Brecons

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In a nutshell, The programme found that people lost weight not
because of reduced calories intheir diet, or burning fat etc it was a
case that people on a high protein diet

The Atkins is not a high protein dite, it's a high fat diet.

if that's what you think - fine!

That's what Atkins says in his book, no ?

--
Boo

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Atkins is not a high protein dite, it's a high fat diet.

Most people assume that, but it's actually a low carb diet.

It is both. But specifically it is the opposite of a low-fat diet, ie
it's a high-fat diet. He (Atkins (!)) particularly states that you
should not consume too much protein because if you do then it will be
digested in the same was as carbs are digested (ie using insulin).

Quoted message said:

It
prohibits sugary foods and high GI carbs like potates, bread and pasta.
It says you can eat as much protein and fat as you want, but in practice
you don't, since you don't have so much of an appetite.

This is true and for a specific reason : on the Atkins diet you are
primarily metabolising fat, not glucose. This means that you do not
have an insulin peak / blood sugar crash cycle as occurs with a high-
carb diet (and to a lesser extent with a high protein diet). The method
won't work on a high-protein diet because the insulin/sugar cycle will
still be there.

Quoted message said:

Hence you don't
actually eat that much fat, otherwise people wouldn't lose weight on it.

This is not what Atkins says however, he specifically make an
injunction about over-consumption of protein and no such statement
regarding fats, and for the reason I gave.

Quoted message said:

The mistaken assumption that Atkins made was that it was the fat
component that made the diet work, and that's what everyone makes the
fuss about, but it's now being proven that it's the protein component
which makes it work, the protein suppresses the appetite.

I don't know why you believe that has been proven ?

Atkins quotes many references to the academic literature that indicates
that it is the fat consumption that causes the weight loss. One that
particularly caught my eye was a reference to an experiment that showed
that the diet that caused the highest weight loss was 1000 cal/day of
pure fat. This aparently beat all other comers inclusing a starvation
diet. My understanding from the book is the original experiment has
been confirmed by other, later researchers.

I personally have no regard for the calibre of pundits who can be seen
on TV or read in the press. There are so many instances where they've
been proved wrong in the past, eg vegetable fats vs animal fats, that
their credibility seems to me to be very dubious. Of course one could
argue that Atkins has something of an axe to grind, but at least he
goes to the trouble of quoting the relevant literature in his book. I'm
interested to know what papers the high-protein diet afficionados are
relying on ?

Quoted message said:

Thus a low fat version of the Atkins diet would work even better.

There is no reason to believe that ?

Quoted message said:

So if
you feel hungry, eat a few low fat beefburgers, and don't pile on the
chips!

Agreed, but why low-fat beefburgers when high-fat ones are more effective ?

I know this is only a single data point, but I have done the Atkins
diet and have lost more than 3 stone on it, sustained for 2 years. I
have basicaly followed Atkins's strictures and have avoided overly high
protein consumption while consuming lots of fats and green veg. It is
of course true to say that Atkins' diet could work and still for his
reasoning to be invalid but this is vaccuously true : it can be said
about anything, and noone I have heard has given any *reason* for
believing it is true in this case.

The reaon for all the fud over a high-fat diet by Atkins knockers is
simple : they have spent all their lives earning a living by
promulgating second-hand derivatives of unread and misunderstood papers
in second-rate journals that suggest that a low fat, high carb diet is
healthy. Now faceing a diabetes and obesity explosion, caused by their
advicem they are trying to cover their tracks. Rather than admit they
are wrong about fats they are promulgating the line that high levels of
protein are the way to go.

I haven't tried a high-protein diet but from what I've read in the
body-building fora I believe you are more likely to put on weight rather
than lose it on such a diet. Of course that may be what you want,
especially if it is lean muscle weight, but if you are still subjecting
your body to the insulin / blood sugar peak cycle then it will have the
same risks as a high-carb diet.

--
Boo

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Speaking of short term memory, did anyone watch Memento on Channel 4 the
other day?

Err, I dunno. Can't quite remember. Hang on, I'll check...
;-)
--
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is
probably the day that they start making vacuum cleaners."
--Doc in alt.privacy

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Dd you see the investigation into the Atkins diet a couple of days ago?
fascinating stuff.

It would appear the diet is a load of tosh.

Well gosh. I suspect most of us could have told them that
ages ago!
--
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is
probably the day that they start making vacuum cleaners."
--Doc in alt.privacy

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

Paul you don't have to explain it to me. I saw the in depth analysis
of the diet on TV where every aspect of the procedure was examined
and I'm satisfied with that explanation.

I wasn't explaining it to you, but to those who didn't see it.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

You could have fooled me!
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Fran said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Speaking of short term memory, did anyone watch Memento on Channel 4 the
other day?

Err, I dunno. Can't quite remember. Hang on, I'll check...

Surely you mean:

Err, check, I... I'll... dunno. On, can't hang, remember ? Quite.

--
Extra credit: Define the universe and give three examples.

Mail john rather than nospam...

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Fran said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Speaking of short term memory, did anyone watch Memento on Channel 4 the
other day?

Err, I dunno. Can't quite remember. Hang on, I'll check...

Surely you mean:

Err, check, I... I'll... dunno. On, can't hang, remember ? Quite.

<GG>
--
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is
probably the day that they start making vacuum cleaners."
--Doc in alt.privacy

Boo said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Atkins is not a high protein dite, it's a high fat diet.

if that's what you think - fine!

That's what Atkins says in his book, no ?

No. I can't find any instance of him saying it's a high fat diet, he
calls it a low-carb diet. On the cover of the book it's described as
"The definitive controlled-carbohydrate programme for permanent weight
loss and good health".

On page 22 he states; "Am I advocating a high fat diet? Not in the long
run. As you increase the percentage of carbohydrates, while advancing
through the different phases of Atkins, the percentage and actual amount
of fat you consume will diminish."

As has been pointed out, a lot of people mistake the induction phase for
the diet.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

W. D. Grey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Paul you don't have to explain it to me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wasn't explaining it to you, but to those who didn't see it.

Quoted message said:

You could have fooled me!

This is a newsgroup Bill, these are not private messages! :-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Boo said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Atkins is not a high protein dite, it's a high fat diet.

Most people assume that, but it's actually a low carb diet.

It is both. But specifically it is the opposite of a low-fat diet,
ie it's a high-fat diet.

Percentage wise yes, but the essence of the diet is that your appetite
is reduced so you don't eat so much.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence you don't
actually eat that much fat, otherwise people wouldn't lose weight on
it.

This is not what Atkins says however, he specifically make an
injunction about over-consumption of protein and no such statement
regarding fats, and for the reason I gave.

Atkins was wrong about why the diet works, apparently, so I've heard,
read and seen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The mistaken assumption that Atkins made was that it was the fat
component that made the diet work, and that's what everyone makes the
fuss about, but it's now being proven that it's the protein component
which makes it work, the protein suppresses the appetite.

I don't know why you believe that has been proven ?

Because I've heard, seen and read that it's been proven. I'm not a
scientist, don't ask me to prove it. This was exactly the point of
Bill's post, about the new findings of why it really works, rather than
why Atkins thought it works.

Quoted message said:

Atkins quotes many references to the academic literature that
indicates that it is the fat consumption that causes the weight loss.

Yes, but new research is apparently proving that that is not the reason
why the diet works.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thus a low fat version of the Atkins diet would work even better.

There is no reason to believe that ?

Yes there is, the new research that says it's the protein that is the
key element, not the fat.

Quoted message said:

Agreed, but why low-fat beefburgers when high-fat ones are more
effective ?

Because it isn't the fat that suppresses the appetite. Low fat
beefburgers have less calories and still reduce the appetite.

Quoted message said:

I know this is only a single data point, but I have done the Atkins
diet and have lost more than 3 stone on it, sustained for 2 years.

I'm not saying the diet doesn't work, no-one is claiming that. New
research is simply saying that it works for different reasons than were
originally supposed.

We've been over this many times before and I've got no desire to repeat
it. Do a google for previous urw discussions. Those previously
involved may not see this post buried this deep in this thread.

I'm not claiming anything, and I have no proof of anything, I'm just
repeating what I've heard, seen and read. There have been a number of
programmes on TV about these new revelations, haven't you seen any of
them?

Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3416637.stm

The Atkins Diet - programme summary (with transcript)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkins.shtml

Quoted message said:

I haven't tried a high-protein diet but from what I've read in the
body-building fora I believe you are more likely to put on weight
rather than lose it on such a diet. Of course that may be what you
want, especially if it is lean muscle weight, but if you are still
subjecting your body to the insulin / blood sugar peak cycle then it
will have the same risks as a high-carb diet.

I do want to put on lean muscle weight as it happens, but why would
eating more protein have the same risks as a high-carb diet?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Paul Saunders said:

Because I've heard, seen and read that it's been proven. I'm not a
scientist, don't ask me to prove it. This was exactly the point of
Bill's post, about the new findings of why it really works, rather than
why Atkins thought it works.

The latest research I've read about (this week's news) says that
Atkins is the best way to tackle middle aged spread in men, as it
brings about focussed weight loss around the stomach area.
This may be of interest to the fat bastar*s present (-:
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

Paul Saunders said:

Boo wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Atkins is not a high protein dite, it's a high fat diet.

Quoted message said:

Most people assume that, but it's actually a low carb diet. It
prohibits sugary foods and high GI carbs like potates, bread and pasta.
It says you can eat as much protein and fat as you want, but in practice
you don't, since you don't have so much of an appetite. Hence you don't
actually eat that much fat, otherwise people wouldn't lose weight on it.

Quoted message said:

The mistaken assumption that Atkins made was that it was the fat
component that made the diet work, and that's what everyone makes the
fuss about, but it's now being proven that it's the protein component
which makes it work, the protein suppresses the appetite.

Quoted message said:

Thus a low fat version of the Atkins diet would work even better. So if
you feel hungry, eat a few low fat beefburgers, and don't pile on the
chips!

Unless you have problems with blood sugar control, aka the middle aged
metabolic syndrome problem, in which case the fact that fats reduce
the effective glycemic index of carbohydrates eaten at the same time
is rather useful.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In article <[email hidden]>, Rooney
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The latest research I've read about (this week's news) says that
Atkins is the best way to tackle middle aged spread in men, as it
brings about focussed weight loss around the stomach area.
This may be of interest to the fat bastar*s present (-:

Cut down on Calorie intake whichever way works for you. That is the
answer.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

Quoted message said:

> Paul you don't have to explain it to me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wasn't explaining it to you, but to those who didn't see it.

Quoted message said:

You could have fooled me!

This is a newsgroup Bill, these are not private messages! :-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Paul if we are to remain friends do not be so patronising. If !"A" makes
a statement and "B" answers that statement directly. it becomes
personal.

This is addressed to you Paul seeing as you seem to want to address me
directly.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Rooney
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The latest research I've read about (this week's news) says that
Atkins is the best way to tackle middle aged spread in men, as it
brings about focussed weight loss around the stomach area.
This may be of interest to the fat bastar*s present (-:

Cut down on Calorie intake whichever way works for you. That is the
answer.

Much more fun would be to carry on stuffing one's face with whatever
takes one's fancy, forget altogether about diets and health, and get
out on the hill more!
There's no way I could be doing with all this faffing about over what
to eat and - worse - what to drink!

(This of course applies to the fat hypochondriacs among us, not to
people with diabetes or other genuine dietary needs.)
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

In article <[email hidden]>, Rooney
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Much more fun would be to carry on stuffing one's face with whatever
takes one's fancy, forget altogether about diets and health, and get
out on the hill more!
There's no way I could be doing with all this faffing about over what
to eat and - worse - what to drink!

(This of course applies to the fat hypochondriacs among us, not to
people with diabetes or other genuine dietary needs.)

As an overweight diabetic I'm in a quandry as to what I should or
shouldn't eat.

Takes all the fun out of eating :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Rooney said:

Much more fun would be to carry on stuffing one's face with whatever
takes one's fancy, forget altogether about diets and health, and get
out on the hill more!

While that would work, I think a sensible diet is one which keeps a body at
an acceptable weight at the same time as taking moderate exercise. You do
not really want to *have* to go on 20-mile hikes just to prevent weight
gain. Better, surely, to eat moderately most of the time and up one's
intake when exercising more vigorously - most exercise promotes an appetite
for more food anyway.

Quoted message said:

There's no way I could be doing with all this faffing about over what
to eat and - worse - what to drink!

You're me you are.

--
Too soon old. Too late smart.

Mail john rather than nospam...

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

>> Paul you don't have to explain it to me.

Quoted message said:

> I wasn't explaining it to you, but to those who didn't see it.

Quoted message said:

You could have fooled me!

This is a newsgroup Bill, these are not private messages! :-)

Quoted message said:

Paul if we are to remain friends do not be so patronising. If !"A" makes
a statement and "B" answers that statement directly. it becomes
personal.

This is addressed to you Paul seeing as you seem to want to address me
directly.

Children! Play nicely please.
--
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is
probably the day that they start making vacuum cleaners."
--Doc in alt.privacy

"Fran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| [email hidden] said...
| > In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
| > <[email hidden]> writes
| > >W. D. Grey wrote:
| > >
| > >>>> Paul you don't have to explain it to me.
| > >
| > >>> I wasn't explaining it to you, but to those who didn't see it.
| > >
| > >> You could have fooled me!
| > >
| > >This is a newsgroup Bill, these are not private messages! :-)
|
| > Paul if we are to remain friends do not be so patronising. If !"A" makes
| > a statement and "B" answers that statement directly. it becomes
| > personal.
| >
| > This is addressed to you Paul seeing as you seem to want to address me
| > directly.
| >
| Children! Play nicely please.

Fran, I think you should post this message to Paul too, to keep things even!
;-) :-P

Ste

p.s. Just got a dog, a Siberian Husky puppy, so I'll be doing a lot more
walking once he gets his final set of injections next week! Then you won't
catch me posting in OT Atkins diet threads anymore! ;-)

"Fran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| [email hidden] said...
| > In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
| > <[email hidden]> writes
| > >W. D. Grey wrote:
| > >
| > >>>> Paul you don't have to explain it to me.
| > >
| > >>> I wasn't explaining it to you, but to those who didn't see it.
| > >
| > >> You could have fooled me!
| > >
| > >This is a newsgroup Bill, these are not private messages! :-)
|
| > Paul if we are to remain friends do not be so patronising. If !"A" makes
| > a statement and "B" answers that statement directly. it becomes
| > personal.
| >
| > This is addressed to you Paul seeing as you seem to want to address me
| > directly.
| >
| Children! Play nicely please.

Fran, I think you should post this message to Paul too, to keep things even!
;-) :-P

Ste

p.s. Just got a dog, a Siberian Husky puppy, so I'll be doing a lot more
walking once he gets his final set of injections next week! Then you won't
catch me posting in OT Atkins diet threads anymore! ;-)