Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet



Doug Lerner wrote:

> On 5/18/04 10:44 PM, in article
> [email protected], "Diarmid
> Logan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount
> > of weight, between five and eight kilograms for the
> > Atkins group and three and eight kilos for the low fat
> > group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost all their
> > weight in the first six months, then remained at a
> > steady weight.
>
> Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins. After
> six months I entered a six month stall, and have only
> broken that stall by switching to a low-calorie diet.
>
> doug

No switching is required with the 2PD approach which can be
dovetailed with reduced carbs if you choose.

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

Would suggest you ask your doctor about it.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Mr./Ms. Diarmid, may I suggest you not cross post to several
newsgroups. We are plagued buy the troll behavior of an
infamous "Dr." who hangs out on one ng mostly but is
eagar to do cross posting. Many of us think he or someone
who gets a kick out of doing so, cross post on purpose in
order to permit him to say he didn't start the cross
posting. Leave him in that ng alone and let the rest of
us not have to see his self rightious trolling and other
self promoting behaviors.
 
Mr./Ms. Diarmid, may I suggest you not cross post to several
newsgroups. We are plagued buy the troll behavior of an
infamous "Dr." who hangs out on one ng mostly but is
eagar to do cross posting. Many of us think he or someone
who gets a kick out of doing so, cross post on purpose in
order to permit him to say he didn't start the cross
posting. Leave him in that ng alone and let the rest of
us not have to see his self rightious trolling and other
self promoting behaviors.
 
The LAST thing anyone needs is a drooling crossposter like
tis

When shills spread things all ofer the newsgroups, we know
that their sock puppets are not far behind

Diarmid Logan wrote:

<snip>

--
"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as
history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls
observing from the present" Glen Cook
 
On 18 May 2004 06:44:59 -0700, [email protected] (Diarmid Logan)
wrote:

Cross-posts to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-
carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.card-
iology retained for this post.

>Stern's year-long study (Annals of Internal Medicine, vol
>140, p778) was twice the length of any previous study. Half
>the patients followed the Atkins regime, limiting daily
>carbohydrate intake to just 30 grams. The rest tried losing
>weight through a conventional low-fat diet much richer in
>carbohydrates.

Incorrect.

There is no doubt that the results were "good news for
Atkins dieters", as the author stated, but the study was
on general lower carb dieting, not specifically the
Atkins method.

One of the problems with reports like this is the way
meanings change with skewed repetition, in the news media
and on newsgroups.

The abstract of the original report from Stern is at :
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/140/10/778

It is worth reading the original, instead of the media hype.

The only mention I can find in it of Atkins is :

"Although it has been speculated that a low-carbohydrate
diet would facilitate weight loss by promoting the
metabolism of adipose tissue
(13), our data suggest that weight loss differences may be
explained by lower caloric intake on a low-
carbohydrate diet".

The reference 13 is:

"13. Atkins RC. Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution. New York:
Avon Books; 1998."

The methodology is described as:

"Diet groups met in weekly counseling sessions for 4 weeks,
followed by 11 monthly sessions. Participants on the low-
carbohydrate diet were instructed only to reduce
carbohydrate intake to less than 30 g per day. Participants
on the conventional diet were instructed to reduce caloric
intake by 500 calories per day, with less than 30% of
calories derived from fat, in accordance with the National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines (3)."

At no stage is it stated that they followed the Atkins diet,
although there may be obvious similarities. Unlike the
similar Atkins-funded study, no mention is made of
supplements or specialty foods.

I found the study interesting and I hope that it leads to
further research, particularly the implications for diabetic
health such as glycemic control and lipids improvements. But
I fear that the instant association with Atkins, rather than
the wider concept of lower carb eating, will lead to it
being disregarded by the medical establishment.

So let's stop instantly jumping to the conclusion, as the
news reporters did, that the diet studied was Atkins.

Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. Remove weight and
carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
 
On 18 May 2004 06:44:59 -0700, [email protected] (Diarmid Logan)
wrote:

Cross-posts to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-
carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.card-
iology retained for this post.

>Stern's year-long study (Annals of Internal Medicine, vol
>140, p778) was twice the length of any previous study. Half
>the patients followed the Atkins regime, limiting daily
>carbohydrate intake to just 30 grams. The rest tried losing
>weight through a conventional low-fat diet much richer in
>carbohydrates.

Incorrect.

There is no doubt that the results were "good news for
Atkins dieters", as the author stated, but the study was
on general lower carb dieting, not specifically the
Atkins method.

One of the problems with reports like this is the way
meanings change with skewed repetition, in the news media
and on newsgroups.

The abstract of the original report from Stern is at :
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/140/10/778

It is worth reading the original, instead of the media hype.

The only mention I can find in it of Atkins is :

"Although it has been speculated that a low-carbohydrate
diet would facilitate weight loss by promoting the
metabolism of adipose tissue
(13), our data suggest that weight loss differences may be
explained by lower caloric intake on a low-
carbohydrate diet".

The reference 13 is:

"13. Atkins RC. Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution. New York:
Avon Books; 1998."

The methodology is described as:

"Diet groups met in weekly counseling sessions for 4 weeks,
followed by 11 monthly sessions. Participants on the low-
carbohydrate diet were instructed only to reduce
carbohydrate intake to less than 30 g per day. Participants
on the conventional diet were instructed to reduce caloric
intake by 500 calories per day, with less than 30% of
calories derived from fat, in accordance with the National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines (3)."

At no stage is it stated that they followed the Atkins diet,
although there may be obvious similarities. Unlike the
similar Atkins-funded study, no mention is made of
supplements or specialty foods.

I found the study interesting and I hope that it leads to
further research, particularly the implications for diabetic
health such as glycemic control and lipids improvements. But
I fear that the instant association with Atkins, rather than
the wider concept of lower carb eating, will lead to it
being disregarded by the medical establishment.

So let's stop instantly jumping to the conclusion, as the
news reporters did, that the diet studied was Atkins.

Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. Remove weight and
carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
 
On 18 May 2004 16:41:59 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>"But my question is what is the effect of each type of diet
>on a diabetic?"
>
>From the year long research:
>
>" In the subgroup of 54 persons with diabetes, hemoglobin
>A[1c] levels improved more with the low-carbohydrate diet,
>but the difference was not statistically significant in
>sensitivity analyses. Both groups had similar changes in
>other lipids and in insulin sensitivity."

Stern is a little more positive in:

"Glycemic Control and Insulin Sensitivity

The difference in the response of glucose and insulin
sensitivity between diet groups by 1 year was not
significant (Table 3). Despite this, the hemoglobin A1c
level in the small group of persons with diabetes (n = 54)
decreased more in the low-carbohydrate group, after
adjustment for baseline differences (Table 3). This
difference remained significant after weight loss amount was
added to the model (P = 0.019), suggesting a direct effect
of the low-carbohydrate diet on glycemic control. However,
the significance of the difference in the response of
hemoglobin A1c was not confirmed by an analysis that
included only the persons who completed the study (adjusted
P = 0.080) or when baseline values were carried forward for
missing persons (adjusted P = 0.18). Two persons on the low-
carbohydrate diet and 4 on the conventional diet developed
diabetes at 1 year (P > 0.2)."

Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. Remove weight and
carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
 
On 18 May 2004 16:41:59 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>"But my question is what is the effect of each type of diet
>on a diabetic?"
>
>From the year long research:
>
>" In the subgroup of 54 persons with diabetes, hemoglobin
>A[1c] levels improved more with the low-carbohydrate diet,
>but the difference was not statistically significant in
>sensitivity analyses. Both groups had similar changes in
>other lipids and in insulin sensitivity."

