JGL53

Well, to repeat, I put the phrase "Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N.M., Jacobson, M.S" in google and got forty one hits. Several of the first are from the Atkins site. So maybe this study is just made up - Atkins was an alleged charlatan and quack, maybe he was an outrageous lier too.

I wonder if ALL the studies cited are just made up? If so, seems to me some one would have caught that by now.

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?

ps418

That link is messed up. Here is a working link. Most of what I've read so far is fairly reasonable, but the author makes one argument that is absolute rubbish:

There has never been a randomized, clinical human trial demonstrating that smoking or radon or asbestos exposure causes cancer, or that excess alcohol exposure causes cirrhosis of the liver, etc., yet in each one of these cases, we can make causal inferences from epidemiological data with a reasonable degree of confidence.

It is of course true that randomized trials are more informative, and that associations can result from confounding variables. I would go further and point out that epidemioogical associations can be and often are very real without being causal, that there is no way to prove that ALL confounding variables have been accounted for, and that residual confounding may remain even you think that you have accounted for these variables. But he goes way too far in saying that no reasonably confident conclusions can be made in their absence. It would be much more sensible IMHO for him to simply argue that the epidemiological studies in question are not applicable because they are confounded with other dietary variables.

Patrick

JGL53

Firstly, the most IMPORTANT cardiac factors (triglyceridess and HDL) were much better improved in low carb - the former lowered more and the latter raised more with than low fat.

As to the 'no difference' at 12 months, I addressed this on page four of this thread, which I will repeat here for your convenience:

<<....As to both the low carb and low fat dieters winding up back at square one after a full year, sure. It happens when you go back to your original crap diet.

Why do so many fall off the obviously healthier low carb diet? My unproven theory is: they are not being properly counseled by knowledgeable clinicians regarding transitioning from induction to pre-maintenance to maintenance diets. They are not being helped to develop an exercise program that starts out very slowly and builds up to 30 minutes or an hour six times a week. They are not counseled to eat low glycemic (but tasty, palatable) carbs food most of the time, with an "off' day set aside once a week for a reasonable portion of one's favorite ice cream or pie, etc. - to avoid temptations to binge or completely fall off.

Too many people never get out of the extreme 'either/or' mentality re diets (and clinicians are apparently not helping the situation much).

E.g. the fact that yesterday I had some walnut/raisin/cinnamon toast for breakfast and some baked potato for lunch, yet am STILL doing a controlled carb diet is just too complicated an idea for many to handle. Years ago, at the getgo, I went through a period of TWO MONTHS of very low carb (like those in the trials). Somehow, I transitioned from there to here and many others have too. But many, many other people backslide into dietary hell.

Why? Are they stupid? Lacking in 'will power'? No, I think it's because they have not been exposed, for whatever reason, to the total theory and total list of techniques one must master in order to create a LIFE LONG healthy dietary lifestyle.

It all doesn't happen overnight. One must actually work at it, but one must have the proper tools, so to speak, also. It is indeed not a magic bullet. >>

Of course, this is all just my theory - but, interestingly, I was lurking at the Atkinsfriends.com BB the other day and the (well, I suppose the proper term would be 'fanatics') had a thread going debating this exact thing. Many of them had been doing low carb for years, some just for months, but the reasons proposed, not so coincidentally, tracked my own thinking on this 'problem', as described above.

The anti- low carbers, of course, will continue to harp on the "there's no difference at twelve months, HA HA HA" thing for quite awhile yet, but I have every confidence that the truth will out in the fullness of time.

As to your comments about exercise and diet, I myself have noticed that there is a direct correlation between exercise and how much of a (starch) carb load I can handle - so no argument there.

JGL53

I can't argue with you on this, Patrick, EXCEPT - I just can't help wondering about all those skinny, heart-healthy Masai people eating all that cow meat, and drinking all that whole cow milk and cow's blood. If saturated animal fat in the human diet is causative of heart disease PER SE, regardless of other factors, then how do we explain the Masai's experience....?

ps418

You seem to have misunderstood. The 'no difference' refers to no difference in overall weight loss between the two types of diets at 12 months, not to difference in weight before vrs after 12 months of dieting. There are very signficant before/after weight differences on both diets. This simply means that Atkins is roughly as effective as low-fat for weight loss. Its hardly a criticism of low-carb diets.

Patrick

ps418

This is interesting, because you are making precisely the type of epidemiological inference that the article you cited says you cannot make! I could argue --taking the approach of the article you cited-- that there are so many confounding variables here that we have no idea what to make of this observation. For instance, have you controlled for potentially confounding variables of population stratification (i.e. population-specific genetic factors), total calorie intake, exercise, stress levels, etc.?

Don't misunderstand -- I'm not making any positive claim about why the Masai are heart healthy, or whether it has anything to do with fat intake. But according to the logic outlined in the article, that observation in itself can not be used to draw any conclusions with reasonable confidence.

Patrick

JGL53

Oh. Sorry. My bad.

Now, what about them there Masai dudes ...?

JGL53

(I think we cross-posted.)

We don't have any serious difference of opinion here. Just for clarification purposes, I know it's an epidemiological study, and it may seem I am trying to have it both ways.

But, firstly, the guy on the web page I cited only made a case that epidemiological studies were less reliable than a cross over study, in his opinion, not that such should be ruled totally out of bounds or ignored as totally useless.

Secondly, Godot apparently DOES find this type of evidence compelling, so I wanted to present it for his edification, if nothing else.

Thirdly, it seems to me from what I keep reading that anti-dietary fat proponents (e.g., those who still back the government pyramid scheme) believe, quite sincerely, that a diet high in saturated fat , e.g., most of animal fat, is heart-unhealthy, ipso facto, regardless of and independent of any other factors, such as total calories, genetic factors, exercise level (or lack thereof), or ANYTHING else, whatsoever.
My point, therefore, in making reference to the Masai is that an example actually exist in real life of a group of people who eat saturated fat until it comes out their ying yangs (i.e., up to 300 grams a day), yet are heart-healthy and slender. That is all.

(But, this is not the only ethnic group like this - there several others cited on the website.)

Wyrdsmyth

Beginning of rant.../

There's nothing like a bunch of fat Americans arguing about what is the best diet. Fat Americans... with their SUV's stuffed with empty fast food bags, arguing passionately about whether low-carb or low-fat is the way to go. It's just so comical. We've turned into this society of spoiled, obese consumers who like to argue on the Internet. We watch reality TV, that is so heavily edited that it might as well be scripted. We play video games that realistically depict commado missions and professional sports, yet many of us get winded going up steps because an elevator broke down. We live in this self-absorbed, vicarious existence of life-that-is-not-really-life-but-virtually-and-technically-impressive.

/...End of rant.

Seriously, the funny thing is, multimillion dollar diet industry aside, we all know how to lose weight and keep it off, which is as obvious as breathing: Exercise and eat moderately, don't go to extremes, and go for a walk or bike ride a few times a week.

JGL53

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

1. I'm not fat (at 6'3' 225 lbs - chest six 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 restuarants - in fact, I avoid them like the plague.
4. I don't watch 'reality' TV - in fact, I think it 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 a building, and took the stairs about 98 pr cent of the time instead of the elevator.

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.