JGL53

Well, I can't speak for the others on this thread but

1. I'm not fat (at 6'3' 225 lbs - chest five inches larger than my waist).
2. I don't own a SUV - I drive a Ford Escort.
3. I don't eat at fast food restaurants - in fact, I avoid them like the plague.
4. I don't watch 'reality' TV - in fact, I think it's all boring bullshit.
5. I don't play video games - I have terrible hand/eye coordination, and find such games frustrating and boring.
6. Until my retirement about 2 years ago, I worked on the third floor of a building for several years. I took the stairs instead of the elevator about 98 per cent of the time.

In any case, you seem like a caring sort of guy. Thanks for your concern.

Add 'don't eat crap' to your list, and I think you're on to something there, W.

Godot

I went directly to the journal you cited. They were unable to provide the study in question. This leads me to believe that your source is incorrect, whether that be intentional or not. I'm asking you to provide a correct citation or retract it. Putting it through Google and finding 41 hits is irrelevant; you provided a citation that was incorrect. Fix it or retract it.

Quote:

Godot, I really would like your analysis of http://www.totalfitness.com.au/myth...owcarbdiets.htm This guy dumps on your 'consensus of epidemiological data' as being unrelible for several reasons, which he goes into in detail. In the several 'head to head' studies quoted, which he deems more scientifically reliable, the low carb/high fat/high protein model always kicks major ass, every time, compared to the low fat/low protein/high carb paradigm. He seems to believe that THAT is what is most important - and beyond mere coincidence - and proof beyond any reasonable doubt. You disagree? Why, exactly?

Myth 1:
First off, he states "Epidemiological research is the study of disease trends among certain populations." While true, it is also a particularly narrow view of epidemiology. BMI charts are determined from epidemiological data.
Where people get confused with epidemiological data is that it tells us about a population not about individuals. The data can tell us what will most likely happen when a population of people change a particular behaviour; a population that reduces fat intake (particularly saturated fat intake) will have a reduced prevalence of obesity, morbidity and mortality. Will it be applicable to you as an individual? Possibly not. This is because there are so many mitigating factors that can affect you as an individual that are washed out in epidemiological data.

"To conclusively prove that saturated fat causes CHD, we need to conduct randomized, clinical trials comparing low-saturated fat diets with saturated fat-rich diets, in which all other possible confounding variables are controlled." Good luck getting this one past an ethics committee. You cannot control for all other possible confounds regardless; how can you control for genetic predisposition? Family history? Cancer risk? Above all else there is no such thing as a causal relationship when discussing diet. A causal relationship is one where there is a 1:1 ratio. Even with respect to smoking and cancer (which has been deemed to be a causal link due to overwhelming evidence), there isn't a 1:1 ratio. Not everyone that smokes gets cancer. By Colpo's argument, this is irrelevant.

I'm also surprised he didn't bring up the Inuit people who traditionally live on a nearly 100% fat diet. As he does note, people that shift from their traditional high-fat diet to a refined diet do increase risk factors, obesity, atherosclerosis, etc. If this is the case, why don't we all shift to start eating a high-fat diet? After all, this case-study is conclusive.

Myth 2:
A large part of this argument is a strawman. The simplistic approach of 'fat makes you fat' is based on a couple of very basic ideas (and in no way is dogmatic). Fat is more easily stored as fat in the body, and minimal energy expenditure is required to store it. Fat also has a higher energy content compared to other sources. Ergo, reducing fat content is the easiest means of reducing the energy content of the diet.
Colpo just provides short-term studies demonstrating that weight loss can be accomplished on a high-fat diet. The key there is short-term. Every study so far has shown that there is negligible difference between a high-fat and low-fat approach to weight loss. There has yet to be any long-term studies completed demonstrating a change in morbidity and mortality in subjects on a high-fat diet. There is no way I'll consider recommending this kind of diet to anyone until all the data is in. It just so happens that it won't be in for another 10-30 years.

Myth 3:
Referring to six studies and a 5 year old lit review hardly consists of a thorough analysis of availble data. Looks like cherry picking to me. I don't disagree with the conclusions drawn, given the evidence presented, I just disagree with the conclusions on the lack of breadth of evidence presented. When Colpo states "Studies have shown..." and presents a single study to support his position, I see shoddy scholarship. While this may mean little to others, I see this as weakening the entire article; if he makes this kind of mistake here, how can I be sure the remainder of the aricle is spot on?

"We can see that a low-carbohydrate, high fat, high protein diet is a far better choice for building strong bones than a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet." Come on. You cannot make this kind of statement after only looking at a half-dozen studies, unless you have already decided to espouse a given position.

Myth 4:
I've been guilty of this one myself. "High-carb proponents want us to believe that a protein intake that is harmful to damaged kidneys is also harmful to healthy kidneys." Call me Chicken Little, but I'd rather be cautious. Besides, citing two studies and anecdotal acounts as comprehensive evidence is insufficient. The conclusion is valid, but Colpo has not performed sufficient research to arrive at it independently.

Myth 5:
Colpo does a great job of explaining the genesis of ketoacidosis, and it certainly is accurate. But to say that it "has nothing to do with the benign ketosis induced by low-carbohydrate diets" is preposterous. This is begging the question. He provides no support for this contention, and certainly does not explain how the two differ.

"Once again, despite the hype, healthy people have little to fear from ketosis - unless they have a strong aversion to losing fat!" Can we spell hyperbole? Please. Dispelling a myth involves demonstrating how the underlying theory is not supported by scientific fact. Colpo merely describes ketoacidosis and claims that it has nothing to do with ketosis.

Ketones are formed as an alternate energy source (primarily for the brain) when there is insufficient glucose or an inherent inability of the cells to make use of the available glucose. In both situations, ketones are created as an alternate energy source. In both situations, ketones have the same effect on pH balance. How is it they differ?

Myth 6:
I'm not going to have a go a this one, largely because I am poorly versed in the literature surrounding paleolithic diets. This little diatribe of Colpo's is full of hyperbole and invective and is unsupported by the literature (meaning he has not provided any support, not meaning there is no support).
If he's going to go to all this trouble of writing an article debunking myths, the least he could do is undertake a minimum of research to check the facts, rather than rely on his presuppositions.

Conclusion:
A conclusion is supposed to gather all the disparate thread of the discussion and guide the reader to a specific conclusion/recommendation based on the supposed careful review of the literature done by the author. Following it up with a testimonial is particularly useful when one is trying to approach the matter in an objective manner.
When Colpo claims "that this [high-carb] diet was not conducive to optimal performance", what the hell is he talking about? What does he mean by "optimal"? If he's talking in terms of athletic performance, he's full of shit. The overabundance of evidence demonstrates that a high-carb diet is a prerequisite for attaining maximal athletic performance. When insufficient carbs are available, the body shifts to fat and/or protein as metabolic substrate. Exercise intensity suffers as a consequence.


I am an elitist, I freely admit it. I don't think very much of this article, and my opinion of it is certainly not helped in that it is not published in any of the nutritional journals. If his conclusions are correct, and his approach well-founded, he would get it published. Throwing it up on the web on his personal website demonstrates it to be his personal opinion.

Dune

"IMPORTANT cardiac factors (triglyceridess and HDL)"
Side bar-
OSU's Prof of Med Chem gave a CE the other day regarding CHD and its correlation to Cholesterol and TRGs (forgive me but I dont have any links or referfences on hand to post) and he mentioned new evidence to suggest that TRGs may not have as strong a causative factor in CHD than previously believed, that TRGs may be an indicator factor of an other underlying condition.... Interesting food for thought...
Side bar over-

As for the low carb, has anyone found reference to the biochemical mechanism by which low carbs would cause an increase in HDL? (not a jibe, an real question of mine) I havent found anything yet....

