OT: Effects of low carbohydrate diets high in red meats or etc.

Roger Zoul said:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/4/1/23

Effects of low carbohydrate diets high in red meats or poultry, fish and
shellfish on plasma lipids and weight loss

Abstract (provisional)

Background

Low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) have been demonstrated to be effective tools
for promoting weight loss and an improved plasma lipid profile. Such diets
are often associated with increased meat consumption, either poultry, fish,
and shellfish (PFS), which are generally high in polyunsaturated fat (PUFA)
or red meats (RM), generally high in saturated fat (SFA). The fatty acid
profile and content of a diet may influence the plasma lipid profile of
humans. This study examined whether the type of meat consumed could
influence the outcome of an LCD.

Methods

Moderately obese subjects consumed two different LCDs as part of a weight
loss regimen: 1) a diet high in foods of mammalian origin (RM) intended to
contain more SFA, or 2) a diet high in PFS intended to contain more PUFA.
Diet dependent changes in body weight, nutritional intake, and plasma lipids
were evaluated during a 28 day study period.

Results

Both diets were associated with significant weight loss after 28 days, -5.26
+/- 0.84 kg and -5.74 +/- 0.63 kg for RM and PFS groups, respectively. The
PFS diet was associated with a significantly higher intake of PUFA and
cholesterol. Despite high cholesterol and fat intakes, neither diet was
associated with significant changes in plasma cholesterol or the plasma
lipoprotein cholesterol profile. While plasma triglycerides were reduced in
both groups, the effect was only statistically significant for the PFS diet.

Something doesn't seem right here. They say that triglycerides were
reduced in both groups, but the effect was only statistically
significant for the PFS diet. We don't know the actual numbers of
course. But it's pretty widely accepted that triglycerides go down
dramatically on any form of LC isn't it? My own number varies about
4X or more, going from 160 when not on LC, down to 40 when not on LC,
and I eat a mix of both meat, fish, chicken, etc. I've seen lots of
people report dramatic reduction on here as well.

So, how could they find that only the group that followed the PFS diet
had any statistically significant reduction in trig? And you would
think if the other group had a major change in trig, they would have
commented on how different it was from the other group in the summary
above. It leads you to believe that it didn't change for one group
and probably didn't change that much for the other?

Any thoughts?

Roger Zoul said:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/4/1/23

Effects of low carbohydrate diets high in red meats or poultry, fish and
shellfish on plasma lipids and weight loss

Abstract (provisional)

Background

Low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) have been demonstrated to be effective tools
for promoting weight loss and an improved plasma lipid profile. Such diets
are often associated with increased meat consumption, either poultry, fish,
and shellfish (PFS), which are generally high in polyunsaturated fat (PUFA)
or red meats (RM), generally high in saturated fat (SFA). The fatty acid
profile and content of a diet may influence the plasma lipid profile of
humans. This study examined whether the type of meat consumed could
influence the outcome of an LCD.

Methods

Moderately obese subjects consumed two different LCDs as part of a weight
loss regimen: 1) a diet high in foods of mammalian origin (RM) intended to
contain more SFA, or 2) a diet high in PFS intended to contain more PUFA.
Diet dependent changes in body weight, nutritional intake, and plasma lipids
were evaluated during a 28 day study period.

Results

Both diets were associated with significant weight loss after 28 days, -5.26
+/- 0.84 kg and -5.74 +/- 0.63 kg for RM and PFS groups, respectively. The
PFS diet was associated with a significantly higher intake of PUFA and
cholesterol. Despite high cholesterol and fat intakes, neither diet was
associated with significant changes in plasma cholesterol or the plasma
lipoprotein cholesterol profile. While plasma triglycerides were reduced in
both groups, the effect was only statistically significant for the PFS diet.

Something doesn't seem right here. They say that triglycerides were
reduced in both groups, but the effect was only statistically
significant for the PFS diet. We don't know the actual numbers of
course. But it's pretty widely accepted that triglycerides go down
dramatically on any form of LC isn't it? My own number varies about
4X or more, going from 160 when not on LC, down to 40 when not on LC,
and I eat a mix of both meat, fish, chicken, etc. I've seen lots of
people report dramatic reduction on here as well.

So, how could they find that only the group that followed the PFS diet
had any statistically significant reduction in trig? And you would
think if the other group had a major change in trig, they would have
commented on how different it was from the other group in the summary
above. It leads you to believe that it didn't change for one group
and probably didn't change that much for the other?

Any thoughts?

