Nuno Figueira

No, I was talking about a reduction in fat comsumption which really means nothing in pratical terms. I probably missunderstood your point.



Sure, but most people would benefit from a reduction in carbs, replacing them with the proper fats. OF course, same could be said about trans and hydrogenated fats.

And anyway, agricultural dietary patterns are not what I consider natural since they only represent a very tiny percentage of the time frame during which our evolution took place. Untill then, we where on a low starch diet, which might or might not be of relevance these days.


I agree with all this but one thing. Eliminate ALL protein from your diet and you will eventually die. You surely will lose weight but this is not a good thing.

JGL53

Well, Ed, there actually is some food that if you eat in more than very small quantities is 'bad' and WILL make you fat. It's called sugar.

The average American now consumes some giant amount of simple sugar yearly, something like one hundred and forty pounds. To repeat, that's the AVERAGE. And since a lot of people like me now only eat a few pounds a year, a lot of folks are obviously sucking down fuckloads of sugar every day. Many if not most of them wind up fat.

Sugar is even more of an unnatural food for humans than grains. How much sugar do you think people ate on average each year 10,000 years ago? 100,000 years ago? One million years ago?
How about NONE - not processed refined fiber-free 'pure' sugar, anyway.

Eating (and drinking in soft drinks) that much sugar causes Syndrome X in a lot of people (look it up). The pancreas overproduces insulin, causing periodic low blood sugar, which causes over-eating - of sugar and everything else. In a nutshell, the over consumption of sugar leads to over consumption of calories in general, causing obesity (in many people).

So you are WRONG, Ed. But that's ok. I myself have been wrong about things many times in my life. It doesn't hurt a bit (ask Godot).

alek0

I'd really like to know who on this board has advocated processed sugar as a part of healthy diet?

And since you are defining "natural food" by comparison with hunter-gatherer cultures, can you make realistic comparison between game meat and meat of farm-raised animals? How "natural" is meat which is a product of factory farming?

Edited to add: Also please elaborate on how natural are artificial sweeteners.

JGL53

No one. Why do you ask? I was answering a specific question about 'bad' food. When reading the previous posts, did you somehow miss this?

[/B][/QUOTE] And since you are defining "natural food" by comparison with hunter-gatherer cultures, can you make realistic comparison between game meat and meat of farm-raised animals? How "natural" is meat which is a product of factory farming?[/B][/QUOTE]

Farm-raised animal meat is obviously higher in fat, but the extra fat just serves as a low glycemic source of calories. In other words, the extra fat is a rich food source not available to hunter-gatherer-scavanger societies, but it seems to be harmless - as part of a low carb diet. Anyone, whether on low-carb or not, who is concerned about too much saturated fat, or hormones, antibiotics, etc. can use grass fed or free range meat. It costs a lot more, so you have to pay for your concerns. I myself have no such concerns.

[/B][/QUOTE] ... Also please elaborate on how natural are artificial sweeteners. [/B][/QUOTE]

They aren't naturally occuring. That's what 'artificial' means. Again, they are 'food' products that don't seem to cause serious problems, like sugar and low fiber high glycemic processed and refined grains do. I am not against all 'modern' foods per se - just the ones that cause problems to our biological systems, like sugar in large amounts. I eat dairy - that's certainly a product of civilization.

(Of course, some people believe aspartame causes water retention, head aches, etc. but that's no problem for me - I only use Splenda and stevia as sweeteners. Neither has caused me any problems, nor am I aware of any 'studies' that indicate either or harmful in any way.)

Fisheye

Atkins Diet May Be No Better Than Just Cutting Fat

Interesting.

My mom is on the Atkins diet and she continues to insist that she could eat 5,000 calories a day of cheese and atkins candy bars and still lose weight.

JGL53

The two main points of the 'news' article are:
1. If you eat a reducing diet for a temporary time, then go back to eating the way you used to, you will gain back all the weight you have lost. (I'm pretty sure everyone already knew that.)
2. Those on the low carb diet experienced a drop in triglycerides and an increase in HDL - the low-faters did not.

If nothing else, this last point should be a tip that 1. Atkins was on to something and 2. the government has been BSing us all about the 'healthy' low-fat diet for about 30 years now. (Ya think they have any plans on cutting it out any time soon?)

As to your mom losing weight on 5000 calories a day - maybe she did. 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 consumed minus calories burned equals calories stored may not necessarily be absolute truth:

Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N.M., Jacobson, M.S., "Low Carbohydrate Dieting Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular Risk in Obese Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial,"Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 2000, page 91.


Results of the study, conducted at Schneider Children's Hospital in New Hyde Park, N.Y., were presented at a meeting of the Society for Adolescent Medicine in Washington, D.C. Marc Jacobson, M.D., reported on his findings, involving children ranging in age from 12 to 18, all of whom were between 20 and 100 pounds overweight. He found that teens following a controlled carb plan were more successful in their weight-loss efforts than those following a low-fat, high-carb plan, even though the former ate an average of 730 more calories daily.

Members of the controlled carb group were allowed to eat as many calories as they wanted in the form of meat, fish, fowl and cheese, two salads a day and minimal other carbs. The low-fat group ate fat-free dairy products, whole grains, low-fat meats, poultry and fish and many fruits and vegetables. They were limited to 1,100 calories a day. The results speak for themselves: Teens in the controlled carb group lost an average of 19 pounds during a 12-week period; low-fat dieters averaged 8.5 pounds. The controlled carb group also showed a greater decrease in overall serum cholesterol levels and triglyceride levels were reduced by 52 percent, as compared to a 10 percent drop for the low-fat group. High-density lipoprotein (HDL), or "good," cholesterol levels increased in the controlled carb group and decreased in the low-fat group.

Two myths often perpetuated by critics of Atkins were also addressed in this study. Skeptics who don't actually understand the process of lipolysis/ketosis have often stated that the Atkins Nutritional ApproachTM is effective only because fewer calories are consumed. As Atkins followers can attest, they can eat plenty of delicious, whole foods. In the Schneider study, the controlled carb group consumed an average of 1,830 calories a day, 66 percent more than the low-fat group's average, while losing almost 1 pound more per week. Another myth is that Atkins can damage kidneys. Schneider researchers monitored kidney and liver functions and found that they were unaffected by the controlled carb diet.

Dr. Jacobson attributes the weight loss success of the controlled carb dieters to suppressed insulin levels, resulting from carbohydrate restriction. This, in turn, stops the body from "laying down new fat," he says, forcing it to burn fat already accumulated in the body. After three months on a weight-loss plan, study participants followed a maintenance diet that included additional carbohydrates. Six to 12 months later, most of the controlled carb followers had maintained their new weight. The study provides additional evidence for the efficacy of a high-protein, controlled carb weight loss program, specifically for teenagers.

nermal

More mistaken than wrong. We were talking about food and since I don't consider processed sugar food, I simply neglected to consider it. Your point is taken.

Ed

Godot

What a wonderful conspiracy theory!
Don't let the fact that the low-fat diet recommendations are largely based upon longitudinal epidemiological data and are presently being espoused by the majority of governments in the western world (as well as by the FAO and WHO) fool you.
Don't let the fact that a high-fat diet over the long term can increase your risks for certain types of cancers. Don't let that one bother you at all either.

JGL53

BLAH,BLAH,BLAH, YADDA, YADDA, YADDA, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Every study that actually compares the low-carb and high-carb diets shows the former to be healthier. Your stated 'facts' mean nothing more to me than does the sound of the high wind whistling through the pine trees in my front yard. At this point, yours is a voice crying in the wilderness - but I'm a-thinking it's not the voice of reason.

And I don't think it's a conspiracy. Conspiracies require thinking and rational planning. Rather than a conspiracy, I think what we are dealing with here, to paraphrase John Kennedy Toole, is a confederacy of egomaniacs (i.e., assholes who are psychologically incapable of admitting error).

[I'm going to assume the 'assholes' in question are the proponents of this position "on the outside" rather than those on this board. Because, as you are aware, insults directed at members are prohibited -Wyz_sub10, S&S Mod.]

******
I'm getting tired of waiting for (you to catch on) Godot.
We will (eventually) assimilate you. Resistance is futile. We are low carb.

ps418

Two new studies published today in the New England Journal of Medicine give pretty favorable results for Atkins, and extend the data out to 12 months. Signficantly, one of the studies reports on a randomized trial.



Samaha et al, 2003. A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity. NEJM 348:2074-2081.



Foster et al, 2003. A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity. NEJM 348:2082-2090.

Patrick