Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
Diarmid Logan
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
12:21 18 May 04
NewScientist.com news service
The claimed benefits of the controversial low-carbohydrate Atkins diet
have been reaffirmed in two new studies, one of which is the longest
study to date.
"I think it's good news for Atkins dieters," says Linda Stern, who led
the first study of 132 obese patients at the Veterans Affairs Medical
Center in Philadelphia, US.
The diet was devised by the late US doctor Robert Atkins. To lose
weight, devotees avoid carbohydrates and consume more protein and fat
instead.
Both new studies found that subjects on the Atkins diet shed
significant amounts of weight without harmful effects on blood fats
and sugars. But the studies have failed to silence critics of the
diet, who want the US government to investigate alleged adverse
effects.
Stern's year-long study (Annals of Internal Medicine, vol 140, p778)
was twice the length of any previous study. Half the patients followed
the Atkins regime, limiting daily carbohydrate intake to just 30
grams. The rest tried losing weight through a conventional low-fat
diet much richer in carbohydrates.
By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of weight,
between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins group and three and
eight kilos for the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost
all their weight in the first six months, then remained at a steady
weight.
Stern says that this pattern of rapid weight loss matches that seen in
an earlier but shorter study of Atkins dieters, by Gary Foster's team
at the University of Pennsylvania in May 2003. "I'm impressed that
they didn't gain it all back," says Stern.
Compared with the low-fat group, Atkins dieters also had lower levels
of triglycerides, potentially harmful blood sugars which can trigger
heart disease. Concentrations of beneficial high density cholesterols
(HDLs) also held up better in the Atkins group. And these favourable
changes remained till the end of the study, suggesting that there
might be lasting benefits.
"But what we really need is a study showing whether people on the
low-carbohydrate diet for years have different odds of heart attacks,
strokes and diabetes," she says.
A second, six-month study on 120 overweight patients at Duke
University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, echoes the first,
with low-carbohydrate dieters shedding an average of 12 kilos, twice
that lost by those on a low-fat regime (Annals of Internal Medicine,
vol 140, p769). And the pattern of blood fats and sugars mirrored that
in Stern's study.
"Over six months, the diet appears to be relatively safe, but we need
to study the safety for longer durations," says Will Yancy, head of
the Duke team.
But critics highlight some negative findings from the Duke study.
"This new evidence confirms that levels of 'bad' cholesterol worsen in
a substantial number of low-carbohydrate dieters," said Neal Barnard
of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a vegan lobby
group in Washington DC.
"And the supposedly dramatic benefits of the diet do not hold up over
the long term," said Barnard, referring to the end of weight loss
after six months in the Stern study.
Although broadly supportive of the Atkins regime, Yancy warns that the
diet could pose risks including the higher "bad" cholesterol, bone
loss and kidney stones. Because of this, he discourages first-time
dieters from using the regime.
Andy Coghlan
****************************************
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3722221.stm
Scientists endorse Atkins diet
Following a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet is a more effective
way to lose weight than following a low fat diet, say US researchers.
Two studies published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found
weight loss was greatest when people followed an Atkins-style diet.
Cholesterol levels also seemed to improve more on a low-carb diet
compared to a low-fat diet.
However, the research was funded by the Robert C Atkins Foundation.
And critics say there are still serious doubts about the long-term
effect on health of adopting such diets.
In the first study, researchers at Duke University Medical Center in
Durham, North Carolina, assigned 120 obese volunteers to either a
low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet or a low-fat, low-cholesterol,
low-calorie diet.
After six months, the people on the Atkins-style diet had lost an
average of 26 pounds, compared to an average of 14 pounds in the
conventional low-fat diet group.
The low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet also had a good effect on fat
levels.
The Atkins dieters lost more body fat, lowered their triglyceride
levels and raised their "good" HDL cholesterol levels more than the
low-fat dieters.
In the second study, researchers at the Veterans Affairs Medical
Center in Philadelphia followed 132 obese adults who were randomised
to either low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet groups.
Again, after six months the people following the low-carbohydrate diet
lost the most weight and had improved fat levels.
However, at 12 months both groups had lost similar amounts of weight.
The low fat group had continued to lose weight from six to 12 months
while the average weight in the low-carbohydrate group had remained
steady after six months.
Lead author of the Philadelphia study Dr Linda Stern said: "I think a
low-carbohydrate diet is a good choice because much of our overeating
has to do with consumption of too many carbohydrates."
But she said more research was needed to see if a low-carbohydrate
diet remained safe and effective over the longer term.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr Walter Willett, from the Harvard
School of Public Health in the US, said: "We can no longer dismiss
very-low-carbohydrate diets."
But he added that such diets should include healthy sources of protein
and fat and incorporate regular exercise.
"Patients should focus on finding ways to eat that they can maintain
indefinitely rather than seeking diets that promote rapid weight
loss," he said.
Dr David Haslam, chairman of the National Obesity Forum, said: "There
is no doubt that if low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets are followed
properly you will lose weight.
"What's always been questioned is the long term efficacy of such diets
and in the short term, with weight loss, there are certain risks in
certain patients - like patients with renal problems."
"There's still no long term data about the efficacy and you can't
stick on that type of diet for long because it's unpalatable," he
said.
Dr Haslam called for more research spanning five to six years rather
than months.
He said the best diet was still a healthy, balanced diet cutting out
excessive fat.
"One thing the Atkins isn't is balanced. It's not what the body
expects and that's why we don't know the long term changes," he said.
Dietzmina Govindji, of the British Dietetic Association, also warned
people against thinking Atkins, or other similar diets, were the best
way to lose weight.
She said: "Do not be sucked in by the cabbage soup diet and other fad
diets.
"The thing to remember about all these quick-fix diets is they do help
you lose weight very, very quickly but often you will put it back on
very, very quickly and they often miss out on whole food groups, so
you are not getting the full range of vitamins and minerals you need."
Crafting Mom
educated to become writers of articles would know what a "regime" is and
what a "regimen" is.
Diarmid Logan wrote:
--
The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience. Please interpret accordingly.
Evelyn Ruut
news:622d5dd0.04051...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995003
> Compared with the low-fat group, Atkins dieters also had lower levels
> of triglycerides, potentially harmful blood sugars which can trigger
> heart disease. Concentrations of beneficial high density cholesterols
> (HDLs) also held up better in the Atkins group. And these favourable
> changes remained till the end of the study, suggesting that there
> might be lasting benefits.
> Andy Coghlan
Andy I saw this on the news today (and last night), where they covered this
subject.
Thanks for posting this here.
It reflects my own experience as well.
--
Regards,
Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")
Evelyn Ruut
news:Bzoqc.42677$kc2.6...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Can't comment on the article, but one would think that people who are
> educated to become writers of articles would know what a "regime" is and
> what a "regimen" is.
Probably a typo.... losing that last letter "n"
--
Regards,
Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")
>
Matti Narkia
<Bzoqc.42677$kc2.6...@nnrp1.uunet.ca> Crafting Mom
<Craft...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>Can't comment on the article, but one would think that people who are
>educated to become writers of articles would know what a "regime" is and
>what a "regimen" is.
>
Actually, according to
<URL:http://dictionary.reference.com>
which uses as its source _The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition_, regime" and "regimen" are synonyms (in the
context used in the articles you are referring to):
"re·gime also ré·gime
n.
[..]
4. A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen."
The medical dictionary at <URL:http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/> is bit more
restrictive allowing the meaning implied in the articles only for the word
"regimen".
--
Matti Narkia
Doug Lerner
622d5dd0.04051...@posting.google.com, "Diarmid Logan"
<diarmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of weight,
> between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins group and three and
> eight kilos for the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost
> all their weight in the first six months, then remained at a steady
> weight.
Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins. After six months I entered
a six month stall, and have only broken that stall by switching to a
low-calorie diet.
doug
Bob in CT
Did you increase your carbohydrate intake, as required by Atkins, during
this period? Did you find your critical carbohydrate level for losing?
What most people do is keep eating at 20-30 grams of carbs per day, which
is not what Atkins advocates. Did you exercise? Also, calories are
always important, regardless of what "diet" you follow.
--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
Mirek Fidler
"Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@gmail.com> píse v diskusním príspevku
news:622d5dd0.04051...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995003
> was twice the length of any previous study. Half the patients followed
> the Atkins regime, limiting daily carbohydrate intake to just 30
> grams.
Ooops. Limiting carbs intake to 30 grams is NOT Atkins regime.
These are induction levels and you are not supposed to be so low for
more then couple of weeks, most prefferable 14 days only. Certainly not
for one year.
> Compared with the low-fat group, Atkins dieters also had lower levels
> of triglycerides, potentially harmful blood sugars which can trigger
> heart disease. Concentrations of beneficial high density cholesterols
> (HDLs) also held up better in the Atkins group. And these favourable
> changes remained till the end of the study, suggesting that there
> might be lasting benefits.
