JGL53

Godot -

I put the words "Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N.M., Jacobson, M.S" in google and got forty one hits. I'm going to the gym right now (the importance of exercise and all that, what), but when I get back, I plan on doing a thorough research of these links and find the proper reference - and I don't care if it hairlips every mother's son from here to Canberra.

I did skip down to the first link that didn't start with the words 'Atkins' or 'low carb' in the title, which was:


http://www.totalfitness.com.au/myths...wcarbdiets.htm


Strangely though, I couldn't find Sondike, Copperman or Jacobson listed anywhere on this page, but this is a VERY interesting link that you may wish to check out at your leisure. There were seven references listed which address the subject at hand (#s 40,43,44,46,47, and 48).

The part about the Masai tribe in Africa is also something you may find interesting (reference #s 6,7,8, and 9).

The author states you can also find this article at http://www.theomnivore.com/

I looked briefly at this latter site, and saw another article about the original low carb "Banting" diet back in 1869. You might find it amusing.

Of course, for all we know, ALL of this might just be completely made up, including all the references.

But you are the 'resident dietary expert' here, as I previously noted, so we all are going to depend on you to let us know if, and or to what degree, we are being BSed by the authors of these sites.

Latter, dude.

caravelair

i don't know if it has been discussed on this thread yet, but a high protien diet like atkins can lead to osteoperosis. the reason is that protien requires calcium for digestion, so if you eat too much protien and not enough calcium, your body takes calcium from another source: your bones.

also, hasn't atkins' diet been shown to cause ketosis in some cases?

i am by no means an expert in nutrition. just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents.

CrikketCandy

If we're emphasizing "to each his own" with diets, then why are there multiple pages of heated, strongly-worded arguments?

JGL, I read this thread initially thinking that you were trying to be informational about the Atkins diet and how it could work for other as it has for you. But later, I got the feeling you wanted to 'convert' us in a sense, even though you have explicitly stated that you believe 'to each his own' with dieting. So, now I'm confused about your agenda. You may say that you want to gently persuade those who are borderline or answer any questions, but you seem (to me) far too forceful in reiterating your conviction about your success with this diet to keep the idea of 'to each his own'. Maybe I'm getting the wrong idea, but clear this up for me: What is it exactly that we should be taking from your personal account of this diet?

As for me personally, I couldn't live without sweet tea. Mmm mm. Maybe it's because I'm young, but I eat proportional amount of meats, veggies, and grains and I'm not overweight in the slightest. ^^*

By the way, has anyone heard of the 'chopstick diet'? I think it's a great idea. If I were to go on a diet, I'd try that one.

Thanks.

JGL53

In theory a high protein diet could cause osteoporosis. However, there are no studies I know of that have actually shown any connection. Do you know of any studies that imply this? Do you personally know any individuals who went on a high protein diet and then developed osteoporosis? Just curious.

The induction and pre-maintenance parts of the Atkins diet causes ketosis in almost every case. That is the point. Ketosis is not dangerous (read the posts at the begining of this thread - or better yet, read one of Atkins books).

As far as I know, the Atkins diet has not been shown to cause ketoacidosis, which can be fatal. Apparently, a confusion between these two conditions has caused an unfounded fear that the Atkins diet is 'dangerous'.

Curiously, what HAS been shown to be dangerous is the government recommended low fat high starch diet - it seems it raises triglyceride levels (Atkins lowers it), yet does not increase the HDL levels (as does Atkins).

[/B][/QUOTE] i am by no means an expert in nutrition. just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am not an expert either, so don't feel lonely. Godot is our resident expert here. That is why we must depend so heavily on him for wise counsel.

JGL53

Have you read this entire thread? - I think I have already addressed this very question.


Many people don't have any issues with food or body weight whatsoever. Would that we were all this way.

But many other people (the majority?) do have such problems. That's life.

As for sweet tea, I drink several glasses a day. But I sweeten it with either stevia or Splenda, and it tastes just as good as sugar-sweetened tea. So I'm not sure what your point was here. You didn't think someone doing low carb was allowed 'sweet' tea?

caravelair

i believe i have read a study that showed a correlation, but unfortunately i can't remember enough about it to be able to find it again. however, this dietician seems to agree:

also this book about osteoperosis mentions (briefly) high protein diet as a risk factor for osteoperosis:

JGL53

Well, caravelair, all I know is that there has been no actual report of osteoporosis caused by 'high' protein diets. With millions of people eating such diets, you would think the problem would be showing up by now.
E.g., we know (now) that the drug Baycol caused about 100 cases of serious heart damage, so it's been pulled from the market. Now, IF there had ONLY been a theory that Baycol MAY cause heart problems, I suspect it would still be marketed. So, again, how many actual cases of osteoporosis have been reported as associated with so-called high protein diets? I know of none. (Does anyone know of any?)

