Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works....

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Tcomeau, Oct 22, 2003.

  1. Tcomeau

    Tcomeau Guest

    This news report hits on a lot of interesting points regarding the new paradigm shift in nutrition
    and the resistance from academics.

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html

    "Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is baffled
    about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie, low-fat
    eating plans, Robert Matthews reports."
     
    Tags:


  2. Nicholas

    Nicholas Guest

    "tcomeau" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:[email protected]...
    > This news report hits on a lot of interesting points regarding the new paradigm shift in nutrition
    > and the resistance from academics.
    >
    > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
    >
    > "Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is
    > baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie,
    > low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports."

    Of course they have lost weight, they have lost a lot of lean body mass compared to the low-fat diet
    Also, all this studies are isocaloric and the subjects force-fed on the high-carbohydrates diet
    experience ormonal and chemical lack of balance But low-fat diet like the Pritikin or the McDougall
    always show to be better when compared ad libitum with low-carb diet because all the good of a
    low-fat diet are not ruined by force-feeding You'll never find ad libitum study show that Atkins or
    Sears diet is better than Pritikin or McDougall Stop posting isocaloric studies, they are useless
    Fortunately the flaws of isocaloric diets studies have been pointed out by many researchers, so if
    we're fortunate there will be no more isocaloric studies on diets Therefore, we will have only ad
    libitum studies and low-carb diet show always to be worst in ad libitum studies J Am Diet Assoc 1997
    Aug;97(8):840 Am J Clin Nutr 1997 Nov;66(5):1293-4
     
  3. Mike V

    Mike V Guest

    How can I say this politely .. .. ..?

    er. . . Crap! .. .. Ad libitum. MikeV

    "Nicholas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:%[email protected]...
    >
    > "tcomeau" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > This news report hits on a lot of interesting points regarding the new paradigm shift in
    > > nutrition and the resistance from academics.
    > >
    > > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
    > >
    > > "Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is
    > > baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional
    > > low-calorie, low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports."
    >
    > Of course they have lost weight, they have lost a lot of lean body mass compared to the low-fat
    > diet Also, all this studies are isocaloric and the subjects force-fed on the high-carbohydrates
    > diet experience ormonal and chemical lack of balance But low-fat diet like the Pritikin or the
    > McDougall always show to be
    better
    > when compared ad libitum with low-carb diet because all the good of a low-fat diet are not ruined
    > by force-feeding You'll never find ad libitum study show that Atkins or Sears diet is
    better
    > than Pritikin or McDougall Stop posting isocaloric studies, they are useless Fortunately the flaws
    > of isocaloric diets studies have been pointed out by many researchers, so if we're fortunate there
    > will be no more isocaloric studies on diets Therefore, we will have only ad libitum studies and
    > low-carb diet show always to be worst in ad libitum studies J Am Diet Assoc 1997 Aug;97(8):840 Am
    > J Clin Nutr 1997 Nov;66(5):1293-4
    >
     
  4. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On 22 Oct 2003 08:56:48 -0700, [email protected] (tcomeau) wrote:

    >This news report hits on a lot of interesting points regarding the new paradigm shift in nutrition
    >and the resistance from academics.
    >
    >http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html

    My favorite paragraph:

    Those already embarked on such research suspect that it will take a great deal to overcome the
    visceral response the mere mention of Atkins provokes among academics. Says Brehm: "A lot of people
    just want to hold on to what they learned in college."

    Don <donwiss at panix.com>.
     
  5. "Don Wiss" <[email protected]_spam.com> wrote in message news:8k0epvs89vclog794lit20n6mefa4t7fcf
    >
    > My favorite paragraph:
    >
    > Those already embarked on such research suspect that it will take a great deal to overcome the
    > visceral response the mere mention of Atkins provokes among academics. Says Brehm: "A lot of
    > people just want to hold on to what they learned in college."
    >

    Doesn't Thomas Kuhn say somewhere that a 'paradigm shift' in science usually comes about not because
    the 'leading' generation of scientists 'gradually comes to accept that the new paradigm is better
    than the previous one' - it comes about *because the leading generation of scientists eventually
    dies off*...!??

    What fascinates me about this whole issue, Don, is that the 'low fat, hi-carb' religion really seems
    to be just one or two generations old: when I was a kid (c.1970) and my mother or her friends wanted
    to go on a diet, the first thing they did was *cut out bread, potatoes, pasta and rice!*

    Russ.
     
