Apparently the Atkins diet does work

Rolfe,
In my first sentance of my last post, please read "read" in the present tense. I was in no way implying that you hadnt read (in the past tense) my post carefully.
 
Charles Livingston said:
Rolfe,
In my first sentance of my last post, please read "read" in the present tense. I was in no way implying that you hadnt read (in the past tense) my post carefully.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just musing about the biochemistry behind it all. Particularly, whether you could possibly get enough excess insulin that way to get a significant weight-gain-from-hyperinsulism effect - theoretically there could be an effect but I suspect it would be tiny.

I tend to react badly to all the emotive terms in these diet books - good this, bad that, uncool abbreviations like "carbs" and so on. My purist mind doesn't see these things as good or bad, just as things that do different things, some of which you might want, some of which maybe not. I think a lot of it is just an academic biochemist's aversion to the language they dress it up in for lay consumption, and then I try to recast what they're saying in terms I'm more familiar with.

I think a lot of the complexities are really just tinkering at the third decimal place though. Eat less and exercise more, make sure your diet is balanced and healthy (nothing is bad, but some things should be taken in moderation), and you'll lose weight. The rest of it just gives you something to think about to keep your mind concentrated on the subject, I suspect.

But the metabolic pathways involved are quite fascinating, and the whole subject of why you feel hungry or not, and cravings and so on, is a whole new chapter too.

Rolfe.
 
Fade said:


This is just ignorant.

There are many, many types of potatos. Some are more complete, some are less so, but almost all potatoes contain these in varying amounts:

Protein
Calcium
Iron
Potassium
Vitamin-C
Thiamin
Riboflavin
Niacin
Vitamin B-6

And trace amounts of vitamin-E


Potatoes are not empty. It would be possible to subsist on Potatoes and Whole Milk entirely.
Click to expand...

okay, maybe worthless was too strong a word. But compared with most any other vegetable its nutritional profile pales in comparison. Other vegetables provide better sources of vitamins without all the calories. And if you look at those vitamin levels in potatoes...not impressive. Leafy green vegetables are much,much healthier.
 
What have you against the calories? That's like saying this is a better source of oil and brake pads, and doesn't have that nasty petrol in it!

We need calories, and if you're trying to cut down a bit there are better places to start than vegetables.

Rolfe.
 
Atkins diets tend to use really filling foods. Mediterranean diets do also. One of the reasons these diets work is that people can eat less and feel full.

Most of the ultra-low-carb diets are pretty methodical. You start out eating ultra-low amounts of carbs (and perhaps even eating huge portions of other foods) and weight just starts dropping off. Then you ease your intake of healthy carbs (fiber) until you weight loss stops and you find your maintainable diet point sans gluten and glucose.

Given that methodology, what is so outlandish about these "low-carb" diets? At the end of the diet, its essentially a low sugar, low gluten diet and not necessarily "low carb" inasmuch as a "less carbs than you were probably eating when you were fat".

I really find the hysterical reactions I've seen to these diets amusing.
 
corplinx said:
Most of the ultra-low-carb diets are pretty methodical. You start out eating ultra-low amounts of carbs (and perhaps even eating huge portions of other foods) and weight just starts dropping off. Then you ease your intake of healthy carbs (fiber) until you weight loss stops and you find your maintainable diet point sans gluten and glucose.

Given that methodology, what is so outlandish about these "low-carb" diets? At the end of the diet, its essentially a low sugar, low gluten diet and not necessarily "low carb" inasmuch as a "less carbs than you were probably eating when you were fat".
Click to expand...
You are dead on. I think a big part of the problem is that a lot of people are reacting based on pre-concieved notions about these diets rather than real information. This applies not just to the critics but to a lot of people who actually are trying to follow these diets. I've been on a couple of low carb message boards and it's shocking how few people there have bothered to do any reading on the subject.

Atkins and some of the other gurus have been using the term
"controlled carbohydrate" eating for quite a while. It's more accurate than "low carb", but doesn't seem to be catching on.
 
Rolfe said:
What have you against the calories? That's like saying this is a better source of oil and brake pads, and doesn't have that nasty petrol in it!

We need calories, and if you're trying to cut down a bit there are better places to start than vegetables.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Of course we need calories. You're either missing my point or I'm not being clear. My problem with calories is that most people tend to consume too many of them. Potatoes are high in calories and even higher the way most people prepare them (added butter, fried, topped with sour cream etc.). I would recommend to anyone to eat a salad with some olive oil and vinegar instead of a baked potato with your dinner.

but if youre not watching your weight go crazy.
 
Jeff R said:
You are dead on. I think a big part of the problem is that a lot of people are reacting based on pre-concieved notions about these diets rather than real information. This applies not just to the critics but to a lot of people who actually are trying to follow these diets. I've been on a couple of low carb message boards and it's shocking how few people there have bothered to do any reading on the subject.