I clicked your link to the dietician. She is just another defender of the faith (in low fat, high carb), dedicated to parroting the party line to the bitter end. She had no studies to prove any of her assertions (that I know of).

If you want scientific references that show 'high protein' diets to be safe and healthy, check the http://www.totalfitness.com.au/myth...owcarbdiets.htm

Be sure to read all under topic #3, which addresses your specific concern.

It seems that, among others, the Masai tribe might wish to dispute health concerns regarding a 'high' protein diet.

JGL53

I found these three articles on another site - one of them is on the subject of high protein diets and (lack of) bone loss. There's tons of research studies like this on the web.
I'm not finding any such articles reporting on the amazing health benefits of low fat high carb diets, but maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Maybe Godot can find some.


DANISH RESEARCHERS DISPROVE BONE-LOSS CRITICISM AIMED AT HIGH-PROTEIN FOLLOWERS

A study recently published in Obesity Research, out of the Department of Human Nutrition, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, examined the long-term effect of dietary protein on bone mineralization. Sixty-five overweight or obese subjects were enrolled in a six-month dietary-intervention study comparing high-protein (107.8 grams/day) or low-protein (70.4 grams/day) intake with equal fat intake in both groups. The total weight loss after six months was greater in the high-protein group (8.9 kilograms) than in the low-protein group (5.1 kilograms). In fact, bone mineral loss, after being adjusted for differences in fat loss, was greater in the low-protein group than in the high-protein group. While body fat loss was the major determinant of bone mineral content loss, the study found no adverse effects of six months of high-protein intake on bone mineral content.

Reference: Skov, A.R., Haulrik, N., Toubro, S., et al., "Effect of Protein Intake on Bone Mineralization during Weight Loss: A 6-Month Trial," 10(6), 2002, Obesity Research, pages 432-438.

CANADIAN EXPERTS DEMONSTRATE BENEFICIAL HEALTH AND HEART EFFECTS OF A LOW-CARBOHYDRATE DIET ON WOMEN

The Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology recently published a study out of the University of Guelph that examined the effects of a very-low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and health in overweight women. Twenty women completed the eight-week trial that significantly reduced their daily carbohydrate intake (from 232 grams to 71 grams) and calories (from 1996 to 1366 calories/day), while protein and fat remained the same. The average weight loss was 11 pounds and body mass index decreased with a loss of 3.4 percent body fat. Systolic blood pressure significantly decreased by an average of nine mmHg and diastolic blood pressure also went down by seven mmHg. Also, total cholesterol decreased, which was accounted for by a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL or “bad” cholesterol) with no change in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL or “good” cholesterol). Total triglycerides were also greatly reduced, as was the ratio of triglyceride/HDL. Also, there were no significant changes in fasting blood sugar, fasting insulin, glucose tolerance, free or total insulin-like growth factor.

The researchers concluded that calorie reduction aside, carbohydrate restriction to 70 grams or less with concomitant energy restriction, without changes in protein or fat consumption, promotes weight loss, improvements in body composition, blood pressure and blood lipids without compromising glucose tolerance in moderately overweight women.

Reference: Meckling, Kelly A.; Gauthier, Melanie; Grubb, Rebecca; Sanford, Jennifer, “Effects of a hypocaloric, low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, blood lipids, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and body composition in free-living overweight women”, Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, Vol. 80 Issue 11, November 2002, pgs. 1095-1105.

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW SHOWS LITTLE SUPPORT FOR POPULAR CRITICISMS OF LOW CARBOHYDRATE DIETS

In the November 2002 issue of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, researchers examined approximately 50 scientific studies featuring very-low-carbohydrate diets (less than 50 grams of carbohydrate per day). Based on the hypothesis that there is a lack of scientific evidence for the criticisms against such diets, the researchers, Jeff S. Volek, PhD, RD, of the University of Connecticut, and Eric C. Westman, MD, MHS of Duke University, were surprised to find a significant amount of scientific data showing positive metabolic responses to very-low-carbohydrate diets.

The key points of their findings are the following:

Much of the criticism is based on a misunderstanding of Atkins protocols. Many critics attribute issues associated with protein-sparing fasts to controlled carbohydrate diets.
In most of the studies, people lose more weight on very-low-carbohydrate diets than on standard weight-loss diets.
Mechanisms of weight loss on very-low-carbohydrate diets may go beyond water loss, and include appetite suppression and increasing the metabolic rate.
Weight loss is usually associated with reductions in lean body mass, but individuals following a very-low-carbohydrate diet tend to lose less lean body mass compared with individuals following a low-fat diet.
Very-low-carbohydrate diets have favorable effects on cardiovascular disease risk factors.

Reference: Volek, V.S., and Westman, E.C., "Very-Low-Carbohydrate Weight-Loss Diets Revisited," Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 69(11), 2002, pages 849-862.

Godot

My earlier comment was in regards to the citation you provided. I went to the actual journal itself, and that study was not in volume 26 (at least in the issues I was able to find). Using the internal search function on their website also turned up nada. Could you clarify that up for me? Or at least point me towards the source you used to quote from?

That's a strawman, and you know it. The low-fat diet resulted from the consensus of epidemiological data, current understanding of micronutrient balances/sources, and even availability of food sources. It also takes into account morbidity and mortality data, and risk factors for certain diseases.
Is there a particular aspect of the low-fat diet that you are contending and wish me to provide evidence to counter?
As to the above links you provided, thanks! I'll look over them either tonight or tomorrow and get back to you with my opinion on them.

Dune

Obes Rev (Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity.) 2003 May; 4(2): 91-9
Additional Info: England
Standard No: ISSN: 1467-7881; NLM Unique Journal Identifier: 100897395
Language: English
Abstract: Weight reduction programmes are mainly focused on reducing intake of fat and sugar. In this review we have evaluated whether the replacement of dietary (added) sugar by low-energy sweeteners or complex carbohydrates contributes to weight reduction. In two experimental studies, no short-term differences in weight loss were observed after use of aspartame as compared to sugar in obese subjects following a controlled energy-restricted diet. However, consumption of aspartame was associated with improved weight maintenance after a year. In two short-term studies in which energy intake was not restricted, substitution of sucrose by artificial sweeteners, investigated mostly in beverages, resulted in lower energy intake and lower body weight. Similarly, two short-term studies, comparing the effect of sucrose and starch on weight loss in obese subjects did not find differences when the total energy intake was equal and reduced. An ad libitum diet with complex carbohydrates resulted in lower energy intake compared to high-sugar diets. In two out of three studies, this was reflected in lower body weight in subjects consuming the complex carbohydrate diet. In conclusion, a limited number of relatively short-term studies suggest that replacing (added) sugar by low-energy sweeteners or by complex carbohydrates in an ad libitum diet might result in lower energy intake and reduced body weight. In the long term, this might be beneficial for weight maintenance. However, the number of studies is small and overall conclusions, in particular for the long term, cannot be drawn.
also:
Author(s): Foster GD ; Wyatt HR ; Hill JO ; McGuckin BG ; Brill C ; Mohammed BS ; Szapary PO ; Rader DJ ; Edman JS ; Klein S
Affiliation: University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3309, USA. fosterg@mail.med.upenn.edu
Title: A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity.
Source: N Engl J Med (The New England journal of medicine.) 2003 May 22; 348(21): 2082-90
Additional Info: United States
Standard No: ISSN: 1533-4406; NLM Unique Journal Identifier: 0255562
Language: English
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Despite the popularity of the low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat (Atkins) diet, no randomized, controlled trials have evaluated its efficacy. METHODS: We conducted a one-year, multicenter, controlled trial involving 63 obese men and women who were randomly assigned to either a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet or a low-calorie, high-carbohydrate, low-fat (conventional) diet. Professional contact was minimal to replicate the approach used by most dieters. RESULTS: Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet had lost more weight than subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (mean [+/-SD], -6.8+/-5.0 vs. -2.7+/-3.7 percent of body weight; P=0.001) and 6 months (-7.0+/-6.5 vs. -3.2+/-5.6 percent of body weight, P=0.02), but the difference at 12 months was not significant (-4.4+/-6.7 vs. -2.5+/-6.3 percent of body weight, P=0.26). After three months, no significant differences were found between the groups in total or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. The increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations and the decrease in triglyceride concentrations were greater among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet than among those on the conventional diet throughout most of the study. Both diets significantly decreased diastolic blood pressure and the insulin response to an oral glucose load. CONCLUSIONS: The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease. Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups. Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets.

So the question remains: what is the long term effect? Short term studies show a benefit, however the study above indicates that the long term benefit is no greater for weight loss, though some cardiac factors are better.
Another question: Is there a comparison between a low carb diet and "normal" diet with excersise. It would seem logical to me that since the body burns carbs first during excersie, if you increased your energy expendature, the carb intake could be balanced.