One might ask what lipid results the study would gave if Atkins (or more
generall LC approach) was really followed, raising maintainance carbs
levels to 80-120g with vegetable and fruit sources.
> But critics highlight some negative findings from the Duke study.
> "This new evidence confirms that levels of 'bad' cholesterol worsen in
> a substantial number of low-carbohydrate dieters," said Neal Barnard
> of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a vegan lobby
> group in Washington DC.
Yeah, sure. Chicken meat is unhealthy because there is no vitamin C in
it.
Mirek
gman99
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995003
>
> Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
>
is nothing....
Evelyn Ruut
news:opr77awo...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net...
> Did you increase your carbohydrate intake, as required by Atkins, during
> this period? Did you find your critical carbohydrate level for losing?
> What most people do is keep eating at 20-30 grams of carbs per day, which
> is not what Atkins advocates. Did you exercise? Also, calories are
> always important, regardless of what "diet" you follow.
>
> --
> Bob in CT
> Remove ".x" to reply
Very good points, which also reflect my own experience. I lost a certain
amount of weight then stalled, and I wasn't too meticulous about watching
those things (above) and I was lazy about exercise too. I think some sort
of a modified version will evolve that may be best for me. Maybe South
Beach or something..... and the exercise of course.
Jackie Patti
> A year long study with 132 people does NOT a true trial make...six months
> is nothing....
Feel free to fund a larger long-term study.
--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food
Peanutjake
"Doug Lerner" <do...@lerner.net> wrote in message news:BCD0501F.40395%do...@lerner.net...
So maybe that is the secret for losing weight.
Go on Atkins for 6 months then switch to a lower calorie diet.
But my question is what is the effect of each type of diet on a diabetic?
PJ
Jackie Patti
> But my question is what is the effect of each type of diet on a diabetic?
The second study showed significantly better glycemic control on low-carb.
Which seems frankly so damned obvious to me that it seems ridiculous to
need a study.
People with impaired carbohydrate metabolism should limit carbs!
Surprise!
Blond moments in science...
ma...@toad-net.com
diabetic?"
From the year long research:
" In the subgroup of 54 persons with diabetes, hemoglobin A[1c] levels
improved more with the low-carbohydrate diet, but the difference was
not statistically significant in sensitivity analyses. Both groups had
similar changes in other lipids and in insulin sensitivity."
ma...@toad-net.com
low-carb."
Not according to the study:
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Correct.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
No switching is required with the 2PD approach which can be dovetailed with
reduced carbs if you choose.
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Would suggest you ask your doctor about it.
ma...@toad-net.com
with
reduced carbs if you choose.
"
Even more effective is the 2 minute diet, eat anything within the time
period from any diet, even using a different diet each meal, switching is
encouraged.
ma...@toad-net.com
We are plagued buy the troll behavior of an infamous "Dr." who hangs out
on one ng mostly but is eagar to do cross posting. Many of us think he or
someone who gets a kick out of doing so, cross post on purpose in order to
permit him to say he didn't start the cross posting. Leave him in that ng
alone and let the rest of us not have to see his self rightious trolling
and other self promoting behaviors.
Ted Rosenberg
The LAST thing anyone needs is a drooling crossposter like tis
When shills spread things all ofer the newsgroups, we know that their
sock puppets are not far behind
Diarmid Logan wrote:
<snip>
--
"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a
hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present"
Glen Cook
Alan
wrote:
Cross-posts to:
sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology
retained for this post.
>Stern's year-long study (Annals of Internal Medicine, vol 140, p778)
>was twice the length of any previous study. Half the patients followed
>the Atkins regime, limiting daily carbohydrate intake to just 30
>grams. The rest tried losing weight through a conventional low-fat
>diet much richer in carbohydrates.
Incorrect.
There is no doubt that the results were "good news for Atkins dieters",
as the author stated, but the study was on general lower carb dieting,
not specifically the Atkins method.
One of the problems with reports like this is the way meanings change
with skewed repetition, in the news media and on newsgroups.
The abstract of the original report from Stern is at :
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/140/10/778
It is worth reading the original, instead of the media hype.
The only mention I can find in it of Atkins is :
"Although it has been speculated that a low-carbohydrate diet would
facilitate weight loss by promoting the metabolism of adipose tissue
(13), our data suggest that weight loss differences may be explained by
lower caloric intake on a low-carbohydrate diet".
The reference 13 is:
"13. Atkins RC. Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution. New York: Avon Books;
1998."
The methodology is described as:
"Diet groups met in weekly counseling sessions for 4 weeks, followed by
11 monthly sessions. Participants on the low-carbohydrate diet were
instructed only to reduce carbohydrate intake to less than 30 g per day.
Participants on the conventional diet were instructed to reduce caloric
intake by 500 calories per day, with less than 30% of calories derived
from fat, in accordance with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute guidelines (3)."
At no stage is it stated that they followed the Atkins diet, although
there may be obvious similarities. Unlike the similar Atkins-funded
study, no mention is made of supplements or specialty foods.
I found the study interesting and I hope that it leads to further
research, particularly the implications for diabetic health such as
glycemic control and lipids improvements. But I fear that the instant
association with Atkins, rather than the wider concept of lower carb
eating, will lead to it being disregarded by the medical establishment.
So let's stop instantly jumping to the conclusion, as the news reporters
did, that the diet studied was Atkins.
Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
FOB
Just east less. I can't see how it would be beneficial to start eating
things that make you hungrier.
In news:2guqpeF...@uni-berlin.de,
Peanutjake <peanut...@usa.com> stated
Alan
wrote:
X-posts to:
sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology
retained.
>The second study showed significantly better glycemic control on low-carb.
>
>Which seems frankly so damned obvious to me that it seems ridiculous to
>need a study.
>
>People with impaired carbohydrate metabolism should limit carbs!
>Surprise!
>
Um, Jackie, I totally agree with you. However, from the web-site of the
American Diabetes Association (the emphasis in capitals is mine):
http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/starches.jsp
"The message today: EAT MORE STARCHES! It is healthiest for everyone to
eat more whole grains, beans, and starchy vegetables such as peas, corn,
potatoes and winter squash. Starches are good for you because they have
very little fat, saturated fat, or cholesterol. They are packed with
vitamins, minerals, and fiber. Yes, foods with carbohydrate --
starches, vegetables, fruits, and dairy products -- will raise your
blood glucose more quickly than meats and fats, but they are the
healthiest foods for you. YOUR DOCTOR MAY NEED TO ADJUST YOUR
MEDICATIONS WHEN YOU EAT MORE CARBOHYDRATES. You may need to increase
your activity level or try spacing carbohydrates throughout the day."
As you said:
>Blond moments in science...
That is why we need the studies, and lots more of them from reputable
impartial research organisations.
Because, although I'm not american, my mob seem to follow yours when it
comes to dispensing this as the best advice for diabetics.
Alan
Stern is a little more positive in:
"Glycemic Control and Insulin Sensitivity
The difference in the response of glucose and insulin sensitivity
between diet groups by 1 year was not significant (Table 3). Despite
this, the hemoglobin A1c level in the small group of persons with
diabetes (n = 54) decreased more in the low-carbohydrate group, after
adjustment for baseline differences (Table 3). This difference remained
significant after weight loss amount was added to the model (P = 0.019),
suggesting a direct effect of the low-carbohydrate diet on glycemic
control. However, the significance of the difference in the response of
hemoglobin A1c was not confirmed by an analysis that included only the
persons who completed the study (adjusted P = 0.080) or when baseline
values were carried forward for missing persons (adjusted P = 0.18). Two
persons on the low-carbohydrate diet and 4 on the conventional diet
developed diabetes at 1 year (P > 0.2)."
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
If that works for you, by all means go for it. It is not my loss if
something else works for you. After all, the 2PD approach is a public
service on my part that addresses a real public need.
Truth is simple.
ma...@toad-net.com
something else works for you. After all, the 2PD approach is a public
service on my part that addresses a real public need.
Truth is simple.
"
It is not mine, it was released to the public service long ago, and as you
say, truth is simple, as simple as 2 minutes.
h1clock
February, and my weight has not gone up or down since. I consume
roughly 50 to 60 carbs a day now.
My cholestorol went down from 270 to 185!
I no longer eat Bread, pasta, ANY sugar, etc. etc. and have never felt
better in years.
I DO need to exercise more though.
Just my observations. I'm a DEDICATED ATKINS fanatic!
h1
Doug Freyburger
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995003
>
> Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
>
> carbohydrate intake to just 30 grams.
That's not Atkins. That's hardly any different from Induction.
Ye gods I'd love some study to be done on real actual Atkins
what it really seriously says in the directions.
> The rest tried losing weight through a conventional low-fat
> diet much richer in carbohydrates.
Yup. Few say low fat diets don't work. Many say they are hard
to stick to. In the long run easy to stick to wins.
> By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of weight,
> between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins group and three and
> eight kilos for the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost
> all their weight in the first six months, then remained at a steady
> weight.
Six months. Ah, the magic number that Dr A warned about. Not
supposed to stay low for more than six months according to the
book.
I wonder how many hit their ideal weight and stopped losing (the
best possible result) vs how many stalled because they stayed too
low in carbs.
This does show that skill comes into play far more in low carbing
than in low fatting. Going too low in carbs does stall plenty.
It would seem that going tooo low in fat doesn't have nearly that
same problem.
> Stern says that this pattern of rapid weight loss matches that seen in
> an earlier but shorter study of Atkins dieters, by Gary Foster's team
> at the University of Pennsylvania in May 2003. "I'm impressed that
> they didn't gain it all back," says Stern.
It's *easy* to stay at 30!
> Compared with the low-fat group, Atkins dieters also had lower levels
> of triglycerides, potentially harmful blood sugars which can trigger
> heart disease. Concentrations of beneficial high density cholesterols
> (HDLs) also held up better in the Atkins group. And these favourable
> changes remained till the end of the study, suggesting that there
> might be lasting benefits.
No news to anyone who's been paying attention.
> "But what we really need is a study showing whether people on the
> low-carbohydrate diet for years have different odds of heart attacks,
> strokes and diabetes," she says.
Absolutely. Prove it and get the naysayers handled. Just because
one old guy four decades into a low carb plan was in such good
health he had to slip on the ice to keep from going to work every
day doesn't mean it will work that well for everyone, so it is
time for a study.
> But critics highlight some negative findings from the Duke study.
> "This new evidence confirms that levels of 'bad' cholesterol worsen in
> a substantial number of low-carbohydrate dieters," said Neal Barnard
> of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a vegan lobby
> group in Washington DC.
Ah the PCRM liars again. In fact their "substantial" actually
means 20% according to Dr A. Recent studies hint that Dr A might
have been conservative in his 20% claim.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3722221.stm
>
> Scientists endorse Atkins diet
>
> But he added that such diets should include healthy sources of protein
> and fat and incorporate regular exercise.
Uh, sure, just like it says in the directions. #;^)%
> "Patients should focus on finding ways to eat that they can maintain
> indefinitely rather than seeking diets that promote rapid weight
> loss," he said.
Agreed. I have found keeping it off much harder than losing it.
Among other things keeping it off lasts a lot longer ...
Evelyn Ruut
news:10akdif...@corp.supernews.com...
> Peanutjake wrote:
>
> > But my question is what is the effect of each type of diet on a
diabetic?
>
> The second study showed significantly better glycemic control on low-carb.
>
> Which seems frankly so damned obvious to me that it seems ridiculous to
> need a study.
>
> People with impaired carbohydrate metabolism should limit carbs!
> Surprise!
>
> Blond moments in science...
It has always seemed rather obvious to me too. If your carbohydrate
processing mechanism is impaired, why overload your kidneys and your
bloodstream by eating it?
The problem is that low calorie, so called "balanced" diets are very hard to
stay with. For those of us who have failed at them, the problem is hunger
and it is very real. Lower carb diets seem to circumvent this extreme
hunger issue.
The way ANY diet works is by lowering caloric intake of course. NOT being
starving hungry is a big help.
--
Regards,
Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")
>
gman99
> gman99 wrote:
>
> > A year long study with 132 people does NOT a true trial make...six
> > months is nothing....
>
> Feel free to fund a larger long-term study.
I'm not the QUACK who made millions selling this shit...perhaps his heirs
should fund a study...sheep
marengo
| a fucking crossposting spammer
|
| The LAST thing anyone needs is a drooling crossposter like tis
|
| When shills spread things all ofer the newsgroups, we know that their
| sock puppets are not far behind
|
|
| Diarmid Logan wrote:
|
| <snip>
Then why did YOU crosspost it to seven nesgroups? This, I presume makes YO
a "fucking crossposting spammer" aso -- by your definition?
(Please note that removed all NG''s in my reply except the on that I know
you read. Please have the courtesy of doing the same instead of
propulgating this crap.
cc'd by e-mail
;-)
--
Peter
Doug Freyburger
> Diarmid Logan wrote:
>
> > By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of weight,
> > between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins group and three and
> > eight kilos for the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost
> > all their weight in the first six months, then remained at a steady
> > weight.
>
> a six month stall, and have only broken that stall by switching to a
> low-calorie diet.
Doug, the problem you had is not following the directions. Six months
in you came on the newsgroup and asked if ketosis matters. It appears
that staying too low too long lowered your CCLL from all of your
subsequent reports. Your approach could be a few weeks of switching
to low fat to reset your metabolism and then back to the directions,
but since you've found that low calorie works for you go with what you
already know works for you.
gman99
If you continue to lose weight on low carb past the water shed then it IS
low calorie...dumb as dirt...
Doug Lerner
<peanut...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins. After six months I entered
>> a six month stall, and have only broken that stall by switching to a
>> low-calorie diet.
>>
>> doug
>>
>
> So maybe that is the secret for losing weight.
> Go on Atkins for 6 months then switch to a lower calorie diet.
I do think that is a good idea.
doug
Doug Lerner
7960d3ee.04051...@posting.google.com, "Doug Freyburger"
<dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The "directions" are inconsistent. Atkins *does* say you can stay at very
low levels of carbs for most of your weight loss. It's only mixed advice
here that says you shouldn't.
The problem, though, is calories. You admit that Atkins admits that calories
matter, right? And if the so-called "metabolic advantage" is non-existent or
barely measurable then the important thing *must* still be controlling
calories.
If you eat too many calories you will gain weight.
So the goal of any diet plan is to reduce calories.
Atkins by itself simply doesn't give enough guidance in that regard. It
tries to dance around the issue with metabolic fog and mirrors. That's my
objection to it.
But Atkins is *great* in getting you *started* on a diet, finding out which
foods make you hungry and which ones are filling, controlling blood sugar,
curing heartburn and acid reflux - lots of things.
Low carb is extremely good in many ways. And I intend to follow it forever.
I think it saved my life during my diabetes scare.
But for continued weight loss you MUST consider how many calories you are
eating relative to how many calories your body is using. Atkins is
definitely skimpy on that side of the equation.
doug
MâckŠŽ
<cardio...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Truth is simple.
>
>
>Servant to the sickest ego in the universe, my own,
>
>Andrew
to bad mudungchung has never spoken the truth.
don't feed the cross posting troll.
Wes Groleau
> Can't comment on the article, but one would think that people who are
> educated to become writers of articles would know what a "regime" is and
> what a "regimen" is.
Or that triglycerides are not sugars?
--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/Wes
Ted Rosenberg
--
Alan Mackenzie
14:03:32 -0400:
> Doug Lerner wrote:
> No switching is required with the 2PD approach which can be dovetailed
> with reduced carbs if you choose.
I've discovered where the two pound diet comes from. The idea was first
put forth in chapter 1 of that hilarious classic, "Three Men in a Boat"
by Jerome K. Jerome, published in 1889:
>>>> Another fellow I knew went for a week's voyage round the coast, and,
>>>> before they started, the steward came to him to ask whether he would
>>>> pay for each meal as he had it, or arrange beforehand for the whole
>>>> series.
>>>> The steward recommended the latter course, as it would come so much
>>>> cheaper. He said they would do him for the whole week at
>>>> two-pounds-five.
[Note for youngsters and "foreigners": at the time, the British pound was
subdivided into twenty shillings, and each shilling was divided into
twelve pence.]
The poor passenger, due to the vicissitudes of the weather ended up
consuming rather less than anticipated. Finally ....
>>>> 'There she goes,' he said, 'there she goes, with *two* *pounds'*
>>>> worth of food on board that belongs to me, and that I haven't had.'
This, I believe, later served as the inspiration for the "2 pound diet".
> Andrew
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aa...@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
aurora
I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am convinced it is
healthier than low fat/high carbohydrate most of the time. However, if you
need to lose weight you must watch the calories.
Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight on atkins (for
many scientifically valid reasons - metabolic advantages, or reducing
hyperinsulinemia which promotes decrease in used energy and increase in
stored energy). However the amount is usually negligable. In the begining if
you are very over weight you may find that you can stuff yourself and still
lose weight. If you ever want to reach thinness, there is no way around it:
you have to have to have to watch portions.
The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with it. It is a
wonderful plan to start with, but numerous people run into stalls. Why? They
are etaing too much 90% of the time. Atkins didnt advocate portion control
much because he was trying to sell his plan... unfortunately it was a lie.
"Doug Lerner" <do...@lerner.net> wrote in message
news:BCD0D103.40661%do...@lerner.net...
Roger Zoul
:: Excellent post.
::
:: I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am convinced it is
:: healthier than low fat/high carbohydrate most of the time. However,
:: if you need to lose weight you must watch the calories.
::
:: Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight on atkins
:: (for many scientifically valid reasons - metabolic advantages, or
:: reducing hyperinsulinemia which promotes decrease in used energy and
:: increase in stored energy). However the amount is usually
:: negligable. In the begining if you are very over weight you may find
:: that you can stuff yourself and still lose weight. If you ever want
:: to reach thinness, there is no way around it: you have to have to
:: have to watch portions.
::
:: The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with it. It is a
:: wonderful plan to start with, but numerous people run into stalls.
:: Why? They are etaing too much 90% of the time. Atkins didnt advocate
:: portion control much because he was trying to sell his plan...
I disagree. The problem comes down to people not knowing when to quit
eating and being so fearful of being the slightest bit hungry.
:: unfortunately it was a lie. "Doug Lerner" <do...@lerner.net> wrote in
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> aurora wrote:
> :: Excellent post.
> ::
> :: I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am convinced it is
> :: healthier than low fat/high carbohydrate most of the time. However,
> :: if you need to lose weight you must watch the calories.
> ::
> :: Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight on atkins
> :: (for many scientifically valid reasons - metabolic advantages, or
> :: reducing hyperinsulinemia which promotes decrease in used energy and
> :: increase in stored energy). However the amount is usually
> :: negligable. In the begining if you are very over weight you may find
> :: that you can stuff yourself and still lose weight. If you ever want
> :: to reach thinness, there is no way around it: you have to have to
> :: have to watch portions.
> ::
> :: The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with it. It is a
> :: wonderful plan to start with, but numerous people run into stalls.
> :: Why? They are etaing too much 90% of the time. Atkins didnt advocate
> :: portion control much because he was trying to sell his plan...
>
> I disagree. The problem comes down to people not knowing when to quit
> eating and being so fearful of being the slightest bit hungry.
What is your view on why people are so fearful about being the slightest
bit hungry (so much so that it can become an irrational obsession as
evident in Bob Pastorio who continues to mutter obsessively in the dark
corner over there)?
Would be glad to reciprocate by sharing my view.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Excellent post.
>
> I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am convinced it is
> healthier than low fat/high carbohydrate most of the time. However, if you
> need to lose weight you must watch the calories.
>
> Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight on atkins (for
> many scientifically valid reasons - metabolic advantages, or reducing
> hyperinsulinemia which promotes decrease in used energy and increase in
> stored energy). However the amount is usually negligable. In the begining if
> you are very over weight you may find that you can stuff yourself and still
> lose weight. If you ever want to reach thinness, there is no way around it:
> you have to have to have to watch portions.
>
> The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with it. It is a
> wonderful plan to start with, but numerous people run into stalls. Why? They
> are etaing too much 90% of the time. Atkins didnt advocate portion control
> much because he was trying to sell his plan... unfortunately it was a lie.
Imho, any "diet" that makes the claim that an otherwise healthy
overweight person can lose weight permanently without ever feeling
hungry is being less than truthful.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> > Then why did YOU crosspost it to seven nesgroups?
Ted Rosenberg wrote:
>
> Because you and your crossposting scammer friend posted that way -
...and so this saga continues...
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> I have lost 73 pounds on Atkins since last July!
Good for you.
> I did level off in
> February, and my weight has not gone up or down since. I consume
> roughly 50 to 60 carbs a day now.
>
> My cholestorol went down from 270 to 185!
That does happen when one loses 73 pounds.
> I no longer eat Bread, pasta, ANY sugar, etc. etc. and have never felt
> better in years.
I would attribute the latter to losing 73 pounds.
> I DO need to exercise more though.
However, you have shown that exercise though great for cardiovascular
health is not essential for weight loss.
> Just my observations. I'm a DEDICATED ATKINS fanatic!
>
Uh-oh.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> You don't have to switch to another way of eating to reduce the calories.
> Just east less.
You probably meant to write "Just eat less."
Couldn't agree more with what you meant:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "If that works for you, by all means go for it. It is not my loss if
> something else works for you. After all, the 2PD approach is a public
> service on my part that addresses a real public need.
>
> Truth is simple.
> "
>
> It is not mine,
Then why champion it.
> it was released to the public service long ago,
So, how long have you been following it?
> and as you
> say, truth is simple,
It is.
> as simple as 2 minutes.
Simpler.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> <profane hissing snipped>
>
Does that make you feel better?
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote on Tue, 18 May 2004
> 14:03:32 -0400:
> > Doug Lerner wrote:
>
> > No switching is required with the 2PD approach which can be dovetailed
> > with reduced carbs if you choose.
>
> I've discovered where the two pound diet comes from. The idea was first
> put forth in chapter 1 of that hilarious classic, "Three Men in a Boat"
> by Jerome K. Jerome, published in 1889:
I've never read that. However, thank you for your interest.
The inspiration for the 2PD approach can be found here:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "h1clock" <h1c...@yahoo.com> píse v diskusním príspevku
> news:5f9da538.04051...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I no longer eat Bread, pasta, ANY sugar, etc. etc. and have never felt
> > better in years.
>
> disappearing of so much of minor medical problems (heartburns,
> occasional shaking muscles, atopic eczema, unlike my wife and childer I
> have not got flu since on LC, etc, etc..) would be worth it.
>
> > I DO need to exercise more though.
>
>
> Mirek
May God make time for you to exercise, in Christ's name.
Roger Zoul
I can understand people not wanting to be constantly hungry....however,
being hungry a few times per day, say before mealtime, should not be too
much to ask. The fact that most of us don't like it must, I suppose, come
from conditioning -- we're just not used to it, and like something
unfamiliar, we have become afraid if it. However, for weight loss, not all
of that fear is unjustified, because some will definitely lose control after
getting too hungry when dieting, and end up blowing the day. But generally
speaking, those of us in the US have easy access to food, so we should know
intellectually that food is only moments away.
Doug Lerner
GzFqc.75373$MH.17...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net, "aurora"
<auro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight on atkins (for
> many scientifically valid reasons - metabolic advantages, or reducing
> hyperinsulinemia which promotes decrease in used energy and increase in
> stored energy). However the amount is usually negligable. In the begining if
> you are very over weight you may find that you can stuff yourself and still
> lose weight. If you ever want to reach thinness, there is no way around it:
> you have to have to have to watch portions.
>
> The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with it. It is a
> wonderful plan to start with, but numerous people run into stalls. Why? They
> are etaing too much 90% of the time. Atkins didnt advocate portion control
> much because he was trying to sell his plan... unfortunately it was a lie.
Exactly.
doug
Mirek Fidler
príspevku news:40AB38...@heartmdphd.com...
> Mirek Fidler wrote:
> > > I DO need to exercise more though.
> >
> > That is my problem too...
> >
> > Mirek
>
> May God make time for you to exercise, in Christ's name.
I will rather relly on myself, but thank you :) (BTW, more exercise now
means more than one hour of cardio daily).
Mirek
tcomeau
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote on Tue, 18 May 2004
> 14:03:32 -0400:
> > Doug Lerner wrote:
>
> > No switching is required with the 2PD approach which can be dovetailed
> > with reduced carbs if you choose.
>
> I've discovered where the two pound diet comes from. The idea was first
> put forth in chapter 1 of that hilarious classic, "Three Men in a Boat"
> by Jerome K. Jerome, published in 1889:
>
> >>>> Another fellow I knew went for a week's voyage round the coast, and,
> >>>> before they started, the steward came to him to ask whether he would
> >>>> pay for each meal as he had it, or arrange beforehand for the whole
> >>>> series.
>
> >>>> The steward recommended the latter course, as it would come so much
> >>>> cheaper. He said they would do him for the whole week at
> >>>> two-pounds-five.
> [Note for youngsters and "foreigners": at the time, the British pound was
> subdivided into twenty shillings, and each shilling was divided into
> twelve pence.]
>
> The poor passenger, due to the vicissitudes of the weather ended up
> consuming rather less than anticipated. Finally ....
>
> >>>> 'There she goes,' he said, 'there she goes, with *two* *pounds'*
> >>>> worth of food on board that belongs to me, and that I haven't had.'
>
> This, I believe, later served as the inspiration for the "2 pound diet".
>
> > Andrew
Kinda reminiscent of the story of the Later Day Prophet who found
golden tablets on a mountain in his dreams and created a religion
around it. Makes as much sense too.
TC
Jenny...@msn.net
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>> I've discovered where the two pound diet comes from. The idea was first
>>
>>The inspiration for the 2PD approach can be found here:
Just as a vote of thanks to the originator, I'd like to say that the 2
pound diet works. My husband lost a significant amount of excess
weight over a 9-month period.
I hadn't realized it had started here with Doctor Chung as I had heard
of it elsewhere on the internet and we decided to try it. As long as
you are consistent (well mostly anyway <g>) it seems an easier
approach to weight loss than these fad "low this" "no that" or "all
this" type diets. He ate regular food, just a controlled amount of it.