  6. Moosh!

    Moosh! Guest

    On 22 Oct 2003 08:56:48 -0700, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:

    >This news report hits on a lot of interesting points regarding the new paradigm shift in nutrition
    >and the resistance from academics.
    >
    >http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
    >
    >"Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is
    >baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie,
    >low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports."

    Another poor newspaper report, of a short-term part-study.

    Look, every "diet" will work while it is adhered to. Most radical dietary changes are doomed to
    failure. There is nothing new in this article.
     
  7. Moosh!

    Moosh! Guest

    On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:21:43 -0400, Don Wiss <[email protected]_spam.com> posted:

    >On 22 Oct 2003 08:56:48 -0700, [email protected] (tcomeau) wrote:
    >
    >>This news report hits on a lot of interesting points regarding the new paradigm shift in nutrition
    >>and the resistance from academics.
    >>
    >>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
    >
    >My favorite paragraph:
    >
    >Those already embarked on such research suspect that it will take a great deal to overcome the
    >visceral response the mere mention of Atkins provokes among academics. Says Brehm: "A lot of people
    >just want to hold on to what they learned in college."

    Like the Laws of Thermodynamics?
     
  8. Moosh!

    Moosh! Guest

    On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:47:15 GMT, "Mike V" <[email protected]> posted:

    >How can I say this politely .. .. ..?
    >
    >er. . . Crap! .. .. Ad libitum.

    I take it you are objecting to "ad libitum?

    Seems to me that ad libitum studies are designed for real-life weight-control, and isocaloric
    studies are designed for eliciting scientific principles that underpin nutrition.

    >MikeV
    >
    >"Nicholas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:%[email protected]...
    >>
    >> "tcomeau" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> > This news report hits on a lot of interesting points regarding the new paradigm shift in
    >> > nutrition and the resistance from academics.
    >> >
    >> > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
    >> >
    >> > "Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is
    >> > baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional
    >> > low-calorie, low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports."
    >>
    >> Of course they have lost weight, they have lost a lot of lean body mass compared to the low-fat
    >> diet Also, all this studies are isocaloric and the subjects force-fed on the high-carbohydrates
    >> diet experience ormonal and chemical lack of balance But low-fat diet like the Pritikin or the
    >> McDougall always show to be
    >better
    >> when compared ad libitum with low-carb diet because all the good of a low-fat diet are not ruined
    >> by force-feeding You'll never find ad libitum study show that Atkins or Sears diet is
    >better
    >> than Pritikin or McDougall Stop posting isocaloric studies, they are useless Fortunately the
    >> flaws of isocaloric diets studies have been pointed out by many researchers, so if we're
    >> fortunate there will be no more isocaloric studies on diets Therefore, we will have only ad
    >> libitum studies and low-carb diet show always to be worst in ad libitum studies J Am Diet Assoc
    >> 1997 Aug;97(8):840 Am J Clin Nutr 1997 Nov;66(5):1293-4
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
     
  9. Moosh!

    Moosh! Guest

    On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:58:04 +0100, "Russell.Beale"
    <[email protected]> posted:

    >"Don Wiss" <[email protected]_spam.com> wrote in message news:8k0epvs89vclog794lit20n6mefa4t7fcf
    >>
    >> My favorite paragraph:
    >>
    >> Those already embarked on such research suspect that it will take a great deal to overcome the
    >> visceral response the mere mention of Atkins provokes among academics. Says Brehm: "A lot of
    >> people just want to hold on to what they learned in college."
    >>
    >
    >Doesn't Thomas Kuhn say somewhere that a 'paradigm shift' in science usually comes about not
    >because the 'leading' generation of scientists 'gradually comes to accept that the new paradigm is
    >better than the previous one' - it comes about *because the leading generation of scientists
    >eventually dies off*...!??
    >
    >What fascinates me about this whole issue, Don, is that the 'low fat, hi-carb' religion really
    >seems to be just one or two generations old: when I was a kid (c.1970) and my mother or her friends
    >wanted to go on a diet, the first thing they did was *cut out bread, potatoes, pasta and rice!*

    And that didn't work either :)

    The trick seems to be to me to alter your way of life so little that you can keep it up for the rest
    of your life. If you switch to wholefoods, and eat a great variety, and slightly alter your day to
    need more activity, you will not likely feel deprived, and will just tip the balance toward a
    healthy weight and healthy body.

    If you can give up your car, like I have, you will be improving your own health along with that of
    the planet.
     
  10. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Nicholas <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    > "tcomeau" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio

    >> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
    >>
    >> "Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is
    >> baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie,
    >> low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports."
    >
    > Of course they have lost weight, they have lost a lot of lean body mass compared to the low-fat
    > diet Also, all this studies are isocaloric and the subjects force-fed on the high-carbohydrates
    > diet experience ormonal and chemical lack of balance But low-fat diet like the Pritikin or the
    > McDougall always show to be better when compared ad libitum with low-carb diet because all the
    > good of a low-fat diet are not ruined by force-feeding You'll never find ad libitum study show
    > that Atkins or Sears diet is better than Pritikin or McDougall Stop posting isocaloric studies,
    > they are useless

    Isocaloric studies are normally very useful.

    They factor out calories - which are otherwise a substantial confusing factor.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  11. Moosh!

    Moosh! Guest

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:51:08 GMT, Tim Tyler <[email protected]> posted:

    >Nicholas <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    >> "tcomeau" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
    >
    >>> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
    >>>
    >>> "Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is
    >>> baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional
    >>> low-calorie, low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports."
    >>
    >> Of course they have lost weight, they have lost a lot of lean body mass compared to the low-fat
    >> diet Also, all this studies are isocaloric and the subjects force-fed on the high-carbohydrates
    >> diet experience ormonal and chemical lack of balance But low-fat diet like the Pritikin or the
    >> McDougall always show to be better when compared ad libitum with low-carb diet because all the
    >> good of a low-fat diet are not ruined by force-feeding You'll never find ad libitum study show
    >> that Atkins or Sears diet is better than Pritikin or McDougall Stop posting isocaloric studies,
    >> they are useless
    >
    >Isocaloric studies are normally very useful.

    For understanding scientific principles.

    >They factor out calories - which are otherwise a substantial confusing factor.

    Yep.

    But we appear to have folk here wanting weight loss advice. Ad libitum studies can give insight into
    achieveing this.
     
  12. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Moosh! <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:51:08 GMT, Tim Tyler <[email protected]> posted:

    >>Isocaloric studies are normally very useful.
    >
    > For understanding scientific principles.
    >
    >>They factor out calories - which are otherwise a substantial confusing factor.
    >
    > Yep.
    >
    > But we appear to have folk here wanting weight loss advice. Ad libitum studies can give insight
    > into achieveing this.

    The most common result being - if you eat ad-lib, you are unlikely to lose much weight ;-)
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  13. Moosh!

    Moosh! Guest

    On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:42:16 GMT, Tim Tyler <[email protected]> posted:

    >Moosh! <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:51:08 GMT, Tim Tyler <[email protected]> posted:
    >
    >>>Isocaloric studies are normally very useful.
    >>
    >> For understanding scientific principles.
    >>
    >>>They factor out calories - which are otherwise a substantial confusing factor.
    >>
    >> Yep.
    >>
    >> But we appear to have folk here wanting weight loss advice. Ad libitum studies can give insight
    >> into achieveing this.
    >
    >The most common result being - if you eat ad-lib, you are unlikely to lose much weight ;-)

    No, the aim of any lifestyle should be to eat what you want, when you want and not overdo the
    calories. This can be achieved for many by eating only wholefoods, you know, the unprocessed
    un-calorie-concentrated foods that, when tried, are often found to be more enjoyable, well
    hopefully. I do.

    There are some folk (possibly syndome X candidates, if they don't take stock) who find that more
    than a small amount of carbs bumps up their hunger so that ad libitum causes weight gain.
     
  14. Tim Josling

    Tim Josling Guest

    Russell.Beale wrote:
    > "Don Wiss" <[email protected]_spam.com> wrote in message news:8k0epvs89vclog794lit20n6mefa4t7fcf
    >
    >>My favorite paragraph:
    >>
    >>Those already embarked on such research suspect that it will take a great deal to overcome the
    >>visceral response the mere mention of Atkins provokes among academics. Says Brehm: "A lot of
    >>people just want to hold on to what they learned in college."
    >>
    >
    >
    > Doesn't Thomas Kuhn say somewhere that a 'paradigm shift' in science usually comes about not
    > because the 'leading' generation of scientists 'gradually comes to accept that the new paradigm is
    > better than the previous one' - it comes about *because the leading generation of scientists
    > eventually dies off*...!??
    >
    > What fascinates me about this whole issue, Don, is that the 'low fat, hi-carb' religion really
    > seems to be just one or two generations old: when I was a kid (c.1970) and my mother or her
    > friends wanted to go on a diet, the first thing they did was *cut out bread, potatoes, pasta
    > and rice!*
    >
    > Russ.
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Someone once put it more succinctly: Science advances, funeral by funeral.

    Tim Josling
     
Loading...