Considering Atkins
Options
Replies
-
-
We don't have to argue Atkins. There is no scientific data supporting it.
I don’t believe you for a second, in fact IMO you are intentionally misleading. If anyone doesn’t know Mr. Jknops2 is a biologist and I believe works for the University of Nebraska. I only mention this because as such he should be able to easily look up any research on the Atkins diet and would know there are indeed studies backing up the Atkins diet. Like this out of Duke University.The high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet popularized by Dr. Robert Atkins Diet Revolution has been the subject of heated debate in medical circles for three decades. Now, preliminary research findings at Duke University Medical Center show that a low-carbohydrate diet such as the Atkins Diet can indeed lead to significant and sustained weight loss. .... patients’ cholesterol levels improved by the end of six months ....
And the TONS of studies you can find here.
http://www.lowcarb.ca/newsmenu/researchfor.html
To be fair I suppose there is a possibility a Biologist at a major University might not have heard of or seen any of these studies,,,,, I will let you decide.
OK, I do have access to primary literature and to pick on the Duke article that you mention, there is a follow up note:
Fleming. Am J M 2003, 114, 78. Caloric intake, not carbohydrate or fat consumption, determines weight loss.
This states the following:
"Because the average caloric intake reported in the study was 1447 kcal/d and the estimated caloric intake entering the study was 1905 kcal/d (an estimate that I consider relatively accurate since the mean entry weight of subjects enrolled in the study was 191 _ 24 lbs), then the caloric deficit was 400 to 450 calories per day, which would result in 0.8 to 0.9 lbs of weight lost per week, regardless of fat intake.
"it is clear that the total cholesterol level fell by an average of only 11 mg/dL, while the LDL cholesterol level dropped by an average of only 10 mg/dL." "Furthermore, only 1 subject had a cholesterol level <195 mg/dL while following the prescribed low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet."
"The results of the study by Westman et al. confirm earlier findings that reduction in total caloric content is the key to weight reduction and subsequent control, and that the effect of either high-fat or highly refined carbohydrate diets can blunt the potential benefits obtained with caloric restriction"
I stand by my point that there is no credible evidence, just crappy misleading websites. And no, I do not have time to read all those articles.
Like I said I will let the reader here decide.0 -
I did the Atkins diet off and on during a 7 year period before and after pregnancies but I gained some of the weight back when I started eating more carbs again. It's way healthier and less restrictive to eat a well balanced diet and have a healthy lifestyle. I've kept my weight off now for 1 1/2 years and joined MFP this year to keep my calories in check. If you want to watch your carbs I would recommend the South Beach Diet not Atkins.0
-
If i were you i would consider cutting out bread and go very lightly on pasta.(1/3c ) only. Is it worth it. When ever i eat a lot of starch carbs i gain weight. There is no other answer. There are so many other things to eat. I found that when i am counting carbs i have moreo a chance of losing. I am doing much better now because of it. I would not go as extreme as Atkins. Look at my diary.0
-
Confirmation bias, placebo, and globalizing. I'm human so I suffer from these human flaws of sorting the world to confirm my bias, getting off on the placebo effect, and globalizing my own experience to others. There's more flaws, but I'll go for those big three right now. There must be some of these human flaws spinning the heat around these diet discussions? I know I like to believe that that what I'm doing is good and works; it's part of that placebo thing whether I like it or not. On some level I don't want anyone messing with my story, it can be threatening. When I'm really attached to my position I want to save others too, which might be some of what goes on with those that show up and say "Watch out!! but I could simply be projecting my own psychology on ya'll.
One thing I've noticed is that when you listen to serious scientists talk (I'm talking about the ones who have loads of articles and are peer reviewed) they tend to speak with some care about conclusions, "The data suggests...." Gather a bunch of top physicists together and they are going to argue and that's a field where things are much clearer than nutrition - !!!! Nutrition is barely a science compared to physics... well, according to Rutherford physics was the only science anyway, everything else was stamp collecting. But I digress.