Another thing we had heard was that fat/oil in the intestines will
speed up a feeling of fullness so he eats a small lettuce salad with
olive oil on it about 30 minutes before sitting down to a meal. Then
when he eats the meal he is halfway to feeling "full". Maybe it's a
mindset/placebo thing but it works for us.
--
Kind regards,
Jenny and her tribe of survivors.
MâckŠŽ
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
troll droppings snipped
please do not feed the mudungchung troll.
MâckŠŽ
<roger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
please stop feeding the mudungchung troll
MâckŠŽ
Mackenzie<no...@example.invalid> wrote:
Alan why are you encouraging the mudungchung troll to continue
trolling these groups?
MâckŠŽ
if you heard of it elsewhere on the net, then mudungchung stole it.
the mudungchung is a troll please stop giving it the attention it so
obsessively seeks.
and learn to trim your headers so cross posting doesn't cause problems
for multiple groups who already know the mudungchung's behavior.
Herman Rubin
Alan <loralweig...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:16:50 -0400, Jackie Patti <jpa...@ccil.org>
>wrote:
>X-posts to:
>sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology
>retained.
>>The second study showed significantly better glycemic control on low-carb.
>>Which seems frankly so damned obvious to me that it seems ridiculous to
>>need a study.
>>People with impaired carbohydrate metabolism should limit carbs!
>>Surprise!
>Um, Jackie, I totally agree with you. However, from the web-site of the
>American Diabetes Association (the emphasis in capitals is mine):
I will top post here.
This is the "establishment" point of view. At this time
there has NOT been a single study showing that a low-fat
diet is any better for anyone, diabetic or not. The amount
of cholesterol in the diet has at most a small effect on
body cholesterol, and the effects of fat is very hazy;
there was a summary article in _Science_ on this, which
pointed out how everything is unclear. Those using
high-fat low-carb diets, in the studies so far, seem to
have an IMPROVED lipid profile. Dietary cholesterol and
fat have a questionable effect, although triglycerides
are certainly elevated shortly after a high fat meal,
as the dietary triglycerides are being processed.
It is true that fiber is associated with carbohydrates; it
is essentially indigestible carbohydrate. But celery has
lots of fiber and little starch, and potatoes have lots of
starch and little fiber. From the nutritional and diabetic
standpoint, potato starch is not far from straight glucose.
These foods have some vitamins, minerals, and fiber; saying
they are "packed" with them is false. Also, highly colored
ones have vitamin A and antioxidants.
>http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/starches.jsp
>"The message today: EAT MORE STARCHES! It is healthiest for everyone to
>eat more whole grains, beans, and starchy vegetables such as peas, corn,
>potatoes and winter squash. Starches are good for you because they have
>very little fat, saturated fat, or cholesterol. They are packed with
>vitamins, minerals, and fiber. Yes, foods with carbohydrate --
>starches, vegetables, fruits, and dairy products -- will raise your
>blood glucose more quickly than meats and fats, but they are the
>healthiest foods for you. YOUR DOCTOR MAY NEED TO ADJUST YOUR
>MEDICATIONS WHEN YOU EAT MORE CARBOHYDRATES. You may need to increase
>your activity level or try spacing carbohydrates throughout the day."
>As you said:
>>Blond moments in science...
>That is why we need the studies, and lots more of them from reputable
>impartial research organisations.
>Because, although I'm not american, my mob seem to follow yours when it
>comes to dispensing this as the best advice for diabetics.
>Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
>Remove weight and carbs to email.
>--
>Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
If you are truly looking for sense, you will find it here:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 06:37:12 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I've discovered where the two pound diet comes from. The idea was first
> >>
> >>The inspiration for the 2PD approach can be found here:
>
> Just as a vote of thanks to the originator, I'd like to say that the 2
> pound diet works. My husband lost a significant amount of excess
> weight over a 9-month period.
>
Excellent.
>
> I hadn't realized it had started here with Doctor Chung as I had heard
> of it elsewhere on the internet and we decided to try it.
And to think there are those here on Usenet who would claim that the 2PD
approach is not helping folks far and wide.
> As long as
> you are consistent (well mostly anyway <g>) it seems an easier
> approach to weight loss than these fad "low this" "no that" or "all
> this" type diets.
Truth is simple ;-)
> He ate regular food, just a controlled amount of it.
>
Food quantity is the key variable that needs to be addressed for safe permanent
weight loss.
>
> Another thing we had heard was that fat/oil in the intestines will
> speed up a feeling of fullness so he eats a small lettuce salad with
> olive oil on it about 30 minutes before sitting down to a meal. Then
> when he eats the meal he is halfway to feeling "full". Maybe it's a
> mindset/placebo thing but it works for us.
>
It will be easier on him if he realizes that it is ok to not feel full (ie feel
hungry).
>
> --
>
> Kind regards,
> Jenny and her tribe of survivors.
Thank you for your truthful comments :-)
May God bless you and yours today and everyday, in Christ's name.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> píse v diskusním
> príspevku news:40AB38...@heartmdphd.com...
> > Mirek Fidler wrote:
> > > > I DO need to exercise more though.
> > >
> > > That is my problem too...
> > >
> > > Mirek
> >
> > May God make time for you to exercise, in Christ's name.
>
> I will rather relly on myself,
It is unlikely that you can make extra time as God makes each new day.
> but thank you :)
You are welcome :-)
> (BTW, more exercise now
> means more than one hour of cardio daily).
>
(Sounds like you really need God's help :-)
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Not wanting something and fearing something are two different things.
There are folks who are truly fearful. You have only to read the negative
testimonials on the 2PD approach webpage (http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp)
to find multiple examples of this irrational fear. Some of these folks are
seemingly so struck with this fear (Bob Pastorio for example) than they would
risk their own livelihood by posting libelous and defamatory remarks
(http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp) to oppose anything they perceive as a
threat to their state of never being hungry.
> however,
> being hungry a few times per day, say before mealtime, should not be too
> much to ask. The fact that most of us don't like it must, I suppose, come
> from conditioning -- we're just not used to it, and like something
> unfamiliar, we have become afraid if it.
I believe it is much more than that. Ime, those who are the most "conditioned"
to fear hunger have actually been "brainwashed" by their environment (i.e.
satan) to avoid hunger at all costs.
In these instances, I find myself "deprogramming" them with the following 3
simple truthful statements:
(1) No one has ever died from hunger. There are folks dying from starvation.
Folks dying from starvation are not hungry.
(2) Benjamin Franklin has said "Hunger is the best pickle (used for seasoning in
his time)."
(3) Hunger is to a healthy person as the canary is to a coal miner. Just as the
canary passing out tells the coal miner that s/he has walked into a pocket of
methane, hunger's departure when one has not been eating more tells the person
that there is something wrong with his/her health (cancer, severe infection
and/or major depression).
> However, for weight loss, not all
> of that fear is unjustified, because some will definitely lose control after
> getting too hungry when dieting, and end up blowing the day.
Actually, the fear remains unjustified though your point that it does beat
people down in their attempts to eat less to lose weight is well taken.
> But generally
> speaking, those of us in the US have easy access to food, so we should know
> intellectually that food is only moments away.
How folks react to something psychologically can be discordant with that they
"know." Panic attacks would be a good example.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
PJx
wrote:
>Excellent post.
>
>I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am convinced it is
>healthier than low fat/high carbohydrate most of the time. However, if you
>need to lose weight you must watch the calories.
>
>Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight on atkins (for
>many scientifically valid reasons - metabolic advantages, or reducing
>hyperinsulinemia which promotes decrease in used energy and increase in
>stored energy). However the amount is usually negligable. In the begining if
>you are very over weight you may find that you can stuff yourself and still
>lose weight. If you ever want to reach thinness, there is no way around it:
>you have to have to have to watch portions.
Sad, but true.
And yes, metabolic advantages do exist for people on low-carb. It
is NOT a hoax. Millions of us low-carbers love it because we eat
more and lose weight. At least, for the first several months.
PJx
gman99
>
> Sad, but true.
> And yes, metabolic advantages do exist for people on low-carb. It
> is NOT a hoax. Millions of us low-carbers love it because we eat
> more and lose weight. At least, for the first several months.
>
> PJx
BULLSHIT...you do NOT eat more....you are in fact eating LESS if you
continue to lose weight for more than 6 months. Do not confuse water shed
weight loss with fat loss.
Herman Rubin
Alan <loralweig...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>On 18 May 2004 16:41:59 GMT, ma...@toad-net.com wrote:
>>"But my question is what is the effect of each type of diet on a
>>diabetic?"
>>From the year long research:
>>" In the subgroup of 54 persons with diabetes, hemoglobin A[1c] levels
>> improved more with the low-carbohydrate diet, but the difference was
>> not statistically significant in sensitivity analyses. Both groups had
>> similar changes in other lipids and in insulin sensitivity."
>Stern is a little more positive in:
>"Glycemic Control and Insulin Sensitivity
>The difference in the response of glucose and insulin sensitivity
>between diet groups by 1 year was not significant (Table 3). Despite
>this, the hemoglobin A1c level in the small group of persons with
>diabetes (n = 54) decreased more in the low-carbohydrate group, after
>adjustment for baseline differences (Table 3). This difference remained
>significant after weight loss amount was added to the model (P = 0.019),
>suggesting a direct effect of the low-carbohydrate diet on glycemic
>control. However, the significance of the difference in the response of
>hemoglobin A1c was not confirmed by an analysis that included only the
>persons who completed the study (adjusted P = 0.080) or when baseline
>values were carried forward for missing persons (adjusted P = 0.18). Two
>persons on the low-carbohydrate diet and 4 on the conventional diet
>developed diabetes at 1 year (P > 0.2)."
I suggest that one not be two confused by the atrocious term
"statistical significance", whidh unfortunately is in the
rituals of the medical profession. If one has a small sample,
or an effective small sample (the six people who became
diabetic during the study is the effective sample size here,
unless there was a huge difference in the sizes of the groups),
it is unusual to get a significant result. On the other hand,
if there were millions in the study, it would be difficult to
find a NON-significant result.
What one should be interested in is the magnitude of the effect.
From the data presented here, I cannot even guess at this.
Crafting Mom
I can't speak for those who say they eat more. But speaking for myself, on
a primarily Low-Carbohydrate diet, I *feel like* I eat more, simply because
I am not hungry all the time. On other diets, in order to feel *this*
satisfied, I would have had to chow down a lot more food. So
psychologically, it's in my *head* that I've eaten far more, when in
reality it's just that I'm more satisfied, and less distracted by hunger
and urges to raid the fridge than I used to be.
Entering in my exact amounts in fitday from time to time, proves to me that
the calories consumed (for me) are a lot less than I think they are, and I
even try over-reporting to make sure I'm not underreporting.
--
The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience. Please interpret accordingly.
Herman Rubin
gman99 <nos...@bogusemail.com> wrote:
>Jackie Patti <jpa...@ccil.org> wrote:
>> gman99 wrote:
>> > A year long study with 132 people does NOT a true trial make...six
>> > months is nothing....
>> Feel free to fund a larger long-term study.
>I'm not the QUACK who made millions selling this shit...perhaps his heirs
>should fund a study...sheep
The medical people who proposed the low-fat diets have never
even had this large a study. The question has been asked
before, and nobody has come up with a study indicating that
lower amounts of fat and protein had any effect other than
fewer calories.
gman99
> > BULLSHIT...you do NOT eat more....you are in fact eating LESS if you
> > continue to lose weight for more than 6 months. Do not confuse water
> > shed weight loss with fat loss.
>
> I can't speak for those who say they eat more. But speaking for myself,
> on a primarily Low-Carbohydrate diet, I *feel like* I eat more, simply
> because I am not hungry all the time. On other diets, in order to feel
> *this* satisfied, I would have had to chow down a lot more food. So
> psychologically, it's in my *head* that I've eaten far more, when in
> reality it's just that I'm more satisfied, and less distracted by hunger
> and urges to raid the fridge than I used to be.
>
> Entering in my exact amounts in fitday from time to time, proves to me
> that the calories consumed (for me) are a lot less than I think they are,
> and I even try over-reporting to make sure I'm not underreporting.
You seem to be one of the few people that UNDERSTAND this concept that low
carb also means LOW CALORIE for those losing weight past the six months or
so.
gman99
> The medical people who proposed the low-fat diets have never
> even had this large a study. The question has been asked
> before, and nobody has come up with a study indicating that
> lower amounts of fat and protein had any effect other than
> fewer calories.
What have you been smoking...there are plenty of studies conducted on low
fat diets that show a lot more than a lowering of calories, many much
longer and more comprehensive.
Oh...guess what...in terms of losing weight, lowering CALORIC intake is
very important....some might say MOST important...
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Lerner wrote:
> > Diarmid Logan wrote:
>
> > > By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount of weight,
> > > between five and eight kilograms for the Atkins group and three and
> > > eight kilos for the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost
> > > all their weight in the first six months, then remained at a steady
> > > weight.
>
> > Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins. After six months I
> > entered a six month stall, and have only broken that stall by
> > switching to a low-calorie diet.
>
> this period? Did you find your critical carbohydrate level for losing?
He did not, and so he caused his own stall. He has since decided
against doing all of the work involved in repairing the metabolic
damage doing that caused and decided that caloric reduction is the
be-all and end-all of weight loss. But since caloric reduction is
working for him, good enough in his case. But the experience has
given him quite a bias on the topic.
> What most people do is keep eating at 20-30 grams of carbs per day,
> which is not what Atkins advocates.
Unfortunately while newbies need certainty Dr A is willing to discuss
alternatives to his core plan. Most dive face first into those
alternatives. And some get the sort of problems Doug got, falling
out of ketosis from a CCLL that dropped towards zero.
Doug Freyburger
>
> I've lost 145 lbs with low carb.
And you are keeping it off. Fabulous.
> If you ever want to reach thinness, there is no way around it:
> you have to have to have to watch portions.
Just like it says in the directions.
> Atkins didnt advocate portion control
> much because he was trying to sell his plan... unfortunately it was a lie.
Unless you read the directions.
During Induction the diretions say to eat what it takes to get
past the initial carb cravings. That exception ends the day the
carb cravings go away. Over eating is forbidden from then on.
At-kids are to eat until full, not until stuffed. I agree that
his writing about portions sucked, but his writing about a lot of
topics sucked. Forbidding over eating is advocating portion
control.
kvs
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995003
>
> Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet
>
> 12:21 18 May 04
>
> NewScientist.com news service
>
>
> But critics highlight some negative findings from the Duke study.
> "This new evidence confirms that levels of 'bad' cholesterol worsen in
> a substantial number of low-carbohydrate dieters," said Neal Barnard
> of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a vegan lobby
> group in Washington DC.
New Scientist is slipping. PCRM is a militant vegan group and should
be identified as such. Just because they are "critics" doesn't mean
they should have free access to spout their naysaying. If they have
a chance then so should everyone else. Otherwise keep to selecting
qualified critics.
As for LDL, Barnard is an ignorant, biased blowhard with an agenda.
Reducing triglycerides and VLDL in the context of an increasing HDL to
LDL ratio is a success no pharmaceutical product can boast. Barnard
and other "critics" conveniently neglect the fact that a high carb
diet increases triglycerides, VLDL and LDL and at the same time
reduces HDL.
LDL is an indicator and not a cause. What is needed is actual
measurements of plaque build-up and arterial wall damage. But such
invasive observations will never be done while the test subjects are
alive.
> "And the supposedly dramatic benefits of the diet do not hold up over
> the long term," said Barnard, referring to the end of weight loss
> after six months in the Stern study.
Another absurd absolutist statement. Many people keep on losing until
they reach ideal body weight. There is no expiration date on low
carbing. Stalls do not prove that a weight loss approach is a
failure. Listening to this idiot one would think that no other diet
has stalls.
> Although broadly supportive of the Atkins regime, Yancy warns that the
> diet could pose risks including the higher "bad" cholesterol, bone
> loss and kidney stones. Because of this, he discourages first-time
> dieters from using the regime.
What evidence is this based on? References?
Yancy is afraid of the sugar and grain pushers.
Bob (this one)
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>
>>aurora wrote:
>>:: The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with it. It is a
>>:: wonderful plan to start with, but numerous people run into stalls.
>>:: Why? They are etaing too much 90% of the time. Atkins didnt advocate
>>:: portion control much because he was trying to sell his plan...
>>
>>I disagree. The problem comes down to people not knowing when to quit
>>eating and being so fearful of being the slightest bit hungry.
>
> What is your view on why people are so fearful about being the slightest
> bit hungry (so much so that it can become an irrational obsession as
> evident in Bob Pastorio who continues to mutter obsessively in the dark
> corner over there)?
<LOL> Chunglish translation to English: "Bob continues to annoy me by
proving how shallow and superficial my knowledge of nutrition is, and
how I falsified my credentials to the AMA, so I have to try to tar him
with some brush that seems to discredit him without actually saying
anything substantive that can be disproven. I have to divert attention
from my own compulsive behavior of mentioning Bob by accusing him of
exactly what I'm doing."
<LOL> Pointing out Chung's fakery and falsification of credentials is
somehow muttering to him. And he claims to speak English. As spoken on
Jupiter, it seems. Poor guy.
> Would be glad to reciprocate by sharing my view.
Now that's funny. As though Chung hasn't trolled and spammed his
2PoundStarvationDiet all over the internet so far. His IMAX-movie
inspiration for the world's nutritional problems. Hilarious. Zany
Chung thinks he hasn't already disqualified himself with his patently
preposterous 3600 calories in 2 pounds of potatoes, his 4000 calories
in 2 pounds of bread and 200 calories expended in an hour of running
(same figure for everyone no matter size or speed or terrain).
