The Atkins Diet

[SortingItAllOut]

Thanks...this is interesting. I'm curious...have you tried other diets? Did they work?

Dog.

I consider a diet to "work" when I can stick to it indefinitely, feel good and maintain my desired weight. I've been on dozens of diets in the past, most of the popular ones, and none has "worked" yet.

Without fail, I end up being unable to stick to the diet.

The sad thing is that while I've been able to avoid alcohol for over 12 years now (completely without anyone's help, no 12-step programs or anything like that), I can't seem to mimic that behavior with the food. I'm a real product of the fast food, kraft macaroni and cheese, pizza, chinese take-out, subs and candy bars that I consume. For a few weeks I can stomach the salads and the grilled chicken breast but in the end, I end up wanting an order of General Tso's chicken and an egg roll. Sheesh.

Take care,
Sort

 

[JeffR]

Atkins didn't recommend counting calories. Basically, he was saying that if you stick to the diet, the calories will take care of themselves. I don't think that's quite true.

That sounds like a fair interpretation of Atkins.

Though they don't stress it, the Protein Power advocates do say in one of their books that you won't lose weight unless you run a calorie deficit. They go on to say that once you've lost the weight you want to, it is harder to gain it back even if you eat too much provided you continue to eat low carb (actually controlled carb seems to be their preferred term). This, they say, is because you can't store fat easily unless you raise your insulin levels by eating too many carbs.

Anyway, I've had the same experience as many others. It worked pretty well and I felt good as long as I stuck with it, but sticking with it was difficult. I don't consider that a knock on low carb diets, it's just really hard to change eating habits. It's very rare for anyone to succeed at losing weight and keeping it off.

 

[DogB]

Any more absurd comparisons? I think my point got across without needing to disqualify non-food items.

So if someone suggests eating fiber, do you say "Bleet wrong, are you suggesting I eat a 2x4? Lotsa fiber there??!"

It either burns them or it doesn't. If fat is burned in a different manner than carbs, that must either be reflected in the calories per gram (8 vs 4). There are variations, to be sure, but none as dramatic as so people make it out to be. The only seriously dramatic metabolism change is starvation mode, which is why fasting doesn't work.

Ahhh but this is exactly my point. We measure calories in food by combustion. We have no way to specify the efficiency of food. If I eat an amount of sugar containing 1kCal how much energy does my body extract? What about 1 kCal of fat or protein or (absurdly) polystyrene? They are broken down (or not) by completely different pathways. Stands to reason that the efficiency will be wildly different. Right?

To use another 'absurd comparison'. Are you really saying that I'll get just as fat on 4000kCal worth of celery vs 4000kCal worth of chocolate cake every day*?

Dog.

*1.2kg of cake vs 800 stalks of celery!

 

[Hazelip]

I haven't seen any bread trees around lately, have you?

Seen any amber waves of grain? How about an apple tree?

Why? Atkins mentality (Very little carbohydrate, lots of fruits/veggies/proteins, ongoing) is part of what allowed me to lose over 100 pounds, and keep it off for a little over 11 years now.

Plenty of fruits? Do you even know anything about the diet you're advocating? Here's a list of acceptable foods: http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/12/15-464579.html Not even a fruit category. To get plenty of fiber, it is even suggested elsewhere on the site to use supplemental fiber (as long as it's sugar free).

If you're not getting enough fiber in your diet, you are not eating correctly.

 

[Hazelip]

Bleeert......Wrong...try again.

Lots of Calories in Gasoline. Are you suggesting that I'll get fat on it. What about cellulose, cows do pretty well on it but just you try.

Actually, you're wrong. Oh, and comparing a danish to gasoline is really one of the dumbest things I've read on these forums that's not been written by Ian...

Our bodies are not furnaces, all foods are not made equal. Our bodies treat different energy sources in different ways (obviously).

Carbs are a more accessible energy source. Do they necessarily make you fat? Dunno, I think the jury is still out on this one but I've yet to read about someone who failed to loose at least some weight on such a diet.

What about it folks, anybody tried and failed? I'm curious.

Dog.

This (Ketoacidosis) is what makes people lose weight on Atkins. It is not healthy, it is not right, it is actually something that can do harm.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

I think one of the key points to look at is that Atkins is a lifetime diet that allows your body's natural mechanisms to work as designed. The diet does not advocate cutting out all carbs, and in fact later on in the diet you add more until you are at a reasonable intake.