I'm not really qualified to evaluate a good study or even a researcher. I can read and muddle along, see what works over time, pay attention, and see if I can crawl over my latest confirmation bias. Sure my lipids are very pretty on high fat: Total 182, Trig 55, HDL 94, VLDL 11, LDL Calc 77, Estimated risk <.05 and my AM BG is 91, but I'm one wee little anecdote in a very big whirling system.
The more we support each other to listen well to our own bodies - not dogma - the better. Or not? Maybe it would be boring!!! :bigsmile: Anyway, this is my wee play for everyone to take the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY down a notch.0 -
[/quote]
Like I said I will let the reader here decide.
[/quote]
So yes, to follow up on this I agree, it is up to the reader to decide. This study changed both calorie intake and carb intake. So there is no way to separate them. One, or both matter.
But then that's the problem with many weight loss studies sponsored by specific places, Like the Atkins Institute here. Basic science research 101 is you change one item at a time, then you can determine if this factor matters. But, it is easy to manipulate research by setting it up like this, manipulating two, and I am sure that the Atkins Institute has an agenda.
In total, there is clear evidence that reducing calorie intake leads to weight loss. Basic Biology and Chemistry. I have not seen a single study, competently done that supports that Carb restriction does anything better than calorie restriction.
But the bottom line is what works for you is fine, use Atkins of you can stay with this diet to loose weight. Losing weight is clearly the key factor.
And lastly Grokette, we have been online about the same time, and have argued before. I posted my stats about my change using my calorie reduction approach. I am interested how your diet approach works. What are your results after 6 months?0 -
But then that's the problem with many weight loss studies sponsored by specific places, Like the Atkins Institute here.
Help the rest of us here, please. Where does it say the Atkins Institute sponsored this study?0 -
Duke University
Adelaide University. Adelaide Australia
University of Frederiksberg C., Denmark
Harvard
University of South Florida
University of Arizona
The State University of New York at Buffalo
All these Universities have done “Scientific” studies, all indicating the Atkins diet is effective, and beneficial.
Again I ask the reader, believe what you want, but for me, I can’t believe all these Universities were corrupted by the Atkins Institute.0 -
But then that's the problem with many weight loss studies sponsored by specific places, Like the Atkins Institute here.
Help the rest of us here, please. Where does it say the Atkins Institute sponsored this study?
Sorry my mistake, somthing close to that:
"The study appears in the July 2002 issue of the American Journal of Medicine and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Atkins Center for Complementary Medicine. "
This is from http://www.lowcarb.ca/articlesb/article343.html, The website that you mentioned. I did not check the original article.0 -
Thanks I over looked that. Does the American Journal of Medicine routinely allow articles in, that have been corrupted by a monied interest?
And is this your definition of a unrestricted grant too?
http://www.ventureline.com/accounting-glossary/U/unrestricted-grant-definition/0 -
I love how you write about me "really" being an archaeologist though,
Yes really, what does being an archaeologist have to do with anything, you brought this up on another thread?
I bring it up only the way someone might say they have a degree in human development or veterinary medicine....it means that you don't work in nutrition specifically but you have a working knowledge of anatomy and the way the body functions, which is a big step up from a lot of other people on this website.0 -
Thanks I over looked that. Does the American Journal of Medicine routinely allow articles in, that have been corrupted by a monied interest?
And is this your definition of a unrestricted grant too?
http://www.ventureline.com/accounting-glossary/U/unrestricted-grant-definition/
I don't know, these grant things get complicated.
Many different entities fund research for various reasons, and it does not necessarily mean there is a bias. But you never get to see the contract that the researcher has to sign, so you do not know the actual details, if there are restrictions on what they can publish or disclose, and how they have to set up their study. As I tell my students any moron can collect data and show something, but that does not imply that it increases our actual understanding of a topic.
And there is always the implied thread of no future funding, which will bias a researchers publishing. Thus it is always useful to see who funded it, and what the funding partner's goal is. This, by the way, is not the case with government funding, there is no restriction on what you can publish or disclose, and no thread of no future funding. They mainly count productivity of what you did with your funding. That's why we need government funding for research; industry will only fund research where they pretty much know what they are going to find out, or hide any results that they do not like. Endless cases of this in the medical field, where a lot of money is involved with research.
But, to sum it up, very often the granting place does imply restrictions on what can be done, published and cannot be done and published. The journal requirements have gotten much stricter in the last 5-10 years, because of these conflict issues. The tobacco sponsored research is the obvious example. So, it is getting much better lately. I have to fill out endless conflict disclosure forms for the University of any potential bias and the same for most journals these days. And I work in ecology, where financial stakes and conflicts are not present.
The American Journal of medicine is a good journal, but lots of crap gets published in peer reviewed journals too. Much better is to use something like Google scholar to see citations for an article and see if other researchers actually use the information published. That’s increasingly the standard used to evaluate literature. I do that for stuff in my field, but there is no way I can keep up with diet related research, so I only skim the better articles out there.
Anyhow, like I said, whatever works for you is fine. And I do wish we had more independent long term diet research. So far I am mainly impressed with the nurse study and have mainly relied on their results.
http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/index.php/history/0 -
Like I said I will let the reader here decide.
[/quote]
So yes, to follow up on this I agree, it is up to the reader to decide. This study changed both calorie intake and carb intake. So there is no way to separate them. One, or both matter.
But then that's the problem with many weight loss studies sponsored by specific places, Like the Atkins Institute here. Basic science research 101 is you change one item at a time, then you can determine if this factor matters. But, it is easy to manipulate research by setting it up like this, manipulating two, and I am sure that the Atkins Institute has an agenda.
In total, there is clear evidence that reducing calorie intake leads to weight loss. Basic Biology and Chemistry. I have not seen a single study, competently done that supports that Carb restriction does anything better than calorie restriction.
But the bottom line is what works for you is fine, use Atkins of you can stay with this diet to loose weight. Losing weight is clearly the key factor.
And lastly Grokette, we have been online about the same time, and have argued before. I posted my stats about my change using my calorie reduction approach. I am interested how your diet approach works. What are your results after 6 months?
[/quote]
I've posted a link to a meta study that suggests exactly that among regimes, low carbohydrate ones may get better results than high carb/low fat. Of course, this presupposes reducing calorie intake. I think you are introducing a red herring. Because it isn's low carb+no calorie counting vs high carb/low fat/calorie counting. Even atkins said calories are important in weight loss.
And again, not everyone is created equal when it comes to digesting carbohydrates, as the mere existence of diabetics points out.0 -
Where have you posted our stats on calorie reduction Lodro, I'm interested to see ... thank you!0
-
I don't know, these grant things get complicated.
Many different entities fund research for various reasons, and it does not necessarily mean there is a bias. But you never get to see the contract that the researcher has to sign, so you do not know the actual details, if there are restrictions on what they can publish or disclose, and how they have to set up their study. As I tell my students any moron can collect data and show something, but that does not imply that it increases our actual understanding of a topic.
And there is always the implied thread of no future funding, which will bias a researchers publishing. Thus it is always useful to see who funded it, and what the funding partner's goal is. This, by the way, is not the case with government funding, there is no restriction on what you can publish or disclose, and no thread of no future funding. They mainly count productivity of what you did with your funding. That's why we need government funding for research; industry will only fund research where they pretty much know what they are going to find out, or hide any results that they do not like. Endless cases of this in the medical field, where a lot of money is involved with research.
But, to sum it up, very often the granting place does imply restrictions on what can be done, published and cannot be done and published. The journal requirements have gotten much stricter in the last 5-10 years, because of these conflict issues. The tobacco sponsored research is the obvious example. So, it is getting much better lately. I have to fill out endless conflict disclosure forms for the University of any potential bias and the same for most journals these days. And I work in ecology, where financial stakes and conflicts are not present.
The American Journal of medicine is a good journal, but lots of crap gets published in peer reviewed journals too. Much better is to use something like Google scholar to see citations for an article and see if other researchers actually use the information published. That’s increasingly the standard used to evaluate literature. I do that for stuff in my field, but there is no way I can keep up with diet related research, so I only skim the better articles out there.
Anyhow, like I said, whatever works for you is fine. And I do wish we had more independent long term diet research. So far I am mainly impressed with the nurse study and have mainly relied on their results.
This is all quite true--in academia a researcher lives and dies by grants and the prominence of his/her work is weighed by citations: even if it's cited as poor research :-)
One of the arguments in Gary Taubes book Good calories Bad calories addressed this very issue; he spent six years researching the body of work behind nutrition and human physiology. Now, the goal of a business is to make money and it just makes good business sense to use every avenue at your disposal to accomplish that. That includes funding research, and here's an example of one company's mission statement with respect to funding: "Cargill's Higher Education Initiative seeks to build mutually beneficial relationships with key schools that provide measurable value to Cargill businesses. Our primary objective is to increase Cargill's access to the best people and ideas relevant to our business' future by supporting projects with strategic grants at select schools."
I'm not going to get into the ethics of funding by corporations for research that ultimately benefits them; we live in a capitalist and democratic society where everyone has the freedom to learn about and make choices based on information that is out there if only the time is taken to investigate. If a multi-national food producer like (for example) General Mills (& Bell Institute) funds a study to determine if their cereal is healthy, it's up to the reader to conclude whether they feel the integrity of the researcher has been compromised by accepting money to undertake the study, whether or not a conflict of interest has been declared. The problem with research is that (1) the hypothesis may (appear to) be skewed toward finding in favour of the funding body and, (2) how many researchers have later stepped up and said he/she drew the wrong conclusion from a result?
Cargill is a the largest privately held corporation in the U.S., with USD$107 billion in revenues, a key player in the global food market, and most people have likely never heard of it even though the company has its fingers in almost everything from the farmgate to the grocery shelf. I'm going to pick on them here but they are only one example of how business decisions rather than our health have come to affect how we eat. An interesting report is here: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/cargill-a-threat-to-food-and-farming/ I wouldn't suggest there's a conspiracy between business and government that ends up furthering the business and/or financial interests of corporations or individuals; however, maybe we should be wary and aware of the 'why' when being told something is 'good for you'.
Regarding the nurses study, this is what Taubes had to say--he's talking about the Nurses Health Study. Run by Harvard epidemioloist Walter Willet, it tracked nearly 89,000 nurses around the country beginning in 1982 looking for a connection between fat and breast cancer. What it found has not gotten a lot of press.
p. 73
In 1999, the Harvard researchers published fourteen years of observations. By then almost three thousand nurses had contracted breast cancer, and the data still suggested that eating fatty foods (even those with copious saturated fat) might protect against cancer. For every 5 percent of saturated-fat calories that replaced carbohydrates in the diet, the risk of breast cancer decreased by 9 percent. This certainly argued against the hypothesis that excessive fat consumption caused breast cancer0 -
I need to clear something up, I by no means am trying to suggest that any study is without fault, that any study is the definitive answer, that I believe the Harvard study is without bias. I’m as skeptical as the next conspiracy theorist. My one and only goal was to put the L in the Lie that there are no “Scientific Studies” out there in support of the Atkins diet. There are many. Trust them, don’t trust them, but don’t come on here and lie about there being no studies.0
-
I love how you write about me "really" being an archaeologist though,
Yes really, what does being an archaeologist have to do with anything, you brought this up on another thread?
I bring it up only the way someone might say they have a degree in human development or veterinary medicine....it means that you don't work in nutrition specifically but you have a working knowledge of anatomy and the way the body functions, which is a big step up from a lot of other people on this website.
The question still stands, not withstanding your self proclaimed greater knowledge of human physiology, than the average person here. How many hours of nutrition did you take to earn your degree, how many anatomy classes did you take, how many biology classes did you take?0 -
WOW! I have to say this thread is crazy! I just wanted some advice and boy did I get it
So, if anyone wants to know my plan here it is....
I have decided to eat whole foods with the ocasional treat like icecream or a candy bar. I wouldn't say I am going Primal, but if you want to put a name to it I think that one would fit the best. I plan to eat veggies, protein, and fruit. I will probably eat some bread, pasta, rice, and potatoes but not often because I do not like the stuffed feeling I get afterwards. I CANNOT say no to chocolate forever, so it will be my little treat once in awhile. The same goes with Campfire Mochas from Caribou coffee (you do not want to know the nutritional info for that). I will still log my food, but I will eat til I am full and if that means more than 1200 calories a day then so be it. I will probably run or walk a mile or two a day and do a little strength training a few times a week.
Here is what I think a typical day would be like for me....
Breakfast:
2 boiled eggs
1 cup of watermelon (my fave fruit) or 1/2 cup of berries
maybe a serving of bacon??
lunch:
salad with grilled chicken with (not sure what to do for dressing yet) topped with almonds and a boiled egg
OR
flounder filet with broccoli (my fave lunch ever!)
supper:
pork, chicken, or fish with asaragas or broccoli
snacks:
nuts, berries, and veggies
treat:
skinny cow icecream or something like that
So, what do yall think? This is not set in stone I was just thinking this sonds like the kind of meals I like to eat.
*THOSE WHO ARE PRIMAL EATERS* Does this sound like a good way to eat for primal? Also, can you help me figure out a dressing that I can buy or make that would be good on salads that sticks to primal? I like ranch, italian, as well as dressings found at japanese steakhouses. I DO NOT like bluecheese or thousand island. Thanks in advance!0 -
Oh and those who are primal please add me as a friend so I can learn from yall! :blushing:
Ok what the hell...I will say it...I am going to go Primal!0 -
WOW! I have to say this thread is crazy! I just wanted some advice and boy did I get it
So, if anyone wants to know my plan here it is....
I have decided to eat whole foods with the ocasional treat like icecream or a candy bar. I wouldn't say I am going Primal, but if you want to put a name to it I think that one would fit the best. I plan to eat veggies, protein, and fruit. I will probably eat some bread, pasta, rice, and potatoes but not often because I do not like the stuffed feeling I get afterwards. I CANNOT say no to chocolate forever, so it will be my little treat once in awhile. The same goes with Campfire Mochas from Caribou coffee (you do not want to know the nutritional info for that). I will still log my food, but I will eat til I am full and if that means more than 1200 calories a day then so be it. I will probably run or walk a mile or two a day and do a little strength training a few times a week.
Here is what I think a typical day would be like for me....
Breakfast:
2 boiled eggs
1 cup of watermelon (my fave fruit) or 1/2 cup of berries
maybe a serving of bacon??
lunch:
salad with grilled chicken with (not sure what to do for dressing yet) topped with almonds and a boiled egg
OR
flounder filet with broccoli (my fave lunch ever!)
supper:
pork, chicken, or fish with asaragas or broccoli
snacks:
nuts, berries, and veggies
treat:
skinny cow icecream or something like that
So, what do yall think? This is not set in stone I was just thinking this sonds like the kind of meals I like to eat.
*THOSE WHO ARE PRIMAL EATERS* Does this sound like a good way to eat for primal? Also, can you help me figure out a dressing that I can buy or make that would be good on salads that sticks to primal? I like ranch, italian, as well as dressings found at japanese steakhouses. I DO NOT like bluecheese or thousand island. Thanks in advance!
Looks like a great start, for dressing you can make your own Italian with olive oil.
come on over to
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/232749-palelo-support-group
for more information0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions