General fitness, health and nutrition ยท Public discussion

Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

Started by Diarmid Logan ยท ยท Last activity ยท 78 posts ยท 4,947 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
14 October 2003
Last activity
17 November 2003
Original author
Diarmid Logan
Posts
78
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
4,947
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1โ€“20 of 78
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. suntimes.comcst nws fside14.html

    Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

    October 14, 2003

    FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study
    offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more
    than folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

    Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the low-carb diet long espoused by the
    late Dr. Robert Atkins.

    Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right.

    The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a
    meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people
    eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week
    study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

    Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet works. ''A lot of our assumptions
    about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged,'' said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists,
    we need to be open-minded.''

    ***********************************

    azdailysun.comstory.cfm

    Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

    By DANIEL Q. HANEY

    AP Medical Editor

    10/14/2003

    FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study
    offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more
    than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

    Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused by the
    late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without
    paying a price on the scales.

    Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins
    approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a
    standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many feared
    would happen.

    Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets
    are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited
    that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

    Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People
    on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.

    The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a
    meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people
    eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week
    study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

    Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to
    about seven pounds.

    But for some reason, it did not.

    "There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories
    and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.

    That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
    It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in
    just the same way.

    Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating.

    "A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz
    of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded."

    Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

    "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates
    the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

    In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly
    assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third
    group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

    The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in
    Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people
    home with diet plans to follow as best they could.

    Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's
    breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
    low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils.

    "This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said. Nevertheless,
    the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's
    design, conduct or analysis.

    Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5
    percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate,
    15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.

    In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds, while
    people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though,
    was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds.

    "It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers," said Gary Foster of the
    University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

    Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they
    burned up more calories digesting their food.

    Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the results
    "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more exercise or
    they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

    ------

    EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated Press.

    ------

    On the Net:

    naaso.ornaaso.or

  2. I was hoping someone was gonna post this article and say such study backs the Atkins Diet. In some
    aspects it does, but in some ways it doesn't.

    First, the study found that each diet WORKED. This is no real big suprise considering everyone had
    their calories reduced and controlled.

    Second, doesn't any one else find it funny or rather disingenuous that a "low carb diet" is only 5%
    of total calories and that a "low fat diet" is a whopping 30%?

    Almost every low fat study done consists of 30% of calories. To be frank, 30% just isn't low enough
    IMO. Low is around 10%.

    Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking. Fiber can have a profound
    impact on weight loss here in each group.

    Fourth, how do we know that the calorie reduction wasn't greater in one group over the other since
    people were randomly chosen? This too can have a profound impact on the overall study results.

    Fifth, were these people not allowed to exercise? Was this controlled too, cause the study
    does not say?

    Just my thinking behind the study ๐Ÿ™‚

    Trent

    -- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join now @
    groups.yahoo.comweightloss health

    Quoted message said:

    From: [email hidden] (Diarmid Logan) Organization: groups.google.comgroups.google.com Newsgroups:
    alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet,sci.med.nutrition Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:07:44 -0700
    Subject: Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

    suntimes.comcst nws fside14.html

    Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

    October 14, 2003

    FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new
    study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually
    eat more than folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

    Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the low-carb diet long espoused by
    the late Dr. Robert Atkins.

    Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right.

    The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a
    meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people
    eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week
    study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

    Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet works. ''A lot of our assumptions
    about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged,'' said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. ''As
    scientists, we need to be open-minded.''

    ***********************************

    azdailysun.comstory.cfm

    Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

    By DANIEL Q. HANEY

    AP Medical Editor

    10/14/2003

    FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new
    study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually
    eat more than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

    Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused by
    the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories
    without paying a price on the scales.

    Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins
    approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a
    standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many
    feared would happen.

    Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets
    are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited
    that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

    Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right:
    People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.

    The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a
    meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people
    eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week
    study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

    Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to
    about seven pounds.

    But for some reason, it did not.

    "There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories
    and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.

    That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
    It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline
    in just the same way.

    Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating.

    "A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene
    Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded."

    Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

    "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It
    violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

    In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were
    randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for
    men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

    The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in
    Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent
    people home with diet plans to follow as best they could.

    Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next
    day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find
    disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and
    unsaturated oils.

    "This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said.
    Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input into
    the study's design, conduct or analysis.

    Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5
    percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate,
    15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.

    In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds,
    while people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise,
    though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds.

    "It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers," said Gary Foster of the
    University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

    Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they
    burned up more calories digesting their food.

    Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the
    results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more
    exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

    ------

    EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated Press.

    ------

    On the Net:

    naaso.ornaaso.or

  3. the HARVARD study points out that low carb weight loss is apparently NOT due to lowered
    calorie intake.

    --
    read and post daily, it works! rosie

    happiness is not a state to arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
    ................................m.l. runbeck

    "Trent Duke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I was hoping someone was gonna post this article and say such study


    backs

    Quoted message said:

    the Atkins Diet. In some aspects it does, but in some ways it doesn't.

    First, the study found that each diet WORKED. This is no real big


    suprise

    Quoted message said:

    considering everyone had their calories reduced and controlled.

    Second, doesn't any one else find it funny or rather disingenuous that


    a

    Quoted message said:

    "low carb diet" is only 5% of total calories and that a "low fat diet"


    is a

    Quoted message said:

    whopping 30%?

    Almost every low fat study done consists of 30% of calories. To be


    frank,

    Quoted message said:

    30% just isn't low enough IMO. Low is around 10%.

    Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking.


    Fiber

    Quoted message said:

    can have a profound impact on weight loss here in each group.

    Fourth, how do we know that the calorie reduction wasn't greater in


    one

    Quoted message said:

    group over the other since people were randomly chosen? This too can


    have a

    Quoted message said:

    profound impact on the overall study results.

    Fifth, were these people not allowed to exercise? Was this controlled


    too,

    Quoted message said:

    cause the study does not say?

    Just my thinking behind the study ๐Ÿ™‚

    Trent

    -- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join


    now @

    Quoted message said:

    groups.yahoo.comweightloss health

    Quoted message said:

    From: [email hidden] (Diarmid Logan) Organization: groups.google.comgroups.google.com Newsgroups:


    alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet,sci.med.nutrition

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:07:44 -0700 Subject: Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

    suntimes.comcst nws fside14.html

    Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

    October 14, 2003

    FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new
    study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually
    eat more


    than

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

    Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the low-carb diet long espoused by
    the late Dr. Robert Atkins.

    Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    maybe Atkins was right.

    The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of


    Public

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of
    Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost
    just as


    much

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

    Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet


    works.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    ''A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged,'' said Marlene
    Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists, we


    need

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    to be open-minded.''

    ***********************************


    azdailysun.comstory.cfm

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

    By DANIEL Q. HANEY

    AP Medical Editor

    10/14/2003

    FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new
    study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually
    eat more


    than

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

    Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused by
    the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories
    without paying a price on the scales.

    Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many


    experts'

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at


    least

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard


    American

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels,


    as

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    many feared would happen.

    Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb
    diets are more satisfying, so they do not


    get

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored
    to eat a lot.

    Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.

    The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of


    Public

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of
    Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost
    just as


    much

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

    Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000


    calories.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    That should have added up to about seven pounds.

    But for some reason, it did not.

    "There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more
    calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.

    That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a
    calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the
    waistline in just the same way.

    Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report
    fascinating.

    "A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene
    Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    be open-minded."

    Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

    "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It
    violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one


    has

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

    In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were
    randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for
    men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

    The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in
    Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent
    people home with


    diet

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    plans to follow as best they could.

    Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next
    day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of


    lots

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate
    mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils.

    "This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said.
    Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input
    into the study's


    design,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    conduct or analysis.

    Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5
    percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.

    In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds,
    while people who got the same calories


    on

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food


    lost

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    20 pounds.

    "It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it


    answers,"

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots


    of

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

    Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they
    burned up more calories digesting their food.

    Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity


    organization's

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories
    also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

    ------

    EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated
    Press.

    ------

    On the Net:

    naaso.ornaaso.or

  4. rosie read and post said:

    the HARVARD study points out that low carb weight loss is apparently NOT due to lowered
    calorie intake.

    --
    read and post daily, it works! rosie

    happiness is not a state to arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
    ................................m.l. runbeck

    "Trent Duke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I was hoping someone was gonna post this article and say such study


    backs

    Quoted message said:

    the Atkins Diet. In some aspects it does, but in some ways it doesn't.

    First, the study found that each diet WORKED. This is no real big


    suprise

    Quoted message said:

    considering everyone had their calories reduced and controlled.

    Second, doesn't any one else find it funny or rather disingenuous that


    a

    Quoted message said:

    "low carb diet" is only 5% of total calories and that a "low fat diet"


    is a

    Quoted message said:

    whopping 30%?

    Almost every low fat study done consists of 30% of calories. To be


    frank,

    Quoted message said:

    30% just isn't low enough IMO. Low is around 10%.

    Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking.


    Fiber

    Quoted message said:

    can have a profound impact on weight loss here in each group.

    Fourth, how do we know that the calorie reduction wasn't greater in


    one

    Quoted message said:

    group over the other since people were randomly chosen? This too can


    have a

    Quoted message said:

    profound impact on the overall study results.

    Fifth, were these people not allowed to exercise? Was this controlled


    too,

    Quoted message said:

    cause the study does not say?

    Just my thinking behind the study ๐Ÿ™‚

    Trent

    -- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join


    now @

    Quoted message said:

    groups.yahoo.comweightloss health

    Quoted message said:

    From: [email hidden] (Diarmid Logan) Organization: groups.google.comgroups.google.com Newsgroups:


    alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet,sci.med.nutrition

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:07:44 -0700 Subject: Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

    suntimes.comcst nws fside14.html

    Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

    October 14, 2003

    FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new
    study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually
    eat more


    than

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

    Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the low-carb diet long espoused by
    the late Dr. Robert Atkins.

    Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    maybe Atkins was right.

    The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of


    Public

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of
    Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost
    just as


    much

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

    Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet


    works.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    ''A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged,'' said Marlene
    Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists, we


    need

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    to be open-minded.''

