

nutrition

> and obesity. JADA. 2001; 101:411-420

> 4. Executive Summary " Joint WHO/FAO Expert Report on Diet,

Nutrition and

> the Prevention of Chronic Disease)

> 5. WHO information sheet " Obesity and Overweight. "

> 6. Science News: Low-Fat High Fiber Diet Can Wipe Out Obesity, U.N.

> Scientists Report. Pritikin Perspective. April/May 2003. Vol

11., No

> 12

> 7. , JW. Konz, EC, , DA. Health Advantages and

> Disadvantages of Weight-Reducing Diets: A Computer Analysis and

Critical

> Review. Journal Of The American College of Nutrition, Vol 19, No 5,

> 578-590 (2000)

>

>

> MYTH #4: Many High Carbohydrate Foods, Like Potatoes, That Have A

High

> Glycemic Index, Trigger An Overproduction Of Insulin, Causing An

> Increase In Hunger, Which Leads To Overeating And Obesity. These

High

> Carbohydrate Foods, Also Cause An Increase In Blood Sugar And Will

Lead

> To Diabetes.

>

> Facts:

> Claims that high-GI foods or high-glycemic load foods increase

hunger

> and promote overeating and obesity conflict with a lot of research.

> First, a study that compared the satiety/calorie (called satiety

index)

> from a wide variety of foods found that the white potato had the

highest

> satiety index. It was considerably higher than fish, eggs, beef or

> cheese and other high-protein foods. In other words, despite its

high

> glycemic index, it was the food least likely to lead to

overeating.

>

> The University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter reviewed the

> glycemic index and the many claims made about it. The author

said, " the

> glycemic index is of little practical use for designing an eating

plan.

> Moreover, it's not even clear that avoiding foods high on the index

is

> even beneficial. " They concluded that " if you are trying to lose

> weight, calories do count, far more than the glycemic index. "

>

> A recent published review of the glycemic index (F Xavier Pi-

Sunyer),

> explains why it is not recommended to base food choices solely on

the

> glycemix index. The author also concludes that a more important

public

> message would be to recommend a decrease in total caloric intake

and an

> increase in physical activity.

>

> Another study looked specifically at the claims made in the best

selling

> diet book " The Zone " which is based on the glycemic index and the

> control of insulin levels for weight loss. The author of the study

> found that not only were the claims made in the book The Zone not

> supported by the scientific literature, it found that the scientific

> literature was in actual " opposition " to the claims.

>

> Supporting Attachment:

> 1. Holt SHA, et al. A satiety index of common foods. European

Journal

> of Clinical Nutrition (1995) 49, 675-690

> 2. Is This Any Way To Choose Foods? The University of California

> Berkeley Wellness Letter; The Newsletter of Nutrition, Fitness and

> Self-Care, Vol 20. Issue 3, December 2003

> 3. Pi-Sunyer, FX. Glycemic Index and Disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;

> 76(suppl);290s-8s

> 4. Cheuvront, SN. The Zone Diet Phenomenon: A Closer Look at the

> Science

> behind the Claims. Journal Of The American College of Nutrition,

Vol 22,

> No 1, 9-17 (2003)

>

>

> MYTH #5 All Carbohydrates Foods Turn To Sugar And Increase The

Risk

> For Diabetes And Heart Disease Because They Negatively Effect Blood

> Lipids Like Triglycerides And LDL

>

> Facts:

>

> There is an important distinction about carbohydrate foods that is

often

> not explained by these best selling diet books and the media.

There is

> a big difference between unrefined/unprocessed carbohydrate foods

that

> are rich in fiber and water and low in calories (like peas and corn)

> that are healthy and refined processed carbohydrate foods that are

low

> in fiber and water content and high in calories (like pretzels and

> crackers). Unfortunately, both types of carbohydrates are usually

> lumped together, and vilified equally in the popular diet books and

> media.

>

> The main reason that high carbohydrate diets have a presumably bad

> impact on blood lipids and atherosclerosis is that in the majority

of

> the studies high carbohydrate diet was a diet high in refined and

> processed carbohydrates. However, there are many studies that show

when

> a diet is based on the unprocessed, unrefined carbohydrates that are

> high in fiber and low in calories, they reduce the risk for

diabetes and

> cardiovascular disease. Even the latest recommendations for

diabetes

> that was just published in the January 2004 issue of Diabetes Care,

says

> that a low fat, high carbohydrate, high fiber diet is beneficial

for use

> in the prevention and treatment of diabetes. In addition, they

state

> that it is also more likely to lead to weight loss than diets

higher in

> fat.

>

> The distinction between unrefined unprocessed carbohydrates and

refined

> processed carbohydrates must be made when discussing the role and/or

> success of a high carbohydrate diet in relation to weight loss and

> health. Anyone who understands this difference would not

advocate a

> low-fat diet that is high in the refined processed carbohydrates

and low

> in fruits and vegetables for weight control. And, it is a

distinction

> that must be made clear to both the media and the general

population.

>

> In fact studies published by Pritikin and others have shown that a

diet

> consisting largely of whole grains, fruits and vegetables with a

little

> fatty fish and non-fat dairy products dramatically reduces

practically

> all known and suspected risk factors for coronary heart disease.

Indeed,

> the only diet shown to reverse coronary artery disease in most human

> subjects is a very-low-fat, high carbohydrate, high-fiber diet.

>

> Supporting Attachment:

> 1. American Diabetes Association. Nutrition Principles and

> Recommendations in

> Diabetes. Diabetes Care, Volume 27, Supplement 1, January 2004.

> 2. Chandalia M, et al. Beneficial Effects of High Dietary Fiber

Intake

> In

> Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The New England Journal Of

> Medicine 2000; 342:1392-8.

> 3. Kenney JJ, New NCEP Cholesterol Guidelines. Food and Health

> Communications, 4 HR CPE Course. www.foodandhealth.com

>

>

>

> Myth #6: High Fat Foods Are More Filling Than Carbohydrate And So

Help

> People Eat Fewer Calories And Lose Weight.

>

> Fact: A carefully controlled study was done where people were

allowed

> to eat as much as they wanted from diets that contained similar

foods

> that varied only in the fat content. The result was that when

similar

> foods contained more fat, people consistently needed to eat far

more of

> the food (and so far more calories) in order for them to feel as

> satisfied as when they ate the low fat versions of the same foods.

>

> There is much discussion in the media and the popular press today

about

> which nutrient (protein, fat or carbohydrate) is the most filling or

> what is the optimal ratio between the nutrients in order to promote

the

> most weight loss. In truth, as studies have shown, the nutrient or

the

> ratio of the nutrients is far less important than what everyone has

> thought. What has turned out to be the most important issue in

filling

> up on the least calories is the issue of " calorie density " . Calorie

> density is simply a measure of the concentration of calories in

food.

> Fat has the highest calorie density of the three nutrients, much

higher

> than either carbohydrate or protein. Therefore, the addition of

any

> fat to food (including the so called " good fats " ) increases the

calorie

> density of any food that it is added to and so leads to the over

> consumption of calories.

>

> What we are now learning from this information is that there is a

far

> better way to lose weight and that is to reduce the overall calorie

> density of the diet and of the foods in the diet. In addition,

choosing

> foods that are lower in calorie density, help prevent the

overeating of

> foods that are higher in calorie density.

>

> 1. Lissner L, et al. Dietary fat and the regulation of energy

intake in

> human subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1987;46:886-92 - enclosed].

> 2. Bell EA, et al. Energy Density Of Foods Effects Energy Intake In

> Normal Weight Women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

1998. 67,

> 412-20.

> 3. Start Out With A Big Salad. Pritikin Perspective.

November/December

> 2003. Vol 11. No. 15

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

My view of Atkins is that a study needs to be done to assess the

COMPONENTS of weight lost on both a Pritikin diet and an Atkins diet.

We all know of people who have gone on an Atkins diet, have been

eating huge numbers of calories and have quickly lost appreciable

weight. Most of us here, hopefully, know that this does not make a

lot of sense. We know that a pound of body weight is associated with

about 3500 calories. So it is clear that on an Atkins diet the quick

initial weight loss is not real, caloric, weight but something else.

