JGL53

I get somewhat pissed, as you noticed, when anyone tells me - or even implies - that my long term experience is irrelevant. It may be irrelevant to others. I do not really care. It is not irrelevant to me. The 'one dog experiment' proves or disproves the point, when the 'dog' is me. Some 'poochies' on this BB don't appreciate this. **** them.

To answer your question, my diet is about sixty per cent fat, in terms of calories, not of course in volume (Shall I join the other lepers now on Molokai?). I avoid processed foods high in trans fat, and eat a balance of fat from animal and vegetable sources. Carbohydrates are probably between ten and fifteen per cent of my diet (I don't count fiber).

You implied that there is a 'downside' to a diet high fat. No doubt true re a diet high in both fat (including a lot of trans fat) and sugar, and lacking in fiber, but can you site a study showing an Atkins-like diet to have a 'downside' because of the high fat content? Just curious.

But back to my favorite subject - me. I have gone off this diet for short periods during the last few years, each time with bad results. When I get back on, I straighten out. I have done this enough to rule out placebo effect, coincidence, or the 'after this, because of this' fallacy - to MY satisfaction. Again, the important point here is I don't give a flying **** what others are convinced of, or think, or believe about diet theory, or eat themselves (pun intended). If someone else does well on a diet of nothing but pie, white bread, french fries, and a daily vitamin, then I'm happy for them. What's it to me? My only gripe is (see paragraph one).

alek0

Nobody disputes that Atkins diet apparently works. However, proponents of Atkins diet make unsubstantiated claims, namely:

1. Carbs are bad for you.

2. Atkins diet is healthy in the long run.

The second one is debatable, and some of the common objections to Atkins diet may not necessarily apply. However, there is absolutely no evidence for the first, and one should not consider all carbohydrates as bad. Eating a piece of fruit is not the same as eating candy or ice cream. As I have pointed out before, there are populations consuming large quantity of carbohydrates and don't have as much obesity and heart disease as Americans. The response offered just reiterates what is my main point - it is calorie intake and lifestyle issue. If you eat healthy balanced diet free of junk food, candy etc. and are physically active, unless you have metabolism disorders you will be in healthy weight range, even if you consume those evil carbs.

Scigirl, off topic:
I am glad that a future medical professional understands this. Lets hope you'll keep the same opinion after you start practicing.
According to some on this board, alternative remedies are either useless or harmful. I often wonder what would they do if faced with no choice. Personally, I would never try homeopathy for example because I am convinced that it doesn't work, but would never make fun of people using it if it works for them. If it is placebo effect, who cares if people feel better? How much of conventionally accepted treatments are nothing else but placebo effect? There was a recent study on pelvic pain - no statistically significant difference in patients who had and who didn't have adhesions surgically removed (both groups had laparoscopy).

Godot

Free rant mode is something I go into frequently. I would have thought this one self-evident, but I guess things don't always come across that way in cyberspace. Admittedly, I have an axe to grind. Dieting behaviours are just something that gets my back up.
I am fully aware that it has little to do with me, thank you very much. Doesn't attempting something before all the evidence (for or against) strike you as a wee bit unusual? Until the evidence supports or refutes the treatment, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?
Agreed. But how much is attributalbe to the failure of the establishment, and how much to people unwilling to work within the framework? I may be splitting hairs, but I think it an important distinction. There may very well be people for whom something like Atkins' is the only option; but they are the fringe, not the majority.
I doubt it was overwhelmingly positive either. The evidence we have so far is equivocal. What should our default stance be in this situation?
Does the word disingenuous ring a bell? Regardless of whether or not it works, if you put forth faulty reasons/mechanisms, how can you be sure that you arrived at your conclusions appropriately and not haphazardly.
And that is your perogative as a physician. Perhaps I need to get my head out of the ivory tower.

As a nutritionist, I would fall under the "allied health professional" banner. I have a thin skin when it comes to people asking my opinion and then disregarding it outright. I get pissed because I feel it a waste of effort on my part. I guess that's why I'm bee-lining it for academia so I don't have to interact with the general public if I choose not too. Otherwise, I consider myself chastised. Shame on you.

