ps418

True, the relative levels of weight-loss over the long-term is still questionable. Though weight loss as I said tends to be initially greater in Atkins, the new 12 month study does not find a significant difference in overall weight loss as 12 months. There is a difference, but not a significant one. Regarding the HDL and triglyceride level improvements, however, the differences are very signficant and consistent across several studies.

Patrick

MortalWombat

If this is the case, is this initial weight loss "advantage" in the Atkins diet attributed primarily to water loss?

JGL53

I have 'refused' so far to comment on what you are 'actually' saying? I apologise. I must try to do better. In reading back over all these posts, it seems to me I have addressed all of your concerns sufficiently, but I will take your word for the fact that I have not.

Now, please, list your EXACT concerns once more. Number each 'concern' and I promise I will give a specific answer to each.

This is an very important scientific finding regarding the fear that low or controlled carb diets are 'unhealthy' in comparison to low fat diets. Dune, rest easy. Low or reduced carb reduces triglyceride leves (mine is 90) and increases HDL (mine is 58).

I think it was Godot that pointed out at some point in the debate that both calorie cutting diets and low or controlled carb diets both cause initial water loss of several pounds - which all comes back with the resumption of the donut and fast food diet favored by many if not most Americans.

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 knowledgable 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/raisen/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 transistioned 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.

((Am I beginning to make myself CLEAR here, or are we all still in a dietary fog of confusion, misunderstanding, and unapologetic prejudice? - what say, Godot?))

ps418

I don't know if that's the case, since the papers reported weight rather than bodyfat measurements. However, if the difference is primarily due to differential water retention, the heavier group would have to have been quite edematous (retaining lots of water) compared to the lighter group, since the difference in the early months are often several kilos. I doubt that that most of the difference is water.

Patrick

ps418

Well, it does show that with regard to measures of cardiac health and over the short term, Atkins does pretty well. It is still an open question as to whether low-carb diets are equally as healthy as low-fat diets over the long-term, for instance, with respect to risk of some forms of cancer.

Patrick

Bookman

Apparently? I believe I myself said this a couple of pages back...

Where have I indicated that any of this is "beneath me" or that reading a book would be a waste of my time? I believe that all I have done in this thread is ask a couple questions and make some responses to specific remarks in the thread. I don't believe that I've made any statements that would reasonably be construed as attacks on your arguements or on straw men in their place.

Why do you have to interject sarcasm and hyperbole into what could be a reasonable discussion? I don't believe that I've been anything but polite to you in this thread.

Bookman

Dune

Samaha et al. 348 (21): 2074, Table 4 May 22, 2003

Regarding this study, I just read it and although it does show some interesting data, once I dug into the paper, some red flags went off.

The statistics in the paper arent that great. The p values are all over the board, with some well beyond their stated threshold value, and they said they needed a min of 100 patients to accurately conduct the study, but only 79 finished so they extrapolated some data.
Dont get me wrong, I am not saying the study is horrible, but I wount call it a break through study. Not to mention their SDs on the data was generally larger than the difference.
Reading the paper did not convince me that the diet is safe, for sure. Besides, a greater that 6mo study needs to be done before I am convinced.
Besides, any explanations how eating a high lipid diet would increase HDL while lowering LDL?

ps418

It has been done, and was reported in the same issue of NEJM as Samaha et al paper. I even provided the reference above (Foster et al, 2003). This was a 12 month, randomized study comparing low-carb to low-fat diet. And as with the other studies that have been done "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," and thus that "The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease." This makes at least 3 studies, with a total N much greater than 100, that have found the same result, 2 at 6mos and 1 out to 12mos, so I highly doubt the results are flukes.

Patrick

ps418

Actually, having looked again, I find that contrary to what I said above, at least one study reported both weight and body fat measurements, and verified that indeed, there was signficantly more fat loss at 6mos in the low-carb group. Brehm et al report that their low carb group lost more weight (8.5 vs. 3.9 kg; P < 0.001) and more body fat (4.8 vs. 2.0 kg; P < 0.01) than the low fat group. So I doubt much if any of the initial difference can be attributed to differential water retention.

Patrick

Brehm et al., A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 88(4), 2003, 1617-1623.

Machiavelli

here....

The government that educated you is responsible for the food pyramid that Dr. Atkins contented is responsible for the sharp increase of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes since the government made the recommendations.

There is more to our body than 500 calories = 3 grams of stored fat, 1000 calories = 6 grams of stored fat. Since you choose to remain ignorant about the diet by not reading any of the science behind it, I'll give you a starting point. Educate yourself about how the body handles fat while insulin is present in the blood. Next study what type of food triggers the body to produce insulin. I think you'll see a fine connection there that offers a good explanation about how the Atkins diet works.