    ***********************************


    azdailysun.comstory.cfm

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

    By DANIEL Q. HANEY

    AP Medical Editor

    10/14/2003

    FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new
    study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually
    eat more


    than

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

    Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused by
    the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories
    without paying a price on the scales.

    Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many


    experts'

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at


    least

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard


    American

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels,


    as

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    many feared would happen.

    Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb
    diets are more satisfying, so they do not


    get

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored
    to eat a lot.

    Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.

    The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of


    Public

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of
    Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost
    just as


    much

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

    Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000


    calories.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    That should have added up to about seven pounds.

    But for some reason, it did not.

    "There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more
    calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.

    That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a
    calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the
    waistline in just the same way.

    Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report
    fascinating.

    "A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene
    Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    be open-minded."

    Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

    "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It
    violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one


    has

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

    In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were
    randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for
    men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

    The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in
    Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent
    people home with


    diet

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    plans to follow as best they could.

    Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next
    day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of


    lots

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate
    mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils.

    "This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said.
    Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input
    into the study's


    design,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    conduct or analysis.

    Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5
    percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.

    In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds,
    while people who got the same calories


    on

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food


    lost

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    20 pounds.

    "It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it


    answers,"

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots


    of

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

    Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they
    burned up more calories digesting their food.

    Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity


    organization's

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories
    also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

    ------

    EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated
    Press.

    ------

    On the Net:

    naaso.ornaaso.or


    I think what he means is the calorie reduction of the individual dieter. According to the study, the
    Atkins dieters consumed more calories per day than the low fat dieters, but the question is how many
    calories each dieter was taking in *before* the study began.

    Jake

    --
    My favorite animal is steak.--Fran Lebowitz

  5. The most controversial result of the study is its challenge to the virtually univeral belief that a
    calorie is a calorie is a calorie.....and so on. I recall having read a book about thirty years ago
    entitled "Calories Don't Count" wherein the author claimed to have conducted small-scale studies in
    which subjects on controlled-calorie diets lost weight when their diets where primarily comprised of
    fat and virtually carb free. The assumption that all calories are treated the same by the human body
    seems to be contradicted by research on the effects of insulin. It is known that fat does not cause
    a significant increase in serum glucose, and without a corresponding increase in insulin. Carbs
    increase serum glucose, resulting in increased insulin to facilitate glucose's entry into muscle and
    fat cells which could result in stored body fat. Obviously, this is a serious oversimplification of
    a complex phenomenon, but isn't the notion that a calorie is a calorie, etc. an equal
    oversimplification?

    Ron

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

    Quoted message said:
    rosie read and post said:

    the HARVARD study points out that low carb weight loss is apparently NOT due to lowered calorie
    intake.

    --
    read and post daily, it works! rosie

    happiness is not a state to arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
    ................................m.l. runbeck

    Quoted message said:


    "Trent Duke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I was hoping someone was gonna post this article and say such study


    backs

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the Atkins Diet. In some aspects it does, but in some ways it doesn't.

    First, the study found that each diet WORKED. This is no real big


    suprise

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    considering everyone had their calories reduced and controlled.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Second, doesn't any one else find it funny or rather disingenuous that


    a

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "low carb diet" is only 5% of total calories and that a "low fat diet"


    is a

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    whopping 30%?

    Almost every low fat study done consists of 30% of calories. To be


    frank,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    30% just isn't low enough IMO. Low is around 10%.

    Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking.


    Fiber

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    can have a profound impact on weight loss here in each group.

    Fourth, how do we know that the calorie reduction wasn't greater in


    one

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    group over the other since people were randomly chosen? This too can


    have a

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    profound impact on the overall study results.

    Fifth, were these people not allowed to exercise? Was this controlled


    too,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    cause the study does not say?

    Just my thinking behind the study ๐Ÿ™‚

    Trent

    -- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join


    now @

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    groups.yahoo.comweightloss health

    > From: [email hidden] (Diarmid Logan) Organization: groups.google.comgroups.google.com
    > Newsgroups:


    alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet,sci.med.nutrition

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:07:44 -0700 Subject: Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
    >
    > suntimes.comcst nws fside14.html
    >
    >
    > Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
    >
    > October 14, 2003
    >
    > FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new
    > study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can
    > actually eat more


    than

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.
    >
    > Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the low-carb diet long espoused
    > by the late Dr. Robert Atkins.
    >
    > Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > maybe Atkins was right.
    >
    > The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of


    Public

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of
    > Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost
    > just as


    much

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.
    >
    > Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet


    works.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > ''A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged,'' said Marlene
    > Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists, we


    need

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > to be open-minded.''
    >
    > ***********************************
    >
    >


    azdailysun.comstory.cfm

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >
    > Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight
    >
    > By DANIEL Q. HANEY
    >
    > AP Medical Editor
    >
    > 10/14/2003
    >
    > FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new
    > study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can
    > actually eat more


    than

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.
    >
    > Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused
    > by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more
    > calories without paying a price on the scales.
    >
    > Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many


    experts'

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at


    least

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard


    American

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels,


    as

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > many feared would happen.
    >
    > Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb
    > diets are more satisfying, so they do not


    get

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored
    > to eat a lot.
    >
    > Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.
    >
    > The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of


