Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet



Jackie Patti <[email protected]> wrote:
> gman99 wrote:
>
> > A year long study with 132 people does NOT a true trial
> > make...six months is nothing....
>
> Feel free to fund a larger long-term study.

I'm not the QUACK who made millions selling this
****...perhaps his heirs should fund a study...sheep
 
Jackie Patti <[email protected]> wrote:
> gman99 wrote:
>
> > A year long study with 132 people does NOT a true trial
> > make...six months is nothing....
>
> Feel free to fund a larger long-term study.

I'm not the QUACK who made millions selling this
****...perhaps his heirs should fund a study...sheep
 
Ted Rosenberg wrote:

|
| 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>

Then why did YOU crosspost it to seven nesgroups? This, I
presume makes YO

(Please note that removed all NG''s in my reply except the
on that I know you read. Please have the courtesy of doing
the same instead of propulgating this ****.

cc'd by e-mail ;-)
--
Peter
 
Doug Lerner wrote:
> Diarmid Logan 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, the problem you had is not following the directions.
Six months in you came on the newsgroup and asked if ketosis
matters. It appears that staying too low too long lowered
your CCLL from all of your subsequent reports. Your approach
could be a few weeks of switching to low fat to reset your
metabolism and then back to the directions, but since you've
found that low calorie works for you go with what you
already know works for you.
 
[email protected] (Doug Freyburger) wrote:
> Doug Lerner wrote:
> > Diarmid Logan 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, the problem you had is not following the directions.
> Six months in you came on the newsgroup and asked if
> ketosis matters. It appears that staying too low too long
> lowered your CCLL from all of your subsequent reports.
> Your approach could be a few weeks of switching to low fat
> to reset your metabolism and then back to the directions,
> but since you've found that low calorie works for you go
> with what you already know works for you.

If you continue to lose weight on low carb past the water
shed then it IS low calorie...dumb as dirt...
 
On 5/19/04 1:03 AM, in article [email protected], "Peanutjake"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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
>>
>
> So maybe that is the secret for losing weight. Go on
> Atkins for 6 months then switch to a lower calorie diet.

I do think that is a good idea.

doug
 
On 5/19/04 7:25 AM, in article
[email protected], "Doug Freyburger"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Doug Lerner wrote:
>> Diarmid Logan 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, the problem you had is not following the directions.
> Six months in you came on the newsgroup and asked if
> ketosis matters. It appears that staying too low too long
> lowered your CCLL from all of your subsequent reports.
> Your approach could be a few weeks of switching to low fat
> to reset your metabolism and then back to the directions,
> but since you've found that low calorie works for you go
> with what you already know works for you.

The "directions" are inconsistent. Atkins *does* say you can
stay at very low levels of carbs for most of your weight
loss. It's only mixed advice here that says you shouldn't.

The problem, though, is calories. You admit that Atkins
admits that calories matter, right? And if the so-called
"metabolic advantage" is non-existent or barely
measurable then the important thing *must* still be
controlling calories.

If you eat too many calories you will gain weight.

So the goal of any diet plan is to reduce calories.

Atkins by itself simply doesn't give enough guidance in that
regard. It tries to dance around the issue with metabolic
fog and mirrors. That's my objection to it.

But Atkins is *great* in getting you *started* on a diet,
finding out which foods make you hungry and which ones are
filling, controlling blood sugar, curing heartburn and acid
reflux - lots of things.

Low carb is extremely good in many ways. And I intend to
follow it forever. I think it saved my life during my
diabetes scare.

But for continued weight loss you MUST consider how many
calories you are eating relative to how many calories your
body is using. Atkins is definitely skimpy on that side of
the equation.

doug
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:58:20 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Truth is simple.
>
>
>Servant to the sickest ego in the universe, my own,
>
>Andrew

to bad mudungchung has never spoken the truth.

don't feed the cross posting troll.
 
Crafting Mom wrote:
> Can't comment on the article, but one would think that
> people who are educated to become writers of articles
> would know what a "regime" is and what a "regimen" is.

Or that triglycerides are not sugars?

--
Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/Wes
 
[email protected] (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995003
>
> Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
>
> 12:21 18 May 04
>
> NewScientist.com news service
>

>
> 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.

New Scientist is slipping. PCRM is a militant vegan group
and should be identified as such. Just because they are
"critics" doesn't mean they should have free access to
spout their naysaying. If they have a chance then so
should everyone else. Otherwise keep to selecting
qualified critics.

As for LDL, Barnard is an ignorant, biased blowhard with an
agenda. Reducing triglycerides and VLDL in the context of
an increasing HDL to LDL ratio is a success no
pharmaceutical product can boast. Barnard and other
"critics" conveniently neglect the fact that a high carb
diet increases triglycerides, VLDL and LDL and at the same
time reduces HDL.

LDL is an indicator and not a cause. What is needed is
actual measurements of plaque build-up and arterial wall
damage. But such invasive observations will never be done
while the test subjects are alive.

> "And the supposedly dramatic benefits of the diet do
> not hold up over the long term," said Barnard,
> referring to the end of weight loss after six months in
> the Stern study.

Another absurd absolutist statement. Many people keep on
losing until they reach ideal body weight. There is no
expiration date on low carbing. Stalls do not prove that a
weight loss approach is a failure. Listening to this idiot
one would think that no other diet has stalls.

> Although broadly supportive of the Atkins regime, Yancy
> warns that the diet could pose risks including the
> higher "bad" cholesterol, bone loss and kidney stones.
> Because of this, he discourages first-time dieters from
> using the regime.

What evidence is this based on? References?

Yancy is afraid of the sugar and grain pushers.
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> "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. "
>
> It is not mine,

Then why champion it.

> it was released to the public service long ago,

So, how long have you been following it?

> and as you say, truth is simple,

It is.

> as simple as 2 minutes.

Simpler.

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
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote on
Tue, 18 May 2004
14:03:32 -0400:
> Doug Lerner wrote:

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

I've discovered where the two pound diet comes from. The
idea was first put forth in chapter 1 of that hilarious
classic, "Three Men in a Boat" by Jerome K. Jerome,
published in 1889:

>>>> Another fellow I knew went for a week's voyage round
>>>> the coast, and, before they started, the steward came
>>>> to him to ask whether he would pay for each meal as he
>>>> had it, or arrange beforehand for the whole series.

>>>> The steward recommended the latter course, as it would
>>>> come so much cheaper. He said they would do him for the
>>>> whole week at two-pounds-five.
[Note for youngsters and "foreigners": at the time, the
British pound was subdivided into twenty shillings, and each
shilling was divided into twelve pence.]

The poor passenger, due to the vicissitudes of the
weather ended up consuming rather less than anticipated.
Finally ....

>>>> 'There she goes,' he said, 'there she goes, with *two*
>>>> *pounds'* worth of food on board that belongs to me,
>>>> and that I haven't had.'

This, I believe, later served as the inspiration for the "2
pound diet".

> Andrew

--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: [email protected]; to
decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"),
remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
 
Because you and your crossposting scammer friend posted
that way -

marengo wrote:
> Ted Rosenberg wrote:

> |
> | 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>
>
>
> Then why did YOU crosspost it to seven nesgroups? This, I
> presume makes YO

>
> (Please note that removed all NG''s in my reply except the
> on that I know you read. Please have the courtesy of doing
> the same instead of propulgating this ****.
>
> cc'd by e-mail ;-)

--
"...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
 
"h1clock" <[email protected]> píse v diskusním príspevku
news:[email protected]...

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

I must say that even if it would cut year or two of my life,
complete disappearing of so much of minor medical problems
(heartburns, occasional shaking muscles, atopic eczema,
unlike my wife and childer I have not got flu since on LC,
etc, etc..) would be worth it.

> I DO need to exercise more though.

That is my problem too...

Mirek
 
h1clock wrote:
>
> I have lost 73 pounds on Atkins since last July!

Good for you.

> 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!

That does happen when one loses 73 pounds.

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

I would attribute the latter to losing 73 pounds.

> I DO need to exercise more though.

However, you have shown that exercise though great for
cardiovascular health is not essential for weight loss.

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

Uh-oh.

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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
>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)."