JGL53

QUOTE]Originally posted by alek0
Nobody disputes that Atkins diet apparently works. However, proponents of Atkins diet make unsubstantiated claims, namely:

1. Carbs are bad for you.

2. Atkins diet is healthy in the long run.

[/QUOTE]


Atkins being the old abrasive bastard that he was (until his recent death), he may very well have screamed 'Carbs are bad for you' on some talk show debate. But if you read his books, I don't think you'll see the the naked words "Carbs are bad for you" with no further elucidation. I think his recommendations regarded specifically the eating of too many carbohydrates or too high a per cent of your diet in carbs, or the wrong kinds of carbs. Some recent studies seem to indicate this. I know of no studies that indicate it really doesn't matter now much or what kind of carbs one eats. Do you?

As to the second, is there a study out that proves the government Pyramid diet is healthy in the long run (ten to thirty years, or so? No. I don't think Atkins was referring to any long term study demonstrating HIS diet was healthy for such a long time, because no such study exists either.

He was referring to his experience with several tens of thousand of people in his practice who followed his dietary advice for over the last thirty-five years. There are several million other people, including me, who seem convinced his diet is healthy based on their experience.

All anecdotal 'evidence' that you and professional dispensers of 'approved' dietary advice utterly discount, right? Well, good for you. The tens of thousands of Atkins patients don't discount it. The other millions mentioned don't. And I don't.

What else you got for us, Homey? I was getting REAL bored by Godot, but you're sorta entertaining.

Godot

Now that was unnecessary. It's easy to get bored by somebody when the fingers in your ears and the droning of your own voice is all you hear.

alek0

Well, how about vegetarian diet? Vegetarians typically consume a lot more carbohydrates than Atkins allows, they also eat plenty of fruit, and have lower protein intake than Atkins recommends. Actually, Atkins diet would be nearly impossible to follow for a vegetarian. Yet, vegetarians have lower risk of heart disease, have possibly lower risk of some cancers, some studies on seventh day adventist vegetarian and omnivore populations found lower arthritis risk etc.

See for example:
TITLE: The Oxford Vegetarian Study: an overview.
AUTHOR: Appleby,-P-N; Thorogood,-M; Mann,-J-I; Key,-T-J
SOURCE: Am-J-Clin-Nutr. 1999 Sep; 70(3 Suppl): 525S-531S.
Full Text: HighWire
JOURNAL NAME: American-journal-of-clinical-nutrition,-The;
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SERIAL NUMBER: 0002-9165
LANGUAGE: English
MAIN ABSTRACT: The Oxford Vegetarian Study is a prospective study of 6000 vegetarians and 5000 nonvegetarian control subjects recruited in the United Kingdom between 1980 and 1984. Cross-sectional analyses of study data showed that vegans had lower total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations than did meat eaters; vegetarians and fish eaters had intermediate and similar values. Meat and cheese consumption were positively associated, and dietary fiber intake was inversely associated, with total-cholesterol concentration in both men and women. After 12 y of follow-up, all-cause mortality in the whole cohort was roughly half that in the population of England and Wales (standardized mortality ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42, 0.51). After adjusting for smoking, body mass index, and social class, death rates were lower in non-meat-eaters than in meat eaters for each of the mortality endpoints studied [relative risks and 95% CIs: 0.80 (0. 65, 0.99) for all causes of death, 0.72 (0.47, 1.10) for ischemic heart disease, and 0.61 (0.44, 0.84) for all malignant neoplasms]. Mortality from ischemic heart disease was also positively associated with estimated intakes of total animal fat, saturated animal fat, and dietary cholesterol. Other analyses showed that non-meat-eaters had only half the risk of meat eaters of requiring an emergency appendectomy, and that vegans in Britain may be at risk for iodine deficiency. Thus, the health of vegetarians in this study is generally good and compares favorably with that of the nonvegetarian control subjects. Larger studies are needed to examine rates of specific cancers and other diseases among vegetarians.

As for food pyramid, as I said before I disagree with it because it makes no distinction in recommendations on what kind of grains, fats etc. Revsed food pyramid here seems better.

Could you explain why fruit are wrong kinds of carbohydrates? Can you also explain why Atkins does not recommend limiting red meat consumption?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Godot,

since you are a nutritionist, would it be OK if I PM you with a couple of nutrition questions? It is hard here to find a nutritionist, and my GP is complete ignoramus when it comes to nutrition.

Godot

Humour me. What exactly is the wrong kind of CHO? Quantity as it relates to total energy intake and energy balance is the important bit.

You won't find one other, because of the nature of the pyramid. It was built through a combination of epidemiological data, apparent consumption data, and the genreal consensus of the scientific literature. Of course, the USDA food guide pyramid is antiquated and in need of some overhaul. You may find some of the information on this site to be useful. I can't point you towards any specifics since I'm not sure what it is specifically you are interested in looking at. This pamphlet may also be of some interest. It lacks the references you may desire, but it was developped for the general public. At the very least, it's an evolved form of the pyramid. Which was the point I was getting at earlier.

This may work fine as a position to take in his most recent book (1995?), but it is meaningless when applied to his original position as stated in 1972. Is it unreasonable for a doctor who "was referring to his experience with several tens of thousand of people in his practice who followed his dietary advice for over the last thirty-five years" to have kept some form of records that could be used as the basis for a longitudinal study of his method? Atkins had the opportunity and the wherewithal to do so, and he didn't. Why didn't he? Anecdotal evidence is largely based upon emotive appeal. Anecdotal evidence has little to no meaning when discussing the scientific merit of a given theory. You and the millions of others believing in it doesn't make it so.

Godot

Absolutely mate. I'll try not to sound too condescending.

JGL53

Adventists eat eggs and dairy, all very high in fat. They probably eat a lot of fresh veggies and fruits, both starchy and fiberous, and avoid processed and refined foods. They were never exposed to a high processed sugar, low fiber diet as children, so they never developed a taste for such, and their pancreases were never fucked up. Good for them - I envy the lucky bastards.

Wow, what a waste of time and energy this 'study' was. This study proves nothing, except that a vegetarian diet (which includes fresh foods, and eggs and dairy) is healthier than
a crap diet of fatty meats, fast foods, TV dinners, sugary soft drinks, etc. Having to chose between two such diets, I would be a 'vegetarian'. Thank Buddha I don't. Let's see the vegetarians compared to an Atkins type diet. I would predict you'd see the same result as seen in about a half dozen recent studies - the Atkins group might have higher total cholesterol and higher LDL, but they would have higher HDL, a better HDL/LDL ratio, and much lower triglycerides. These last three items are more closely associated with CHD.


Getting closer. One day the cigar will be won.

On a maintenance control-carbohydrate diet, some people can eat up to 100 to 120 carb grams per day. So eat it in fruit already, if you're convinced that is healthy.

But, though many primates do great on a mainly fruit diet, human consumption of large amounts of fruit (fructose is the culprit) has been associated with increased triglycerides.

As to the red meat, it works like this in real life, dude. On the induction part of the diet, when carbs are held to 10 grams a day or less, one eats as much meat and eggs (and cheese, really) as one WANTS.

It doesn't follow that Atkins was telling anyone that they MUST choke down giant slabs of meat all day long. What happens is people wind up eating quite reasonable amounts of meat. This is because there is only so much meat most people want to eat (as contrasted to sugar - once someone gets a Jones going, it sometimes seems there isn't enough chocolate chip cookies, ice cream, donuts, etc. in the world).

Ever tried to eat three or four pounds of meat in one sitting? It'shard if not impossible to do. And who would WANT to? But there are LOTS of people who could easily consume, with gusto, an entire cchocolate cake and a half-gallon of Ben and Jerry's - and an hour latter, they'd be munching on a big box of cookies(Step up to the front and let's hear your testimonies, brothers ande sisters.).

Now, regarding Atkins, on induction, and for the first several weeks if one wishing to stay in ketosis, one can consume HUGE amounts of calories and still loose weight, mainly fat, which is the goal. There is a proven 'metabolic advantage'. In the absence of enough carbs, the body goes directly to burning body fat, and ingested fat is not utilized, or is vastly underutilized. This has happened to SO many people for so many years it CAN'T be a coincidence. But you want a 'study', right? Well, the 'study' you cited was completely useless. Looks to me like we need better studies.

And, finally, going on to maintenance, one can eat mainly vegetables, in terms of volume, since meat, cheese, and eggs are so calorie dense. Many may choose to drink wine, or beer, in moderation.

So, what IS the problem here, dude?

alek0

The problem is that you, and many other Atkins diet supporters, believe that there is no middle ground - either you follow Atkins diet or you eat enormous quantities of chocolate cookies, ice cream and what not. This simply isn't true.

And besides, doesn't this what you wrote show that the problem is calorie intake and not carbohydrates. If you have no willpower at all, then probably you will have more succes in losing weight when eating things which will make you feel full sooner and take long times to digest so you won't overeat. If you can't control yourself, the problem is *you* and not bad carbohydrates. A number of people can maintain healthy weight without any need for excessive carbohydrate restriction. How do you explain that phenomenon if carbohydrates are the problem?