Roger Zoul said:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/4/1/23

Effects of low carbohydrate diets high in red meats or poultry, fish and
shellfish on plasma lipids and weight loss

Abstract (provisional)

Background

Low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) have been demonstrated to be effective tools
for promoting weight loss and an improved plasma lipid profile. Such diets
are often associated with increased meat consumption, either poultry, fish,
and shellfish (PFS), which are generally high in polyunsaturated fat (PUFA)
or red meats (RM), generally high in saturated fat (SFA). The fatty acid
profile and content of a diet may influence the plasma lipid profile of
humans. This study examined whether the type of meat consumed could
influence the outcome of an LCD.

Methods

Moderately obese subjects consumed two different LCDs as part of a weight
loss regimen: 1) a diet high in foods of mammalian origin (RM) intended to
contain more SFA, or 2) a diet high in PFS intended to contain more PUFA.
Diet dependent changes in body weight, nutritional intake, and plasma lipids
were evaluated during a 28 day study period.

Results

Both diets were associated with significant weight loss after 28 days, -5.26
+/- 0.84 kg and -5.74 +/- 0.63 kg for RM and PFS groups, respectively. The
PFS diet was associated with a significantly higher intake of PUFA and
cholesterol. Despite high cholesterol and fat intakes, neither diet was
associated with significant changes in plasma cholesterol or the plasma
lipoprotein cholesterol profile. While plasma triglycerides were reduced in
both groups, the effect was only statistically significant for the PFS diet.

Something doesn't seem right here. They say that triglycerides were
reduced in both groups, but the effect was only statistically
significant for the PFS diet. We don't know the actual numbers of
course. But it's pretty widely accepted that triglycerides go down
dramatically on any form of LC isn't it? My own number varies about
4X or more, going from 160 when not on LC, down to 40 when not on LC,
and I eat a mix of both meat, fish, chicken, etc. I've seen lots of
people report dramatic reduction on here as well.

So, how could they find that only the group that followed the PFS diet
had any statistically significant reduction in trig? And you would
think if the other group had a major change in trig, they would have
commented on how different it was from the other group in the summary
above. It leads you to believe that it didn't change for one group
and probably didn't change that much for the other?

Any thoughts?

Roger Zoul said:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/4/1/23

Effects of low carbohydrate diets high in red meats or poultry, fish and
shellfish on plasma lipids and weight loss

Abstract (provisional)

Background

Low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) have been demonstrated to be effective tools
for promoting weight loss and an improved plasma lipid profile. Such diets
are often associated with increased meat consumption, either poultry, fish,
and shellfish (PFS), which are generally high in polyunsaturated fat (PUFA)
or red meats (RM), generally high in saturated fat (SFA). The fatty acid
profile and content of a diet may influence the plasma lipid profile of
humans. This study examined whether the type of meat consumed could
influence the outcome of an LCD.

Methods

Moderately obese subjects consumed two different LCDs as part of a weight
loss regimen: 1) a diet high in foods of mammalian origin (RM) intended to
contain more SFA, or 2) a diet high in PFS intended to contain more PUFA.
Diet dependent changes in body weight, nutritional intake, and plasma lipids
were evaluated during a 28 day study period.

Results

Both diets were associated with significant weight loss after 28 days, -5.26
+/- 0.84 kg and -5.74 +/- 0.63 kg for RM and PFS groups, respectively. The
PFS diet was associated with a significantly higher intake of PUFA and
cholesterol. Despite high cholesterol and fat intakes, neither diet was
associated with significant changes in plasma cholesterol or the plasma
lipoprotein cholesterol profile. While plasma triglycerides were reduced in
both groups, the effect was only statistically significant for the PFS diet.

Something doesn't seem right here. They say that triglycerides were
reduced in both groups, but the effect was only statistically
significant for the PFS diet. We don't know the actual numbers of
course. But it's pretty widely accepted that triglycerides go down
dramatically on any form of LC isn't it? My own number varies about
4X or more, going from 160 when not on LC, down to 40 when not on LC,
and I eat a mix of both meat, fish, chicken, etc. I've seen lots of
people report dramatic reduction on here as well.

So, how could they find that only the group that followed the PFS diet
had any statistically significant reduction in trig? And you would
think if the other group had a major change in trig, they would have
commented on how different it was from the other group in the summary
above. It leads you to believe that it didn't change for one group
and probably didn't change that much for the other?

Any thoughts?

Quoted post said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> quoted:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/4/1/23

Quoted message said:

Effects of low carbohydrate diets high in red meats or poultry, fish and
shellfish on plasma lipids and weight loss

Quoted message said:

Abstract (provisional)

Quoted message said:

Background

Quoted message said:

Low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) have been demonstrated to be effective tools
for promoting weight loss and an improved plasma lipid profile.

Good to see this in print.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Such diets
are often associated with increased meat consumption, either poultry, fish,
and shellfish (PFS), which are generally high in polyunsaturated fat (PUFA)
or red meats (RM), generally high in saturated fat (SFA).

I don't know about that. Some studies state that the single biggest
difference between low carb and not is substituting veggies in
place of grains, sweets and potatoes. So increased meat consumption
is more of magazine sound bite misconception or a clip about days
1-14.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fatty acid
profile and content of a diet may influence the plasma lipid profile of
humans. This study examined whether the type of meat consumed could
influence the outcome of an LCD.

I've read studies that suggest that calorie-for-calorie substitutions
of polyunsaturates in place of satured fat can lead to higher loss
rates. There doesn't seem much down side to draining the beef
tallow out of drippings and putting in a similar amount of walnut
oil.

But I wonder what these two versions did to the protein/fat ratios.
Differing protein/fat ratios could easily overwhelm the differing
polyunsat/sat ratios in effects.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Methods

Quoted message said:

Moderately obese subjects consumed two different LCDs as part of a weight
loss regimen: 1) a diet high in foods of mammalian origin (RM) intended to
contain more SFA, or 2) a diet high in PFS intended to contain more PUFA.
Diet dependent changes in body weight, nutritional intake, and plasma lipids
were evaluated during a 28 day study period.

Twenty-eight days is an extremely short time period.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Results

Quoted message said:

Both diets were associated with significant weight loss after 28 days, -5.26
+/- 0.84 kg and -5.74 +/- 0.63 kg for RM and PFS groups, respectively.

The difference in variance is half the size of the difference in
average
loss, and the time period is so short that water loss will skew the
numbers greatly. I'm a lot more interested in days 29 on to avoid
that
water loss.

Quoted message said:

The

Quoted message said:

PFS diet was associated with a significantly higher intake of PUFA and
cholesterol. Despite high cholesterol and fat intakes, neither diet was
associated with significant changes in plasma cholesterol or the plasma
lipoprotein cholesterol profile. While plasma triglycerides were reduced in
both groups, the effect was only statistically significant for the PFS diet.

Something doesn't seem right here. They say that triglycerides were
reduced in both groups, but the effect was only statistically
significant for the PFS diet. We don't know the actual numbers of
course. But it's pretty widely accepted that triglycerides go down
dramatically on any form of LC isn't it?

I think it's the very short 28 days of the study.

Quoted message said:

My own number varies about
4X or more, going from 160 when not on LC, down to 40 when not on LC,
and I eat a mix of both meat, fish, chicken, etc. I've seen lots of
people report dramatic reduction on here as well.

But the reported numbers depend on how long folks have been on
the plan. There's often a temporary increase in total cholesterol
early on and I don't know how fast the triglycerides drop among
the other types. Consider that the 1993 edition of the Atkins book
claimed that 80% of folks see improved numbers after 6 months, and
the 2003 edition claimed that a majority see improved numbers
after 3 months, but neither edition discusses how triglycerides
move when in the mix.

Quoted message said:

So, how could they find that only the group that followed the PFS diet
had any statistically significant reduction in trig? And you would
think if the other group had a major change in trig, they would have
commented on how different it was from the other group in the summary
above. It leads you to believe that it didn't change for one group
and probably didn't change that much for the other?

Any thoughts?

It almost looks like they picked 28 days to make beef look bad and
chicken look good. Go out to 6 months and the difference should
disappear I think ...

Quoted post said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> quoted:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/4/1/23

Quoted message said:

Effects of low carbohydrate diets high in red meats or poultry, fish and
shellfish on plasma lipids and weight loss

Quoted message said:

Abstract (provisional)

Quoted message said:

Background

Quoted message said:

Low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) have been demonstrated to be effective tools
for promoting weight loss and an improved plasma lipid profile.

Good to see this in print.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Such diets
are often associated with increased meat consumption, either poultry, fish,
and shellfish (PFS), which are generally high in polyunsaturated fat (PUFA)
or red meats (RM), generally high in saturated fat (SFA).

I don't know about that. Some studies state that the single biggest
difference between low carb and not is substituting veggies in
place of grains, sweets and potatoes. So increased meat consumption
is more of magazine sound bite misconception or a clip about days
1-14.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fatty acid
profile and content of a diet may influence the plasma lipid profile of
humans. This study examined whether the type of meat consumed could
influence the outcome of an LCD.

I've read studies that suggest that calorie-for-calorie substitutions
of polyunsaturates in place of satured fat can lead to higher loss
rates. There doesn't seem much down side to draining the beef
tallow out of drippings and putting in a similar amount of walnut
oil.

But I wonder what these two versions did to the protein/fat ratios.
Differing protein/fat ratios could easily overwhelm the differing
polyunsat/sat ratios in effects.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Methods

Quoted message said:

Moderately obese subjects consumed two different LCDs as part of a weight
loss regimen: 1) a diet high in foods of mammalian origin (RM) intended to
contain more SFA, or 2) a diet high in PFS intended to contain more PUFA.
Diet dependent changes in body weight, nutritional intake, and plasma lipids
were evaluated during a 28 day study period.

Twenty-eight days is an extremely short time period.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Results

Quoted message said:

Both diets were associated with significant weight loss after 28 days, -5.26
+/- 0.84 kg and -5.74 +/- 0.63 kg for RM and PFS groups, respectively.

The difference in variance is half the size of the difference in
average
loss, and the time period is so short that water loss will skew the
numbers greatly. I'm a lot more interested in days 29 on to avoid
that
water loss.

Quoted message said:

The

Quoted message said:

PFS diet was associated with a significantly higher intake of PUFA and
cholesterol. Despite high cholesterol and fat intakes, neither diet was
associated with significant changes in plasma cholesterol or the plasma
lipoprotein cholesterol profile. While plasma triglycerides were reduced in
both groups, the effect was only statistically significant for the PFS diet.

Something doesn't seem right here. They say that triglycerides were
reduced in both groups, but the effect was only statistically
significant for the PFS diet. We don't know the actual numbers of
course. But it's pretty widely accepted that triglycerides go down
dramatically on any form of LC isn't it?

I think it's the very short 28 days of the study.

Quoted message said:

My own number varies about
4X or more, going from 160 when not on LC, down to 40 when not on LC,
and I eat a mix of both meat, fish, chicken, etc. I've seen lots of
people report dramatic reduction on here as well.

But the reported numbers depend on how long folks have been on
the plan. There's often a temporary increase in total cholesterol
early on and I don't know how fast the triglycerides drop among
the other types. Consider that the 1993 edition of the Atkins book
claimed that 80% of folks see improved numbers after 6 months, and
the 2003 edition claimed that a majority see improved numbers
after 3 months, but neither edition discusses how triglycerides
move when in the mix.

Quoted message said:

So, how could they find that only the group that followed the PFS diet
had any statistically significant reduction in trig? And you would
think if the other group had a major change in trig, they would have
commented on how different it was from the other group in the summary
above. It leads you to believe that it didn't change for one group
and probably didn't change that much for the other?

Any thoughts?

It almost looks like they picked 28 days to make beef look bad and
chicken look good. Go out to 6 months and the difference should
disappear I think ...

Quoted post said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> quoted:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/4/1/23

Quoted message said:

Effects of low carbohydrate diets high in red meats or poultry, fish and
shellfish on plasma lipids and weight loss

Quoted message said:

Abstract (provisional)

Quoted message said:

Background

Quoted message said:

Low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) have been demonstrated to be effective tools
for promoting weight loss and an improved plasma lipid profile.

Good to see this in print.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Such diets
are often associated with increased meat consumption, either poultry, fish,
and shellfish (PFS), which are generally high in polyunsaturated fat (PUFA)
or red meats (RM), generally high in saturated fat (SFA).

I don't know about that. Some studies state that the single biggest
difference between low carb and not is substituting veggies in
place of grains, sweets and potatoes. So increased meat consumption
is more of magazine sound bite misconception or a clip about days
1-14.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fatty acid
profile and content of a diet may influence the plasma lipid profile of
humans. This study examined whether the type of meat consumed could
influence the outcome of an LCD.

I've read studies that suggest that calorie-for-calorie substitutions
of polyunsaturates in place of satured fat can lead to higher loss
rates. There doesn't seem much down side to draining the beef
tallow out of drippings and putting in a similar amount of walnut
oil.

But I wonder what these two versions did to the protein/fat ratios.
Differing protein/fat ratios could easily overwhelm the differing
polyunsat/sat ratios in effects.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Methods

Quoted message said:

Moderately obese subjects consumed two different LCDs as part of a weight
loss regimen: 1) a diet high in foods of mammalian origin (RM) intended to
contain more SFA, or 2) a diet high in PFS intended to contain more PUFA.
Diet dependent changes in body weight, nutritional intake, and plasma lipids
were evaluated during a 28 day study period.

Twenty-eight days is an extremely short time period.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Results

Quoted message said:

Both diets were associated with significant weight loss after 28 days, -5.26
+/- 0.84 kg and -5.74 +/- 0.63 kg for RM and PFS groups, respectively.

The difference in variance is half the size of the difference in
average
loss, and the time period is so short that water loss will skew the
numbers greatly. I'm a lot more interested in days 29 on to avoid
that
water loss.

Quoted message said:

The

Quoted message said:

PFS diet was associated with a significantly higher intake of PUFA and
cholesterol. Despite high cholesterol and fat intakes, neither diet was
associated with significant changes in plasma cholesterol or the plasma
lipoprotein cholesterol profile. While plasma triglycerides were reduced in
both groups, the effect was only statistically significant for the PFS diet.

Something doesn't seem right here. They say that triglycerides were
reduced in both groups, but the effect was only statistically
significant for the PFS diet. We don't know the actual numbers of
course. But it's pretty widely accepted that triglycerides go down
dramatically on any form of LC isn't it?

I think it's the very short 28 days of the study.

Quoted message said:

My own number varies about
4X or more, going from 160 when not on LC, down to 40 when not on LC,
and I eat a mix of both meat, fish, chicken, etc. I've seen lots of
people report dramatic reduction on here as well.

But the reported numbers depend on how long folks have been on
the plan. There's often a temporary increase in total cholesterol
early on and I don't know how fast the triglycerides drop among
the other types. Consider that the 1993 edition of the Atkins book
claimed that 80% of folks see improved numbers after 6 months, and
the 2003 edition claimed that a majority see improved numbers
after 3 months, but neither edition discusses how triglycerides
move when in the mix.

Quoted message said:

So, how could they find that only the group that followed the PFS diet
had any statistically significant reduction in trig? And you would
think if the other group had a major change in trig, they would have
commented on how different it was from the other group in the summary
above. It leads you to believe that it didn't change for one group
and probably didn't change that much for the other?

Any thoughts?

It almost looks like they picked 28 days to make beef look bad and
chicken look good. Go out to 6 months and the difference should
disappear I think ...

Quoted post said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> quoted:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/4/1/23

Quoted message said:

Effects of low carbohydrate diets high in red meats or poultry, fish and
shellfish on plasma lipids and weight loss

Quoted message said:

Abstract (provisional)

Quoted message said:

Background

Quoted message said:

Low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) have been demonstrated to be effective tools
for promoting weight loss and an improved plasma lipid profile.

Good to see this in print.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Such diets
are often associated with increased meat consumption, either poultry, fish,
and shellfish (PFS), which are generally high in polyunsaturated fat (PUFA)
or red meats (RM), generally high in saturated fat (SFA).

I don't know about that. Some studies state that the single biggest
difference between low carb and not is substituting veggies in
place of grains, sweets and potatoes. So increased meat consumption
is more of magazine sound bite misconception or a clip about days
1-14.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fatty acid
profile and content of a diet may influence the plasma lipid profile of
humans. This study examined whether the type of meat consumed could
influence the outcome of an LCD.

I've read studies that suggest that calorie-for-calorie substitutions
of polyunsaturates in place of satured fat can lead to higher loss
rates. There doesn't seem much down side to draining the beef
tallow out of drippings and putting in a similar amount of walnut
oil.

But I wonder what these two versions did to the protein/fat ratios.
Differing protein/fat ratios could easily overwhelm the differing
polyunsat/sat ratios in effects.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Methods

Quoted message said:

Moderately obese subjects consumed two different LCDs as part of a weight
loss regimen: 1) a diet high in foods of mammalian origin (RM) intended to
contain more SFA, or 2) a diet high in PFS intended to contain more PUFA.
Diet dependent changes in body weight, nutritional intake, and plasma lipids
were evaluated during a 28 day study period.

Twenty-eight days is an extremely short time period.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Results

Quoted message said:

Both diets were associated with significant weight loss after 28 days, -5.26
+/- 0.84 kg and -5.74 +/- 0.63 kg for RM and PFS groups, respectively.

The difference in variance is half the size of the difference in
average
loss, and the time period is so short that water loss will skew the
numbers greatly. I'm a lot more interested in days 29 on to avoid
that
water loss.

Quoted message said:

The

Quoted message said:

PFS diet was associated with a significantly higher intake of PUFA and
cholesterol. Despite high cholesterol and fat intakes, neither diet was
associated with significant changes in plasma cholesterol or the plasma
lipoprotein cholesterol profile. While plasma triglycerides were reduced in
both groups, the effect was only statistically significant for the PFS diet.

Something doesn't seem right here. They say that triglycerides were
reduced in both groups, but the effect was only statistically
significant for the PFS diet. We don't know the actual numbers of
course. But it's pretty widely accepted that triglycerides go down
dramatically on any form of LC isn't it?

I think it's the very short 28 days of the study.

Quoted message said:

My own number varies about
4X or more, going from 160 when not on LC, down to 40 when not on LC,
and I eat a mix of both meat, fish, chicken, etc. I've seen lots of
people report dramatic reduction on here as well.

But the reported numbers depend on how long folks have been on
the plan. There's often a temporary increase in total cholesterol
early on and I don't know how fast the triglycerides drop among
the other types. Consider that the 1993 edition of the Atkins book
claimed that 80% of folks see improved numbers after 6 months, and
the 2003 edition claimed that a majority see improved numbers
after 3 months, but neither edition discusses how triglycerides
move when in the mix.

Quoted message said:

So, how could they find that only the group that followed the PFS diet
had any statistically significant reduction in trig? And you would
think if the other group had a major change in trig, they would have
commented on how different it was from the other group in the summary
above. It leads you to believe that it didn't change for one group
and probably didn't change that much for the other?

Any thoughts?

It almost looks like they picked 28 days to make beef look bad and
chicken look good. Go out to 6 months and the difference should
disappear I think ...

I wouldn't invest too much in the data from this study.
You do understand that they only got data from 12 people don't you?

12 people for 28 days is hardly something to base your health upon.

Calories for both "groups" were about 1,400. Appears much of the
weight loss was from water loss.

I wouldn't invest too much in the data from this study.
You do understand that they only got data from 12 people don't you?

12 people for 28 days is hardly something to base your health upon.

Calories for both "groups" were about 1,400. Appears much of the
weight loss was from water loss.

I wouldn't invest too much in the data from this study.
You do understand that they only got data from 12 people don't you?

12 people for 28 days is hardly something to base your health upon.

Calories for both "groups" were about 1,400. Appears much of the
weight loss was from water loss.

I wouldn't invest too much in the data from this study.
You do understand that they only got data from 12 people don't you?

12 people for 28 days is hardly something to base your health upon.

Calories for both "groups" were about 1,400. Appears much of the
weight loss was from water loss.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: I wouldn't invest too much in the data from this study.
:: You do understand that they only got data from 12 people don't you?
::
:: 12 people for 28 days is hardly something to base your health upon.
::
:: Calories for both "groups" were about 1,400. Appears much of the
:: weight loss was from water loss.

To whom are you speaking? I don't see anyone basing anything on
this....most of us here have proven results that continue to be reinforced
with every doctor visit and every 100-mile bike ride completed.

These results posted in journals...if you think them invalid, write to the
EIC.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: I wouldn't invest too much in the data from this study.
:: You do understand that they only got data from 12 people don't you?
::
:: 12 people for 28 days is hardly something to base your health upon.
::
:: Calories for both "groups" were about 1,400. Appears much of the
:: weight loss was from water loss.

To whom are you speaking? I don't see anyone basing anything on
this....most of us here have proven results that continue to be reinforced
with every doctor visit and every 100-mile bike ride completed.

These results posted in journals...if you think them invalid, write to the
EIC.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: I wouldn't invest too much in the data from this study.
:: You do understand that they only got data from 12 people don't you?
::
:: 12 people for 28 days is hardly something to base your health upon.
::
:: Calories for both "groups" were about 1,400. Appears much of the
:: weight loss was from water loss.

To whom are you speaking? I don't see anyone basing anything on
this....most of us here have proven results that continue to be reinforced
with every doctor visit and every 100-mile bike ride completed.

These results posted in journals...if you think them invalid, write to the
EIC.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: I wouldn't invest too much in the data from this study.
:: You do understand that they only got data from 12 people don't you?
::
:: 12 people for 28 days is hardly something to base your health upon.
::
:: Calories for both "groups" were about 1,400. Appears much of the
:: weight loss was from water loss.

To whom are you speaking? I don't see anyone basing anything on
this....most of us here have proven results that continue to be reinforced
with every doctor visit and every 100-mile bike ride completed.

These results posted in journals...if you think them invalid, write to the
EIC.

Doug Freyburger said:

But the reported numbers depend on how long folks have been on
the plan. There's often a temporary increase in total cholesterol
early on and I don't know how fast the triglycerides drop among
the other types. Consider that the 1993 edition of the Atkins book
claimed that 80% of folks see improved numbers after 6 months, and
the 2003 edition claimed that a majority see improved numbers
after 3 months, but neither edition discusses how triglycerides
move when in the mix.

Triglycerides can drop FAST.

I got my hospital records a while back and saw these lipid panels:

On 5/30: CHO 187, TRI 248, HDL 34, LDL (CALC) 103
On 6/2: CHO 107, TRI 121, HDL 24, LDL (CALC): 59

My total cholesterol dropped a lot, and my triglycerides and LDL both
were cut in half in just a few days. Unfortunately, the HDL dropped also.

IMO, reading all the other stuff in the hospital records, the
significant thing that changed in between those readings was that they
figured out my insulin and got my blood glucose (bg) under control. My
bg was over 300 when admitted, and on the initial insulin program, they
got it into the 200s through 5/31. Then they switched me to a
basal/bolus routine and it dropped to 140ish on 6/1 and was in the 120s
thereafter until discharge.

Lower blood glucose can lower triglycerides FAST. Most folks here
aren't gonna have huge changes like I did since their blood glucose is
unlikely to be that insanely high (and if it is, get your butt to
alt.support.diabetes!). But it's quite clear that less sugar in your
blood lowers triglycerides an awful lot, and low-carb obviously lowers bg.

Quoted message said:

It almost looks like they picked 28 days to make beef look bad and
chicken look good. Go out to 6 months and the difference should
disappear I think ...

I disagree a tad here. There is more to fat than just saying it's all
OK. I don't think any of it but the trans fats are actually *bad*, but
there are still some better than others.

Presumably, people eating more fish are getting more omega 3s, which is
going to improve their lipid panels.

People who don't like fish much can accomplish similar improvement
taking fish oil tablets. I've upped my fish intake since the heart
attack, with stuff like tuna and tilapia that I don't really like much,
but don't despise, and scallops which I love but can't afford as often
as I'd like. But I absolutely take my fish oil tablets daily also.

Also, most beef and pork nowadays is grain-fed and has a pretty crappy
fatty acid profile compared to the grass-fed stuff - and much less CLA
as well as less viatmins A and D (the bioactive form of vitamin D being
particularly significant for heart health).

I've personally switched entirely to grass-fed meats *and* dairy
products. They're more expensive, so I do eat somewhat less than
before, making up the difference by getting more fats from olives, nuts
and avocados and their oils.

Low-carb is definetly the way to go, and the authors of this study
*began* with that assumption.

But low-carb is not the entirety of nutrition, there's still a big
difference beween a bowl of CarbSmart vs. a bowl of broccoli. It seems
to me that looking at differences between diets *beyond* low-carb is a
very good thing and I hope we see a lot more of this in the future.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Doug Freyburger said:

But the reported numbers depend on how long folks have been on
the plan. There's often a temporary increase in total cholesterol
early on and I don't know how fast the triglycerides drop among
the other types. Consider that the 1993 edition of the Atkins book
claimed that 80% of folks see improved numbers after 6 months, and
the 2003 edition claimed that a majority see improved numbers
after 3 months, but neither edition discusses how triglycerides
move when in the mix.

Triglycerides can drop FAST.

I got my hospital records a while back and saw these lipid panels:

On 5/30: CHO 187, TRI 248, HDL 34, LDL (CALC) 103
On 6/2: CHO 107, TRI 121, HDL 24, LDL (CALC): 59

My total cholesterol dropped a lot, and my triglycerides and LDL both
were cut in half in just a few days. Unfortunately, the HDL dropped also.

IMO, reading all the other stuff in the hospital records, the
significant thing that changed in between those readings was that they
figured out my insulin and got my blood glucose (bg) under control. My
bg was over 300 when admitted, and on the initial insulin program, they
got it into the 200s through 5/31. Then they switched me to a
basal/bolus routine and it dropped to 140ish on 6/1 and was in the 120s
thereafter until discharge.

Lower blood glucose can lower triglycerides FAST. Most folks here
aren't gonna have huge changes like I did since their blood glucose is
unlikely to be that insanely high (and if it is, get your butt to
alt.support.diabetes!). But it's quite clear that less sugar in your
blood lowers triglycerides an awful lot, and low-carb obviously lowers bg.

Quoted message said:

It almost looks like they picked 28 days to make beef look bad and
chicken look good. Go out to 6 months and the difference should
disappear I think ...

I disagree a tad here. There is more to fat than just saying it's all
OK. I don't think any of it but the trans fats are actually *bad*, but
there are still some better than others.

Presumably, people eating more fish are getting more omega 3s, which is
going to improve their lipid panels.

People who don't like fish much can accomplish similar improvement
taking fish oil tablets. I've upped my fish intake since the heart
attack, with stuff like tuna and tilapia that I don't really like much,
but don't despise, and scallops which I love but can't afford as often
as I'd like. But I absolutely take my fish oil tablets daily also.

Also, most beef and pork nowadays is grain-fed and has a pretty crappy
fatty acid profile compared to the grass-fed stuff - and much less CLA
as well as less viatmins A and D (the bioactive form of vitamin D being
particularly significant for heart health).

I've personally switched entirely to grass-fed meats *and* dairy
products. They're more expensive, so I do eat somewhat less than
before, making up the difference by getting more fats from olives, nuts
and avocados and their oils.

Low-carb is definetly the way to go, and the authors of this study
*began* with that assumption.

But low-carb is not the entirety of nutrition, there's still a big
difference beween a bowl of CarbSmart vs. a bowl of broccoli. It seems
to me that looking at differences between diets *beyond* low-carb is a
very good thing and I hope we see a lot more of this in the future.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Doug Freyburger said:

But the reported numbers depend on how long folks have been on
the plan. There's often a temporary increase in total cholesterol
early on and I don't know how fast the triglycerides drop among
the other types. Consider that the 1993 edition of the Atkins book
claimed that 80% of folks see improved numbers after 6 months, and
the 2003 edition claimed that a majority see improved numbers
after 3 months, but neither edition discusses how triglycerides
move when in the mix.

Triglycerides can drop FAST.

I got my hospital records a while back and saw these lipid panels:

On 5/30: CHO 187, TRI 248, HDL 34, LDL (CALC) 103
On 6/2: CHO 107, TRI 121, HDL 24, LDL (CALC): 59

My total cholesterol dropped a lot, and my triglycerides and LDL both
were cut in half in just a few days. Unfortunately, the HDL dropped also.

IMO, reading all the other stuff in the hospital records, the
significant thing that changed in between those readings was that they
figured out my insulin and got my blood glucose (bg) under control. My
bg was over 300 when admitted, and on the initial insulin program, they
got it into the 200s through 5/31. Then they switched me to a
basal/bolus routine and it dropped to 140ish on 6/1 and was in the 120s
thereafter until discharge.

Lower blood glucose can lower triglycerides FAST. Most folks here
aren't gonna have huge changes like I did since their blood glucose is
unlikely to be that insanely high (and if it is, get your butt to
alt.support.diabetes!). But it's quite clear that less sugar in your
blood lowers triglycerides an awful lot, and low-carb obviously lowers bg.

Quoted message said:

It almost looks like they picked 28 days to make beef look bad and
chicken look good. Go out to 6 months and the difference should
disappear I think ...

I disagree a tad here. There is more to fat than just saying it's all
OK. I don't think any of it but the trans fats are actually *bad*, but
there are still some better than others.

Presumably, people eating more fish are getting more omega 3s, which is
going to improve their lipid panels.

People who don't like fish much can accomplish similar improvement
taking fish oil tablets. I've upped my fish intake since the heart
attack, with stuff like tuna and tilapia that I don't really like much,
but don't despise, and scallops which I love but can't afford as often
as I'd like. But I absolutely take my fish oil tablets daily also.

Also, most beef and pork nowadays is grain-fed and has a pretty crappy
fatty acid profile compared to the grass-fed stuff - and much less CLA
as well as less viatmins A and D (the bioactive form of vitamin D being
particularly significant for heart health).

I've personally switched entirely to grass-fed meats *and* dairy
products. They're more expensive, so I do eat somewhat less than
before, making up the difference by getting more fats from olives, nuts
and avocados and their oils.

Low-carb is definetly the way to go, and the authors of this study
*began* with that assumption.

But low-carb is not the entirety of nutrition, there's still a big
difference beween a bowl of CarbSmart vs. a bowl of broccoli. It seems
to me that looking at differences between diets *beyond* low-carb is a
very good thing and I hope we see a lot more of this in the future.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/