The problem with most low-fat or calorie-moderation diets is that they leave you hungry and they mess with your blood-sugar levels. By eating mostly protein, your body is not getting the rush of simple sugars or complex sugars (carbohydrates), that is so easily processed by the digestive system.

I have to admit that even if I do not lose a lot of weight on this diet, I will probably focus most of my meals on protein. My energy levels are high and I do not have the cranky, tired lows that I used to.

My next door neighbor lost 50 lbs. on Atkins ten years ago, and she is still maintaining that diet successfully. My mother-in-law failed the diet; it did not work for her. So the diet is not for everyone.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

The recent case the Atkin's proponents used to try and add respect to the diet, some 60% of people dropped out of the plan, as opposed to 25% of the low-fat diet.

"Diet" should be a lifestyle, not a fad you try for a while.

The Atkins diet is actually very difficult to stay on. However, you have to realize a few points:

1. Low-fat diets are the most popular. What does this mean? It means that food companies produce low-fat varieties of most foods.

2. Low-fat foods contain more sugars and carbs than regular foods. Sugars and carbs are quickly digested, whereas proteins and fat take a more energy-intensive process.

3. Carbohydrates and other sugars are addictive. This means that by putting sugars and carbs in "diet" foods, you are actually encouraging the dieters to eat more, because their cravings will increase. Isn't that convenient for the food producers?

If more people started doing low-carb diets, then the industry would respond my making low-carb varieties of common foods. People would be able to eat somewhat normally and stick with the diet.

Also, your survey results did not indicate the amount of fat lost by those who participated in the diet. That would be a better indicator than how many dropped out. Typically, low-fat dieters lose muscle mass because they are not eating enough protein the maintain it. Muscle burns calories, so this actually hinders the diet.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

This (Ketoacidosis) is what makes people lose weight on Atkins. It is not healthy, it is not right, it is actually something that can do harm.

Wrong. Ketoacidosis is a symptom of not getting the ketones out of the body. True, this diet could cause ketoacidosis to occur, but it is very unlikely. That is why the diet recommends drinking a lot of water. A low-fat diet is much more likely to cause diabetes as it messes with insulin production.

In fact, the definition on the page claims that it is caused by a severe imbalance with insulin and blood-sugar. Extreme amounts of sugar intake (including carbs) are what mess with blood-sugar levels. A lot of diabetics actually go on a less extreme version of a low-carb diet.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Seen any amber waves of grain? How about an apple tree?

Plenty of fruits? Do you even know anything about the diet you're advocating? Here's a list of acceptable foods: http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/12/15-464579.html Not even a fruit category. To get plenty of fiber, it is even suggested elsewhere on the site to use supplemental fiber (as long as it's sugar free).

If you're not getting enough fiber in your diet, you are not eating correctly.

You are very right. I am actually having a hard time with fiber intake right now. I will have to change my diet a little to include high-in-fiber foods.

And yes, fruits are to be used with caution, as they are mostly comprised of simple sugars. However, the sugar in them is much better than processed sugars in lots of other foods, so I plan on eating fruits moderately.

 

[kookbreaker]

The Atkins diet is actually very difficult to stay on. However, you have to realize a few points:

1. Low-fat diets are the most popular. What does this mean? It means that food companies produce low-fat varieties of most foods.

Its true, but hardly conclusive of anything.

2. Low-fat foods contain more sugars and carbs than regular foods. Sugars and carbs are quickly digested, whereas proteins and fat take a more energy-intensive process.

Complex carbs can have quite the process for breakdown too. Making potato into sugar is not easy for your body.

3. Carbohydrates and other sugars are addictive. This means that by putting sugars and carbs in "diet" foods, you are actually encouraging the dieters to eat more, because their cravings will increase. Isn't that convenient for the food producers?

Just a little paranoia there? It can also be that lowfat foods can have fewer calories.

If more people started doing low-carb diets, then the industry would respond my making low-carb varieties of common foods. People would be able to eat somewhat normally and stick with the diet.

Why isn't the Atkins institute doing this already? They don't seem to be lacking funds to start up a line of easy-prep foods. What is stopping them?

Also, your survey results did not indicate the amount of fat lost by those who participated in the diet. That would be a better indicator than how many dropped out. Typically, low-fat dieters lose muscle mass because they are not eating enough protein the maintain it. Muscle burns calories, so this actually hinders the diet. [/B]

Dieting without exercsie is going to result in muscle loss, along with fat-loss. It doesn't matter what your method is.

Also, "my survey" was the one that the Atkin's instutute bought and paid for. Don't blame me for its shortcomings.