Oh, please. Let's have Chung give his views. <LOL> He'll write them
on the wall with crayons.
Bob
Doug Lerner
"PJx" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> And yes, metabolic advantages do exist for people on low-carb. It
> is NOT a hoax. Millions of us low-carbers love it because we eat
> more and lose weight. At least, for the first several months.
I think the effect you observe can be explained differently:
We have our hunger more under control with low-carbing. Thus we naturally
eat less (even if what we eat is still a lot). So the first few months we
enjoy the pleasure of rapid weight loss without counting calories.
Then, after a certain number of months, our bodies reach a new equilibrium.
Our natural hunger reduction doesn't take us all the way down to goal. So we
realize we actually have to start limiting calories too.
This doesn't mean there was a metabolic advantage at all though.
doug
Doug Lerner
It's not sufficient to just forbid over-eating. Atkins definitely advocated
eating until you were full. And he did NOT advocate making substitutions
with lower-calorie foods to achieve fullness. Aurora is correct when writing
that Atkins was deceptive at worst or just plain incorrect at best in that
part of his approach.
I know that I only ate when hungry and never over-stuffed. And I was in
ketosis. And I essentially stopped losing weight after six months. I was
just eating too many calories.
The bottom line is that you just can't bypass conservation of energy.
doug
Doug Lerner
7960d3ee.0405...@posting.google.com, "Doug Freyburger"
<dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm afraid that Doug Freyburger is speaking incorrectly when he attempts to
summarize what I did and did not do on my diet.
According to the ketostix I recently bought, I was still in ketosis even at
the point I decided to switch to low-calorie. I just wasn't losing weight
any longer because I was eating too many calories.
doug
Wes Groleau
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> [never mind]
I already filter out four of the troll's e-mail addresses.
How many addresses is this troll feeder going to use before
I stop seeing him?
--
Wes Groleau
Nobody believes a theoretical analysis -- except the guy who did it.
Everybody believes an experimental analysis -- except the guy who did it.
-- Unknown
Diarmid Logan
http://www.news-medical.net/view_article.asp?id=1690
News-Medical.net
Comparison study shows low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet loses more
weight than low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet
Posted By: News-Medical in Medical Study News
Published: Wednesday, 19-May-2004
People who followed a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet lost more
weight than people on a low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet
during a six-month comparison study at Duke University Medical Center.
However, the researchers caution that people with medical conditions
such as diabetes and high blood pressure should not start the diet
without close medical supervision.
"This diet can be quite powerful," said lead researcher Will Yancy,
M.D., an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University Medical
Center and a research associate at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center
in Durham, N.C. "We found that the low-carb diet was more effective
for weight loss," Yancy added. "The weight loss surprised me, to be
honest with you. We also found cholesterol levels seemed to improve
more on a low-carb diet compared to a low-fat diet."
The study is the first randomized, controlled trial of an Atkins-style
diet approach, which includes vitamin and nutritional supplements.
Along with losing an average of 26 pounds, dieters assigned to the
low-carbohydrate plan lost more body fat, and lowered their
triglyceride levels and raised their HDL, or good cholesterol, more
than the low-fat dieters. The low-fat dieters lost an average of 14
pounds. Though the low-fat diet group lowered their total cholesterol
more than the low-carb dieters, the latter group nearly halved their
triglycerides and their HDL jumped five points. The low-carbohydrate
group reported more adverse physical effects, such as constipation and
headaches, but fewer people dropped out of the low-carbohydrate diet
than the low-fat diet.
The results appear in the May 18, 2004, issue of the Annals of
Internal Medicine. The research was funded by an unrestricted grant
from the Robert C. Atkins Foundation. The study authors have no
financial interest in Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.
The study builds on earlier results by the Duke University Medical
Center researchers showing a low-carbohydrate diet can lead to weight
loss -- the first study of the low carbohydrate diet since 1980. Yancy
and co-investigator Eric Westman, M.D., are currently testing whether
a low-carbohydrate diet can help diabetics control their blood sugar
levels.
Despite the considerable weight loss experienced by the
low-carbohydrate dieters, Yancy does not recommend an Atkins-style
plan for patients attempting to lose weight for the first time.
"Over six months the diet appears relatively safe, but we need to
study the safety for longer durations," Yancy said. He also cautioned
that the diet could present certain health risks, such as elevations
in LDL cholesterol levels, bone loss, or kidney stones. This and other
recent studies of the low-carbohydrate diet have not demonstrated that
these health risks occur over short durations, but they might occur in
people on the diet for long-term. It is especially important that
people on diuretic or diabetes medications be monitored by a doctor
because the low-carbohydrate diet affects hydration and blood sugar
levels, Yancy said.
The 120 study participants were randomly assigned to either the
low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet or the low-fat, low-cholesterol,
low-calorie diet. All were between 18 and 65 years old and in
generally good health, with a body mass index (BMI) between 30 and 60,
indicating obesity, and a total cholesterol level of more than 200
mg/dL. None had tried dieting or weight loss pills in the previous six
months.
The low-carbohydrate group was permitted daily unlimited amounts of
animal foods (meat, fowl, fish and shellfish); unlimited eggs; 4 oz.
of hard cheese; two cups of salad vegetables such as lettuce, spinach
or celery; and one cup of low-carbohydrate vegetables such as
broccoli, cauliflower or squash. They also received daily nutritional
supplements recommended by Atkins -- a multivitamin, essential oils, a
diet formulation and chromium picolinate. There were no restrictions
on total calories, but carbohydrates were kept below 20 grams per day
at the start of the diet.
The low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie group followed a diet
consisting of less than 30 percent of daily caloric intake from fat;
less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat; and less than 300
milligrams of cholesterol daily. They were also advised to cut back on
calories. The recommended daily calorie level was 500 to 1,000
calories less than the participant's maintenance diet -- the calories
needed to maintain current weight.
Study participants were encouraged to exercise 30 minutes at least
three times per week, but no formal exercise program was provided.
Both sets of dieters had group meetings at an outpatient research
clinic regularly for six months.
Others members of the Duke research team were Maren Olsen, Ph.D.; John
Guyton, M.D.; Ronna Bakst, R.D.; and Eric Westman, M.D., who was
co-principal investigator for the study. The researchers maintained
exclusive control of all data and analyses.
Mosaic M_uns
<roger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I can understand people not wanting to be constantly hungry....however,
>being hungry a few times per day, say before mealtime, should not be too
>much to ask.
It should be a normal state, MOF. The fact that you say "not be too
much to ask" is like saying breathing should "not be too much to ask".
> The fact that most of us don't like it must, I suppose, come
>from conditioning -- we're just not used to it, and like something
>unfamiliar, we have become afraid if it. However, for weight loss, not all
>of that fear is unjustified, because some will definitely lose control after
>getting too hungry when dieting, and end up blowing the day.
What is too hungry? Does an elevated sense of hunger then drive an
elevated sense to overeat? If so, then it must be, in some, driven by
emotional needs that need to be satiated like fear. Irrational
responses.
> But generally
>speaking, those of us in the US have easy access to food, so we should know
>intellectually that food is only moments away.
We know it like we know there is oxygen. Hardly think about its
availability.
I have an interesting spin on this, Zoulie. I recently had to have
surgery to remove and repair assorted venous, scar and abscessed
tissue in my rectum. Seems I was a bit of a tight ass too, Clipped a
muscle; I couldn't even get an enema nozzle inserted. Things leftover
from childhood came back to haunt me in my age.
Had put up with weeks, months of excruciating pain, couldn't get to
take care of this any faster; trust me when I tell you that there are
some places in this world you do not want to have elective surgery. So
I elected not to. The price was barely bearable.
Knowing that each and every bowel movement was like pushing against a
cement wall, and that when I was "successful", it would mean a half
day lying on the floor, in various positions, trying to minimize the
pain that would follow, I began to lose ANY sense of hunger
whatsoever. At first, this was not something I was conscious of. I
don't eat much anyway; family wasn't able to watch my diet since I was
there and they were here.
When I returned to Atlanta, I had very pressing issues and my poor
wife got the blunt of the pain buildup. It will change your
personality pain will.
I left at 165ish having been on my lifting routine up and returned at
160ish. The next 4 weeks were utter hell as I worked 20 hour days
(getting ten hours of work done) until I came to a point where I
could, and had no other choice, to see the butt doctor. I was at wits
end with the pain and simply could not stand it anymore.
During this time, I shut down eating for the most part and when I
found that I had no appetite or hunger, and the transition was smooth
and easy, I knew that limited portion intakes (via the 2PDiet) was the
"conditioner". When I did eat, I splurged in a kinda "Oh, well, this
is going to lead to another round of severe pain so I might as well
get some calls down; a little hurt a lot and a lot hurt very little
more when it came down time to excrete. Splurge would be one meal once
in a while still half of what I see people (ab)normally eat every day.