JGL53

No need to get your panties in a wad there, homeboy. My other persona here (now defunct) was Robert G. Ingersoll - remember that sum' bitch? Well, "RGI" first listed this citation on a previous thread with the following disclaimer:
"I copied the following off the BB at Atkinsfriends.com If this is not a hoax and is for real, then it seems that the much beloved shibbolith of calories in minus calories burned equals calories stored may not necessarily be absolute truth:"

So - I feel no moral obligation to fix or retract anything. In any case, I suspect 99.9 per cent of cited articles not only on II BBs, but on all the web, are from people who never read the original article. You (Godot) are probably one of few who actually HAS read all the citations you post. My hat is off to you.

Sarcasm does not become a true professional such as yourself. Please, in the future, leave all that 'I'll take the low road' stuff to blowhards like me, et al.

BTW, call me simple-minded, but since the Inuit people are hale and hardy and don't drop like flies at average age 40 with CHF, my irrefragable conclusion is that a high fat diet PER SE is far from unhealthy. That is ALL I am averring. Is that a BAD thing?

Yes, but is it the HEALTHIEST? (I would have thought THAT would be a top priority of a nutritionist.) Should I cut out the avocado, almonds, peanut butter, extra virgin olive oil, etc. from my diet, and keep all the sugar and white bread? Godot, you're making me doubt your credentials. Are you SURE you are degreed in the nutritional sciences?

Please. You yourself have cited SINGLE studies in the past in an attempt to prove some point. Besides which, consider this excerpt from the 'amateur' website in question:

"... a researcher named Ancel Keys, armed with the knowledge that fat and cholesterol produced lipid build-up in the arteries of certain animals, proposed that the same dietary constituents were causing heart disease in humans. Keys plotted the coronary heart disease (CHD) death rates from a mere six countries on a graph, and was able to show an almost perfect correlation between fat consumption and CHD mortality (3). However, Keys had hand-picked his countries; data was actually available for 22 countries at the time, and when another group of researchers later plotted the data from all these countries on a graph, Key's correlation vanished into thin air (4). Keys, however, was on the nutrition advisory committee of the powerful American Heart Association, and his erroneous theories were officially incorporated into AHA dietary guidelines in 1961 (5) A long tradition of selectively citing epidemiological research of questionable validity had begun in earnest. ..."

So it may be that this whole anti-fat baloney (is that a pun?) was based originally on taking a theory seriously that was ultimately based in turn on a cherry-picking of epidemiological studies.

So, Godot, is cherry-picking that is utilized to substantiate your prejudices GOOD cherry-picking - or is ALL cherry-picking bad?

OK. Godot - you're a Chicken Little. As for me and my kidneys, we're going to kick some serious roast beef ass at supper tonight. (A thirty per cent protein diet over the last SEVEN years hasn't made me bleed out my pee hole yet - so - I'm going to dedicate all my worrying time to SARS. mm'K?

I doubt this article was meant to as comprehensive as a textbook. Those who don't know the difference can research it.
I THINK his points were that the anti-dietary fat proponents have no evidence that low-carb causes ketoacidosis, or that ketosis caused by low carb eating is harmful. You know of a case history wherein a person ate low carb, then went into ketoacidosis (not ketosis) because of it and almost (or did) expire? Please cite such a case, or I must assume your position is an absurdity.


Again, you unreasonably demand a level if comprehensiveness from an article that most would only expect from a 300 hundred page book. Put the words 'paleolithic diet" in google.com and I think you will find references to all sorts of evidence.

Jeez, you REALLY think this guy is just sitting at his PC creating pure fiction, like a Jackie Collins or a Danielle Steele? If you really give a care, use a search engine on his claims. Nutritional claims aren't like supernatural ones - you're not forced to be an agnostic.

