I haven't seen you debunk anything dude. Feel free to point to your posts where you do that. I like how you cherry-picked the sentences in the conclusion, but you completely missed that:
a) weight loss in the low-carb group was greater
b) HDL ("good" cholesterol) levels increased more in the low carb group
Other things may have remained the same, but low-carb was still superior in that particular study.
That's the hilarious part. I don't get how you see no reduction in blood pressure and no difference in LDL as a good thing. That is bad regardless of how you put it, especially since BOTH groups increased HDL and lost weight. In essence, it's showing that there is no significant difference. Now, go ahead, show me another article that "proves" this atkins diet is by and far loads superior to other diets.
Switching to a low carb diet (which I dont know if the "low carb" group in this study actually was low carb), will cause a change in your LDL profile, from small dense LDL to large buoyant LDL. a large buoyant LDL pattern is associated strongly with a lowered risk of heart disease.
I could go on and on about this subject, but this isn't a heart disease thread. Basically all you need to know for this specific argument is that LDL numbers themselves are pretty much inconsequential, and a low carb diet causes the LDL profile to become healtheir and thus lower the risk of heart disease.
That's what I'm trying to get at, which I already posted before. These articles are weak and terribly misleading. They don't display the full results of the trial at all or the inclusion criteria (which I find really crucial). I'm trying to say is that this diet isn't necessarily superior by a large margin to low-fat diets.
Also, I agree/know that it's supposed to lower LDL, but it didn't. I mean, that's weird, right?
You only "refuted" one of the articles I posted, and I never got a chance to review the whole thing whereas you did, then cherry-picked your results. What about the other two? Such as this one? Go ahead, give it a try.
Conclusions: Compared with a low-fat diet, a low-carbohydrate diet program had better participant retention and greater weight loss. During active weight loss, serum triglyceride levels decreased more and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level increased more with the low-carbohydrate diet than with the low-fat diet.
Refute it. I'm waiting.
edit: We don't know some key factors about that study, such as what the diets consisted of exactly and how strictly the participants followed them. What we do know is that when the diet is followed rather strictly, the results are overwhelmingly superior in the low-carb diet, as proven in the study above
I am concerned about overconsumption of fats, even without glucose intake. If you decided to eat 10 untrimmed steaks a day, for instance, I'm pretty sure the constant bathe could damage your liver. I'm not talking moderation, I'm talking dietary malfeasance despite technical adherence.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I haven't seen you debunk anything dude. Feel free to point to your posts where you do that. I like how you cherry-picked the sentences in the conclusion, but you completely missed that:
a) weight loss in the low-carb group was greater
b) HDL ("good" cholesterol) levels increased more in the low carb group
Other things may have remained the same, but low-carb was still superior in that particular study.
That's the hilarious part. I don't get how you see no reduction in blood pressure and no difference in LDL as a good thing. That is bad regardless of how you put it, especially since BOTH groups increased HDL and lost weight. In essence, it's showing that there is no significant difference. Now, go ahead, show me another article that "proves" this atkins diet is by and far loads superior to other diets.
Switching to a low carb diet (which I dont know if the "low carb" group in this study actually was low carb), will cause a change in your LDL profile, from small dense LDL to large buoyant LDL. a large buoyant LDL pattern is associated strongly with a lowered risk of heart disease.
I could go on and on about this subject, but this isn't a heart disease thread. Basically all you need to know for this specific argument is that LDL numbers themselves are pretty much inconsequential, and a low carb diet causes the LDL profile to become healtheir and thus lower the risk of heart disease.
That's what I'm trying to get at, which I already posted before. These articles are weak and terribly misleading. They don't display the full results of the trial at all or the inclusion criteria (which I find really crucial). I'm trying to say is that this diet isn't necessarily superior by a large margin to low-fat diets.
Also, I agree/know that it's supposed to lower LDL, but it didn't. I mean, that's weird, right?
I really don't know what you're getting at here. That study sucks, yes. Most observational diet studies suck.
This doesnt mean a low carb diet isnt superior by a large margin to a low fat one. It definitely is.
and its not neccesarily supposed to lower overall LDL numbers. Nor does it really matter if it does, having high LDL numbers gives you a tiny higher chance (single digit %) of a heart attack then not having high LDL. Its the single most overrated indicator in the history of medicine.