I suggest that one not be two confused by the atrocious term
"statistical significance", whidh unfortunately is in the
rituals of the medical profession. If one has a small
sample, or an effective small sample (the six people who
became diabetic during the study is the effective sample
size here, unless there was a huge difference in the sizes
of the groups), it is unusual to get a significant result.
On the other hand, if there were millions in the study, it
would be difficult to find a NON-significant result.

What one should be interested in is the magnitude of the
effect. From the data presented here, I cannot even
guess at this.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that
these views are those of the Statistics Department or of
Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics,
Purdue University [email protected] Phone: (765)494-
6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
 
Bob in CT wrote:
> Doug Lerner wrote:
> > Diarmid Logan 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.
>
> Did you increase your carbohydrate intake, as required by
> Atkins, during this period? Did you find your critical
> carbohydrate level for losing?

He did not, and so he caused his own stall. He has since
decided against doing all of the work involved in repairing
the metabolic damage doing that caused and decided that
caloric reduction is the be-all and end-all of weight loss.
But since caloric reduction is working for him, good enough
in his case. But the experience has given him quite a bias
on the topic.

> What most people do is keep eating at 20-30 grams of carbs
> per day, which is not what Atkins advocates.

Unfortunately while newbies need certainty Dr A is willing
to discuss alternatives to his core plan. Most dive face
first into those alternatives. And some get the sort of
problems Doug got, falling out of ketosis from a CCLL that
dropped towards zero.
 
Excellent post.

I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am
convinced it is healthier than low fat/high carbohydrate
most of the time. However, if you need to lose weight you
must watch the calories.

Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight on
atkins (for many scientifically valid reasons - metabolic
advantages, or reducing hyperinsulinemia which promotes
decrease in used energy and increase in stored energy).
However the amount is usually negligable. In the begining if
you are very over weight you may find that you can stuff
yourself and still lose weight. If you ever want to reach
thinness, there is no way around it: you have to have to
have to watch portions.

The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with
it. It is a wonderful plan to start with, but numerous
people run into stalls. Why? They are etaing too much 90% of
the time. Atkins didnt advocate portion control much because
he was trying to sell his plan... unfortunately it was a
lie. "Doug Lerner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BCD0D103.40661%[email protected]...
> On 5/19/04 7:25 AM, in article
> [email protected], "Doug
> Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Doug Lerner wrote:
> >> Diarmid Logan 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, the problem you had is not following the
> > directions. Six months in you came on the newsgroup and
> > asked if ketosis matters. It appears that staying too
> > low too long lowered your CCLL from all of your
> > subsequent reports. Your approach could be a few weeks
> > of switching to low fat to reset your metabolism and
> > then back to the directions, but since you've found that
> > low calorie works for you go with what you already know
> > works for you.
>
> The "directions" are inconsistent. Atkins *does* say you
> can stay at very low levels of carbs for most of your
> weight loss. It's only mixed advice here that says you
> shouldn't.
>
> The problem, though, is calories. You admit that Atkins
> admits that
calories
> matter, right? And if the so-called "metabolic advantage"
> is non-existent
or
> barely measurable then the important thing *must* still be
> controlling calories.
>
> If you eat too many calories you will gain weight.
>
> So the goal of any diet plan is to reduce calories.
>
> Atkins by itself simply doesn't give enough guidance in
> that regard. It tries to dance around the issue with
> metabolic fog and mirrors. That's my objection to it.
>
> But Atkins is *great* in getting you *started* on a diet,
> finding out
which
> foods make you hungry and which ones are filling,
> controlling blood sugar, curing heartburn and acid reflux
> - lots of things.
>
> Low carb is extremely good in many ways. And I intend to
> follow it
forever.
> I think it saved my life during my diabetes scare.
>
> But for continued weight loss you MUST consider how many
> calories you are eating relative to how many calories your
> body is using. Atkins is definitely skimpy on that side of
> the equation.
>
> doug
 
> marengo wrote:
> > Then why did YOU crosspost it to seven nesgroups?

Ted Rosenberg wrote:
>
> Because you and your crossposting scammer friend posted
> that way -

...and so this saga continues...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back