The Truth about High Protein-Low Carb Diets
wellness wiz
Atkins (Atkins Diet) and Barry Sears (The Zone Diet) have induced a
popular trend in weight loss nutrition. However, have these HPLC diets
come at a cost to its followers? The purpose of this article is to
address the claims and health concerns surrounding HPLC diets.
Claim 1: Weight loss is attributed to the composition of the diet (ie.
carb vs. protein)
To achieve weight loss one must attain a negative energy balance;
meaning that there are fewer calories consumed than expended
(hypocaloric diet). This may occur in 3 ways. First, caloric
expenditure may remain the same while calories consumed are restricted.
Second, caloric expenditure (ie. exercise) can be increased while
calories consumed (food intake) remains the same. Third, and most
effective, combines the first two. Hence, a combination of lower food
intake and exercise is employed, leading to a retained lean muscle mass
while body fat is decreased.
Unfortunately, HPLC diets have received much popularity due to their
hypolaric nature, thus, facilitating weight loss. As an example, Dr.
Atkins recommends that dieters consume 1,400 calories/day during the
first two weeks of his diet (Boucher, 1999), however, this represents
only 60% of the recommended energy intake for a 18-yr old female
weighing 125 lbs. A hypocaloric diet of any sort will yield weight
loss, therefore, it is a negative energy balance, rather than diet
composition, that is the cause.
Claim 2: Insulin promotes the storage of fat; therefore, by limiting
carbs, dieters will decrease levels of insulin and body fat.
Insulin is an anabolic hormone released upon eating that allows the
uptake and storage of carbohydrates and fat. High insulin levels are
associated with obesity, yet it is inaccurate that promoters of HPLC
diets have targeted insulin as the cause of obesity. Instead, it is
obesity that causes high levels of insulin to accumulate by decreasing
the liver's ability to clear insulin from the blood (Bergman, et al.
2001). Studies have even shown that decreased levels of insulin do not
lead to greater weight or fat loss (Golay, Allaz et al. 1996; Golay,
Eigenheer et al. 1996).
Claim 3: Weight loss is result of fat loss
Research suggests that water loss is responsible for the rapid weight
loss associated with HPLC diets. Cham et al. (1981) found that
subjects lost 4 kg on a low-carb diet but regained their weight within
24 hrs of resuming their regular diets. This can be explained by a
decrease in water retention resulting from lower carbohydrate stores,
since 1 molecule of glycogen (carbohydrate stored in muscle) holds 4
molecules of water.
Health Concerns
The American Medical Association (1977) has condemned the Atkins diet
labeling it "potentially hazardous". HPLC diets in general have
reported adverse health effects including:
· Calcium loss - via increased urinary calcium excretion
· Undesirable lipoprotein levels - higher LDL levels, and lower HDL
levels predispose the dieter at risk of cardiovascular complications.
· Decreased immune function - via lower levels of vitamins and
minerals in diet.
In sum, promoters of HPLC diets have based their claims on research
using obese and hyperinsulimenic subjects. This is misleading and
inappropriate information for the general population to utilize and as
such should be taken into consideration when embarking on a weight loss
regime.
Yuri Elkaim, BPHE, CK
For more articles go to www.totalwellnessconsulting.ca
Subscribe to our FREE Liv Well e-newsletter
www.VitaminExplorer.com
David
Dear Yuri Elkaim,
Your unsolicited mail to me demolishing the Atkins underpinnings was an interesting read. It highlights some important features of the jostling towards a healthy and sustainable diet for society in the next generation or so and I think it is worth commenting on.
First let us look at your 3 part dismantling of the Atkins claims.
Claim 1. Your objection is decidedly semantic and lacks substance. What Atkins realised in his dissection of our present diet that delivers obesity and a host of lifestyle diseases including diabetes, was the preponderance of empty calories, namely carbohydrates through the variously processed grains. Grains as we can see from our history were a wonderful, tradable commodity that fostered merchants and wealth-getting and was particularly useful during sieges and warmongering in general. In a phrase – wealth and power. Storage was the key element. In the modern age through machinery we were able to process the life out of these grains to attain maximum shelf life and by consequence maximum wealth generation for the happy merchants. But it all went to waist quite literally and was the primary contributor of our present western obesity. The mechanism may have been developed and perfected in the West but the 3rd world is as much a victim today. Witness India with up to 30% diabetes in its population as well as an alarming upsurge in obesity via the white rice/white wheat flour syndrome. Yet the obese are invariably nutrient deficient. Atkins, bless his observant soul, saw the deliverer of obesity in limiting empty carbs and to his credit fashioned a solution by eradicating the main culprit. He was a pioneer who nailed the primary cause and was (perhaps instinctively) clever enough not to take on more than one major lobby in the USA. The mills/confectioners lobby was quite enough. Imagine if he had the meat producers lobby on his back as well. What Atkins failed to significantly address was the nutrient factor.
Negative energy balance came from eradicating the empty calories. So of course it is diet composition and your objection as I said earlier is semantic at best. At worst it is…well, let’s see!
Claim 2. You are nit-picking again. Keep in mind that Atkins is a precursor and pioneer not the end product and what he pointed out regarding insulin was the mechanism and how best to sidestep the consequences of the imbalance. Here weight loss was secondary, regulation of insulin was primary and limiting carbs was critical to this end. All this was done on a platform of weigh loss since that was/is the perceived goal, the aspiration of the times and still takes precedence over health per se. Atkins thus tailored his craft to suit the conditions and aspiration of the society he was dealing with – again I think it was instinctual on his part.
Claim 3. Again the perceived evil is fat and most certainly restricted carbs do more than adjust water retention. Your cited authority is more than 25 years old and needs to be questioned a little more thoroughly. It is decidedly short on science.
I am no Atkins adherent – indeed I’m a vegetarian and object vigorously to the levels of protein advocated by this movement. But let us not shoot down Atkins without carefully examining what is behind his evident success (bankruptcy notwithstanding!) and the role empty carbs have played in getting us into the mess we are in. Your summoning of testimony from the American Medical Association (1977! - wow now that’s old!) was the last straw that prompted this rejoinder. I mean come on; the AMA has opposed all things outside its strict ambit of a drug dependent society over the past more than half century. What is behind it is big business and the entire pharmaceutical industry. So it is rather vapid of you to wrap up your case on such a specious authority. This is after all 2006 and we are all a little wiser now on the role of diet in health, having finally recalled Hippocrates’ ancient injunction to “seek our medicine in our diet”.
Do some homework please, the “general population” deserves better. Look for what is missing in Atkins ideology more than what is wrong with it. Leapfrog rather than bulldoze.
Sincerely
David Hogg
=================================================================