The logic of the situation suggests the following: Dr. Atkins

unfortunate experience in hospital confirms (even according to the

accounts of the Atkins Nutritionals people) that when someone who has

been on the Atkins diet reverts to a diet that includes normal

amounts of electrolytes and carbohydrates, sixty pounds of weight can

be added in very short order - in Dr. Atkins case less in than two

weeks I believe? Clearly, this is not real caloric weight. It is

water.

Similarly, this very strongly suggests that the weight loss

experienced in the early stages of an Atkins diet is not real caloric

weight either - how could it be with the huge caloric intake? The

weight loss that appears on the scales is largely, perhaps entirely,

accounted for by the dehydration effect of the diet.

So my hypothesis is that if such a study were conducted, and the

components of weight lost on a (GENUINE) Pritikin diet and an Atkins

diet were compared, then the following is approximately what would be

found (I hope the formatting works out in the following table - this

is not a great medium for communicating tabular information):

COMPONENTS OF WEIGHT LOST ON TWO DIET TYPES

-------------------------------------------

Months >>> -----0-----3-----6-----9-----12

-------------- --- · --- · --- · --- · ---

Atkins:

Total wt ------250---210---190---190---190

H20 lost -------0-----40----60----60----60

non-H20 --------0------0-----0-----0-----0

Pritikin:

Total wt ------250---235---220---205---190

H2O lost --------0-----0-----0-----0-----0

Non-H2O ---------0----15----30----45----60

The above data reflect what has been seen in a number of studies -

that weight is (illogically in caloric terms) lost quickly initially

on an Atkins diet, but that weight lost after twelve months is about

the same.

If such a study were to show the above - and in my opinion the logic

emphatically suggests that is, approximately, what it would show -

then which diet do you think stands a decent chance of showing

sustained weight loss after twelve months?

It really is a bit pie-in-the-sky to imagine that people can eat as

many calories as they want of high fat foods and lose all the weight

they want. As it turns out, though, dehydration has been a

spectacularly successful marketing tool.

JMO.

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@...>

wrote:

>

> >>>The randomized double-blind trials of Atkins type of diets so

far, if

> anything, according to my reading, have supported the claim that

Atkins

> is a very effective, short term way to lose weight, and blood

markers of

> cardiovascular risk have, if anything, been improved vs. low fat,

high

> carb diets. Weight loss alone will lower CRP, and so someone who

winds

> up losing 100 lbs on Atkins who has failed numerous other

approaches may

> well be better off than before.

>

> I wrote this for the FrontLine show they did about 1 1/2 years ago

> called the Diet Wars. It was a " cheat sheet " for one of their

> producers. I have all the attachments if you want to see any of

them.

> There is even newer info for every point that only futher

substantiates

> it that isnt included as I havent updated this sheet since the show.

>

> Jeff

>

>

>

> Diet Wars Information

>

>

> Myth # 1: Low-Fat Diets Have Failed

> It has been repeatedly argued that low-fat diets have failed

because, as

> the theory goes, " the amount of fat in the US has declined while at

the

> same time the percent of the population that is overweight/obese has

> dramatically increased. "

>

> Facts:

> The amount of fat in the American diet has not declined. It only

> appears to have dropped because it has dropped as a percent of total

> calories. However, the total amount of calories consumed by

Americans

> has risen at an even greater rate than the total amount of fat

consumed,

> so while the " percentage " of fat consumed has dropped slightly

based on

> comparing it to the total calories consumed, the actual amount of

fat

> and calories consumed has gone up.

>

> Supporting Attachments:

> 1. " Did dietary fat intake in the United States really decline

between

> 1989-1991 and 1994-1996? Journal of the American Dietetic

Association.

> July 2003 * Volume 103 * Number 7 * p867 to p872

>

>

> Myth #2: High Protein Diets Can Promote Weight Loss And Do Not

Adversely

> Impact Blood Lipids Or The Risk Of Atherosclerosis.

>

> Facts:

> The few recent studies on high protein diets, have all been short

term

> (less than 6 - 12 months), had a very high drop out rate ( in some

> groups over 50% didn't finish the study) and poor adherence to the

> diets. Most of the beneficial effects associated with those on the

high

> protein diet was due to the initial weight loss. In reality, diets

that

> are very low in carbohydrates and high in saturated fat and

cholesterol

> have been shown to have very adverse effects on blood lipids when

weight

> is maintained. Diets high in saturated fat and cholesterol have

> consistently been associated with an increased risk of clogged

arteries

> and heart attacks.

>

> A one year study that compared a very low fat high fiber diet (as

> advocated by Pritikin) to a low carbohydrate Atkins style diet

showed

> better weight loss and remarkably better improvements in all blood

> lipids and other risk factors for cardiovascular diseases.

(Preventative

> Cardiology 5(3): 110-118, 2002)

>

> Recently a study on children following an " Atkins Style " very low

> carbohydrate, high fat diet for 6 months to 2 years found that all

blood

> lipids were negatively impacted with Triglycerides and LDL

increasing 50

> -60%

>

> Supporting Attachment:

> 1. " New Atkins Studies: Beyond The Sensationalistic Headlines "

Pritikin

> Perspective, June/July 2003, Vol 11, No, 13

> 2. High-Fat, High Protein Diet Worsens Cholesterol Levels. Pritikin

> Perspective, Novemeber/December 2003, Vol 11, No. 15.

> 3. Low-Fat Diets more Effective Than High Fat Diets For Both Weight

Loss

> And Health. Pritikin Perspective. October/November 2002. Vol. 11,

No 9

> 4. Kenney JJ. Do ketogenic diets promote atherosclerosis?

>

>

> Myth # 3: As Promoted In Many Best Selling Diet Books, The Key To

Long

> Term Successful Weight Loss Is Restricting Carbohydrate And

Increasing

> The Intake Of Fat And Protein.

>

> Facts:

> If anything, the opposite is more likely true. Success leaves clues.

> The people who have been successful in the United States at losing

> weight and keeping it off long term are part of a study called the

> National Weight Control Registry (NWCR). To qualify for the NWCR,

> someone must have lost at least 30lbs and kept it off for at least a

> year and have it documented with before and after pictures and

medical

> records. The average weight loss is 65lbs and has been kept off for

6

> years. There are 4500 people who now meet the criteria in the

registry.

> Less than 1% of the subjects in the NWCR have used a high protein,

low

> carbohydrate diet to lose weight and keep it off. In fact, most have

> used a low-fat, high carbohydrate, high-fiber diets with exercise.

>

> A USDA study on 10,000+ Americans found that the leanest Americans

were

> those following a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet full of fruits,

> vegetables, grain products, low-fat dairy foods, and small amounts

of

> low-fat meat, poultry and fish. By contrast, Americans in the very

> low-carbohydrate (high protein) group were the heaviest. (Journal

of the

> American College of Nutrition 2002;21:268-274.)

>

> The scientific review: " Popular Diets: Correlation To Health,

Nutrition

> and Obesity. " It reviews data on 10,014 American adults and

concludes

> that people on low-carbohydrate diets had the highest BMI's.

>

> The March 2003 recommendations from the World Health Organization

> concluded that the optimal diet for losing weight and preventing

disease

> is one that is low in fat and high in natural, fiber-rich

carbohydrates

> like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

>

> A study that critically reviewed the health advantages and

disadvantages

> of popular weight loss diets found the diets low in fat and high in

> carbohydrates and fiber provide the greatest health benefits and

also

> lowered the risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The

review

> also noted that while high fat diets may promote short-term weight

loss,

> they increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and the

progression of

> atherosclerosis.

>

> SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS

> 1. Wing, RR & Hill, JO. Successful Weight Loss Maintenance. Annu.

Rev.

> Nutr. 2001. 21:323-41

> 2. The Diet That Works In The Real World: What The USDA Found Out

About

> Successful Weight Control. Pritikin Perspective. June/July 2003.

Vol.

> 11, No. 13.

> 3. Kennedy ET, et al. Popular Diets: Correlation to health,

nutrition

> and obesity. JADA. 2001; 101:411-420

> 4. Executive Summary " Joint WHO/FAO Expert Report on Diet,

Nutrition and

> the Prevention of Chronic Disease)

> 5. WHO information sheet " Obesity and Overweight. "

> 6. Science News: Low-Fat High Fiber Diet Can Wipe Out Obesity, U.N.

> Scientists Report. Pritikin Perspective. April/May 2003. Vol

11., No

> 12

> 7. , JW. Konz, EC, , DA. Health Advantages and

> Disadvantages of Weight-Reducing Diets: A Computer Analysis and

Critical

> Review. Journal Of The American College of Nutrition, Vol 19, No 5,

> 578-590 (2000)

>

>

> MYTH #4: Many High Carbohydrate Foods, Like Potatoes, That Have A

High

> Glycemic Index, Trigger An Overproduction Of Insulin, Causing An

> Increase In Hunger, Which Leads To Overeating And Obesity. These

High

> Carbohydrate Foods, Also Cause An Increase In Blood Sugar And Will

Lead

> To Diabetes.

>

> Facts:

> Claims that high-GI foods or high-glycemic load foods increase

hunger

> and promote overeating and obesity conflict with a lot of research.

> First, a study that compared the satiety/calorie (called satiety

index)

> from a wide variety of foods found that the white potato had the

highest

> satiety index. It was considerably higher than fish, eggs, beef or

> cheese and other high-protein foods. In other words, despite its

high

> glycemic index, it was the food least likely to lead to

overeating.

>

> The University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter reviewed the

> glycemic index and the many claims made about it. The author

said, " the

> glycemic index is of little practical use for designing an eating

plan.

> Moreover, it's not even clear that avoiding foods high on the index

is

> even beneficial. " They concluded that " if you are trying to lose

> weight, calories do count, far more than the glycemic index. "

>

> A recent published review of the glycemic index (F Xavier Pi-

Sunyer),

> explains why it is not recommended to base food choices solely on

the

> glycemix index. The author also concludes that a more important

public

> message would be to recommend a decrease in total caloric intake

and an

> increase in physical activity.

>

> Another study looked specifically at the claims made in the best

selling

> diet book " The Zone " which is based on the glycemic index and the

> control of insulin levels for weight loss. The author of the study

> found that not only were the claims made in the book The Zone not

> supported by the scientific literature, it found that the scientific

> literature was in actual " opposition " to the claims.

>

> Supporting Attachment:

> 1. Holt SHA, et al. A satiety index of common foods. European

Journal

> of Clinical Nutrition (1995) 49, 675-690

> 2. Is This Any Way To Choose Foods? The University of California

> Berkeley Wellness Letter; The Newsletter of Nutrition, Fitness and

> Self-Care, Vol 20. Issue 3, December 2003

> 3. Pi-Sunyer, FX. Glycemic Index and Disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;

> 76(suppl);290s-8s

> 4. Cheuvront, SN. The Zone Diet Phenomenon: A Closer Look at the

> Science

> behind the Claims. Journal Of The American College of Nutrition,

Vol 22,

> No 1, 9-17 (2003)

>

>

> MYTH #5 All Carbohydrates Foods Turn To Sugar And Increase The

Risk

> For Diabetes And Heart Disease Because They Negatively Effect Blood

> Lipids Like Triglycerides And LDL

>

> Facts:

>

> There is an important distinction about carbohydrate foods that is

often

> not explained by these best selling diet books and the media.

There is

> a big difference between unrefined/unprocessed carbohydrate foods

that

> are rich in fiber and water and low in calories (like peas and corn)

> that are healthy and refined processed carbohydrate foods that are

low

> in fiber and water content and high in calories (like pretzels and

> crackers). Unfortunately, both types of carbohydrates are usually

> lumped together, and vilified equally in the popular diet books and

> media.

>

> The main reason that high carbohydrate diets have a presumably bad

> impact on blood lipids and atherosclerosis is that in the majority

of

> the studies high carbohydrate diet was a diet high in refined and

> processed carbohydrates. However, there are many studies that show

when

> a diet is based on the unprocessed, unrefined carbohydrates that are

> high in fiber and low in calories, they reduce the risk for

diabetes and

> cardiovascular disease. Even the latest recommendations for

diabetes

> that was just published in the January 2004 issue of Diabetes Care,

says

> that a low fat, high carbohydrate, high fiber diet is beneficial

for use

> in the prevention and treatment of diabetes. In addition, they

state

> that it is also more likely to lead to weight loss than diets

higher in

> fat.

>

> The distinction between unrefined unprocessed carbohydrates and

refined

> processed carbohydrates must be made when discussing the role and/or

> success of a high carbohydrate diet in relation to weight loss and

> health. Anyone who understands this difference would not

advocate a

> low-fat diet that is high in the refined processed carbohydrates

and low

> in fruits and vegetables for weight control. And, it is a

distinction

> that must be made clear to both the media and the general

population.

>

> In fact studies published by Pritikin and others have shown that a

diet

> consisting largely of whole grains, fruits and vegetables with a

little

> fatty fish and non-fat dairy products dramatically reduces

practically

> all known and suspected risk factors for coronary heart disease.

Indeed,

> the only diet shown to reverse coronary artery disease in most human

> subjects is a very-low-fat, high carbohydrate, high-fiber diet.

>

> Supporting Attachment:

> 1. American Diabetes Association. Nutrition Principles and

> Recommendations in

> Diabetes. Diabetes Care, Volume 27, Supplement 1, January 2004.

> 2. Chandalia M, et al. Beneficial Effects of High Dietary Fiber

Intake

> In

> Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The New England Journal Of

> Medicine 2000; 342:1392-8.

> 3. Kenney JJ, New NCEP Cholesterol Guidelines. Food and Health

> Communications, 4 HR CPE Course. www.foodandhealth.com

>

>

>

> Myth #6: High Fat Foods Are More Filling Than Carbohydrate And So

Help

> People Eat Fewer Calories And Lose Weight.

>

> Fact: A carefully controlled study was done where people were

allowed

> to eat as much as they wanted from diets that contained similar

foods

> that varied only in the fat content. The result was that when

similar

> foods contained more fat, people consistently needed to eat far

more of

> the food (and so far more calories) in order for them to feel as

> satisfied as when they ate the low fat versions of the same foods.

>

> There is much discussion in the media and the popular press today

about

> which nutrient (protein, fat or carbohydrate) is the most filling or

> what is the optimal ratio between the nutrients in order to promote

the

> most weight loss. In truth, as studies have shown, the nutrient or

the

> ratio of the nutrients is far less important than what everyone has

> thought. What has turned out to be the most important issue in

filling

> up on the least calories is the issue of " calorie density " . Calorie

> density is simply a measure of the concentration of calories in

food.

> Fat has the highest calorie density of the three nutrients, much

higher

> than either carbohydrate or protein. Therefore, the addition of

any

> fat to food (including the so called " good fats " ) increases the

calorie

> density of any food that it is added to and so leads to the over

> consumption of calories.

>

> What we are now learning from this information is that there is a

far

> better way to lose weight and that is to reduce the overall calorie

> density of the diet and of the foods in the diet. In addition,

choosing

> foods that are lower in calorie density, help prevent the

overeating of

> foods that are higher in calorie density.

>

> 1. Lissner L, et al. Dietary fat and the regulation of energy

intake in

> human subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1987;46:886-92 - enclosed].

> 2. Bell EA, et al. Energy Density Of Foods Effects Energy Intake In

> Normal Weight Women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

1998. 67,

> 412-20.

> 3. Start Out With A Big Salad. Pritikin Perspective.

November/December

> 2003. Vol 11. No. 15

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney

Some comments

1) Why do you beleive people eat an huge number of calories on Atkins and lose

weight? Do you have any evidence for the " huge number of calories " ? I dont.

And we do know that people overestimate their caloric intake by around 50%.

In the studies, they didnt track calories, and when they did, they ate less. In

one study during phase one of Atkins, caloric consumption went down 1000

calories per day (2400 to 1400). During the second phase, caloric consumption

went up only another 100 calories from where they were in phase one (1400

-1500)..

I think the assumption, based on the ability to eat all the meat, cheese,

butter, etc you want, is that caloric intake goes up.

What people fail to realize is that while it sounds like you can do what you

want. People dont. And, as Tony regularly points out, you cant violate the

laws of thermodynamics.

2) The human body stores glucose as glycogen. To do so, each glucose molecule

is combined with water to form the glycogen. The glycogen molecule is 3 parts

water and 1 part glucose. So, to store glucose also means to store water.

When the glycogen is released from storage so is the water weight associated

with it. If you do the math based on how muc glycogen the average human can

store, (around 2000 calories or more depending on the size of their muscles),

and do the conversions, it equates to about 4-6 lbs of water for the average

person. So, in one of the studies on the Atkins diet, during the first 2 weeks,

the Atkins dieters lost 8 lbs. During the next 2 weeks they lost only 2 lbs.

WHere did the extra 6 come from in the first 2 weeks when everything else was

kept constant?

This is why bodybuilders who are competing and want to look very " cut " will cut

out all carbs the week or so before. It removes any " puffiness " from thier

muscles and body from the storage of the glucose and water as glycogen. They

also reduce water intake to as little as possible (and risk electrolyte

imbalances and heart arrythmias).

Now, the opposite is true also. Stay on Atkins for a while and remain carb free

and glycogen depleted. Then, go out to eat and have a typical meal of pasta

with some bread (maybe due to boredom or craving). The body literally sucks up

the carbs to store them replacing the lost glycogen. The next morning the

unsuspecting dieter gets on the scales and sees a 4-6 lb weight gain and says

" AHA, Dr Atkins was right, I never should have eaten the pasta as I am allergic

(or sensitive) to carbs!!

3) Lets look at a real life analogy...

A typical American goes out to eat an a typical American restaurant and orders

their typical American meal. They are fat and decided to lose weight and now

go on Atkins. Lets see what happens....

Typical American Meal...

Some Bread (with lots of butter and or olive oil)

Appetizer of some Potato Skins or Fried Onion or Mushrooms

Salad With Blue Cheese Dressing

Dinner Plate

Steak with garlic butter

Loaded Baked Potatoe (with sour cream, butter, bacon bits)

Broccoli with butter or hollandaise

OF if they might get a dish of fettucine alfredo with chicken

Soft Drink (or two)

Cheesecake

But, now they go on Atkins.

They cant have the bread but that also means they cant have the butter and or

olive oil. Beleive it or not, most of the calories came from the butter and

olive oil but without the bread, they dont have a delivery system for it.

Unless they use their fingers which most people wont.

They cant have carbs, so they cant have the potato skins or the blomming onion.

But, they can have a shrimp cocktail.

For dinner, they can still have the steak and the garlic butter. They cant have

the potato, which means that they also cant have the sour cream, the butter and

the bacon bits, which, beleive it or not, contribute 2/3 of the calories of the

loaded potatoe. Again, the potato was a delivery system for all the fatty

stuff.

They can have the broccoli with the butter and or hollandaise sauce.

The cant have a soft drink so they get a diet drink

They cant have the cheesecake (too much sugar) so they go with a sugar free

Atkins cheesecake.,

Now, you tell me, what happens to the caloric intake?

This demonstration was actually shown live in a restaurant on 20/20 or one of

the news shows. The reporter was comparing what he used to eat on his low fat

diet (oy veh) to his new atkins diet and how it helped him lose weight by

cutting the carbs. I am sure he didnt realize what he was really doing (or

cutting) nor did most of the viewers.

People think by eating more of the Atkins recommended foods they are getting in

more calories, but usually they are not, and thats how they lose weight.

When you look at calorie density, Atkins forbids the source of the most calorie

dense foods in the American diet (foods high in white flour, and/or white sugar,

which also come loaded with oils) and allows you to replace them with foods that

are not as calorie dense (meat, seafood, chicken, etc).

In American, starches, like bread, potato, etc are really just delivery systems

for fat. You not only remove the delivery system but you also remove a LOT of

fat and then you are left with eating more animal protein, which isnt as high in

calories.

In American right now, about 50% of the diet is carbs and 90% of that is refined

carbs. Only about 15% of the diet is protein and 35% fat. Remove all the

carbs, except a few servings of salad and veggies a day, and all the

hydrogenated fats and eat more protein and some more fat, you are still at a

caloric deficit.

And, even though he allows it, you cant live on butter, oil, cheese, etc without

getting side effects, like constipation, headaches etc as most of the

particpants in his studies found out.

And, in spite of the " appeal " of the diet, in the studies, over 50% of the

people on the Atkins diet in the studies dropped out.

So, I guess it wasnt to appealing.

The good news about Atkins, he encouraged the elimination of all the refined

carbs in the American diet

The bad news, he encouraged people to replace them with animal protein and fat.

S Beach went one step better by recommending only " healthier " versions of animal

protein and fat.

But, we can all go even one step futher, eliminate all the refined carbs and

replace them with lots of the lowest calorie dense, highest nutrient dense, most

satiating foods, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, starchy vegetables ane

legumes.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Rodney

Some comments

1) Why do you beleive people eat an huge number of calories on Atkins and lose

weight? Do you have any evidence for the " huge number of calories " ? I dont.

And we do know that people overestimate their caloric intake by around 50%.

In the studies, they didnt track calories, and when they did, they ate less. In

one study during phase one of Atkins, caloric consumption went down 1000

calories per day (2400 to 1400). During the second phase, caloric consumption

went up only another 100 calories from where they were in phase one (1400

-1500)..

I think the assumption, based on the ability to eat all the meat, cheese,

butter, etc you want, is that caloric intake goes up.

What people fail to realize is that while it sounds like you can do what you

want. People dont. And, as Tony regularly points out, you cant violate the

laws of thermodynamics.

2) The human body stores glucose as glycogen. To do so, each glucose molecule

is combined with water to form the glycogen. The glycogen molecule is 3 parts

water and 1 part glucose. So, to store glucose also means to store water.

When the glycogen is released from storage so is the water weight associated

with it. If you do the math based on how muc glycogen the average human can

store, (around 2000 calories or more depending on the size of their muscles),

and do the conversions, it equates to about 4-6 lbs of water for the average

person. So, in one of the studies on the Atkins diet, during the first 2 weeks,

the Atkins dieters lost 8 lbs. During the next 2 weeks they lost only 2 lbs.

WHere did the extra 6 come from in the first 2 weeks when everything else was

kept constant?

This is why bodybuilders who are competing and want to look very " cut " will cut

out all carbs the week or so before. It removes any " puffiness " from thier

muscles and body from the storage of the glucose and water as glycogen. They

also reduce water intake to as little as possible (and risk electrolyte

imbalances and heart arrythmias).

Now, the opposite is true also. Stay on Atkins for a while and remain carb free

and glycogen depleted. Then, go out to eat and have a typical meal of pasta

with some bread (maybe due to boredom or craving). The body literally sucks up

the carbs to store them replacing the lost glycogen. The next morning the

unsuspecting dieter gets on the scales and sees a 4-6 lb weight gain and says

" AHA, Dr Atkins was right, I never should have eaten the pasta as I am allergic

(or sensitive) to carbs!!

3) Lets look at a real life analogy...

A typical American goes out to eat an a typical American restaurant and orders

their typical American meal. They are fat and decided to lose weight and now

go on Atkins. Lets see what happens....

Typical American Meal...

Some Bread (with lots of butter and or olive oil)

Appetizer of some Potato Skins or Fried Onion or Mushrooms

Salad With Blue Cheese Dressing

Dinner Plate

Steak with garlic butter

Loaded Baked Potatoe (with sour cream, butter, bacon bits)

Broccoli with butter or hollandaise

OF if they might get a dish of fettucine alfredo with chicken

Soft Drink (or two)

Cheesecake

But, now they go on Atkins.