    Public

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of
    > Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost
    > just as


    much

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.
    >
    > Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000


    calories.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > That should have added up to about seven pounds.
    >
    > But for some reason, it did not.
    >
    > "There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more
    > calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.
    >
    > That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a
    > calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on
    > the waistline in just the same way.
    >
    > Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report
    > fascinating.
    >
    > "A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene
    > Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > be open-minded."
    >
    > Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.
    >
    > "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It
    > violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one


    has

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."
    >
    > In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were
    > randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800
    > for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.
    >
    > The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in
    > Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent
    > people home with


    diet

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > plans to follow as best they could.
    >
    > Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next
    > day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of


    lots

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people
    > ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils.
    >
    > "This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said.
    > Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input
    > into the study's


    design,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > conduct or analysis.
    >
    > Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5
    > percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.
    >
    > In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds,
    > while people who got the same calories


    on

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food


    lost

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > 20 pounds.
    >
    > "It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it


    answers,"

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots


    of

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > data to suggest this shouldn't be true."
    >
    > Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe
    > they burned up more calories digesting their food.
    >
    > Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity


    organization's

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more
    > calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.
    >
    > ------
    >
    > EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated
    > Press.
    >
    > ------
    >
    > On the Net:
    >
    > naaso.ornaaso.or

    I think what he means is the calorie reduction of the individual dieter. According to the study,
    the Atkins dieters consumed more calories per day than the low fat dieters, but the question is
    how many calories each dieter was taking in *before* the study began.

    Jake

  6. Doesn't the research behind the zone diet prove that a calorie is not a calorie and that insulin
    levels determine how much fat the body stores? Also, does 12 weeks prove anything? Maybe the atkins
    dieters had more water loss? Maybe the atkins dieters lost muscle mass in addition to fat stores?

    ron lorden said:

    The most controversial result of the study is its challenge to the virtually univeral belief that
    a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.....and so on. I recall having read a book about thirty years
    ago entitled "Calories Don't Count" wherein the author claimed to have conducted small-scale
    studies in which subjects on controlled-calorie diets lost weight when their diets where primarily
    comprised of fat and virtually carb free. The assumption that all calories are treated the same by
    the human body seems to be contradicted by research on the effects of insulin. It is known that
    fat does not cause a significant increase in serum glucose, and without a corresponding increase
    in insulin. Carbs increase serum glucose, resulting in increased insulin to facilitate glucose's
    entry into muscle and fat cells which could result in stored body fat. Obviously, this is a
    serious oversimplification of a complex phenomenon, but isn't the notion that a calorie is a
    calorie, etc. an equal oversimplification?

    Ron

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

    Quoted message said:
    rosie read and post said:

    the HARVARD study points out that low carb weight loss is apparently NOT due to lowered calorie
    intake.

    --
    read and post daily, it works! rosie

    happiness is not a state to arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
    ................................m.l. runbeck

    "Trent Duke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    >I was hoping someone was gonna post this article and say such study

    backs

    Quoted message said:

    >the Atkins Diet. In some aspects it does, but in some ways it doesn't.
    >
    >First, the study found that each diet WORKED. This is no real big

    suprise

    Quoted message said:

    >considering everyone had their calories reduced and controlled.
    >

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >Second, doesn't any one else find it funny or rather disingenuous that

    a

    Quoted message said:

    >"low carb diet" is only 5% of total calories and that a "low fat diet"

    is a

    Quoted message said:

    >whopping 30%?
    >
    >Almost every low fat study done consists of 30% of calories. To be

    frank,

    Quoted message said:

    >30% just isn't low enough IMO. Low is around 10%.
    >
    >Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking.

    Fiber

    Quoted message said:

    >can have a profound impact on weight loss here in each group.
    >
    >Fourth, how do we know that the calorie reduction wasn't greater in

    one

    Quoted message said:

    >group over the other since people were randomly chosen? This too can

    have a

    Quoted message said:

    >profound impact on the overall study results.
    >
    >Fifth, were these people not allowed to exercise? Was this controlled

    too,

    Quoted message said:

    >cause the study does not say?
    >
    >Just my thinking behind the study ๐Ÿ™‚
    >
    >Trent
    >
    >
    >-- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join

    now @

    Quoted message said:

    >groups.yahoo.comweightloss health
    >
    >
    >
    >>From: [email hidden] (Diarmid Logan) Organization: groups.google.comgroups.google.com Newsgroups:

    alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet,sci.med.nutrition

    Quoted message said:

    >>Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:07:44 -0700 Subject: Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
    >>
    >>suntimes.comcst nws fside14.html
    >>
    >>
    >>Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet
    >>
    >>October 14, 2003
    >>
    >>FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new
    >>study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can
    >>actually eat more

    than

    Quoted message said:

    >>folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.
    >>
    >>Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the low-carb diet long espoused by
    >>the late Dr. Robert Atkins.
    >>
    >>Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint

    that

    Quoted message said:

    >>maybe Atkins was right.
    >>
    >>The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of

    Public

    Quoted message said:

    >>Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of
    >>Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost
    >>just as

    much

    Quoted message said:

    >>during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.
    >>
    >>Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet

    works.

    Quoted message said:

    >>''A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged,'' said Marlene
    >>Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists, we

    need

    Quoted message said:

    >>to be open-minded.''
    >>
    >>***********************************
    >>
    >>

    azdailysun.comstory.cfm

    Quoted message said:

    >>Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight
    >>
    >>By DANIEL Q. HANEY
    >>
    >>AP Medical Editor
    >>
    >>10/14/2003
    >>
    >>FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new
    >>study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can
    >>actually eat more

    than

    Quoted message said:

    >>folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.
    >>
    >>Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention -- long espoused by
    >>the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories
    >>without paying a price on the scales.
    >>
    >>Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many

    experts'

    Quoted message said:

    >>surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at

    least

    Quoted message said:

    >>in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard

    American

    Quoted message said:

    >>Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels,

    as

    Quoted message said:

    >>many feared would happen.
    >>
    >>Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb
    >>diets are more satisfying, so they do not

    get

    Quoted message said:

    >>so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored
    >>to eat a lot.
    >>
    >>Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint

    that

    Quoted message said:

    >>maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.
    >>
    >>The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of

    Public

    Quoted message said:

    >>Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of
    >>Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost
    >>just as

    much

    Quoted message said:

    >>during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.
    >>
    >>Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000

    calories.

    Quoted message said:

    >>That should have added up to about seven pounds.
    >>
    >>But for some reason, it did not.
    >>
    >>"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more
    >>calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.
    >>
    >>That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a
    >>calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the
    >>waistline in just the same way.
    >>
    >>Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report
    >>fascinating.
    >>
    >>"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene
    >>Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need

    to

    Quoted message said:

    >>be open-minded."
    >>
    >>Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.
    >>
    >>"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It
    >>violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one

    has

    Quoted message said:

    >>ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."
    >>
    >>In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were
    >>randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800
    >>for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.
    >>
    >>The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in
    >>Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent
    >>people home with

    diet

    Quoted message said:

    >>plans to follow as best they could.
    >>
    >>Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next
    >>day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of

    lots

    Quoted message said:

    >>of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people
    >>ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils.
    >>
    >>"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said.
    >>Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input
    >>into the study's

    design,

    Quoted message said:

    >>conduct or analysis.
    >>
    >>Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5
    >>percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein

    and

    Quoted message said:

    >>65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.
    >>
    >>In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds,
    >>while people who got the same calories

    on

    Quoted message said:

    >>the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was

    that

    Quoted message said:

    >>volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food

    lost

    Quoted message said:

    >>20 pounds.
    >>
    >>"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it

    answers,"

    Quoted message said:

    >>said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots

    of

    Quoted message said:

    >>data to suggest this shouldn't be true."
    >>
    >>Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe
    >>they burned up more calories digesting their food.
    >>
    >>Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity

    organization's

    Quoted message said:

    >>president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more
    >>calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.
    >>
    >>------
    >>
    >>EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated
    >>Press.
    >>
    >>------
    >>
    >>On the Net:
    >>
    >>naaso.ornaaso.or
    >


    I think what he means is the calorie reduction of the individual dieter. According to the study,
    the Atkins dieters consumed more calories per day than the low fat dieters, but the question is
    how many calories each dieter was taking in *before* the study began.

    Jake

  7. [email hidden] (ron lorden) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    The most controversial result of the study is its challenge to the virtually univeral belief that
    a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.....and so on. I recall having read a book about thirty years
    ago entitled "Calories Don't Count" wherein the author claimed to have conducted small-scale
    studies in which subjects on controlled-calorie diets lost weight when their diets where primarily
    comprised of fat and virtually carb free. The assumption that all calories are treated the same by
    the human body seems to be contradicted by research on the effects of insulin. It is known that
    fat does not cause a significant increase in serum glucose, and without a corresponding increase
    in insulin. Carbs increase serum glucose, resulting in increased insulin to facilitate glucose's
    entry into muscle and fat cells which could result in stored body fat. Obviously, this is a
    serious oversimplification of a complex phenomenon, but isn't the notion that a calorie is a
    calorie, etc. an equal oversimplification?

    Ron

    It is by *no* means an oversimplification, I know of *no* study that challenges the idea that
    caloric balance is synonymous with caloric balance by definition.. Including this one.

  8. In alt.support.diet Dan said:

    Maybe the atkins dieters lost muscle mass in addition to fat stores?

    Good question. I wonder why Harvard researchers couldn't be bothered to check what KIND of weight
    was being lost.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>> Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb
    >>> diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils.

    I find it interesting that they did the OPPOSITE interpretation of Atkins than most people. I mean,
    the first thing Atkins people do is load up on saturated fats most of the time. I'm not sure how the
    Atkins people can then crow that the diet works. Do they think saturated fats and polyunsaturated
    fats are the same thing?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>>The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.

    I don't mean to quibble, but I wouldn't call this low-fat.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>>In the end, everyone lost weight.

    Who cares. Did they lose fat? Until that is answered this is just a meaningless journalism sideshow.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>>Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the
    >>> results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more
    >>> exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

    Good point. Geez, don't you suppose that Harvard researchers might consider the amount of calories
    burned as being related to weight loss?

    I'm trying to figure out if the study was poorly designed on purpose or if it is just being
    poorly reported.

    Wendy

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

    Quoted message said:
    In alt.support.diet Dan said:

    Maybe the atkins dieters lost muscle mass in addition to fat stores?

    Good question. I wonder why Harvard researchers couldn't be bothered to check what KIND of weight
    was being lost.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>>> Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb
    >>>> diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils.

    I find it interesting that they did the OPPOSITE interpretation of Atkins than most people. I
    mean, the first thing Atkins people do is load up on saturated fats most of the time. I'm not sure
    how the Atkins people can then crow that the diet works. Do they think saturated fats and
    polyunsaturated fats are the same thing?

    Where do you get your information from? How the heck do you know that "the first thing Atkins people
    do is load up on saturated fats most of the time".

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>>>The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.

    I don't mean to quibble, but I wouldn't call this low-fat.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>>>In the end, everyone lost weight.

    Who cares. Did they lose fat? Until that is answered this is just a meaningless journalism
    sideshow.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>>>Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the
    >>>> results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more
    >>>> exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

    Good point. Geez, don't you suppose that Harvard researchers might consider the amount of calories
    burned as being related to weight loss?

    Ok, so maybe all seven people on the low-fat diet were couch potatoes and all 14 on the low-carb
    diets ran a marathon every day. Yeah, right!

    Do you have any idea how absurd you guys sound?

    Quoted message said:


    I'm trying to figure out if the study was poorly designed on purpose or if it is just being poorly
    reported.

    Wendy

    It is just being poorly interpreted by individuals like yourself who wouldn't recognize the
    difference between good science and bad science if your lives depended on it.

    You said that you don't mean to quibble, except that that is exactly what you are doing. You seem to
    have an agenda and any small detail seems to be enough for you to reject these findings. Remember,
    this was only a news report taken from a presentation. The study itself hasn't been published yet,
    as far as I know. So any criticisms about the design of the study is based on generalities and
    assumptions and you really do not know exactly what all the details of the design were.

    TC

  10. In alt.support.diet tcomeau said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    I find it interesting that they did the OPPOSITE interpretation of Atkins than most people. I
    mean, the first thing Atkins people do is load up on saturated fats most of the time. I'm not
    sure how the Atkins people can then crow that the diet works. Do they think saturated fats and
    polyunsaturated fats are the same thing?

    Quoted message said:

    Where do you get your information from? How the heck do you know that "the first thing Atkins
    people do is load up on saturated fats most of the time".

    Personal and anecdotal experience. Why, are you under the impression that the Atkins diet is low in
    saturated fat? My recollection is eating full-fat dairy products and full-fat beef products and
    bacon and liverwurst and... well, of MOST of my calories coming from saturated fats. Furthermore,
    that's been the big appeal to people I know personally doing the Atkins program. I don't mean to say
    that ALL Atkins proponants eat high-saturated fat diets, but it's always been one of the main
    criticisms all along. Hadn't you heard?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Good point. Geez, don't you suppose that Harvard researchers might consider the amount of
    calories burned as being related to weight loss?

    Quoted message said:

    Ok, so maybe all seven people on the low-fat diet were couch potatoes and all 14 on the low-carb
    diets ran a marathon every day. Yeah, right!

    How about that the people with an extra 300 calories had enough energy to fit in a workout where the
    ones on the same amount of high-carb calories were languishing from hunger. We all know a high-carb
    diet is not as satieting on the same amount of calories. I think a reasonable result of that would
    be less likely to go for a walk or lift weights.

    Also, the BMR is likely to fall on a low-protein diet by more than on a moderate-protein diet with
    weight-lifting. Differences in calories burned can be significant between these two factors. And
    with seven people in each group, significant individual differences in exercise routines can really
    can skew the results.

    Why, do you think calories burned is a negligible issue in the field of weight loss?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm trying to figure out if the study was poorly designed on purpose or if it is just being
    poorly reported.

    Quoted message said:

    It is just being poorly interpreted by individuals like yourself who wouldn't recognize the
    difference between good science and bad science if your lives depended on it.

    Sure, whatever. So far I see a weight loss study that doesn't measure calories expended, that
    doesn't distinguish between water, muscle and fat loss and that only includes 7 people per group.
    What do you see?

    Quoted message said:

    You seem to have an agenda and any small detail seems to be enough for you to reject these
    findings.

    I don't know what you think my agenda is, but go ahead and tell me what the findings are. So far I
    hear worthless anecdote. I'm wondering if the "Harvard Researchers" are freshmen bio students. (An
    alternate possibility is that the reporting is so bad that they didn't feel the need to distinguish
    between "weight" and "fat" or to mention tedious exercise logs.)

    I will await the report, but unless they account for more factors than "weight" and "calories in" I
    won't see much value in it.

    Wendy

  11. Wendy said:
    In alt.support.diet tcomeau said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    I find it interesting that they did the OPPOSITE interpretation of Atkins than most people. I
    mean, the first thing Atkins people do is load up on saturated fats most of the time. I'm not
    sure how the Atkins people can then crow that the diet works. Do they think saturated fats and
    polyunsaturated fats are the same thing?

    Quoted message said:

    Where do you get your information from? How the heck do you know that "the first thing Atkins
    people do is load up on saturated fats most of the time".

    Personal and anecdotal experience. Why, are you under the impression that the Atkins diet is low
    in saturated fat? My recollection is eating full-fat dairy products and full-fat beef products and
    bacon and liverwurst and... well, of MOST of my calories coming from saturated fats. Furthermore,
    that's been the big appeal to people I know personally doing the Atkins program. I don't mean to
    say that ALL Atkins proponants eat high-saturated fat diets, but it's always been one of the main
    criticisms all along. Hadn't you heard?

    While this evidence is very indirect, sales of breakfast meats are going up up up. There's a
    statistic buried in this article newsobserver.com2953667p 2709794c.html

    "Even Food Lion, the Salisbury-based grocer, has seen the Atkins effect. Sales of breakfast meats,
    specifically bacon and sausage, have surged in recent months..."

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

    Quoted message said:


    Personal and anecdotal experience. Why, are you under the impression that the Atkins diet is low
    in saturated fat? My recollection is eating full-fat dairy products and full-fat beef products and
    bacon and liverwurst and... well, of MOST of my calories coming from saturated fats.

    Actually, on Atkins, when I was using fit-day, and eating pretty much any sort of food I wanted, the
    ratio was about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 between poly, mono and saturated fats, calorie ratio even lower
    because you tend to eat some protein as well, and a little bit of carbs.

    According to fit-day, a steak (Beef steak, braised, lean and fat eaten) provides less than 50% of
    it's fats as saturated fats, then there is the mono-unsaturated fat, and the protein. So even if you
    were eating nothing but steak all day long, about 25% of your calories would be coming from
    saturated fat - nowhere near the "Most" you are claiming.

    In reality you are going to be eating some leaner meats, nuts, and vegetables.

    Quoted message said:

    How about that the people with an extra 300 calories had enough energy to fit in a workout where
    the ones on the same amount of high-carb calories were languishing from hunger. We all know a
    high-carb diet is not as satieting on the same amount of calories. I think a reasonable result of
    that would be less likely to go for a walk or lift weights.

    Also, the BMR is likely to fall on a low-protein diet by more than on a moderate-protein diet with
    weight-lifting. Differences in calories burned can be significant between these two factors. And
    with seven people in each group, significant individual differences in exercise routines can
    really can skew the results.

    These are arguments for the "a calories is a calorie" camp, not a arguments against Atkins or the
    study's results. If you can lose more weight while eating 300 calories more - why not - who cares if
    it is actually because you are a little bit more active, or have a higher BMR.

    -josh

  13. This post not CC'd by email On 15 Oct 2003 11:45:31 -0400 said:

    Do they think saturated fats and polyunsaturated fats are the same thing?

    G'day G'day Wendy,

    The restaurant was Italian and hence likely to use olive oil.
    Chances are the predominant fatty acid was monounsaturated.

    To discover the details we will need to wait for the research to be published.

    --
    Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading."

    homepages.paradise.net.nzquentin

  14. This post not CC'd by email On 15 Oct 2003 11:45:31 -0400 said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>>>The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.

    G'day G'day Wendy,

    These proportions are typical of what one arrives at if one follows the ADA dietary
    recommendations.

    Quoted message said:

    I don't mean to quibble, but I wouldn't call this low-fat.

    Fair enough. It certainly wouldn't satisfy Pritikin or Ornish either. The question one has to ask
    though is, "Is this relevant?"

    Have they demonstrated similar weight loss to the ultra low carb used in the study over the same
    period of time?

    Best wishes,

    --
    Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading."

    homepages.paradise.net.nzquentin

  15. This post not CC'd by email On 16 Oct 2003 15:03:40 -0400 said:

    How about that the people with an extra 300 calories had enough energy to fit in a workout where
    the ones on the same amount of high-carb calories were languishing from hunger.

    G'day G'day Wendy,

    Now there is an idea worth exploring. There was a Harvard study that followed skinny but sedentary
    people and obese but fit people around for about 5 years. The morbidity of the skinny but sedentary
    people was roughly twice the obese but fit group. So if your suggestion should happen to be
    correct, think of how significant that could be. While it is true many people diet and exercise for
    cosmetic reasons, there are those who love to know there was a diet that enable them without any
    outside encouragement to exercise more frequently.

    Quoted message said:

    We all know a high-carb diet is not as satieting on the same amount of calories.

    Not everyone agrees with that statement. The folks who came up with Satiety Index seem to think
    water followed by fibre and protein has the strongest positive influence on satiety while fat has a
    negative affect on satiety. I doubt they studied extreme low carb diets in coming up with this
    conclusion but my point is one has to be wary of generalizations.

    Also note that you appear to have lost a comparative.

    Quoted message said:

    I think a reasonable result of that would be less likely to go for a walk or lift weights.

    Best wishes,

    --
    Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading."

    homepages.paradise.net.nzquentin

  16. This post not CC'd by email On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:48:21 -0700, Trent Duke

    Quoted message said:

    Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking. Fiber can have a profound
    impact on weight loss here in each group.