Stern is a little more positive in:

"Glycemic Control and Insulin Sensitivity

The difference in the response of glucose and insulin
sensitivity between diet groups by 1 year was not
significant (Table 3). Despite this, the hemoglobin A1c
level in the small group of persons with diabetes (n = 54)
decreased more in the low-carbohydrate group, after
adjustment for baseline differences (Table 3). This
difference remained significant after weight loss amount was
added to the model (P = 0.019), suggesting a direct effect
of the low-carbohydrate diet on glycemic control. However,
the significance of the difference in the response of
hemoglobin A1c was not confirmed by an analysis that
included only the persons who completed the study (adjusted
P = 0.080) or when baseline values were carried forward for
missing persons (adjusted P = 0.18). Two persons on the low-
carbohydrate diet and 4 on the conventional diet developed
diabetes at 1 year (P > 0.2)."

Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. Remove weight and
carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> "No switching is required with the 2PD approach which can
> be dovetailed with reduced carbs if you choose. "
>
> Even more effective is the 2 minute diet, eat anything
> within the time period from any diet, even using a
> different diet each meal, switching is encouraged.

If that works for you, by all means go for it. It is not my
loss if something else works for you. After all, the 2PD
approach is a public service on my part that addresses a
real public need.

Truth is simple.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
[email protected] wrote:

> "No switching is required with the 2PD approach which can
> be dovetailed with reduced carbs if you choose. "
>
> Even more effective is the 2 minute diet, eat anything
> within the time period from any diet, even using a
> different diet each meal, switching is encouraged.

If that works for you, by all means go for it. It is not my
loss if something else works for you. After all, the 2PD
approach is a public service on my part that addresses a
real public need.

Truth is simple.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
You don't have to switch to another way of eating to reduce
the calories. Just east less. I can't see how it would be
beneficial to start eating things that make you hungrier.

In news:[email protected], Peanutjake
<[email protected]> stated
|
| So maybe that is the secret for losing weight. Go on
| Atkins for 6 months then switch to a lower calorie diet.
|
| But my question is what is the effect of each type of diet
| on a diabetic?
|
| PJ
 
You don't have to switch to another way of eating to reduce
the calories. Just east less. I can't see how it would be
beneficial to start eating things that make you hungrier.

In news:[email protected], Peanutjake
<[email protected]> stated
|
| So maybe that is the secret for losing weight. Go on
| Atkins for 6 months then switch to a lower calorie diet.
|
| But my question is what is the effect of each type of diet
| on a diabetic?
|
| PJ
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:16:50 -0400, Jackie Patti <[email protected]>
wrote:

X-posts to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-
carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.card-
iology retained.

>The second study showed significantly better glycemic
>control on low-carb.
>
>Which seems frankly so damned obvious to me that it seems
>ridiculous to need a study.
>
>People with impaired carbohydrate metabolism should limit
>carbs! Surprise!
>

Um, Jackie, I totally agree with you. However, from the web-
site of the American Diabetes Association (the emphasis in
capitals is mine):

http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-
recipes/nutrition/starches.jsp

"The message today: EAT MORE STARCHES! It is healthiest for
everyone to eat more whole grains, beans, and starchy
vegetables such as peas, corn, potatoes and winter squash.
Starches are good for you because they have very little fat,
saturated fat, or cholesterol. They are packed with
vitamins, minerals, and fiber. Yes, foods with carbohydrate
-- starches, vegetables, fruits, and dairy products -- will
raise your blood glucose more quickly than meats and fats,
but they are the healthiest foods for you. YOUR DOCTOR MAY
NEED TO ADJUST YOUR MEDICATIONS WHEN YOU EAT MORE
CARBOHYDRATES. You may need to increase your activity level
or try spacing carbohydrates throughout the day."

As you said:

>Blond moments in science...

That is why we need the studies, and lots more of them from
reputable impartial research organisations.

Because, although I'm not american, my mob seem to follow
yours when it comes to dispensing this as the best advice
for diabetics.

Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. Remove weight and
carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:16:50 -0400, Jackie Patti <[email protected]>
wrote:

X-posts to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-
carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.card-
iology retained.

>The second study showed significantly better glycemic
>control on low-carb.
>
>Which seems frankly so damned obvious to me that it seems
>ridiculous to need a study.
>
>People with impaired carbohydrate metabolism should limit
>carbs! Surprise!
>

Um, Jackie, I totally agree with you. However, from the web-
site of the American Diabetes Association (the emphasis in
capitals is mine):

http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-
recipes/nutrition/starches.jsp

"The message today: EAT MORE STARCHES! It is healthiest for
everyone to eat more whole grains, beans, and starchy
vegetables such as peas, corn, potatoes and winter squash.
Starches are good for you because they have very little fat,
saturated fat, or cholesterol. They are packed with
vitamins, minerals, and fiber. Yes, foods with carbohydrate
-- starches, vegetables, fruits, and dairy products -- will
raise your blood glucose more quickly than meats and fats,
but they are the healthiest foods for you. YOUR DOCTOR MAY
NEED TO ADJUST YOUR MEDICATIONS WHEN YOU EAT MORE
CARBOHYDRATES. You may need to increase your activity level
or try spacing carbohydrates throughout the day."

As you said:

>Blond moments in science...

That is why we need the studies, and lots more of them from
reputable impartial research organisations.

Because, although I'm not american, my mob seem to follow
yours when it comes to dispensing this as the best advice
for diabetics.

Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. Remove weight and
carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
 
"Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> píse v diskusním
>príspevku
>news:[email protected]...
>> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995003
>
>> was twice the length of any previous study. Half the
>> patients followed the Atkins regime, limiting daily
>> carbohydrate intake to just 30 grams.
>
>Ooops. Limiting carbs intake to 30 grams is NOT
>Atkins regime.
>
>These are induction levels and you are not supposed to be
>so low for more then couple of weeks, most prefferable 14
>days only. Certainly not for one year.

I wish people would at least familiarize with the basics
of Atkins before making a criticism of the study.
Induction is no more than 20 grams. 30 grams is well
within the OWL range.

--
marcio at compudimensions.com
 
X-post retained

On 18-May-2004, Alan
<[email protected]> posted:

> . . . our data suggest that weight loss differences may be
> explained by lower caloric intake on a low-carbohydrate
> diet".

Atkins is irrelevant. It's just a label. We're not doing it
to lose weight. (or did I miss something?)

--
Bob Dx T1 4/4/2003, just a few units of novorapid when
I need it (trying zeroish carb - kiddies, do not try
this at home)
 
I have lost 73 pounds on Atkins since last July! I did level
off in February, and my weight has not gone up or down
since. I consume roughly 50 to 60 carbs a day now.

My cholestorol went down from 270 to 185!

I no longer eat Bread, pasta, ANY sugar, etc. etc. and have
never felt better in years.

I DO need to exercise more though.

Just my observations. I'm a DEDICATED ATKINS fanatic!

h1
 
On 18-May-2004, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:

> from the web-site of the American Diabetes Association
> (the emphasis in capitals is mine):
>
> http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-
> recipes/nutrition/starches.jsp
>
> "The message today: EAT MORE STARCHES!

OH MY GOD, I thought you were joking. Unless someone's
hacked their web page. They can't be for real? can they?

--
Bob Dx T1 4/4/2003, just a few units of novorapid when
I need it (trying zeroish carb - kiddies, do not try
this at home)
 
Diarmid Logan wrote:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995003
>
> Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
>
> Half the patients followed the Atkins regime, limiting
> daily carbohydrate intake to just 30 grams.

That's not Atkins. That's hardly any different from
Induction. Ye gods I'd love some study to be done on real
actual Atkins what it really seriously says in the
directions.