They cant have the bread but that also means they cant have the butter and or

olive oil. Beleive it or not, most of the calories came from the butter and

olive oil but without the bread, they dont have a delivery system for it.

Unless they use their fingers which most people wont.

They cant have carbs, so they cant have the potato skins or the blomming onion.

But, they can have a shrimp cocktail.

For dinner, they can still have the steak and the garlic butter. They cant have

the potato, which means that they also cant have the sour cream, the butter and

the bacon bits, which, beleive it or not, contribute 2/3 of the calories of the

loaded potatoe. Again, the potato was a delivery system for all the fatty

stuff.

They can have the broccoli with the butter and or hollandaise sauce.

The cant have a soft drink so they get a diet drink

They cant have the cheesecake (too much sugar) so they go with a sugar free

Atkins cheesecake.,

Now, you tell me, what happens to the caloric intake?

This demonstration was actually shown live in a restaurant on 20/20 or one of

the news shows. The reporter was comparing what he used to eat on his low fat

diet (oy veh) to his new atkins diet and how it helped him lose weight by

cutting the carbs. I am sure he didnt realize what he was really doing (or

cutting) nor did most of the viewers.

People think by eating more of the Atkins recommended foods they are getting in

more calories, but usually they are not, and thats how they lose weight.

When you look at calorie density, Atkins forbids the source of the most calorie

dense foods in the American diet (foods high in white flour, and/or white sugar,

which also come loaded with oils) and allows you to replace them with foods that

are not as calorie dense (meat, seafood, chicken, etc).

In American, starches, like bread, potato, etc are really just delivery systems

for fat. You not only remove the delivery system but you also remove a LOT of

fat and then you are left with eating more animal protein, which isnt as high in

calories.

In American right now, about 50% of the diet is carbs and 90% of that is refined

carbs. Only about 15% of the diet is protein and 35% fat. Remove all the

carbs, except a few servings of salad and veggies a day, and all the

hydrogenated fats and eat more protein and some more fat, you are still at a

caloric deficit.

And, even though he allows it, you cant live on butter, oil, cheese, etc without

getting side effects, like constipation, headaches etc as most of the

particpants in his studies found out.

And, in spite of the " appeal " of the diet, in the studies, over 50% of the

people on the Atkins diet in the studies dropped out.

So, I guess it wasnt to appealing.

The good news about Atkins, he encouraged the elimination of all the refined

carbs in the American diet

The bad news, he encouraged people to replace them with animal protein and fat.

S Beach went one step better by recommending only " healthier " versions of animal

protein and fat.

But, we can all go even one step futher, eliminate all the refined carbs and

replace them with lots of the lowest calorie dense, highest nutrient dense, most

satiating foods, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, starchy vegetables ane

legumes.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Jeff Novick wrote:

> 1) Why do you beleive people eat an huge number of calories on Atkins and

lose weight? Do you have any evidence for the " huge number of calories " ? I

dont. And we do know that people overestimate their caloric intake by around

50%.

>

> In the studies, they didnt track calories, and when they did, they ate less.

In one study during phase one of Atkins, caloric consumption went down 1000

calories per day (2400 to 1400). During the second phase, caloric consumption

went up only another 100 calories from where they were in phase one (1400

-1500)..

>

>

When I've tried ketogenic diets (for a few weeks,) I've found that

I can only stuff so much fatty food down my throat. Pretty soon I start

thinking that eating is disgusting. Now, I've always done it in a

pretty strange way, since I was a vegetarian for a long time and won't

eat much meat, even under those circumstances. Lots of canned black

soybeans... I've generally tried to get a lot of non-grain fiber

(kale, above mentioned soybeans) but find I get constipated anyway.

Ketogenic diets kick in many of the metabolic changes that happen

with fasting. And one thing about fasting is that much of the hunger

goes away after the second day -- at some point your brain realizes that

it's not going get any food and it isn't worth ringing the alarm bells.

Some advocates of ketogenic diets claim that this mechanism reduces

hunger on a ketogenic diet.

> This is why bodybuilders who are competing and want to look very " cut " will

cut out all carbs the week or so before. It removes any " puffiness " from thier

muscles and body from the storage of the glucose and water as glycogen. They

also reduce water intake to as little as possible (and risk electrolyte

imbalances and heart arrythmias).

>

>

Most of the bodybuilding literature swears by ketogenic diets, not

just for the last week before competition, but usually for the last

several week. To be a winning bodybuilder, you need to put on massive

amounts of muscle but have very low (<< 10%) body fat.

There have always been two schools of thought about this: the

Schwarzenegger school is to gorge yourself most of the year, then

starve yourself for a month or two before competition season. Others,

such as Zane and Gironda, advocate not having such an extreme cycle,

but trying to keep body fat low consistently. In recent years, the

Schwarzenegger school has been dominant, and lately we've seen

bodybuilders who wash down 10,000 calories a day with their anabolic

steroids in the " on " season.

This might not be good for your health, but bodybuilding lore

holds that the ketogenic diet is effective for losing fat mass while

losing a minimum of muscle mass.

[Guest guest]

Jeff Novick wrote:

> 1) Why do you beleive people eat an huge number of calories on Atkins and

lose weight? Do you have any evidence for the " huge number of calories " ? I

dont. And we do know that people overestimate their caloric intake by around

50%.

>

> In the studies, they didnt track calories, and when they did, they ate less.

In one study during phase one of Atkins, caloric consumption went down 1000

calories per day (2400 to 1400). During the second phase, caloric consumption

went up only another 100 calories from where they were in phase one (1400

-1500)..

>

>

When I've tried ketogenic diets (for a few weeks,) I've found that

I can only stuff so much fatty food down my throat. Pretty soon I start

thinking that eating is disgusting. Now, I've always done it in a

pretty strange way, since I was a vegetarian for a long time and won't

eat much meat, even under those circumstances. Lots of canned black

soybeans... I've generally tried to get a lot of non-grain fiber

(kale, above mentioned soybeans) but find I get constipated anyway.

Ketogenic diets kick in many of the metabolic changes that happen

with fasting. And one thing about fasting is that much of the hunger

goes away after the second day -- at some point your brain realizes that

it's not going get any food and it isn't worth ringing the alarm bells.

Some advocates of ketogenic diets claim that this mechanism reduces

hunger on a ketogenic diet.

> This is why bodybuilders who are competing and want to look very " cut " will

cut out all carbs the week or so before. It removes any " puffiness " from thier

muscles and body from the storage of the glucose and water as glycogen. They

also reduce water intake to as little as possible (and risk electrolyte

imbalances and heart arrythmias).

>

>

Most of the bodybuilding literature swears by ketogenic diets, not

just for the last week before competition, but usually for the last

several week. To be a winning bodybuilder, you need to put on massive

amounts of muscle but have very low (<< 10%) body fat.

There have always been two schools of thought about this: the

Schwarzenegger school is to gorge yourself most of the year, then

starve yourself for a month or two before competition season. Others,

such as Zane and Gironda, advocate not having such an extreme cycle,

but trying to keep body fat low consistently. In recent years, the

Schwarzenegger school has been dominant, and lately we've seen

bodybuilders who wash down 10,000 calories a day with their anabolic

steroids in the " on " season.

This might not be good for your health, but bodybuilding lore

holds that the ketogenic diet is effective for losing fat mass while

losing a minimum of muscle mass.

[Guest guest]

It's been a while since I got to rant that macro-nutrient ratios don't

matter (IMO).

While I won't comment on or attempt to extrapolate too much from

reports surrounding Dr. Atkins unfortunate accident and death I

will make one general observation about his popular diet.

I suspect glycogen is the key to the early rapid water weight

loss. Glycogen the sugar equivalent energy stored by the body

in muscles and elsewhere for immediate energy is bound with

water. Ketosis, or the all fat low/zero carbohydrate metabolism

depletes the body's glycogen stores... This will result in a

pretty rapid weight drop as water is unbound and released.

This rapid early weight loss is useful to provide some positive

reinforcement to motivate dieters. It is not very useful for stable,

long term weight management.

Calories do count, how much I still don't know, but as usual if

something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

JR

Rodney wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> My view of Atkins is that a study needs to be done to assess the

> COMPONENTS of weight lost on both a Pritikin diet and an Atkins diet.

>

> We all know of people who have gone on an Atkins diet, have been

> eating huge numbers of calories and have quickly lost appreciable

> weight. Most of us here, hopefully, know that this does not make a

> lot of sense. We know that a pound of body weight is associated with

> about 3500 calories. So it is clear that on an Atkins diet the quick

> initial weight loss is not real, caloric, weight but something else.

>

> The logic of the situation suggests the following: Dr. Atkins

> unfortunate experience in hospital confirms (even according to the

> accounts of the Atkins Nutritionals people) that when someone who has

> been on the Atkins diet reverts to a diet that includes normal

> amounts of electrolytes and carbohydrates, sixty pounds of weight can

> be added in very short order - in Dr. Atkins case less in than two

> weeks I believe? Clearly, this is not real caloric weight. It is

> water.

>

> Similarly, this very strongly suggests that the weight loss

> experienced in the early stages of an Atkins diet is not real caloric

> weight either - how could it be with the huge caloric intake? The

> weight loss that appears on the scales is largely, perhaps entirely,

> accounted for by the dehydration effect of the diet.

>

> So my hypothesis is that if such a study were conducted, and the

> components of weight lost on a (GENUINE) Pritikin diet and an Atkins

> diet were compared, then the following is approximately what would be

> found (I hope the formatting works out in the following table - this

> is not a great medium for communicating tabular information):

>

> COMPONENTS OF WEIGHT LOST ON TWO DIET TYPES

> -------------------------------------------

>

> Months >>> -----0-----3-----6-----9-----12

> -------------- --- · --- · --- · --- · ---

> Atkins:

> Total wt ------250---210---190---190---190

> H20 lost -------0-----40----60----60----60

> non-H20 --------0------0-----0-----0-----0

>

> Pritikin:

> Total wt ------250---235---220---205---190

> H2O lost --------0-----0-----0-----0-----0

> Non-H2O ---------0----15----30----45----60

>

> The above data reflect what has been seen in a number of studies -

> that weight is (illogically in caloric terms) lost quickly initially

> on an Atkins diet, but that weight lost after twelve months is about

> the same.

>

> If such a study were to show the above - and in my opinion the logic

> emphatically suggests that is, approximately, what it would show -

> then which diet do you think stands a decent chance of showing

> sustained weight loss after twelve months?

>

> It really is a bit pie-in-the-sky to imagine that people can eat as

> many calories as they want of high fat foods and lose all the weight

> they want. As it turns out, though, dehydration has been a

> spectacularly successful marketing tool.

>

> JMO.

>

> Rodney.

>

> -

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It's been a while since I got to rant that macro-nutrient ratios don't

matter (IMO).

While I won't comment on or attempt to extrapolate too much from

reports surrounding Dr. Atkins unfortunate accident and death I

will make one general observation about his popular diet.

I suspect glycogen is the key to the early rapid water weight

loss. Glycogen the sugar equivalent energy stored by the body

in muscles and elsewhere for immediate energy is bound with

water. Ketosis, or the all fat low/zero carbohydrate metabolism

depletes the body's glycogen stores... This will result in a

pretty rapid weight drop as water is unbound and released.

This rapid early weight loss is useful to provide some positive

reinforcement to motivate dieters. It is not very useful for stable,

long term weight management.

Calories do count, how much I still don't know, but as usual if

something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

JR

Rodney wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> My view of Atkins is that a study needs to be done to assess the

> COMPONENTS of weight lost on both a Pritikin diet and an Atkins diet.

>

> We all know of people who have gone on an Atkins diet, have been

> eating huge numbers of calories and have quickly lost appreciable

> weight. Most of us here, hopefully, know that this does not make a

> lot of sense. We know that a pound of body weight is associated with

> about 3500 calories. So it is clear that on an Atkins diet the quick

> initial weight loss is not real, caloric, weight but something else.

>

> The logic of the situation suggests the following: Dr. Atkins

> unfortunate experience in hospital confirms (even according to the

> accounts of the Atkins Nutritionals people) that when someone who has

> been on the Atkins diet reverts to a diet that includes normal

> amounts of electrolytes and carbohydrates, sixty pounds of weight can

> be added in very short order - in Dr. Atkins case less in than two

> weeks I believe? Clearly, this is not real caloric weight. It is

> water.

>

> Similarly, this very strongly suggests that the weight loss

> experienced in the early stages of an Atkins diet is not real caloric

> weight either - how could it be with the huge caloric intake? The

> weight loss that appears on the scales is largely, perhaps entirely,

> accounted for by the dehydration effect of the diet.

>

> So my hypothesis is that if such a study were conducted, and the

> components of weight lost on a (GENUINE) Pritikin diet and an Atkins

> diet were compared, then the following is approximately what would be

> found (I hope the formatting works out in the following table - this

> is not a great medium for communicating tabular information):

>

> COMPONENTS OF WEIGHT LOST ON TWO DIET TYPES

> -------------------------------------------

>

> Months >>> -----0-----3-----6-----9-----12

> -------------- --- · --- · --- · --- · ---

> Atkins:

> Total wt ------250---210---190---190---190

> H20 lost -------0-----40----60----60----60

> non-H20 --------0------0-----0-----0-----0

>

> Pritikin:

> Total wt ------250---235---220---205---190

> H2O lost --------0-----0-----0-----0-----0

> Non-H2O ---------0----15----30----45----60

>

> The above data reflect what has been seen in a number of studies -

> that weight is (illogically in caloric terms) lost quickly initially

> on an Atkins diet, but that weight lost after twelve months is about

> the same.

>

> If such a study were to show the above - and in my opinion the logic

> emphatically suggests that is, approximately, what it would show -

> then which diet do you think stands a decent chance of showing

> sustained weight loss after twelve months?

>

> It really is a bit pie-in-the-sky to imagine that people can eat as

> many calories as they want of high fat foods and lose all the weight

> they want. As it turns out, though, dehydration has been a

> spectacularly successful marketing tool.

>

> JMO.

>

> Rodney.

>

> -

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I think the best strategy is not to push any idea to

the

> extremes and to sort of keep a middle of the road

approach as

> much as possible. We just don't have the data right

now to

> know which is the best approach.

There is plenty of scientific evidence and it could be

called the " High Fiber, Moderate Lean Protein,

Moderate Omega-3 Fat " diet. There's also plenty of

scientific evidence that a high saturated fat, high

protein diet that Atkins recommends is very unhealthy

long-term.

IMHO, the only reason Atkin works for some people is

due to the 25% average calorie loss due from

thermogenesis of protein. It seems to me to be all

about a food volume/satiety issue and high fiber diet

works just as well, if not better/safer.

Logan

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> I think the best strategy is not to push any idea to

the

> extremes and to sort of keep a middle of the road

approach as

> much as possible. We just don't have the data right

now to

> know which is the best approach.

There is plenty of scientific evidence and it could be

called the " High Fiber, Moderate Lean Protein,

Moderate Omega-3 Fat " diet. There's also plenty of

scientific evidence that a high saturated fat, high

protein diet that Atkins recommends is very unhealthy

long-term.

IMHO, the only reason Atkin works for some people is

due to the 25% average calorie loss due from

thermogenesis of protein. It seems to me to be all

about a food volume/satiety issue and high fiber diet

works just as well, if not better/safer.

Logan

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff:

OK, I take your point. I had in mind people I know who have told me

they think Atkins is wonderful because they can eat as much as they

want of foods they like, and have lost quite a bit of weight. But

they did not tell me, and I bet they didn't measure, what the change

was in their caloric intake.

It is also a very relevant point that eliminating the simple

carbohydrates eliminates the 'delivery system' for a lot of calories.

Thanks.