 

[kookbreaker]

Ahhh but this is exactly my point. We measure calories in food by combustion. We have no way to specify the efficiency of food. If I eat an amount of sugar containing 1kCal how much energy does my body extract? What about 1 kCal of fat or protein or (absurdly) polystyrene? They are broken down (or not) by completely different pathways. Stands to reason that the efficiency will be wildly different. Right?

The differences in breakdown are not that dramatic. Certainly not to the point where 1 calorie of protien is going to take any more efffort than 1 calorie of carbs. Sorry bud, but that's the way the body is. There's no magic food that gets digested easier or harder. There are food that don't get absorbed at all (Olestra, thick fiberous food) but that is reflected in their calorie totals.

To use another 'absurd comparison'. Are you really saying that I'll get just as fat on 4000kCal worth of celery vs 4000kCal worth of chocolate cake every day*?

Dog.

*1.2kg of cake vs 800 stalks of celery!

Yes. Your assuming the higher, errr. 'transience' of the fiberour celery means that the calories are slipping out of you. But that is simply not true.

Everything gets broken down into your body, its not like Fat is just nabbed from your intestines and shoves into the double-chin. It is also broken down and rebuilt as fat when not burned. This process is damands no more, or less energy that breaking of protiens and carbs.

 

[DogB]

Actually, you're wrong. Oh, and comparing a danish to gasoline is really one of the dumbest things I've read on these forums that's not been written by Ian...

I'm wrong? About? I am starting to see why Ian gets worked up about some things.

Once and for all. A calorie is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of a gram of water one degree. That's it...nothing more.

I agree my comparison was stupid, but so is the statement "a calorie is a calorie". (Which is all I was arguing about in the first place)

Once again for the hard of hearing......
There are 31,000,000 calories in a gallon of gasoline. We cannot digest gasoline. It is not available to us as a food source. Therefore these are empty calories. Drinking gasoline will not make you fat...it will make you dead (gasoline is also toxic).

The calorific value of vulcanized rubber is also high. Eating rubber probably won't kill you (immediately) but once again we can't digest it. Eating rubber will not make you fat.

The body treats different foods in different ways. Enzymes break the carbohydrates into glucose and other sugars, the fats into glycerol and fatty acids and the proteins into amino acids. These are wildly different processes and I thinks it's fairly safe to assume that they have wildly different efficiencies. Right?

That was all I was saying. I have yet to be convinced about the merit of low carb diets. I make no claims about their efficacies.

Dog.

 

[DogB]

The differences in breakdown are not that dramatic. Certainly not to the point where 1 calorie of protien is going to take any more efffort than 1 calorie of carbs. Sorry bud, but that's the way the body is. There's no magic food that gets digested easier or harder. There are food that don't get absorbed at all (Olestra, thick fiberous food) but that is reflected in their calorie totals.

Ok. I'm prepared to accept this and say I was an idiot. But just humor me a little. Give me a reference.

Yes. Your assuming the higher, errr. 'transience' of the fiberour celery means that the calories are slipping out of you. But that is simply not true.

That's not what I meant but we'll continue.

Everything gets broken down into your body,

No...you just said thick fibrous foods don't ??

its not like Fat is just nabbed from your intestines and shoves into the double-chin. It is also broken down and rebuilt as fat when not burned.

No argument.

This process is damands no more, or less energy that breaking of protiens and carbs.

Once again, I have trouble accepting this. Reference please.

Dog.

 

[kookbreaker]

Ok. I'm prepared to accept this and say I was an idiot. But just humor me a little. Give me a reference.

See below.

That's not what I meant but we'll continue.

No...you just said thick fibrous foods don't ??

I should qualify that then: Anything considered and energy source by the human body (i.e. proteins, Carbs, and fats) will be broken down.)

No argument.

Once again, I have trouble accepting this. Reference please.

Dog.

OK, I'll start with an explanation: Take two vats of acid, put a loaf of bread in one and a steak in the other. Watch them dissolve. Fun Fun. What you now have is what is called "chyme" (note: this is a gross oversimplification) had this taken place in your body. It didn't take much more, or less energy to break down the food. The acid does not really care much. Creation of this acid does burn calories, but it is considered part of you basal calric consumption rate. Your body will produce pretty much an even amount, whatever you swallow. The stomach has pretty good safety ranges for acid production.. Think of it as a military unit that requisisitons the same amount of ammunition each day, no matter what kind of combat it is in, if you like.

This chyme is now a mixture of enzymes, protiens, vitamins, whatnot. There is no difference at this point as far as the small intestines are concerned, its all just stuff to be absorbed. The intenstine's ability to absorb nutrients may vary from person to person, but not to any major degree. Some nutrients are absorbed faster, or are at least easier to convert, but not to any degree where it matters between what was put in the body int eh first place.

I again remind you that this is a gross oversimplification.

Now, for energy, the body needs a certain amount of calories to make ADP's in to ATP's. The main source of the body's energy. Any energy not burned becomes fat, some 3500 kC are required per pound of fat.

Now some food will slip through. Swallow peanuts whole and you'll later see the joy of food undigested by the body, same as corn when not overcooked. If you were to swallow who chunks of solid food, they would aslo avoid being broken down. But the consequences could be very nasty indeed. (Chronic constipation anyone?)

The bottom line is there is no magic food. Look at any article on the web that covers nutrition without a book to sell and they'll pretty much tell you the same thing: Calories eaten vs. Calories burned.

Here's a good start.

 

[Hazelip]

Wrong. Ketoacidosis is a symptom of not getting the ketones out of the body. True, this diet could cause ketoacidosis to occur, but it is very unlikely. That is why the diet recommends drinking a lot of water. A low-fat diet is much more likely to cause diabetes as it messes with insulin production.

In fact, the definition on the page claims that it is caused by a severe imbalance with insulin and blood-sugar. Extreme amounts of sugar intake (including carbs) are what mess with blood-sugar levels. A lot of diabetics actually go on a less extreme version of a low-carb diet.

You are wrong. From the link:

DKA is caused by a profound lack of circulating insulin.

You claim that a diet containing high carbs produces high insulin. You claim that eating high protein lowers your insulin. You claim that the beginning of the Atkins diet is an almost total abstinence of sugar and carbs, but high in protein. High intake of a food that does not require insulin for digestion, while nearly completely removing the food that does require insulin, results in a profound lack of circulating insulin.

Carbs do not mess with blood sugar levels at all unless you are diabetic. If your pancreas is functioning properly, it dumps insulin to maintain normal blood sugar levels.

Ketoacidosis is NOT a symptom of not getting ketones out of the body, but the direct opposite. Ketones leaving the body in large quantities is indicative of Ketoacidosis. A diabetic will hold a testing strip in his or her urine stream to test for the presence and the amount of ketones present. This is commonly referred to as "spilling ketones". As a matter of fact, the strips are also marketed as a weight loss monitoring tool.

Water has nothing to do with Ketoacidosis. Nothing. Low-fat diets have not been directly linked with diabetes. Quite the opposite, in fact. Poor diets resulting in obesity have been directly linked to both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.


What you're spouting is pseudo-science quackery.

 

[DogB]

I should qualify that then: Anything considered and energy source by the human body (i.e. proteins, Carbs, and fats) will be broken down.)

Okey dokey. I'll let go with the Gasoline example then.

OK, I'll start with an explanation: Take two vats of acid, put a loaf of bread in one and a steak in the other. Watch them dissolve. Fun Fun. What you now have is what is called "chyme" (note: this is a gross oversimplification) had this taken place in your body. It didn't take much more, or less energy to break down the food. The acid does not really care much. Creation of this acid does burn calories, but it is considered part of you basal calric consumption rate. Your body will produce pretty much an even amount, whatever you swallow. The stomach has pretty good safety ranges for acid production.. Think of it as a military unit that requisisitons the same amount of ammunition each day, no matter what kind of combat it is in, if you like.

This chyme is now a mixture of enzymes, protiens, vitamins, whatnot. There is no difference at this point as far as the small intestines are concerned, its all just stuff to be absorbed. The intenstine's ability to absorb nutrients may vary from person to person, but not to any major degree. Some nutrients are absorbed faster, or are at least easier to convert, but not to any degree where it matters between what was put in the body int eh first place.

I again remind you that this is a gross oversimplification.


Now, for energy, the body needs a certain amount of calories to make ADP's in to ATP's. The main source of the body's energy. Any energy not burned becomes fat, some 3500 kC are required per pound of fat.

Now some food will slip through. Swallow peanuts whole and you'll later see the joy of food undigested by the body, same as corn when not overcooked. If you were to swallow who chunks of solid food, they would aslo avoid being broken down. But the consequences could be very nasty indeed. (Chronic constipation anyone?)

With you here, no arguments.

The bottom line is there is no magic food. Look at any article on the web that covers nutrition without a book to sell and they'll pretty much tell you the same thing: Calories eaten vs. Calories burned.

Here's a good start.

See now, here is where I have a problem. The site you referenced states that we calculate the calorific value of foods by total combustion. Our stomachs are not high temperature furnaces. Are you really saying that the in vivo efficiency of energy exploitation of various foods approaches 100%, regardless of the food type? (even assuming equivalent absorption rates)

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong (I've been wrong before). I just can't find any information about calories in foods expressed as energy available to the body.

D.

 

[kookbreaker]

See now, here is where I have a problem. The site you referenced states that we calculate the calorific value of foods by total combustion. Our stomachs are not high temperature furnaces. Are you really saying that the in vivo efficiency of energy exploitation of various foods approaches 100%, regardless of the food type? (even assuming equivalent absorption rates)

A chemical breakdown may not be as dramatic as a furnace, but the net result is pretty much going to be the same: You are releasing chemical bonds that are used to store energy. The action invovled is acidic in nature, so its not teribly discriminating between food types. In short the apple and chunk of steak in acid example I gave above.

 

[Hazelip]

DogB, I think I just realized what part of your problem is in this discussion. Calorie, as the word is used in reference to food is actually not a calorie in chemistry. It is actually a kilo-calorie. It takes approximately 1000 (chemistry definition) calories to make up one (dietary) calorie.

It's simply the confusing, and typical result, of the bastardized English language at work...

 

[DogB]

DogB, I think I just realized what part of your problem is in this discussion. Calorie, as the word is used in reference to food is actually not a calorie in chemistry. It is actually a kilo-calorie. It takes approximately 1000 (chemistry definition) calories to make up one (dietary) calorie.

It's simply the confusing, and typical result, of the bastardized English language at work...

I know. You will note that in my celery vs chocolate cake example I used kCal as the unit. After that I gave up and started using the common (but incorrect) terminology. My bad.

Doesn't change my point however. It's just a measure of energy released by combustion. As far as I can tell a dietary calorie (kCal) is determined in precisely the same way as a chemistry calorie.

I'd love a reference which states otherwise.

Dog.

 

[DogB]

A chemical breakdown may not be as dramatic as a furnace, but the net result is pretty much going to be the same: You are releasing chemical bonds that are used to store energy. The action invovled is acidic in nature, so its not teribly discriminating between food types. In short the apple and chunk of steak in acid example I gave above.

http://icg.harvard.edu/~ext12057/LectureNotes/diabetes_lecture_notes.doc

From this site

Scenario #1: Meal = bagel with jam on it (only carbohydrates) (300 calories)

-Meal is digested and there is a large increase in blood glucose (since the whole meal was carbohydrates)
-Glucose stimulates insulin release, a large increase in glucoses stimulates a large increase insulin
-Insulin 1) stimulates uptake of blood glucose into cells, 2) stimulates conversion in liver and adipocytes to glycogen, amino acids, and fat; and 3) inhibits lipolysis
-Blood glucose starts to fall and continues to fall
-If increase in insulin is large enough, glucose may fall below set point
-Hunger ensues.

Scenario #2: Meal = Grilled chicken (no skin), carrots, apple (carbohydrates and protein) (300 calories)

-Meal is digested and there is an increase in blood glucose (from the carbohydrate) and in blood amino acids (from the protein). The increase in blood glucose is not as great as in scenario #1 because there isn't as much carbohydrate in the meal
-Glucose and amino acids stimulate insulin release but the release is not as great as in scenario #1 because the increase in blood glucose is not as great, and amino acids are not as good at stimulating insulin release as glucose; amino acids also stimulate glucagon release
-Blood glucose starts to fall but not as much because there¡¦s less insulin (it also didn't go up as high). Glucagon also stimulates glucose synthesis and promotes fatty acid breakdown.
-You don't get hungry as fast and you don't store as much fat because some gets broken down and utilized to make ATP in the period before you eat again.

Scenario #3: Meal = T-bone steak (protein and fat) (300 calories)

-Meal is digested and there is an increase in blood amino acids (from the protein) and in fatty acids. Blood glucose doesn't increase.
-The amino acids stimulate release of insulin and glucagons. There is little hormonal impact from the fat.
-Blood glucose starts to fall (from the insulin) but glucagon causes gluconeogenesis in the liver, so it doesn't fall too much. End result is that glucose doesn't fall too much. Not much fat stored because insulin doesn't increase. Fatty acids can be used to make ATP by cells other than the brain.

Note all meals are 300 calories (kCal)

This says it better than I ever could.

D.