> The rest tried losing weight through a conventional low-
> fat diet much richer in carbohydrates.

Yup. Few say low fat diets don't work. Many say they are
hard to stick to. In the long run easy to stick to wins.

> By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of
> weight, between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins
> group and three and eight kilos for the low fat group. But
> the Atkins dieters lost almost all their weight in the
> first six months, then remained at a steady weight.

Six months. Ah, the magic number that Dr A warned about.
Not supposed to stay low for more than six months according
to the book.

I wonder how many hit their ideal weight and stopped losing
(the best possible result) vs how many stalled because they
stayed too low in carbs.

This does show that skill comes into play far more in low
carbing than in low fatting. Going too low in carbs does
stall plenty. It would seem that going tooo low in fat
doesn't have nearly that same problem.

> Stern says that this pattern of rapid weight loss matches
> that seen in an earlier but shorter study of Atkins
> dieters, by Gary Foster's team at the University of
> Pennsylvania in May 2003. "I'm impressed that they didn't
> gain it all back," says Stern.

It's *easy* to stay at 30!

> Compared with the low-fat group, Atkins dieters also had
> lower levels of triglycerides, potentially harmful blood
> sugars which can trigger heart disease. Concentrations of
> beneficial high density cholesterols (HDLs) also held up
> better in the Atkins group. And these favourable changes
> remained till the end of the study, suggesting that there
> might be lasting benefits.

No news to anyone who's been paying attention.

> "But what we really need is a study showing whether people
> on the low-carbohydrate diet for years have different odds
> of heart attacks, strokes and diabetes," she says.

Absolutely. Prove it and get the naysayers handled. Just
because one old guy four decades into a low carb plan was in
such good health he had to slip on the ice to keep from
going to work every day doesn't mean it will work that well
for everyone, so it is time for a study.

> But critics highlight some negative findings from the Duke
> study. "This new evidence confirms that levels of 'bad'
> cholesterol worsen in a substantial number of low-
> carbohydrate dieters," said Neal Barnard of the Physicians
> Committee for Responsible Medicine, a vegan lobby group in
> Washington DC.

Ah the PCRM liars again. In fact their "substantial"
actually means 20% according to Dr A. Recent studies hint
that Dr A might have been conservative in his 20% claim.

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3722221.stm
>
> Scientists endorse Atkins diet
>
> But he added that such diets should include healthy
> sources of protein and fat and incorporate regular
> exercise.

Uh, sure, just like it says in the directions. #;^)%

> "Patients should focus on finding ways to eat that they
> can maintain indefinitely rather than seeking diets that
> promote rapid weight loss," he said.

Agreed. I have found keeping it off much harder than losing
it. Among other things keeping it off lasts a lot longer ...
 
"Jackie Patti" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peanutjake wrote:
>
> > But my question is what is the effect of each type of
> > diet on a
diabetic?
>
> The second study showed significantly better glycemic
> control on low-carb.
>
> Which seems frankly so damned obvious to me that it seems
> ridiculous to need a study.
>
> People with impaired carbohydrate metabolism should limit
> carbs! Surprise!
>
> Blond moments in science...

It has always seemed rather obvious to me too. If your
carbohydrate processing mechanism is impaired, why overload
your kidneys and your bloodstream by eating it?

The problem is that low calorie, so called "balanced" diets
are very hard to stay with. For those of us who have failed
at them, the problem is hunger and it is very real. Lower
carb diets seem to circumvent this extreme hunger issue.

The way ANY diet works is by lowering caloric intake of
course. NOT being starving hungry is a big help.

--
Regards, Evelyn

(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")

>
> --
> As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more
> and more energy to increase its velocity, until you hit a
> limit at C. This energy has to come from somewhere; in
> this case, from the food's nutritional value. Thus, the
> faster the food is, the worse it gets. -- Mark Hughes,
> comprehending the taste of fast food
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back