Atkins and some of the other gurus have been using the term
"controlled carbohydrate" eating for quite a while. It's more accurate than "low carb", but doesn't seem to be catching on.
Click to expand...

I agree with both yourself and Corplinx. I just think the mechanism behind the weight loss isn't due to being in a state of ketosis (in Atkins this is his main reasoning for weight loss on a low carb diet) but reduced calorie consumption and eating foods that blunt hunger. I don't eat food high in carbohydrates, especially refined,starcy foods but I'm never in ketosis. (And my weight is where I want it)
 
HarryKeogh said:
I just think the mechanism behind the weight loss isn't due to being in a state of ketosis (in Atkins this is his main reasoning for weight loss on a low carb diet) but reduced calorie consumption and eating foods that blunt hunger.
Click to expand...
That seems to be what we were thinking several posts ago, when someone pointed out that Horizon had done a programme including some calorimetry measurements which suggested that the excreted ketones weren't a really significant energy wastage.

Figures, because I suspect that the glucogenic amino acids in the protein content of the diet might be enough to keep the citric acid cycle more or less going.

Rolfe.
 
Charles Livingston said:
Regarding potatoes and bannanas:

yes, potatoes and bananas may (I'm quite sure with bannanas but dont know about pototatoes) have many nutrients, but they are rapidly digested and delivered to the bloodstream, and therefore quickly raise blood sugar levels, etc. That's the only reason they are bad, they spike your blood sugar levels and therefore do all sorts of crazy things with insulin etc. that can cause weight gain and other problems. I believe high fat meals also raise blood sugar levels. You can get nutrients from other fruits and vegetables without these drawbacks. Additinally, when these types of carbs are eaten with certain fats (like butter for example) they cause you to release a hormone (LPL I think) that stimullates fat storage. Atkins and other low carb diets basically work on the reduced calorie formula, as has been stated above. Similarly, most low-glycemic diets basically work on the same principle cause lower glycemic foods generally dont induce cravings that cause you to overeat. However, although for the most part a calorie is a calorie, some calories may cause your body to react in different ways, such that you can lose weight eating the same amount of calories you were when you were gaining/maintaining if you generally eat a lower glycemic diet and dont combine highly glycemic foods with bad fats that cause the release of LPL. To me, none of this is really news, havent weight lifters and diabetics been eating this way for a long time?

Also, some perpspective is needed. although bannanas are highly glycemic compared to other fruits, I would bet they are still better than eating pure table sugar. However, a plain baked potatoe is worse then pure table sugar at least regarding how fast it is digested and released into your bloodstream.

Now I'm no doctor or nutritionist, this is just what i have gathered from reading the south beach diet and most importantly a book from the glycemic research institute, which goes into way more detail than the SBD book. Anyone who knows more about this is free to elaborate or correct me.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect, bananas are only a mid range glycemic food, although they are high for fruits, they are much lower than bread or potatoes, and in fact most studies show that they cause no significant spike in blood sugar levels, and have been used succesfully as a staple food even for diabetics because of the lack of significant blood sugar spiking.
The glycemic index is pretty useless anyways and full of contradictions. I don't know for sure, but I've heard that many serious researchers regard it as a psuedo-scientifical way of looking at foods. Anyone know if this is true?
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
The glycemic index is pretty useless anyways and full of contradictions. I don't know for sure, but I've heard that many serious researchers regard it as a psuedo-scientifical way of looking at foods. Anyone know if this is true?
Click to expand...
It just doesn't sound very meaningful to me.

Rolfe.
 
Jeff R said:
Here's another article about two recent studies of low-carbohydrate diets, this time on WebMD.
Click to expand...

very interesting. it's amazing how little we know about how the foods we eat affect cholesterol levels. high fat diets had better cholesterol profiles. I find that intriguing.
 
This was bound to happen

According to New York Times today, the Atkin estate is sued:

The suit says following the Atkins diet for two years raised the man's cholesterol so much that his arteries became clogged and required a medical procedure to open them.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/national/27atkins.html?th
 
Re: This was bound to happen

Bjorn said:
According to New York Times today, the Atkin estate is sued:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/national/27atkins.html
Click to expand...
The Physicians Commitee for Responsible Medicine is at it again. This is the same group that spread the bogus story about Atkins being fat when he died.

The article speculates this is nothing but a publicity stunt, since it is likely to be tossed out of court and they are only asking for $28000.
 
I'm happily losing weight on a high-carb diet.

Calories are all that matter, in the end.

Is there any science behind the carbs-are-bad-for-you clamour?

My own perception is that if I sit down for dinner, I can eat half a plate of meat, or half a plate of veg or both. All three will fill me (or get eaten if in front of me). Maybe just me, but I find that having the combination of meat and starch stuff (veg, potatoes, pasta) spur me on to eat more before I feel satisfied.

Maybe that is where all these food group mixing and fat-burning food diets come from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom