Atkins vindicated yet again!

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

Study: Low-Fat May Not Be Best for Heart

story.news.yahoo.comnewsOpen ↗
=/nm/20040504/hl_nm/fat_heart_dc

Yes and no. There is still the fact that the Atkins diet
only works because protein brings about satiety, there is no
actual metabolic advantage at play-as Atkins always
believed. So whilst the low-fat mantra needs significant
rethinking, the fundamental rule of calories in versus
calories out still stands.

Havirrion said:

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

Study: Low-Fat May Not Be Best for Heart

story.news.yahoo.comnewsOpen ↗
u=/nm/20040504/hl_nm/fat_heart_dc

Yes and no. There is still the fact that the Atkins diet
only works because protein brings about satiety, there is
no actual metabolic advantage at play-as Atkins always
believed.

Actually, it's fat that brings about satiety. In any case,
ketosis is real and brings real benefits to the body as
recent posts on sci.life-extension showed.

Quoted message said:

So whilst the low-fat mantra needs significant rethinking,
the fundamental rule of calories in versus calories out
still stands.

I don't buy the "calories in vs. calories out" argument for
one simple reason: energy is not the only thing the body
exchanges with its outside. Not to mention that the way the
caloric content of food is measured in the lab may not
result in the same amount inside the body.

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Maybe, As the snip below shows, the percentage of fat in the study is not
unlike the current mixed reccomended diet, and also recall that atkins
said to limit saturated fat to 20 percent:

"But, he said, the findings do indicate that moderation, and
not tight restriction, is the way to go. According to
Pendergast, that means getting about 30 to 35 percent of
calories from fat -- at or slightly more than the level
health officials currently recommend.

But he also stressed the importance of calorie balance,
which means eating only enough to meet the body's
calorie expenditure. Fat has more calories per gram than
either carbohydrates or protein, and if a person takes
in more calories as a result of eating more fat, weight
gain may follow."

Quoted message said:

Study: Low-Fat May Not Be Best for Heart

story.news.yahoo.comnewsOpen ↗
/nm/20040504/hl_nm/fa t_heart_dc

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

Havirrion said:

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

Study: Low-Fat May Not Be Best for Heart

story.news.yahoo.comnewsOpen ↗
u=/nm/20040504/hl_nm/fat_heart_dc

Yes and no. There is still the fact that the Atkins diet
only works because protein brings about satiety, there is
no actual metabolic advantage at play-as Atkins always
believed.

Actually, it's fat that brings about satiety. In any case,
ketosis is real and brings real benefits to the body as
recent posts on sci.life-extension showed.

Quoted message said:

So whilst the low-fat mantra needs significant rethinking,
the fundamental rule of calories in versus calories out
still stands.

I don't buy the "calories in vs. calories out" argument
for one simple reason: energy is not the only thing the
body exchanges with its outside. Not to mention that the
way the caloric content of food is measured in the lab may
not result in the same amount inside the body.

A BBC science programme called "Horizon" did an interesting
study on Atkins a few months back. The results proved that
ketosis creates a tiny metabolic advantage (a few calories)
and that it was protein and not fat causing satiety and thus
resulting in people eating less. Atkins did a lot of good
things in fighting the low-cal mindset but he was
fundamentally wrong in his understanding of the biology
behind the diet he advocated.

"Havirrion" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:VPOlc.353$4m5.>

Quoted message said:

A BBC science programme called "Horizon" did an
interesting study on Atkins a few months back. The results
proved that ketosis creates a tiny metabolic advantage (a
few calories) and that it was protein and not fat causing
satiety and thus resulting in people eating less. Atkins
did a lot of good things in fighting the low-cal mindset
but he was fundamentally wrong in his understanding of the
biology behind the diet he advocated.

As I recall, the 'orthodox' scientists who did 'Horizon''s
calorie experiment using the sealed chamber with 'Atkins'
and 'Non-Atkins' twins inside them made an idiotic and self-
serving error: they measured air temperature changes in the
chamber and the energy each twin excreted via his urine *but
failed to analyse the stool contents and measure the
calories excreted via that route*.

Also, they failed to 'cross over' the two twins so that
the 'Atkins' one then became the 'non-Atkins' one, and
vice versa.

Incidentally, the established science of 'nutrition' has
reason to be thoroughly ashamed of its minimal level of
achievement when the world observes that it takes *a popular
science TV programme* to try and find out whether the
'satiety' experienced on Atkins is due to the protein or the
fat. Sheesh!

Philippic

I could have sworn I recently saw a study where people on
Atkins who had a 300 calorie surplus as compared to the non-
Atkins group still lost more weight than the non-Atkins
group (I believe both groups were on a weight loss regimen).
I remember one of the authors of the study being very
surprised at this and not being able to offer an
explanation.

But I agree that calorie budget is the most important factor
for weight loss/mantenance, however macronutrient selection
is also very important for disease prevention in the long
term. In my mind the optimum diet for longevity is a lean
meat + low starch veggies diet which happens to resemble the
Atkins diet.

I don't know if the media is to blame or Atkins himself for
this portrayal of the Atkins diet as consisting of slabs of
greasy meat and bacon sizzling in an inch of grease but
that is unfortunate given the number of people subscribing
to the Atkins diet. It is at least encouraging that people
are thinking about nutrition to a greater degree. Let's see
if it lasts.

Havirrion <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

Study: Low-Fat May Not Be Best for Heart

story.news.yahoo.comnewsOpen ↗
&u=/nm/20040504/hl_nm/fat_heart_dc

Yes and no. There is still the fact that the Atkins diet
only works because protein brings about satiety, there is
no actual metabolic advantage at play-as Atkins always
believed. So whilst the low-fat mantra needs significant
rethinking, the fundamental rule of calories in versus
calories out still stands.

"Alex Horvath" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ab2306ad.0405041402.647184f4@posting.

Quoted message said:

I don't know if the media is to blame or Atkins
himself for this portrayal of the Atkins diet as
consisting of slabs of greasy meat and bacon sizzling
in an inch of grease

I suspect that most 'media people' only take the trouble
to look at the somewhat more extreme 'induction diet' that
the book presents first, and draw unwarranted conclusions
from it. You have to go *200 pages in* - more than half of
the book! - before you see what the diet involves in the
long-term...

If Atkins had started with a big chapter that outlined what
dieters *would eventually be eating* (on their 'Maintenance'
diet, say), things might not have gone quite so badly awry -
though of course maliciously mendacious misrepresentations
of his diet would still be appearing.

Philippic

Quoted message said:

Maybe, As the snip below shows, the percentage of fat in
the study is

not

Quoted message said:

unlike the current mixed reccomended diet, and also recall
that atkins said to limit saturated fat to 20 percent:

Not a big deal. It is hard to find consistent source of
saturated fat that does not come with MUFA and PUFA.

That said, by eating fatty pork alone, saturated fat will
acount for about 30% of your calories intake. Add some
veggies and perhaps some vegetable oil and you have 20%.

So he did not said to "limit" sat fat intake, but 20% is
what average low-carber in initial phases of diet eats.

Mirek

Quoted message said:

A BBC science programme called "Horizon" did an
interesting study on Atkins a few months back. The results
proved that ketosis creates a

tiny

Quoted message said:

metabolic advantage (a few calories)

I have not seen the programme, but from what was posted
here, that experiment lasted only 2 weeks. In other studies,
metabolic slowdown (or speedup) appears to begin after three
weeks on diet.

Quoted message said:

and that it was protein and not fat causing satiety and
thus resulting in people eating less. Atkins did a lot of
good things in fighting the low-cal mindset but he was
fundamentally wrong in his understanding of the biology
behind the

diet

Quoted message said:

he advocated.

Well, I think he was great practitioner. I think too that
many of his "scientific" explanations were wrong. OTOH, his
process does seem to work very well.

Mirek

"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Havirrion said:

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

Study: Low-Fat May Not Be Best for Heart

story.news.yahoo.comnewsOpen ↗
nm/20040504/hl_nm/fat_heart_dc

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes and no. There is still the fact that the Atkins diet
only works because protein brings about satiety, there is
no actual metabolic advantage at play-as Atkins always
believed.

Actually, it's fat that brings about satiety. In any case,
ketosis is real and brings real benefits to the body as
recent posts on sci.life-extension showed.

i missed that post, can you outline the benefits please.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So whilst the low-fat mantra needs significant
rethinking, the fundamental rule of calories in versus
calories out still stands.

I don't buy the "calories in vs. calories out" argument
for one simple reason: energy is not the only thing the
body exchanges with its outside. Not to mention that the
way the caloric content of food is measured in the lab may
not result in the same amount inside the body.

what other things does the body exchange with the outside,
that you think are relevant to this?

Keano said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, it's fat that brings about satiety. In any
case, ketosis is real and brings real benefits to the
body as recent posts on sci.life-extension showed.

i missed that post, can you outline the benefits please.

You need to dig the archives on this one. Google is your
friend. Search for "ketosis" and "ketogenic".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't buy the "calories in vs. calories out" argument
for one simple reason: energy is not the only thing the
body exchanges with its outside. Not to mention that the
way the caloric content of food is measured in the lab
may not result in the same amount inside the body.

what other things does the body exchange with the outside,
that you think are relevant to this?

Matter. Matter goes in and matter comes out.

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

Keano said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, it's fat that brings about satiety. In any
case, ketosis is real and brings real benefits to the
body as recent posts on sci.life-extension showed.

i missed that post, can you outline the benefits please.

You need to dig the archives on this one. Google is your
friend. Search for "ketosis" and "ketogenic".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't buy the "calories in vs. calories out" argument
for one simple reason: energy is not the only thing the
body exchanges with its outside. Not to mention that the
way the caloric content of food is measured in the lab
may not result in the same amount inside the body.

what other things does the body exchange with the outside,
that you think are relevant to this?

Matter. Matter goes in and matter comes out.

Oh dear. Try as we might we will never make you guys
understand science.

Havirrion said:

Quoted message said:

Matter. Matter goes in and matter comes out.

Oh dear. Try as we might we will never make you guys
understand science.

Bwahahahaha! So, you deny that humans exchange matter with
the environment?

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

If we are doing matter in and matter out balances, a diet of
hay would provide max carbs, max out and max weight loss;
and would be a "bomb" of a kind. Thus far, the energy
balance model accounts for weight status well, what have you
in support of matter differences in typical diets that would
make a substantual difference?

Quoted message said:

In all regards, you moron. Matter is what gives the body
it's mass, not energy. If there are matter exchanges, you
need to take that into account, don't you? Or, in other
words, unless you are a nuclear bomb, your body doesn't
lose weight by shedding "calories".

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Yes we do understand and say it is a trivial point. A lumber
jack might eat 10000 calories to maintain physical activity,
muscle movement and heat products. Will the sum of all the
"matter" he expells be so much more then a computer jockey
who maintains the same weight at 2200 calories? If one loses
weight some of the physical tissue of the body will be less
in part because it takes whatever less of energy not being
consumed to maintain that tissue,ex. fat cells and muscle
and organ tissue. To point out that all of the energy intake
is in the form of matter and that some of the products of
metabolism are in the form of matter is trivial, the energy
model accounts for all of it. The person who previously was
180 lbs, starved to death and was 90 lbs at death lost
matter alright, all along to the tune of the energy balance
during the process.

Quoted message said:

No, you just don't understand what he's getting at. If
you lose exacly 1lb of fat, then exactly one pound of
mass is going to leave your body, somehow, some way.
Some of that mass is going to leave your lungs as carbon
that was oxidized to CO2. Also some mass leaves the
lungs as water. Some mass will be excreted through your
skin as oil, keratin, water. Some mass will go into the
growth of hair and nails that you either cut or get worn
away. Some is other dead cells that get shed, such as
the skin. And of course mass will leave your ass and
kidneys in various forms.

Of course, all those chemicals that leave your body will
have an average chemical potential energy that is lower
than the chemicals you ingested and inspired. But still, if
a person is losing a pound of mass per week, then you can
be sure that there is one less pound of mass going in them
every week than is going out.

-----------
Proton Soup

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by an endless series of hobgoblins."
- - H.L. Mencken

Here is the important bit:

"influence of satiety on compliance"

This was a survey of research, notresearch. One standard
suggestion offered elsewhere is that folk actually eat fewer
calories because they stop eating sooner. The blurb is
poorly worded. Only ng and otherwise located anti-science
cranks want some majic in lc type diets.

Quoted message said:

I haven't read the full paper, but FWIW, this seems to make
the opposite point than was intended. This seems to support
the idea that a calorie is NOT a calorie, i.e. the
unexplained effect of high protein and/or low carb diets,
and the need for further research to try to explain it.

Lyle McDonald said:

Quoted message said:

It is a waste of time, he is convinced thee is some kind
of metabolic
> hocus pocus going on.

Seems to be a common malady. But I've said my peice, he
can wallow in his own ignorance. He mgiht wish to read
the paper below if he desires to get out of that bog.

Lyle

***
1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S.

Is a calorie a calorie?

Buchholz AC, Schoeller DA.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-
Madison.

The aim of this review was to evaluate data regarding
potential thermodynamic mechanisms for increased rates of
weight loss in subjects consuming diets high in protein
and/or low in carbohydrate. Studies that compared weight
loss and energy expenditure in adults consuming diets
high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate with those in
adults consuming diets low in fat were reviewed. In
addition, studies that measured the metabolizable energy
of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates were reviewed. Diets
high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an
approximately 2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of
treatment

.

Quoted message said:

Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the
availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy
expenditure could explain these differences in weight
loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie
regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet.
Further research on differences in the composition of
weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance
with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the
observed increase in weight loss with diets high in
protein and/or low in carbohydrate.

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

Havirrion said:

Quoted message said:

Matter. Matter goes in and matter comes out.

Oh dear. Try as we might we will never make you guys
understand science.

Bwahahahaha! So, you deny that humans exchange matter with
the environment?

In what regard? We shed skin and other cells all the time
but I don't think this is what you are reaching at. As for
bodily functions, I will be blunt. How you get your dietry
calories does not significantly effect the calorific value
of your [censored], short of eating Olestra potato chips.

On Wed, 05 May 2004 18:27:54 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease

root@localhost. said:

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Try moving to China if you don't like it. The alternative
will helpfully fit your soul.

Havirrion said:

Socialism is a Mental Disease said:

Havirrion said:

>Matter. Matter goes in and matter comes out.

Oh dear. Try as we might we will never make you guys
understand science.

Bwahahahaha! So, you deny that humans exchange matter
with the environment?

In what regard? We shed skin and other cells all the time
but I don't think this is what you are reaching at. As for
bodily functions, I will be blunt. How you get your dietry
calories does not significantly effect the calorific value
of your [censored], short of eating Olestra potato chips.

In all regards, you moron. Matter is what gives the body
it's mass, not energy. If there are matter exchanges, you
need to take that into account, don't you? Or, in other
words, unless you are a nuclear bomb, your body doesn't lose
weight by shedding "calories".

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson