Wyz_sub10

Here is an interesting study noted in USA Today that claims the Atkins' Diet is successfully because it results in few calories taken in by the individual and has little to do with carbs.

an excerpt:


Full article

NialScorva

Beware the anecdotes, but...

At least 3/5ths of my family gets hungry if they eat carbs. I cannot eat a plain bagel for breakfast or I'll be starving two hours later and raiding the snack machine. Slap a greasy piece of sausage on an english muffin or biscuit and I'm set till lunch.

It's trivially true that to lose weight CaloriesIn < CaloriesOut and everything else is a merely a trick. However, the human mind is based to a great deal off self-deception, so tricks can be quite useful if played right.

King Rat

I'm on the Atkins diet right now, I'm on the last day of Strict Induction. At this point I could care less about the weight loss. I'm just stoked to be free of sugar, caffeine, and processed flours. I feel awesome, no 2-O'clock-ass-draggin', no feeling tired all the time, no feeling of hunger, etc.

SCREW Saddam, the real evil tyrants are Coca-Cola and fast food franchises. The USofA should Shock-n-Awe these bastards!

tronvillain

NialScorva:
So, you are claiming that those different choices have the same number of calories? If you aren't, it is difficult to see how it would be evidence for getting hungry after eating carbs.

NialScorva

Sorry for being unclear. From memory of the records I kept back when I did silly things like keep records, I would eat a 600 calorie breakfast of sausage and eggs, but if I ate the same calorie content in poptarts, bagels, or similar bread, I'd end up extremely hungry an hour or two later, usually resulting in my weak-willed self grabbing a 200-300 calorie candy bar.

It's quite possibly all in my head, since it's hard to do a one man double blind test, but that's part of my point-- losing weight is intake < output, dieting is lying to yourself in a way that helps you keep intake < output.

sakrilege

Huh, I thought prayer studies did this all the time??

Godot

The greatest concern I have with people on the Atkins (or Pritikin, or Zone...) diet is what they are excluding from their bodies. There is more to food than simply energy; it is inefficient to supplement a poor diet with vitamins when you could simply eat a balanced diet and give your body what it needs. Of course, I would never recommend vitamin supplements to the average person anyways. The only people that have higher needs of some vitamins or minerals than can be obtained in the diet are special groups such as lactating mothers, alcoholics, (perhaps) the elderly, and those suffering from specific disease states.
Specific problems I have with Atkins:
1) excessively high protein intakes have been tentatively associated with kidney damage/failure.
2)he claims that CHO (carbohydrate) is responsible for people getting fat. Show me the mechanism for action in the human digestive tract that does this. Or failing that, what EXACTLY is the hormonal link. Showing me a spike in blood glucose level post-meal is insufficient. Trying to extrapolate it into an association with diabetes is equally laughable.
3) there is no third-party clinical trials that support the contentions that Atkins makes with respect to physiology. What do we do with unsubstantiated claims?
4) As someone else mentioned, results obtained on the Atkins diet are generally associated with energy deficient diets. Early stages of weight loss on any diet is mainly due to fluid loss. Who here has heard that dehydration was good for you?
5) what are some of the side-effects of the diet that Atkins mentions? Haemochromatisis? Not likely. Many people on the Atkins diet will have particularly high intakes of red meat. Red meat is red due to the high iron content in the myoglobin. Haemochromatosis is a condition in which iron absorption is poorly regulated such that the majority of it ingested is absorbed. The body does not possess ANY mechanism to eliminate excess iron stores once absorbed: it takes three months for that to happen. Don't think you're at risk? 1/200 men and 1/400 total population are haemochromatic (Australian data).
6) dairy is a no-no on Atkins. How, pray tell, does the calcium requirement get met then? Or is osteopenia and osteoporisis not a big deal?
7) fruit and veg consumption is severely restricted. I guess vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants aren't a big deal either.
8) consumption of grains (bread products, rice, etc.) is also severely restricted. Hmmm.... Sensing a trend here yet?
9) the brain requires a steady source of glucose to function. In order to give the brain the supply it needs, the body shunts it away from other tissues. At least other tissues can catabolise themsleves to get the energy they need. The available alternative is ketone bodies (but only in extreme situations). Ketone bodies are formed in the metabolism of protein, and put a bit of strain on the kidneys which must process them out of the system. This is a more inefficient system for the brain to function within. Side effects of ketosis include an inability to concentrate, decreased rational capacity, etc.
10) two other considerations that are largely ignored are halitosis and constipation. I'm not certain of the linkage between bad breath and a high protein diet, but it most certainly is a social concern. Followers of Atkins are rarely "minty fresh." Frequency of defecation and size of stool are significantly reduced when an individual is on a restrictive high protein diet. This is largely due to the lack of fibre. Laxatives can help alleviate this issue, but then that leads us back towards dehydration, some vitamin deficiencies, and even a disturbance of gut microflora.

All diets result in the loss of lean body mass as well as fat mass. This cannot be avoided, whatever some snake-oil salesman will try to tell you. This loss of LBM is even more pronounced in extreme dietary restriction. The only safe recommendation I can give anyone is a program of gradual weight loss over an extended period of time. Successful (read: maintained) weight loss occurs only when the eating behaviour itself is altered. Most people lose the weight they want, and then go back to McD's for a triple bacon cheeseburger, super-size fries and a diet coke. And then they wonder why they regain the weight...

Asha'man

The Zone diet really should not be put in the same category as the Atkins. In my opinion, the Zone is all about moderation of what you eat. You still continue to consume all the food types you already do, just less of each. However, since we tend to over-consume carbs more than any other food type, the reduction in carbs is more dramatic.

The connection is quite clear: insulin. When the blood sugar level rise, the body secretes insulin to reduce it. Insulin is the hormone that triggers the storage of blood sugar as fat. Problems with insulin are more or less the definition of diabetes, right?

I know of no studies for the Atkins diet. However, there was a clinical study done of the Zone diet on diabetic patients. The results were pretty clear, with many of the diabetic patients able to significantly reduce their need for medication.

I agree, this is clearly a problem with the Atkins diet. On the other hand, the Zone diet strongly encourages you to significantly increase your consumption of fruits and vegetables. This is the preferred form of the carbs that belong in your diet, both because of micronutrients and because of fiber. Breads and pastas, however, provide carbs and little else, and therefore should be avoided.

Not true. If you provide adequate protein for the exercise level you are at, then muscle mass does not have to be lost. I spent nearly two years following the Zone pretty carefully, and had both a gain in lean body mass and a loss of fat mass.

hedonist ogre

Note, I am not a dietician of any kind.

I have done a low-carb diet (not Atkins). Bodybuilders have been using low-carb diets for years (not that I would be confused for a bodybuilder). There was an article in the Feb 8, 2003 Science News (article) that covered some of the studies that have been done on low-carb diets. Among the data:

"Over 6 months, the people in the Atkins group lost 31 pounds, compared with 20 pounds for the people on the low-fat group. The changes in blood characteristics associated with heart disease were more favorable in the Atkins group, Westman says."

Caveat, the study was funded by the Robert C. Atkins Foundation

Another study funded by the American Heart Association compared a low-carb and low-fat diet. The low-carb lost more total weight and less muscle mass than the low-fat group. "According to food records, both groups took in about the same amount of calories"

Calcium intake is a big deal on Atkins as you note, although cheese is acceptable on Atkins. However, it is best to supplement since high protein diets increase blood acidity which causes the body to leach calcium out of the bones. This is one reason I wouldn't do a low-carb diet for an extended period of time. Usually, I would use it for a few weeks to loose 5-10 pounds and then go back to a more balanced diet.

True, fruits are out, but a lot of vegetables can still be eaten. Usually I eat a lot of broccoli and zucchini on low-carb. Also lettuce, spinach, and other leafy vegetables, potatoes and root vegetables are out. Also, vitamin supplements are a good idea.

Grain consumption (at least as it is usually practiced) is overrated. The main reason to eat grains is for the fiber content, there is little benefit from eating white bread. Fiber can be consumed elsewhere in the diet.

This is true, however, less LBM is lost on a low-carb diet. The other advantage, as others have hinted at is that hunger is greatly reduced on a low-carb diet. I am usually starving by 10:30 even after eating a breakfast containing eggs when not dieting. On a low-carb diet, I almost never feel hungry.

All that being said, I would not recommend Atkins as a long term weight loss solution.

ps418

That's why you should use a fiber supplement rather than a laxative.

Patrick