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@...>

wrote:

>

> Rodney

>

> Some comments

>

> 1) Why do you beleive people eat an huge number of calories on

Atkins and lose weight? Do you have any evidence for the " huge

number of calories " ?

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff:

OK, I take your point. I had in mind people I know who have told me

they think Atkins is wonderful because they can eat as much as they

want of foods they like, and have lost quite a bit of weight. But

they did not tell me, and I bet they didn't measure, what the change

was in their caloric intake.

It is also a very relevant point that eliminating the simple

carbohydrates eliminates the 'delivery system' for a lot of calories.

Thanks.

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@...>

wrote:

>

> Rodney

>

> Some comments

>

> 1) Why do you beleive people eat an huge number of calories on

Atkins and lose weight? Do you have any evidence for the " huge

number of calories " ?

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> It is also a very relevant point that eliminating the simple

> carbohydrates eliminates the 'delivery system' for a lot of calories.

>

Heck, for that matter, eliminating fat eliminates a lot of junk

food that also carries sugar and starch.

When Atkins first pushed the ketogenic diet in the 1970's, a

ketogenic diet was basically a whole foods diet. It meant avoiding most

of the junk at family parties, and avoiding the vending machine at work.

Around 2000, we saw an explosion in " low-carb " junk food filled

with sugar alcohols and spiked with sucralose. The high price of these

products alone keeps them out of vending machines.

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> It is also a very relevant point that eliminating the simple

> carbohydrates eliminates the 'delivery system' for a lot of calories.

>

Heck, for that matter, eliminating fat eliminates a lot of junk

food that also carries sugar and starch.

When Atkins first pushed the ketogenic diet in the 1970's, a

ketogenic diet was basically a whole foods diet. It meant avoiding most

of the junk at family parties, and avoiding the vending machine at work.

Around 2000, we saw an explosion in " low-carb " junk food filled

with sugar alcohols and spiked with sucralose. The high price of these

products alone keeps them out of vending machines.

[Guest guest]

No argument with Jeff's ideas (tirade? ha) on Atkin's diet.

Herman Taller said he used safflower oil, in addition to what he ate, but he did have a reasonable diet, like cut out the high calorie carbos. "Calorie Don't count" (pre Atkin's).

BUT he described himself as being a heavy 250#, - a lightweight, IMO.

Maybe he cured his metabolic syndrome?

Regards.

RE: [ ] Re: Atkins diet - pros and cons.

RodneySome comments1) Why do you beleive people eat an huge number of calories on Atkins and lose weight? Do you have any evidence for the "huge number of calories"? I dont. And we do know that people overestimate their caloric intake by around 50%. In the studies, they didnt track calories, and when they did, they ate less. In one study during phase one of Atkins, caloric consumption went down 1000 calories per day (2400 to 1400). During the second phase, caloric consumption went up only another 100 calories from where they were in phase one (1400 -1500)..I think the assumption, based on the ability to eat all the meat, cheese, butter, etc you want, is that caloric intake goes up. What people fail to realize is that while it sounds like you can do what you want. People dont. And, as Tony regularly points out, you cant violate the laws of thermodynamics.2) The human body stores glucose as glycogen. To do so, each glucose molecule is combined with water to form the glycogen. The glycogen molecule is 3 parts water and 1 part glucose. So, to store glucose also means to store water. When the glycogen is released from storage so is the water weight associated with it. If you do the math based on how muc glycogen the average human can store, (around 2000 calories or more depending on the size of their muscles), and do the conversions, it equates to about 4-6 lbs of water for the average person. So, in one of the studies on the Atkins diet, during the first 2 weeks, the Atkins dieters lost 8 lbs. During the next 2 weeks they lost only 2 lbs. WHere did the extra 6 come from in the first 2 weeks when everything else was kept constant? This is why bodybuilders who are competing and want to look very "cut" will cut out all carbs the week or so before. It removes any "puffiness" from thier muscles and body from the storage of the glucose and water as glycogen. They also reduce water intake to as little as possible (and risk electrolyte imbalances and heart arrythmias). Now, the opposite is true also. Stay on Atkins for a while and remain carb free and glycogen depleted. Then, go out to eat and have a typical meal of pasta with some bread (maybe due to boredom or craving). The body literally sucks up the carbs to store them replacing the lost glycogen. The next morning the unsuspecting dieter gets on the scales and sees a 4-6 lb weight gain and says "AHA, Dr Atkins was right, I never should have eaten the pasta as I am allergic (or sensitive) to carbs!! :)3) Lets look at a real life analogy... A typical American goes out to eat an a typical American restaurant and orders their typical American meal. They are fat and decided to lose weight and now go on Atkins. Lets see what happens....Typical American Meal...Some Bread (with lots of butter and or olive oil)Appetizer of some Potato Skins or Fried Onion or MushroomsSalad With Blue Cheese DressingDinner Plate Steak with garlic butterLoaded Baked Potatoe (with sour cream, butter, bacon bits)Broccoli with butter or hollandaiseOF if they might get a dish of fettucine alfredo with chickenSoft Drink (or two)CheesecakeBut, now they go on Atkins.They cant have the bread but that also means they cant have the butter and or olive oil. Beleive it or not, most of the calories came from the butter and olive oil but without the bread, they dont have a delivery system for it. Unless they use their fingers which most people wont. :)They cant have carbs, so they cant have the potato skins or the blomming onion. But, they can have a shrimp cocktail. For dinner, they can still have the steak and the garlic butter. They cant have the potato, which means that they also cant have the sour cream, the butter and the bacon bits, which, beleive it or not, contribute 2/3 of the calories of the loaded potatoe. Again, the potato was a delivery system for all the fatty stuff. They can have the broccoli with the butter and or hollandaise sauce.The cant have a soft drink so they get a diet drinkThey cant have the cheesecake (too much sugar) so they go with a sugar free Atkins cheesecake.,Now, you tell me, what happens to the caloric intake?This demonstration was actually shown live in a restaurant on 20/20 or one of the news shows. The reporter was comparing what he used to eat on his low fat diet (oy veh) to his new atkins diet and how it helped him lose weight by cutting the carbs. I am sure he didnt realize what he was really doing (or cutting) nor did most of the viewers.People think by eating more of the Atkins recommended foods they are getting in more calories, but usually they are not, and thats how they lose weight.When you look at calorie density, Atkins forbids the source of the most calorie dense foods in the American diet (foods high in white flour, and/or white sugar, which also come loaded with oils) and allows you to replace them with foods that are not as calorie dense (meat, seafood, chicken, etc). In American, starches, like bread, potato, etc are really just delivery systems for fat. You not only remove the delivery system but you also remove a LOT of fat and then you are left with eating more animal protein, which isnt as high in calories.In American right now, about 50% of the diet is carbs and 90% of that is refined carbs. Only about 15% of the diet is protein and 35% fat. Remove all the carbs, except a few servings of salad and veggies a day, and all the hydrogenated fats and eat more protein and some more fat, you are still at a caloric deficit. And, even though he allows it, you cant live on butter, oil, cheese, etc without getting side effects, like constipation, headaches etc as most of the particpants in his studies found out. And, in spite of the "appeal" of the diet, in the studies, over 50% of the people on the Atkins diet in the studies dropped out. So, I guess it wasnt to appealing.The good news about Atkins, he encouraged the elimination of all the refined carbs in the American dietThe bad news, he encouraged people to replace them with animal protein and fat. S Beach went one step better by recommending only "healthier" versions of animal protein and fat.But, we can all go even one step futher, eliminate all the refined carbs and replace them with lots of the lowest calorie dense, highest nutrient dense, most satiating foods, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, starchy vegetables ane legumes.RegardsJeff

[Guest guest]

No argument with Jeff's ideas (tirade? ha) on Atkin's diet.

Herman Taller said he used safflower oil, in addition to what he ate, but he did have a reasonable diet, like cut out the high calorie carbos. "Calorie Don't count" (pre Atkin's).

BUT he described himself as being a heavy 250#, - a lightweight, IMO.

Maybe he cured his metabolic syndrome?

Regards.

RE: [ ] Re: Atkins diet - pros and cons.

RodneySome comments1) Why do you beleive people eat an huge number of calories on Atkins and lose weight? Do you have any evidence for the "huge number of calories"? I dont. And we do know that people overestimate their caloric intake by around 50%. In the studies, they didnt track calories, and when they did, they ate less. In one study during phase one of Atkins, caloric consumption went down 1000 calories per day (2400 to 1400). During the second phase, caloric consumption went up only another 100 calories from where they were in phase one (1400 -1500)..I think the assumption, based on the ability to eat all the meat, cheese, butter, etc you want, is that caloric intake goes up. What people fail to realize is that while it sounds like you can do what you want. People dont. And, as Tony regularly points out, you cant violate the laws of thermodynamics.2) The human body stores glucose as glycogen. To do so, each glucose molecule is combined with water to form the glycogen. The glycogen molecule is 3 parts water and 1 part glucose. So, to store glucose also means to store water. When the glycogen is released from storage so is the water weight associated with it. If you do the math based on how muc glycogen the average human can store, (around 2000 calories or more depending on the size of their muscles), and do the conversions, it equates to about 4-6 lbs of water for the average person. So, in one of the studies on the Atkins diet, during the first 2 weeks, the Atkins dieters lost 8 lbs. During the next 2 weeks they lost only 2 lbs. WHere did the extra 6 come from in the first 2 weeks when everything else was kept constant? This is why bodybuilders who are competing and want to look very "cut" will cut out all carbs the week or so before. It removes any "puffiness" from thier muscles and body from the storage of the glucose and water as glycogen. They also reduce water intake to as little as possible (and risk electrolyte imbalances and heart arrythmias). Now, the opposite is true also. Stay on Atkins for a while and remain carb free and glycogen depleted. Then, go out to eat and have a typical meal of pasta with some bread (maybe due to boredom or craving). The body literally sucks up the carbs to store them replacing the lost glycogen. The next morning the unsuspecting dieter gets on the scales and sees a 4-6 lb weight gain and says "AHA, Dr Atkins was right, I never should have eaten the pasta as I am allergic (or sensitive) to carbs!! :)3) Lets look at a real life analogy... A typical American goes out to eat an a typical American restaurant and orders their typical American meal. They are fat and decided to lose weight and now go on Atkins. Lets see what happens....Typical American Meal...Some Bread (with lots of butter and or olive oil)Appetizer of some Potato Skins or Fried Onion or MushroomsSalad With Blue Cheese DressingDinner Plate Steak with garlic butterLoaded Baked Potatoe (with sour cream, butter, bacon bits)Broccoli with butter or hollandaiseOF if they might get a dish of fettucine alfredo with chickenSoft Drink (or two)CheesecakeBut, now they go on Atkins.They cant have the bread but that also means they cant have the butter and or olive oil. Beleive it or not, most of the calories came from the butter and olive oil but without the bread, they dont have a delivery system for it. Unless they use their fingers which most people wont. :)They cant have carbs, so they cant have the potato skins or the blomming onion. But, they can have a shrimp cocktail. For dinner, they can still have the steak and the garlic butter. They cant have the potato, which means that they also cant have the sour cream, the butter and the bacon bits, which, beleive it or not, contribute 2/3 of the calories of the loaded potatoe. Again, the potato was a delivery system for all the fatty stuff. They can have the broccoli with the butter and or hollandaise sauce.The cant have a soft drink so they get a diet drinkThey cant have the cheesecake (too much sugar) so they go with a sugar free Atkins cheesecake.,Now, you tell me, what happens to the caloric intake?This demonstration was actually shown live in a restaurant on 20/20 or one of the news shows. The reporter was comparing what he used to eat on his low fat diet (oy veh) to his new atkins diet and how it helped him lose weight by cutting the carbs. I am sure he didnt realize what he was really doing (or cutting) nor did most of the viewers.People think by eating more of the Atkins recommended foods they are getting in more calories, but usually they are not, and thats how they lose weight.When you look at calorie density, Atkins forbids the source of the most calorie dense foods in the American diet (foods high in white flour, and/or white sugar, which also come loaded with oils) and allows you to replace them with foods that are not as calorie dense (meat, seafood, chicken, etc). In American, starches, like bread, potato, etc are really just delivery systems for fat. You not only remove the delivery system but you also remove a LOT of fat and then you are left with eating more animal protein, which isnt as high in calories.In American right now, about 50% of the diet is carbs and 90% of that is refined carbs. Only about 15% of the diet is protein and 35% fat. Remove all the carbs, except a few servings of salad and veggies a day, and all the hydrogenated fats and eat more protein and some more fat, you are still at a caloric deficit. And, even though he allows it, you cant live on butter, oil, cheese, etc without getting side effects, like constipation, headaches etc as most of the particpants in his studies found out. And, in spite of the "appeal" of the diet, in the studies, over 50% of the people on the Atkins diet in the studies dropped out. So, I guess it wasnt to appealing.The good news about Atkins, he encouraged the elimination of all the refined carbs in the American dietThe bad news, he encouraged people to replace them with animal protein and fat. S Beach went one step better by recommending only "healthier" versions of animal protein and fat.But, we can all go even one step futher, eliminate all the refined carbs and replace them with lots of the lowest calorie dense, highest nutrient dense, most satiating foods, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, starchy vegetables ane legumes.RegardsJeff

[Guest guest]

Well, it's correct in a way to say you can eat all you want, but I can tell you I filled up quite rapidly on bacon.

You simply won't WANT to eat a lot. I was dying for a loaf of bread and water. 5 days - that was it.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Atkins diet - pros and cons.

Hi Jeff:OK, I take your point. I had in mind people I know who have told me they think Atkins is wonderful because they can eat as much as they want of foods they like, and have lost quite a bit of weight. But they did not tell me, and I bet they didn't measure, what the change was in their caloric intake.It is also a very relevant point that eliminating the simple carbohydrates eliminates the 'delivery system' for a lot of calories.Thanks.Rodney.>> Rodney> > Some comments> > 1) Why do you beleive people eat an huge number of calories on Atkins and lose weight? Do you have any evidence for the "huge number of calories"?

[Guest guest]

Well, it's correct in a way to say you can eat all you want, but I can tell you I filled up quite rapidly on bacon.

You simply won't WANT to eat a lot. I was dying for a loaf of bread and water. 5 days - that was it.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Atkins diet - pros and cons.

Hi Jeff:OK, I take your point. I had in mind people I know who have told me they think Atkins is wonderful because they can eat as much as they want of foods they like, and have lost quite a bit of weight. But they did not tell me, and I bet they didn't measure, what the change was in their caloric intake.It is also a very relevant point that eliminating the simple carbohydrates eliminates the 'delivery system' for a lot of calories.Thanks.Rodney.>> Rodney> > Some comments> > 1) Why do you beleive people eat an huge number of calories on Atkins and lose weight? Do you have any evidence for the "huge number of calories"?

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Logan,

Agree with your observation, because there are CRONies who do a high fat and swear by it because of BG problems. They don't post much but they're out there.

In any case, they don't do a LOT of kcals (this is a low cal group), so I think it's possible to do a high fat diet IF it's OTO of 1800 kcals. They would simply burn it daily.

I can't do Atkin's, but then I'm not a high BG, either.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Atkins diet - pros and cons.

> I think the best strategy is not to push any idea tothe > extremes and to sort of keep a middle of the roadapproach as > much as possible. We just don't have the data rightnow to > know which is the best approach.There is plenty of scientific evidence and it could becalled the "High Fiber, Moderate Lean Protein,Moderate Omega-3 Fat" diet. There's also plenty ofscientific evidence that a high saturated fat, highprotein diet that Atkins recommends is very unhealthylong-term.IMHO, the only reason Atkin works for some people isdue to the 25% average calorie loss due fromthermogenesis of protein. It seems to me to be allabout a food volume/satiety issue and high fiber dietworks just as well, if not better/safer. Logan