I am concerned about overconsumption of fats, even without glucose intake. If you decided to eat 10 untrimmed steaks a day, for instance, I'm pretty sure the constant bathe could damage your liver. I'm not talking moderation, I'm talking dietary malfeasance despite technical adherence.
I am concerned about overconsumption of fats, even without glucose intake. If you decided to eat 10 untrimmed steaks a day, for instance, I'm pretty sure the constant bathe could damage your liver. I'm not talking moderation, I'm talking dietary malfeasance despite technical adherence.
You shit out the fat that your liver can't process.
It's not like it goes into overdrive or something.
Also if you can eat 10 steaks a day then congratulations, you're already a god and nothing will ever happen to you. :P
I'm actually pretty much liking the whole low carb deal except for limits on certain carbohydrate foods, especially things like oatmeal and whole wheat bread, which carry with them soluble and insolube fiber, the former of which is pretty hard to incorporate in any diet as is. Same goes for fruit. Antioxidants and HDLs and all that.
You don't need oatmeal and whole wheat bread. You can get plenty of fiber from leafy vegetables and low-sugar fruits like berries. Broccoli, brussel sprouts, blackberries, etc.
yes, insoluble fiber. But the problem is soluble fiber. It's not really that prevalent in berries as opposed to larger fruits, but even that is dwarfed by certain kinds of oatmeal.
After five minutes of searching, I've noticed that a lot of the foods high in soluble fiber that aren't like, oatmeal, are pretty esoteric.
Meh, this argument sounds like desperate clinging to the carbs. Give the Oatmeal up.
Not really an option practically for a lot of people who need an instant meal. That's the real thing here. Oatmeal is a ... popular breakfast food. It's convenient and is even one of those futuristic dehydrated meals.
Set the alarm 10 minutes earlier and make some scrambled eggs while microwaving some bacon/sausage, or make an omelet. And cook larger dinners so you have leftovers for lunch the next day. I'm sure theres some study showing that losing weight(better breathing) improves sleep quality enough that you'll functionally gain back the 10 min.
I thought it was the other way around (that sleeping better/longer helps you lose weight)
I'm actually pretty much liking the whole low carb deal except for limits on certain carbohydrate foods, especially things like oatmeal and whole wheat bread, which carry with them soluble and insolube fiber, the former of which is pretty hard to incorporate in any diet as is. Same goes for fruit. Antioxidants and HDLs and all that.
You don't need oatmeal and whole wheat bread. You can get plenty of fiber from leafy vegetables and low-sugar fruits like berries. Broccoli, brussel sprouts, blackberries, etc.
yes, insoluble fiber. But the problem is soluble fiber. It's not really that prevalent in berries as opposed to larger fruits, but even that is dwarfed by certain kinds of oatmeal.
After five minutes of searching, I've noticed that a lot of the foods high in soluble fiber that aren't like, oatmeal, are pretty esoteric.
Meh, this argument sounds like desperate clinging to the carbs. Give the Oatmeal up.
Not really an option practically for a lot of people who need an instant meal. That's the real thing here. Oatmeal is a ... popular breakfast food. It's convenient and is even one of those futuristic dehydrated meals.
Set the alarm 10 minutes earlier and make some scrambled eggs while microwaving some bacon/sausage, or make an omelet. And cook larger dinners so you have leftovers for lunch the next day. I'm sure theres some study showing that losing weight(better breathing) improves sleep quality enough that you'll functionally gain back the 10 min.
I thought it was the other way around (that sleeping better/longer helps you lose weight)
It works both ways, the former usually in more extreme obesity.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I am concerned about overconsumption of fats, even without glucose intake. If you decided to eat 10 untrimmed steaks a day, for instance, I'm pretty sure the constant bathe could damage your liver. I'm not talking moderation, I'm talking dietary malfeasance despite technical adherence.
You shit out the fat that your liver can't process.
It's not like it goes into overdrive or something.
Also if you can eat 10 steaks a day then congratulations, you're already a god and nothing will ever happen to you. :P
Okay, but steatorrhea is both extremely painful and disgusting. That's really more of an issue with pancreas damage than with excess fat consumption, though. (It also has the worst diagnostic procedure ever)
Wait a minute, I'm not sure that this is correct. Any nutrient that goes to the liver doesn't get poured back into the intestines, and I believe that your intestinal absorption is regulated only by the health of the intestinal epithelium. I'm going to have to refresh my sources here, but I think that normal excretion of excess fat - if such a thing exists - is not through the GI tract.
Oh, and geckahn, I believe HDL/LDL ratio matters more than total LDL, because it shows the relative state of your cholesterol management. I'd be worried more about the liver anyway
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Where else would it be excreted from? Certainly not the kidneys, the skin, or lungs (although you do excrete ketone bodies from the kidneys during ketosis...).
I am concerned about overconsumption of fats, even without glucose intake. If you decided to eat 10 untrimmed steaks a day, for instance, I'm pretty sure the constant bathe could damage your liver. I'm not talking moderation, I'm talking dietary malfeasance despite technical adherence.
You shit out the fat that your liver can't process.
It's not like it goes into overdrive or something.
Also if you can eat 10 steaks a day then congratulations, you're already a god and nothing will ever happen to you. :P
Okay, but steatorrhea is both extremely painful and disgusting. That's really more of an issue with pancreas damage than with excess fat consumption, though. (It also has the worst diagnostic procedure ever)
Wait a minute, I'm not sure that this is correct. Any nutrient that goes to the liver doesn't get poured back into the intestines, and I believe that your intestinal absorption is regulated only by the health of the intestinal epithelium. I'm going to have to refresh my sources here, but I think that normal excretion of excess fat - if such a thing exists - is not through the GI tract.
Oh, and geckahn, I believe HDL/LDL ratio matters more than total LDL, because it shows the relative state of your cholesterol management. I'd be worried more about the liver anyway
I think that the triglyceride/LDL level is a good pointer of LDL composition, and a crucial indicator of health that is usually ignored. Maybe as important as straight HDL/LDL.
i ask this because hard liquors tend to have low if any carbs, but it's still around 100 calories per ounce.
i could probably cut out grains and starches without too much problems, but it would be hard to eliminate drinking at all
You don't have to eliminate drinking. You just have to eliminate carb-y drinks like regular beer (lite is fine) and mixed drinks that have non-diet stuff in them. The following are fine:
Wine
Whiskey
Vodka, Tequila, and Gin
Lite Beer (such as miller lite)
The only thing you should know about alcohol is that, when you consume it, it is metabolized before everything else. In other words, your body stops metabolizing fat and protein, and starts working as hard as it can to metabolize and get rid of alcohol (because it treats it as a poison). So, in limited amounts it is fine, but you probably shouldn't drink like a college student who has just turned 21.
i ask this because hard liquors tend to have low if any carbs, but it's still around 100 calories per ounce.
i could probably cut out grains and starches without too much problems, but it would be hard to eliminate drinking at all
Alcohol is metabolized by the liver, and take priority over anything else. It doesn't affect insulin response though it can possibly knock a low-carber out of ketosis for the duration of the alcohol metabolism. Of course, alcohol metabolizes into various ketones as well, so it might be a wash.
i ask this because hard liquors tend to have low if any carbs, but it's still around 100 calories per ounce.
i could probably cut out grains and starches without too much problems, but it would be hard to eliminate drinking at all
I had a similar question, I found this:
Here’s what Atkins said in his “Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution (3rd Ed.)” book:
“The body burns alcohol for fuel when alcohol is available. So when it is burning alcohol, your body will not burn fat. This does not stop weight loss; it simply postpones it. Since alcohol does not get stored as glycogen, you immediately get back into lipolysis after the alcohol is used up. But keep in mind that alcohol consumption may increase yeast-related symptoms in some people and interfere with weight loss. If it does not slow your weight loss, and occasional glass of wine is acceptable once you are out of Induction so long as you count the carbohydrates in your daily tally.” “If you have added alcohol to your regimen and suddenly stop losing weight, discontinue your alcohol intake.”
Of course, my drinking habits aren't "a glass of wine per day," more like "no alcohol for six days and then a bunch on the weekend." But from what I gather drinking hard liquor (which is what I drink generally) won't screw up the diet too much.
But this is kind of a related question: how long does it take the body to get into the ketogenic state? Let's say I stick to the low-carb diet for six days out of the week, and then go out to eat somewhere on the seventh and break the diet then. Will I be able to get back to the right metabolism relatively quickly, like, a day or two?
I am concerned about overconsumption of fats, even without glucose intake. If you decided to eat 10 untrimmed steaks a day, for instance, I'm pretty sure the constant bathe could damage your liver. I'm not talking moderation, I'm talking dietary malfeasance despite technical adherence.
You shit out the fat that your liver can't process.
It's not like it goes into overdrive or something.
Also if you can eat 10 steaks a day then congratulations, you're already a god and nothing will ever happen to you. :P
Okay, but steatorrhea is both extremely painful and disgusting. That's really more of an issue with pancreas damage than with excess fat consumption, though. (It also has the worst diagnostic procedure ever)
Wait a minute, I'm not sure that this is correct. Any nutrient that goes to the liver doesn't get poured back into the intestines, and I believe that your intestinal absorption is regulated only by the health of the intestinal epithelium. I'm going to have to refresh my sources here, but I think that normal excretion of excess fat - if such a thing exists - is not through the GI tract.
Oh, and geckahn, I believe HDL/LDL ratio matters more than total LDL, because it shows the relative state of your cholesterol management. I'd be worried more about the liver anyway
I think that the triglyceride/LDL level is a good pointer of LDL composition, and a crucial indicator of health that is usually ignored. Maybe as important as straight HDL/LDL.
Even LDL doesn't mean much - it is an extremely weak predictor of CHD. What really matters is oxLDL (oxidized LDL).
I am concerned about overconsumption of fats, even without glucose intake. If you decided to eat 10 untrimmed steaks a day, for instance, I'm pretty sure the constant bathe could damage your liver. I'm not talking moderation, I'm talking dietary malfeasance despite technical adherence.
You shit out the fat that your liver can't process.
It's not like it goes into overdrive or something.
Also if you can eat 10 steaks a day then congratulations, you're already a god and nothing will ever happen to you. :P
Okay, but steatorrhea is both extremely painful and disgusting. That's really more of an issue with pancreas damage than with excess fat consumption, though. (It also has the worst diagnostic procedure ever)
Wait a minute, I'm not sure that this is correct. Any nutrient that goes to the liver doesn't get poured back into the intestines, and I believe that your intestinal absorption is regulated only by the health of the intestinal epithelium. I'm going to have to refresh my sources here, but I think that normal excretion of excess fat - if such a thing exists - is not through the GI tract.
Oh, and geckahn, I believe HDL/LDL ratio matters more than total LDL, because it shows the relative state of your cholesterol management. I'd be worried more about the liver anyway
I think that the triglyceride/LDL level is a good pointer of LDL composition, and a crucial indicator of health that is usually ignored. Maybe as important as straight HDL/LDL.
Even LDL doesn't mean much - it is an extremely weak predictor of CHD. What really matters is oxLDL (oxidized LDL).
Where else would it be excreted from? Certainly not the kidneys, the skin, or lungs (although you do excrete ketone bodies from the kidneys during ketosis...).
I'm actually pretty rusty with that, but I'm pretty sure a few things could happen:
1. Pancreatic and gall secretions are insufficient to break down fat load. I strongly doubt this is regulated by system lipid monitoring. Hello anal leakage and smelly restrooms (where applicable)
2. Fine tuned secretion of fat derivatives via ketones and skin, probably incidentally fixing excess fat.
3. Fat burned through heat generation and increased metabolism in muscles
4. Fat storage. Could be dyslipidemic storage, leading to atherosclerosis, or some processing through liver and fat cells through regulatory mechanisms I have completely forgotten about. This is the most dangerous option and is the source of concern over people generating fatty, slow functioning livers, which in turn back up LDL and other cycling, which hits endothelial cells hard and builds up cholesterol plaques in vessel lining, recruiting inflammatory responders which cause vessel thickening and destruction.
5. Nothing, you can't get enough fat, lard pudding for everyone
I've never actually heard of a case where a person just pigs out on fat in the absence of glucose, so I'm actually curious about what will happen. Again, a prime opportunity to get published.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I have a question about "total carbohydrates" as listed on nutrition labels. The SA OP had this:
In many European countries, fiber is already deducted from the label’s total carb count. For example, imported Scandinavian bran crackers that list 3 grams of carbohydrate and 3 grams of fiber do not contain zero grams of carbohydrate. If they followed U.S. labeling conventions, their labels would show 6 grams of carbohydrate and 3 grams of fiber, since the European labels have already deducted the fiber from the total. This is also true of many imported chocolates.
To make it even more confusing, an increasing number of U.S. labels also deduct fiber from total counts, too. Many nuts do this, but so do premium chocolates. For example, despite fact that most labels for walnuts usually list “3 grams total carbohydrate, 3 grams fiber” walnuts are not a zero carb treat! They contain about 2 grams of carbohydrate per ounce.
Is there a way I can tell if the "total" carbohydrates listed are counting the fiber or not? For instance, I got one of those lettuce bags. It says there are three grams "total carbohydrates" per serving, and underneath that, it says there are two grams fiber and one gram sugar. In this case I assume that means 1g net carbohydrate per serving, but what if the label doesn't list how many grams sugar per serving? Is there a way to tell if the carbohydrates as listed in the nutrition info includes fiber or not?
I'm going to repost this. I bought some wraps that say 6g of carbs net, but the nutrition label says 16 g of carbs which includes 9g of fiber+1g of sugar alcohol(which equals 6g net).
How much effective carbs am I eating with one of these wraps? 6? 16? Somewhere in between?
The insulin response from sugar alcohol is different from person to person, but it's definitely non-negative. I avoid it whenever I can, but count 1g of it as 0.5g of effective carb when I can't.
I have a question about "total carbohydrates" as listed on nutrition labels. The SA OP had this:
In many European countries, fiber is already deducted from the label’s total carb count. For example, imported Scandinavian bran crackers that list 3 grams of carbohydrate and 3 grams of fiber do not contain zero grams of carbohydrate. If they followed U.S. labeling conventions, their labels would show 6 grams of carbohydrate and 3 grams of fiber, since the European labels have already deducted the fiber from the total. This is also true of many imported chocolates.
To make it even more confusing, an increasing number of U.S. labels also deduct fiber from total counts, too. Many nuts do this, but so do premium chocolates. For example, despite fact that most labels for walnuts usually list “3 grams total carbohydrate, 3 grams fiber” walnuts are not a zero carb treat! They contain about 2 grams of carbohydrate per ounce.
Is there a way I can tell if the "total" carbohydrates listed are counting the fiber or not? For instance, I got one of those lettuce bags. It says there are three grams "total carbohydrates" per serving, and underneath that, it says there are two grams fiber and one gram sugar. In this case I assume that means 1g net carbohydrate per serving, but what if the label doesn't list how many grams sugar per serving? Is there a way to tell if the carbohydrates as listed in the nutrition info includes fiber or not?
I'm going to repost this. I bought some wraps that say 6g of carbs net, but the nutrition label says 16 g of carbs which includes 9g of fiber+1g of sugar alcohol(which equals 6g net).
How much effective carbs am I eating with one of these wraps? 6? 16? Somewhere in between?
Even though I'm the guy that originally asked the question, I think in the case of those wraps it will be 6g effective carbs. If something set "net" carbs, my understanding is that number is total carbs - fiber.
However, "sugar alcohol" apparently is metabolized like sugar by some people and not others. So those wraps may be 7g net carbs for some people.
The nutritional labels I'm unsure of are the ones that don't have a listing for "net" carbs anywhere, just ones that say something like "10g carbohydrate" and then underneath that "4g fiber" (or whatever the number is). I wonder if that means 6g (10-4) or 10g (14-4).
If we keep at this long enough, can we convince McDs to start making their fries with lard again? Man those were good.
FYI this thread convinced me to go back on a low-carb diet again for a while. Also convinced me to do protein shakes for the first time ever. Great breakfast, whey in coffee, I had no idea. I can even replace the sugar with it. Then for lunch, roast beef, cheese cubes, spinach, and pecans. Tomorrow I'll throw in a boiled egg that I literally got from the farm (dank!)
At some point the social convenience of just eating pizza and fries with everyone will overtake me again, but hopefully I'll lose 10 - 15 before that happens. That was another thing I liked about low-carb, it takes a while to gain the weight back. I recently got one of those holocaust flus going around and lost 12 pounds, but gained it all back almost instantly. When I lose 12 on low-carb, it can take months or a year to gain it back after I go back to my bad eating.
If we keep at this long enough, can we convince McDs to start making their fries with lard again? Man those were good.
FYI this thread convinced me to go back on a low-carb diet again for a while. Also convinced me to do protein shakes for the first time ever. Great breakfast, whey in coffee, I had no idea. I can even replace the sugar with it. Then for lunch, roast beef, cheese cubes, spinach, and pecans. Tomorrow I'll throw in a boiled egg that I literally got from the farm (dank!)
If we keep at this long enough, can we convince McDs to start making their fries with lard again? Man those were good.
FYI this thread convinced me to go back on a low-carb diet again for a while. Also convinced me to do protein shakes for the first time ever. Great breakfast, whey in coffee, I had no idea. I can even replace the sugar with it. Then for lunch, roast beef, cheese cubes, spinach, and pecans. Tomorrow I'll throw in a boiled egg that I literally got from the farm (dank!)
At some point the social convenience of just eating pizza and fries with everyone will overtake me again, but hopefully I'll lose 10 - 15 before that happens. That was another thing I liked about low-carb, it takes a while to gain the weight back. I recently got one of those holocaust flus going around and lost 12 pounds, but gained it all back almost instantly. When I lose 12 on low-carb, it can take months or a year to gain it back after I go back to my bad eating.
Just eat pizza regularly enough to never really crave it, and limit yourself to 2 slices and don't eat the crust.
...Sometimes I completely scrape the toppings and sauce off and throw away the crust. Sounds weird, but true.
For decades McDonald's cooked its french fries in a mixture of about seven percent cottonseed oil and 93 percent beef tallow. The mixture gave the fries their unique flavor -- and more saturated beef fat per ounce than a McDonald's hamburger.
In 1990, amid a barrage of criticism over the amount of cholesterol in its fries, McDonald's switched to pure vegetable oil.
I pimped that video in the last thread we ad on this subject.
It is pretty awesome.
geckahn on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
The thing that is often missed out is that the energy density of foods can trick some of the other satiation mechanisms, most notably chewing and stretch receptors in the stomach.
EDIT: And the energy density of modern carbohydrate-filled foods is higher than ever before, cf mcdonalds burgers :<
How does one perform a double blind study on a diet? Anyone that will actually manage to obey the study directions will manage to figure out they are on a low carb diet.
Well, that's your job to figure out, not mine. Doing proper science is hard work, and that's my fundamental problem with Atkins folks: they don't want to do the work involved in proving their case. They just want to push out books in the popular press and claim that their diet is 'scientific' (all the while shitting on the profession of being a medical doctor, as the OP does, claiming that doctors are either all incompetent or all involved in some vast conspiracy to squash the poor, poor Atkins folks - the same arguments all quacks use).
Feel free to browse Google Scholar for more of them.
I have two words for you:
Nature and JAMA.
Those are the two most well respected journals I read. If you know of a double blind study that was accepted in either of those journals, I'll concede that there may be some substance behind this dieting regimen.
How does one perform a double blind study on a diet? Anyone that will actually manage to obey the study directions will manage to figure out they are on a low carb diet.
Well, that's your job to figure out, not mine. Doing proper science is hard work, and that's my fundamental problem with Atkins folks: they don't want to do the work involved in proving their case. They just want to push out books in the popular press and claim that their diet is 'scientific' (all the while shitting on the profession of being a medical doctor, as the OP does, claiming that doctors are either all incompetent or all involved in some vast conspiracy to squash the poor, poor Atkins folks - the same arguments all quacks use).
Feel free to browse Google Scholar for more of them.
I have two words for you:
Nature and JAMA.
Those are the two most well respected journals I read. If you know of a double blind study that was accepted in either of those journals, I'll concede that there may be some substance behind this dieting regimen.
So your entire argument is based on appeal to authority.
Awesome. There's not a single reason you should post in here again.
JAMA is extremely unlikely to publish anything that might compromise their set-in-stone low-fat/high-carb dogma, considering they were the journal that originally spread it as the end-all-be-all of all diets. I don't know enough about Nature to comment.
But it's pretty silly to base opinions on what gets published on a couple of scientific journals. They may be respectable, but that hardly makes them infallible or immune to establishment bias.
So your entire argument is based on appeal to authority.
Awesome. There's not a single reason you should post in here again.
Either post your own links or stop posting honestly, we have provided plenty of research throughout the thread. If you have counter-evidence, show it and we'll discuss.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
I don't know enough about Nature to comment.
Nature wouldn't care about ideological considerations (they love controversial stuff, they published a very fun piece on non-Mendelian inheritance in hothead some time ago), but in general I don't think they do much "health" stuff.
My mom is shitting all over me for my new diet because she tried Atkins and it didn't work
Apparently at the class she went to they didn't cover not eating potatoes and breading on fried food (not to mention probably the oil that KFC uses) being bad, in addition to fruits and a few other things
I wonder how many people tried a "low carb diet" and unconsciously increased their intake of high carb foods that they didn't know were high in carbs
Posts
You only "refuted" one of the articles I posted, and I never got a chance to review the whole thing whereas you did, then cherry-picked your results. What about the other two? Such as this one? Go ahead, give it a try.
Refute it. I'm waiting.
edit: We don't know some key factors about that study, such as what the diets consisted of exactly and how strictly the participants followed them. What we do know is that when the diet is followed rather strictly, the results are overwhelmingly superior in the low-carb diet, as proven in the study above
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I really don't know what you're getting at here. That study sucks, yes. Most observational diet studies suck.
This doesnt mean a low carb diet isnt superior by a large margin to a low fat one. It definitely is.
and its not neccesarily supposed to lower overall LDL numbers. Nor does it really matter if it does, having high LDL numbers gives you a tiny higher chance (single digit %) of a heart attack then not having high LDL. Its the single most overrated indicator in the history of medicine.
your concerns are wholly unwarranted.
You shit out the fat that your liver can't process.
It's not like it goes into overdrive or something.
Also if you can eat 10 steaks a day then congratulations, you're already a god and nothing will ever happen to you. :P
I thought it was the other way around (that sleeping better/longer helps you lose weight)
It works both ways, the former usually in more extreme obesity.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Okay, but steatorrhea is both extremely painful and disgusting. That's really more of an issue with pancreas damage than with excess fat consumption, though. (It also has the worst diagnostic procedure ever)
Wait a minute, I'm not sure that this is correct. Any nutrient that goes to the liver doesn't get poured back into the intestines, and I believe that your intestinal absorption is regulated only by the health of the intestinal epithelium. I'm going to have to refresh my sources here, but I think that normal excretion of excess fat - if such a thing exists - is not through the GI tract.
Oh, and geckahn, I believe HDL/LDL ratio matters more than total LDL, because it shows the relative state of your cholesterol management. I'd be worried more about the liver anyway
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Watch the fun.
how do alcohol calories figure into carbs?
i ask this because hard liquors tend to have low if any carbs, but it's still around 100 calories per ounce.
i could probably cut out grains and starches without too much problems, but it would be hard to eliminate drinking at all
I think that the triglyceride/LDL level is a good pointer of LDL composition, and a crucial indicator of health that is usually ignored. Maybe as important as straight HDL/LDL.
You don't have to eliminate drinking. You just have to eliminate carb-y drinks like regular beer (lite is fine) and mixed drinks that have non-diet stuff in them. The following are fine:
Wine
Whiskey
Vodka, Tequila, and Gin
Lite Beer (such as miller lite)
The only thing you should know about alcohol is that, when you consume it, it is metabolized before everything else. In other words, your body stops metabolizing fat and protein, and starts working as hard as it can to metabolize and get rid of alcohol (because it treats it as a poison). So, in limited amounts it is fine, but you probably shouldn't drink like a college student who has just turned 21.
Alcohol is metabolized by the liver, and take priority over anything else. It doesn't affect insulin response though it can possibly knock a low-carber out of ketosis for the duration of the alcohol metabolism. Of course, alcohol metabolizes into various ketones as well, so it might be a wash.
I think that it'd be fine in moderation.
I had a similar question, I found this:
Of course, my drinking habits aren't "a glass of wine per day," more like "no alcohol for six days and then a bunch on the weekend." But from what I gather drinking hard liquor (which is what I drink generally) won't screw up the diet too much.
But this is kind of a related question: how long does it take the body to get into the ketogenic state? Let's say I stick to the low-carb diet for six days out of the week, and then go out to eat somewhere on the seventh and break the diet then. Will I be able to get back to the right metabolism relatively quickly, like, a day or two?
Even LDL doesn't mean much - it is an extremely weak predictor of CHD. What really matters is oxLDL (oxidized LDL).
Here's a good article on it:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/07/diet-heart-hypothesis-oxidized-ldl-part.html
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/08/diet-heart-hypothesis-oxidized-ldl-part.html
Yeah, I read that low triglyceride levels correlate with low small-dense LDLs, which is optimal.
I'm actually pretty rusty with that, but I'm pretty sure a few things could happen:
1. Pancreatic and gall secretions are insufficient to break down fat load. I strongly doubt this is regulated by system lipid monitoring. Hello anal leakage and smelly restrooms (where applicable)
2. Fine tuned secretion of fat derivatives via ketones and skin, probably incidentally fixing excess fat.
3. Fat burned through heat generation and increased metabolism in muscles
4. Fat storage. Could be dyslipidemic storage, leading to atherosclerosis, or some processing through liver and fat cells through regulatory mechanisms I have completely forgotten about. This is the most dangerous option and is the source of concern over people generating fatty, slow functioning livers, which in turn back up LDL and other cycling, which hits endothelial cells hard and builds up cholesterol plaques in vessel lining, recruiting inflammatory responders which cause vessel thickening and destruction.
5. Nothing, you can't get enough fat, lard pudding for everyone
I've never actually heard of a case where a person just pigs out on fat in the absence of glucose, so I'm actually curious about what will happen. Again, a prime opportunity to get published.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm going to repost this. I bought some wraps that say 6g of carbs net, but the nutrition label says 16 g of carbs which includes 9g of fiber+1g of sugar alcohol(which equals 6g net).
How much effective carbs am I eating with one of these wraps? 6? 16? Somewhere in between?
Even though I'm the guy that originally asked the question, I think in the case of those wraps it will be 6g effective carbs. If something set "net" carbs, my understanding is that number is total carbs - fiber.
However, "sugar alcohol" apparently is metabolized like sugar by some people and not others. So those wraps may be 7g net carbs for some people.
The nutritional labels I'm unsure of are the ones that don't have a listing for "net" carbs anywhere, just ones that say something like "10g carbohydrate" and then underneath that "4g fiber" (or whatever the number is). I wonder if that means 6g (10-4) or 10g (14-4).
FYI this thread convinced me to go back on a low-carb diet again for a while. Also convinced me to do protein shakes for the first time ever. Great breakfast, whey in coffee, I had no idea. I can even replace the sugar with it. Then for lunch, roast beef, cheese cubes, spinach, and pecans. Tomorrow I'll throw in a boiled egg that I literally got from the farm (dank!)
At some point the social convenience of just eating pizza and fries with everyone will overtake me again, but hopefully I'll lose 10 - 15 before that happens. That was another thing I liked about low-carb, it takes a while to gain the weight back. I recently got one of those holocaust flus going around and lost 12 pounds, but gained it all back almost instantly. When I lose 12 on low-carb, it can take months or a year to gain it back after I go back to my bad eating.
Oh.
I see.
Fixed.
SOLD!
Just eat pizza regularly enough to never really crave it, and limit yourself to 2 slices and don't eat the crust.
...Sometimes I completely scrape the toppings and sauce off and throw away the crust. Sounds weird, but true.
Sorry, I'm not into dudes.
It wasn't lard, It was beef tallow(basically burger drippings).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Everyone in this thread should watch this.
Yes, I know it's 90 minutes. Watch it anyway.
It is pretty awesome.
EDIT: And the energy density of modern carbohydrate-filled foods is higher than ever before, cf mcdonalds burgers :<
Well, that's your job to figure out, not mine. Doing proper science is hard work, and that's my fundamental problem with Atkins folks: they don't want to do the work involved in proving their case. They just want to push out books in the popular press and claim that their diet is 'scientific' (all the while shitting on the profession of being a medical doctor, as the OP does, claiming that doctors are either all incompetent or all involved in some vast conspiracy to squash the poor, poor Atkins folks - the same arguments all quacks use).
I have two words for you:
Nature and JAMA.
Those are the two most well respected journals I read. If you know of a double blind study that was accepted in either of those journals, I'll concede that there may be some substance behind this dieting regimen.
So your entire argument is based on appeal to authority.
Awesome. There's not a single reason you should post in here again.
But it's pretty silly to base opinions on what gets published on a couple of scientific journals. They may be respectable, but that hardly makes them infallible or immune to establishment bias.
Also:
Either post your own links or stop posting honestly, we have provided plenty of research throughout the thread. If you have counter-evidence, show it and we'll discuss.
Nature wouldn't care about ideological considerations (they love controversial stuff, they published a very fun piece on non-Mendelian inheritance in hothead some time ago), but in general I don't think they do much "health" stuff.
Apparently at the class she went to they didn't cover not eating potatoes and breading on fried food (not to mention probably the oil that KFC uses) being bad, in addition to fruits and a few other things
I wonder how many people tried a "low carb diet" and unconsciously increased their intake of high carb foods that they didn't know were high in carbs