Says you. As previously mentioned by me (on another thread)there have been at least one study, if not more (and a testimony on this thread by another poster who is a high-performance cyclist who related his personal experience), that demonstrate that once a switch from burning carbs to fat is completed (over a couple of months), new PRs are possible, because body fat supplies energy more efficiently over several hours of exercise - the high carbs work better only in atheletic events that require a burst of short term explosive enery (power lifting, 100 yard dash, pole vault, etc.)


Uh Huh. And his references, if not totally fake, are cherry-picked. R-I-G-H-T.
The problem is, there seems to be no studies published in any nutritional journals that demonstrate low carb high fat to be harmful, or that show low fat high carb to be superior in any real way to low carb high fat, or that show low fat high carb to be healthier in the long term than low carb high fat. (Is there?) So all you have to oppose his opinion is - your opinion.

But, nevertheless, regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof), the lay public should just take the word of the government- approved elitists such as you because, hey, you are the ones who are SUPPOSED to know what is what?

But there is no evidence whatsoever (that I know of) that you actually have any 'knowledge' useful to anyone, so I'm not going to take your opinions any more seriously than I would any particular non-elite person's. And more and more lay people are coming to the same conclusion regarding the 'elite' with each passing day.

Jeez, Godot - what's a self-proclaimed elitist to do?

alek0

As far as I know, nobody ever claimed that sugar and white bread are good for you. Who is stupid enug to think that he/she can eat high calorie food and not get fat just because it is 99% fat free? Only in America Not eating low carb diet does not mean that one's diet is loaded with sugar and white bread. That's bullshit. I don't think that I even have sugar in my house. However, I don't use artificial sweeteners either. Inunlikely event that I want to sweeten something, I use either organic honey or add dry fruit (depends on what). Or maybe you are talking about "average american diet"? If so, who ever said that average american diet is healthy?

As for low carbohydrate diet, as far as I know there are no long term studies on its safety, especially cancer risks. You still haven't addressed that issue other than "I'm not worried about that" which is of course no proof. You should also address cancer risks related to use of artificial sweeteners.

There are other approaches which work to keep one's weight within normal limits, some of which, like vegetarian diet, are proven to be safe and actually reduce the risk of some cancers.
If this doesn't work for you because you don't find low fat or vegetarian diet palatable, the problem is you, not the diet. And it is really interesting that you dismiss similar objection to Atkins as irrelevant

To say that all carbohydrates are bad is just as ridicilous as to say that all fats are bad. While Atkins' diet works, there is no proof that his theories on weight loss are correct.

Finally, the best thing one can do is to eat moderately and exercise throughout life and avoid getting fat in the first place.

Bookman

Considering the number of times he's shouted "Straw Man" in this thread you'd think he'd take a bit more care with his own rhetoric, wouldn't you?

Bookman

Dune

-then went into ketoacidosis (not ketosis) because of it and almost (or did) expire?-
While I do not have a study perse, I do have patient case histories from hospitals I work in that Ketoacidosis does kill.
Its not a long road from ketosis to ketoacidosis. The main concern would be caution on the part of the dieter. If they use thier keto-stix and make sure they dont drop thier pH too much, I dont see where that would be too harmful, but ketoacidosis can be deadly.

So far on the list, i have seen articles (and read them) that state that adkins diet is no better than low fat in the long run. As for kidney damage, just because you have not experienced it does not make it irrelevant. Some smokers never die of lung cancer. Some sun worshipers never die of skin cancer.

JGL53

And I never claimed that anyone on this thread made such a claim. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?

Apparently, you extrapolated from my remark in th previous post that REFERRED to white bread and sugar. I was just remarking on the fact that people who buy into the "reduce the fat in your diet" bullshit usually replace such with crap like that, instead of the green vegetables and fresh fruit everyone dreams of them doing.

You are correct, sir. Lots of dumbass Americans actually believe this.

You are correct. When did I ever say otherwise?

I congratulate you on all counts. You are obviously a saint, nutritionally speaking.

Certainly not me.

Well, the world-famous Framingham study corrolated fat intake with less cancer. One might assume more fat in the diet equals less carbs, but who knows?

Plus, e.g., I eat a LOT more green, leafy, cruciferous, colorful vegetables and fruits now on my controlled carb diet (much less starchy vegetables and sugar, and generally eat whole grain or minimally processed bread when I eat it), so I like to think I've reduced my chances of cancer. But who knows.

I don't think there is conclusive proof that any of the artificial sweeteners on the market cause cancer in humans. In any case, the only one I use is Splenda. I am trying to use less of it and replace it with stevia, a natural product used for years that seems to have no side effects except good ones. [/B][/QUOTE]


Pretty soon I won't need to eat anything - I'll be able to live off all the words you keep putting in my mouth.

I have stated again and again that if a person has no issues with food or body weight, then that ends that - regardless of what diet he or she eats. I have stated many times that if someone if happy as a pig in shit with his or her diet, then he or she has my blessings, regardless of what they eat. I have stated what I find unpalatable, but if someone else likes to eat, as a ridiculous example, rotten bananas coated with rancid margarine, then more power to him. What's that to me. I know what works for me. I enjoy arguing diet theory with those who are pro low fat, high carb.

You know, falsely accusing the opposition of being closed-mined and intolerant just because they are the opposition is the last resort of those who have no argument and nothing of further use to offer.

Now, more words in my mouth -boy, I'm getting stuffed. I NEVER said that all carbs are bad. (I think you're losing it, dude.)


There are about a thousand or so prescription drugs on the market that no one knows how they work. Some they don't even have a coherent theory about their actions in the body. Yet they are government approved products prescribed by a six figure number of physicians and used by a nine figure number of Americans.

Atkins theories (let's say,for the sake of argument) are fucked. His diet works.
Everybody wins.
What Part of this is bad?

Define 'moderately'. Maybe we can agree here.

Wow, if I had said that on this BB, I'd be buried in sarcastic remarks up to my neck.

I thinking, though, if the government, the food manufacturers, and advertizers hadn't started the country down the road to nutritional hell these past thirty years or so with all this low fat high carb fake food horse shit, the obesity rate would still be about the same as France's, as it used to be, and your wish would be true.
But I guess it too late to cry over spelt (lowfat) milk.

JGL53

Everything you said is true. Nevertheless, out of the MILLIONS of people who have tried the Atkins diet, at least for a few weeks, if ketoacidosis is a real danger, there should be dozens if not hundreds of cases. I repeat - I know of none. Do you know of any? Does anyone know of any?

If NOT, then what we have is an unfounded fear - similar to the idea that a thirty or forty per cent protein diet (a so-called 'high' protein diet) can damage the kidneys.

JGL53

Well, I was lurking over at Christianity.com and wouldn't you know it - they have a thread going about the Atkin's diet!

It seems it's even MORE effective if you add prayer! Wow - how ironic, as it seems that, lately, it's the dietary establishment that doesn't have a prayer.

Anywho, speaking as the cynic that I am, I did find an example of the Atkin's diet causing a bad thing (Ha Ha). Check out this excerpt from a female believer's post:

" ... I like NEVER get periods, well, somewhere between 3-6 a year, been that way since, forever basically. When I was a teenager they were around 40 days apart and as time went on they got farther and farther, my doc knows this and I've gone through several rounds of treatment. Anyway the last 5 years or so I was getting one about every 3 monthes. Well about 5 days after I started Atkins I got my period after only 31 days, and today I started after 28 days! I was so happy I nearly cried! See what this means to me is that I have a FAR greater chance of becoming pregnant now, and we've been trying for over three years. And yes, I know I'll have to increase my carbs by quite a bit if I get pregnant.
But to answer your question, no, I am not adding in more carbs as of yet. I've read a couple articles that explained that you can basically stay on this induction period for 6 monthes or more, but only if you have a significant amount of weight to lose. "