I had stopped lifting, any cardio, lived like a recluse for a month
and watched my weigh drop to 144.
I look like crap and get told so everyday by folks who last saw me
months ago. Loss of muscle tissue, you bet.
Back at it next week though as all is sorta well as well as post op
from May 4 can be I presume.
Point is, that the deconditioning of the mind is, and always has been,
the key to portion control. One must accept the fact that we live
being consistently brainwashed to overconsumption and the fact that it
is so slyly and invisibly done is a testament to the success. We don't
recognize overconsumption when it stares us right from our double
cheeseburgers, fries and magna coke.
As a people, we have to get re-educated and the 2PDiet, which scares
so many of these so well brainwashed, is dead on track. It will
provide the means to not only condition the body to accept and utilize
(hopefully more efficiently) lowered food levels consumed, but,
ultimately, prove out to us, emotionally and intellectually, that we
have been duped, deluded and satanically programmed to involuntary
suicide. Just as AIDS is the result, and is spread by mainly by a
world consumed with oversex which is the true epidemic,
overconsumption is the epidemic here, not overfat/obesity.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Hannah Gruen
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote
> How folks react to something psychologically can be discordant with that
they
> "know." Panic attacks would be a good example.
Well, except that it doesn't seem that the medical community actually has a
handle on what causes panic attacks to occur. It's typical to look for a
psychological trigger, and if a person looks hard enough, there are usually
plenty of things... it's part of the human condition to have some things
around in one's life that are stressful, disturbing, etc.
I lived through this a number of years ago, complete with lots of medical
testing and drug interventions. However, it wasn't until a couple years
later when I learned to adopt a lower-carbohydrate diet that my panic
attacks and related symptoms completely went away. And have stayed away,
*except* for a few times when I've gotten 'off-program' and eaten too much
in the way of processed carbohydrates and especially simple sugars.
Strangely enough, it wasn't "all in my head" and apparently had little or
nothing to do with my state of psychological well-being, but rather with
what I was eating. Likewise, it turned out that my "compulsive" overeating,
which I had assumed was some kind of psychological issue with food was
actually about what was going on biochemical in my body. And that's why
dieting by just reducing quantities or calories, without addressing
underlying endocrine/biochemical issues, is often so ineffective and
ill-advised.
HG
GMCarter
wrote:
snip...
>News-Medical.net
>
>Comparison study shows low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet loses more
>weight than low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet
>
>Posted By: News-Medical in Medical Study News
>
>Published: Wednesday, 19-May-2004
>
>People who followed a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet lost more
>weight than people on a low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet
>during a six-month comparison study at Duke University Medical Center.
>However, the researchers caution that people with medical conditions
>such as diabetes and high blood pressure should not start the diet
>without close medical supervision.
This is SOOOO disingenuous. One 6 month study showed this--but a
second 12-month study corroborated the study--up to the first 6
months. However, by the end of 12-months, there was virtually no
difference, with a gradual increase in weight.
Someone else suggested the idea of a shift from low carb to low fat
after 6 months.
The bigger trick is for people not to eat so much. Caloric intake is
too great. And WHAT those calories are--well, if they're from the
garbage pumped out by fast food franchises, it is little wonder that
there is increasing cardiovascular disease.
Hell, if Abbott, Pfizer, Roche, GSK and the lot were smart, they'd
merge with McDonald's to keep the price and use of statins high. They
might as well.
George M. Carter
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On 20 May 2004 06:38:27 -0700, diarmi...@gmail.com (Diarmid Logan)
> wrote:
>
> snip...
> >News-Medical.net
> >
> >Comparison study shows low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet loses more
> >weight than low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet
> >
> >Posted By: News-Medical in Medical Study News
> >
> >Published: Wednesday, 19-May-2004
> >
> >People who followed a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet lost more
> >weight than people on a low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet
> >during a six-month comparison study at Duke University Medical Center.
> >However, the researchers caution that people with medical conditions
> >such as diabetes and high blood pressure should not start the diet
> >without close medical supervision.
> This is SOOOO disingenuous. One 6 month study showed this--but a
> second 12-month study corroborated the study--up to the first 6
> months. However, by the end of 12-months, there was virtually no
> difference, with a gradual increase in weight.
>
> Someone else suggested the idea of a shift from low carb to low fat
> after 6 months.
>
> The bigger trick is for people not to eat so much.
Agree.
Enter the 2PD approach:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
And, don't forget to involve your doctor before undertaking anything to
lose weight.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Mosaic M_uns
>The bigger trick is for people not to eat so much.
No trick to it.
willbill
> Herman Rubin wrote:
i wouldn't be all that surprised if herman is correct
after all, diet is perhaps *the* most complex subject
stop and think about what has gone on with the
subject of fat this past 100 years...
at some point several decades ago, for whatever reason(s),
tests implicated saturated fats, and enough experts started
recommending that these fats be avoided so that it is now
very common in the news media (especially television) that
saturated fat is treated off-hand as a very bad fat
so people quit eating butter (and other fats that are saturated)
and started consuming margarines that are loaded with trans fats
but surprise surprise... now trans fats are implicated, so it seems
to me that people are likely to consume still *more* vegetable oils
which looks to me like another serious mistake which
will skew the balance of fats consumed (i.e. omega-3 vs
omega-6 vs omega-9 vs etc etc) and take another 30-to-50
years to show results
...and it won't surprise me a bit if they are bad results
one other example: about 15 years ago, McDonald's switched
their fat for french fries from tallow to a vegtable oil
*loaded* with trans fats. 2 years ago they switched again,
to another vegtable oil with less trans fats (but the oil
still has trans fats)
bill, t1 since '57
p.s. there are other experts out there...
check out the articles at:
GMCarter
wrote:
Simple in concept, I agree! Personally for me, not a trouble.
The reality of eating is that people do it constantly. Sadly, the
foods available are mostly garbage, tasty and easily accessed.
One has to address the quasi-addictive aspects that afflict the mind
and psychology when it comes to eating. Such habits, developed over a
lifetime, shaped by the environment of a person's work, family and
recreational situations, are not readily changed. Indeed, hormonal
changes such as increased ghrellin excretion may cause biochemical
feedback loops of reward, not dissimilar to a rat fed cocaine when she
taps a lever.
It's easy for me: I don't eat a lot. But I have also had to
incorporate exercise into my daily routine. It is hard to develop NEW
habits to replace the old, dysfunctional ones and that is part of the
key. What do you do with your time/hands/attention when feeding is the
habit? Why, anything you want!! Opening to those possibilities is
sometimes daunting!
George M. Carter
Wolfbrother
> Agree.
>
> Enter the 2PD approach:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>
> And, don't forget to involve your doctor before undertaking anything to
> lose weight.
>
with reality its not even funny (well it kinda is). To do something
so ridiculous just shows an extreme lack of understanding about
nutrition. Anyone with even the slightest bit of real knowledge about
human biochemistry and nutrition will tell you how simplistic and
foolish such a "diet" is.
Susie
LOL
Wes Groleau
> Anyone who weighs their food before eating it is so out of touch
> with reality its not even funny (well it kinda is). To do something
> so ridiculous just shows an extreme lack of understanding about
> nutrition. Anyone with even the slightest bit of real knowledge about
> human biochemistry and nutrition will tell you how simplistic and
> foolish such a "diet" is.
While in no way endorsing Chung or his 2PD, I must also
disagree with you. Many diets over the years have depended
in part on weighing the things one is eating to determine
amounts of various nutrients, especially Calories.
Indeed, doing so is a nuisance, which is one of the reasons
for estimating guidelines such as the "exchange" system,
but people who were motivated enough did put up with the
inconvenience.
--
Wes Groleau
"Lewis's case for the existence of God is fallacious."
"You mean like circular reasoning?"
"He believes in God. Therefore, he's fallacious."
Vicki Beausoleil
Yeah, Susan, so am I. I tend to miscalculate my pump boluses when I
eyeball.
Vicki
Jim Bard
"Susie" <sus...@nevermind.com> wrote in message
news:DWPrc.72001$hY.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> I am SO out of touch with reality.
> LOL
I'm out of touch with reality, too!
Mosaic M_uns
>It's easy for me: I don't eat a lot. But I have also had to
>incorporate exercise into my daily routine. It is hard to develop NEW
>habits to replace the old, dysfunctional ones and that is part of the
>key. What do you do with your time/hands/attention when feeding is the
>habit? Why, anything you want!! Opening to those possibilities is
>sometimes daunting!
>
> George M. Carter
Yes, and best of luck to you GC.
Susie
M&M's anyone??????????? LOL,
Susie
Jim Bard
Why thank you, Suzie!
Let's see, this M weighs 1.8 grams.... let me have another, please....
Susie
:o)