    G'day G'day Trent,

    It's a great intellectual exercise to consider all the ways the researchers might have got it
    wrong. Frankly I don't give a damn whether Atkins was proved right or wrong. It won't make a scrap
    of difference to him, so why should it to us?

    What interests me more is how people interpret and misinterpret information ... why they do it and
    how they do it.

    There was a study where the researchers explored diets containing peanuts. What they found is the
    people lost more weight on the calorie restricted peanut based diet even though they were according
    to the data tables and food measurements consuming the same number of calories as the control group.
    It took a little while to discover the "lost" calories when the participants didn't chew the peanuts
    thoroughly.

    The low carb diet could be higher in vegetable fibre or resistant starch. One could come up with
    hypothesis that those lost calories ended up damaging the ozone layer. The problem is even if all of
    the carbs in the diet were resistant starch and if all of that ended up as gases, (hydrogen excreted
    through the lungs and methane leaving by a more obvious route) there would only be a 5% difference.

    Of course some oil might be adsorbed on the fibre and never be metabolized.

    One factor I find very significant is that this was a controlled study. The meals were prepared for
    the participants. What I have noticed with other studies is that short term people get fired up with
    Atkins or low fat for that matter and the diets work while the researchers are giving the dieters
    attention. When the attention disappears so it seems does the weightloss.

    Best wishes,
    --
    Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading."

    homepages.paradise.net.nzquentin

  17. On 14 Oct 2003 20:24:25 -0700, [email hidden] (ron lorden) posted:

    Quoted message said:

    The most controversial result of the study is its challenge to the virtually univeral belief that a
    calorie is a calorie is a calorie.....and so on. I recall having read a book about thirty years ago
    entitled "Calories Don't Count" wherein the author claimed to have conducted small-scale studies in
    which subjects on controlled-calorie diets lost weight when their diets where primarily comprised
    of fat and virtually carb free. The assumption that all calories are treated the same by the human
    body seems to be contradicted by research on the effects of insulin. It is known that fat does not
    cause a significant increase in serum glucose, and without a corresponding increase in insulin.
    Carbs increase serum glucose, resulting in increased insulin to facilitate glucose's entry into
    muscle and fat cells which could result in stored body fat. Obviously, this is a serious
    oversimplification of a complex phenomenon, but isn't the notion that a calorie is a calorie, etc.
    an equal oversimplification?

    A calorie has always been shown to be a claorie. You must show metabolic lab studies (where
    everything is measured) to show that calories can appear or disappear from the universe.

  18. On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:36:53 GMT, Dan <[email hidden]> posted:

    Quoted message said:

    Doesn't the research behind the zone diet prove that a calorie is not a calorie and that insulin
    levels determine how much fat the body stores?

    Nope. Can you show us evidence of this if you believe otherwise?

    Calories available for storage (not burned as energy or heat) determine how much fat the
    body stores.

  19. Moosh! <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    On 14 Oct 2003 20:24:25 -0700, [email hidden] (ron lorden) posted:

    Quoted message said:

    The most controversial result of the study is its challenge to the virtually univeral belief that
    a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.....and so on. I recall having read a book about thirty years
    ago entitled "Calories Don't Count" wherein the author claimed to have conducted small-scale
    studies in which subjects on controlled-calorie diets lost weight when their diets where
    primarily comprised of fat and virtually carb free. The assumption that all calories are treated
    the same by the human body seems to be contradicted by research on the effects of insulin. It is
    known that fat does not cause a significant increase in serum glucose, and without a
    corresponding increase in insulin. Carbs increase serum glucose, resulting in increased insulin
    to facilitate glucose's entry into muscle and fat cells which could result in stored body fat.
    Obviously, this is a serious oversimplification of a complex phenomenon, but isn't the notion
    that a calorie is a calorie, etc. an equal oversimplification?

    A calorie has always been shown to be a claorie. You must show metabolic lab studies (where
    everything is measured) to show that calories can appear or disappear from the universe.

    Show us *one* (or a dozen, for that matter) metabolic lab study that shows that a gram of fat is
    *always* metabolized to 9 kcals and a gram of carb or protein is *always* metabolized to 4 kcals, no
    more, no less, in all circumstances that the body finds itself in, regardless of any hormonal
    influences or any other of the millions of bio-chemical influences in the human body. No study has
    proven this to be the case. Using calories to predict weight gain or loss in humans, independent of
    other bio-chemical influences and processes, is not a practical application of the law of
    conservation of energy aka. the first law of thermodynamics.

    TC

  20. I found this research interesting. Some people are saying now that maybe all calories are not equal
    in the traditional sense, when metabolized by the body. Other people are saying that maybe the
    low-carbers in the study simply cheated less because their appetites are under control better.

    But to me, the real issue isn't whether there is a thermogenic advantage or not to low-carbing. I
    wouldn't be shocked to find there was, although I think there is not a consensus on this point yet.

    To me, the issue is a matter of degree. I am finding that even with very low carb eating that I am
    gaining weight. So even if I would be gaining *more* weight eating the same number of calories and
    higher carbs, the problem still remains.

    In other words, low-carbing does not shut off normal metabolism. Eating too many calories for your
    body still causes you to gain weight regardless.

    doug

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users ยท 0 guests ยท0 bots ยท0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.