Vegans vs. Atkins

Salon ^ | December 8, 2003 | Katharine Mieszkowski

[LaraCroft]

Look, it's simple physics. If you take in more calories than you burn, through exersize or metabolism, you gain weight. Some foods are more calorie dense, and your body does react to them differently, however, your assessment that you can eat 3000 extra calories a day is ludicrous.

If you eat fat all day, you're gonna be fat, period.

Sugar is just not good for you, like the health nuts have been saying for years. Fat's not good for your heart or your bodies ability to fend off cancer, and other disease.

You can lose weight, but I've seen a lot of people who really need to lose 80 pounds losing 20-30 on a low carb diet and then going right back up.. horrifying when thinking of the crap in their veins.

[humblegunner]

A few weeks ago, I gave a lecture, and afterwards a young man, obviously a football player type, came up to me and said that what I said made a lot of sense, but I seemed to be quite thin. I could feel how he had me stereotyped, and that he was assuming that because I am lean therefore I am weak. I asked him how much he weighed, and how much he could bench press. He said he weighed 200 pounds, and could bench press his weight. "That's good," I said, knowing that few men are strong enough to be able to bench press their weight. Then I continued: "I weigh 160 pounds, and I can also bench press your weight." His jaw dropped. "Really?" he asked. "Really," I said.

Then he commenced to kick my sprout-eating butt.

[dogbyte12]

I do have before pics. I will put them up, once I am ready to take the after pic ;)

[beezdotcom]

Look, it's simple physics. If you take in more calories than you burn, through exersize or metabolism, you gain weight.

So, those are the only two ways a calorie can leave the body? I guess you don't poop much. Everybody recognizes that a lot of fiber leaves the body unmetabolized, so why can't other foods, under certain metabolic conditions? Why is it so hard to realize that the body doesn't process food with 100% efficiency, and that all calories may NOT be equal?

Something else is happening to the extra calories, or this study wouldn't have such interesting results.

however, your assessment that you can eat 3000 extra calories a day is ludicrous.

Well, I never said that. I said that I've had multiple days of eating 4000 calories. From that, where do you get that I'm eating 3000 EXTRA calories a day?

Even so, you can't make a blanket conclusion about what would happen ANYWAY if I DID eat 3000 extra calories a day. You have no idea of my metabolism, wieght, BMI, colon motility or any of the other necessary variables.

Sugar is just not good for you, like the health nuts have been saying for years. Fat's not good for your heart or your bodies ability to fend off cancer, and other disease.

This statement, by itself, is so woefully inaccurate and incomplete that I can only assume you meant to fill in a number of missing blanks. I assume that you mean "refined sugar in the diet", since I think you would contend that other natural sugars are perfectly healthy. I assume that you mean "trans-fats" or other specific fats that can be bad for you, if your body happens to deposit them straight into the arteries (another thing that happens mostly when you combine them with carbs, and apparently less so if you don't). The fats in fish oil, on the other hand, are QUITE good for you. Turns out the fats in butter are MUCH better for you than the fats in margarine.

You've made a number of assertions in your post, and they all are either about a subject you don't know (ME), or incomplete at best. If you feel I've characterized them unfairly, please let me know.

[Eva]

I have also read that people who have small intestine problems and other digestive problems are prone to B12 deficiency.

[Hillary's Folly]

Interestingly, there's a school of vegetarian thought that levels a similar claim at meat eaters.

One of the things that interests me is that any time radical vegetarianism or vegans are discussed because of their attempts to "prove" their way is best and the other way will lead to doom, a lot of meat eaters respond in exactly the same manner, citing so-called studies that spout one theory over another "proving" that those who do not eat meat are destined to be deficient in one health area or another.

Why can't we all just get along and eat what we want and suffer the consequences for our decision? I don't eat what I don't want to eat, i.e., the flesh or body of anything with fur, feathers, blood, veins, or anything that shits in the same manner as a human. It's just that simple. I don't eat what makes me sick to my stomach, a list which is not confined solely to meat. I don't like nuts in my brownies, pineapple on my pizza, broccoli in my "cheese" casserole or coconut on ANYTHING.

On the other hand, I could not live without cheese and will not avoid sweet potato pie simply because it has eggs in it. My people are farmers: cattle, pork, corn and soybeans. I prefer the corn and soybeans but, as stated before, I don't care what anyone else is eating as long as they're not on the Dahmer diet. And that includes dogs, cats, and pigeons too. People should be free to eat any non-human thing they want to eat free from the condemnation of others.

BTW, yours was an interesting post and confirms the rightness of my inclination to swat the fly while it sits in the potato salad, not after it's flown away.

[LaraCroft]

"So, those are the only two ways a calorie can leave the body? I guess you don't poop much."

I suggest you first go to the dictionary and look up calorie.

[beezdotcom]

I suggest you first go to the dictionary and look up calorie.

LOL! Instead, why don't you go look up how most food companies "measure" the calories in their food that they list on the label? The answer is that, most of the time, they don't bother. They just use the standard 4-4-9 classification and a calculator. However, eat a can of corn, and then put the resultant crap in a bomb calorimeter and you'll find the answer is decidedly non-zero.

Interestingly enough, animal agriculture is pretty diligent about studying the difference between Gross Energy and Digestible Energy, because the raising of livestock has already become so politically incorrect that they don't care about offending the nutritionist lobby. All they care about is the economics; pumping in the least expensive amount feed with the most digestibility. It's a shame human nutrition research is still shackled by "deeply held convictions" which often don't trace to rigorous science.

You see, part of the problem relevant to THIS discussion is that the few studies done comparing food intake on traditional and low-carb diets haven't done the fecal analysis necessary to determine if this is one possible explanation of how the extra calories were "lost". I can't fathom why they haven't done this, when many other studies show differences in the intestinal absorption of different foods.

Remind me to tell you about the time I was a test subject in a low-carb/low-fat (human) metabolic study. I (along with most other subjects) gained weight on the low-fat portion, lost weight on the low-carb portion, and yet the researcher concluded that the low-fat portion was more conducive to weight loss...it's all about how you set up the strawman. Oh, and it was peer reviewed and published, to boot.

[potlatch]

Here you go, auto;

NEW EXERCISE ROUTINE FOR
(US) SENIORS.....Here's the exercise program I am using to stay in shape
this year. You might want to take it easy at first, then do it faster as you
becomemore proficient. It may be too strenuous for some.REMEMBER
- ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR BEFORE STARTING ANY EXERCISE PROGRAM.


NOW SCROLL DOWN...

NOW SCROLL UP...

That's enough for the first day.

[LaraCroft]

Pass.

If you can't get the concept that you can't poop a calorie, there really is no sense in continuing.

I subscribe to healthy eating, which doens't include junk, low carb or otherwise.

[beezdotcom]

If you can't get the concept that you can't poop a calorie, there really is no sense in continuing.

If you can't get the concept that the number of calories listed on the can is more often than not a theoretical absolute rather than a true measure of the energy actually available to the body (as it is often misrepresented), then there really IS no sense in continuing. Do you truly believe your body enjoys the same energy value from 10 grams of fiber vs. 10 grams of sugar? And yet, most food labelers treat them as straight up carbohydrates, assigning them 4 Cal/g.

OTOH, if you're merely playing semantic games because you're upset that I didn't say "excreting fecal matter containing caloric content NOT metabolized from the food" instead of "pooping calories", then there really IS no sense in continuing.

Meanwhile, I can give you another obvious example of caloric excretion, albeit one that is indicative of serious problems. Diabetics who expel sugar in the urine are literally pissing cal...er, "expelling urine containing caloric content".

[Lil'freeper]

I offered three studies about vitamin deficiencies. There are dozens more. The fact that they exist is hardly an attempt to evangelize you to a different way of eating. Any offense you took was entirely of your own manufacture.

Certainly vegans aren't the only people who struggle with vitamin deficiencies. One of the most common faults found with the Atkins diet is that it could lead to deficiencies... exactly the reason the dear Dr. recommends supplementation.

Why can't we all just get along and eat what we want and suffer the consequences for our decision?

By all means. Just don't expect the world of biochemistry research to come to a screeching halt. Similarly, don't expect the rest of us to stop reading about and discussing nutrition just because you want to sing kum-ba-ya.

And if you're looking for someone to "swat", how about firing off a couple of letters to Lancet or Journal of Nutrition and scold them for daring publish such basic science.

Enjoy your textured vegetable protein and have a lovely day.

[Marysecretary]

Yep. Self control works.

[Big Horn]

The taste diet is the best. If it tastes good spit it out.

[Hillary's Folly]

Any offense you took was entirely of your own manufacture.

Geez, Man, I didn't take any offense to your post at all, I said it was interesting, and it was. I enjoyed the fact that you had citations.

What I said was that I find it interesting (which I do) that every time these PETA types try to enforce their vision by saying meat eating is unhealthy, a bunch of people lambaste vegetarians in general and turn around and do the same thing they're complaining about the PETA types doing. I was just noting the irony of that.

Read my profile page (as i did yours) and I think you'll come to understand that I, like perhaps you, am basically a smartass. Most of my posts are fairly tongue-in-cheek even if factually or opinionally accurate. All of my posts in this thread certainly are.

And if you're looking for someone to "swat", how about firing off a couple of letters to Lancet or Journal of Nutrition and scold them for daring publish such basic science.

I assume this statement is in response to mine: "BTW, yours was an interesting post and confirms the rightness of my inclination to swat the fly while it sits in the potato salad, not after it's flown away."

This (clearly?) was a reference to your citation of the study of Indians who moved to England and was, again, a joke. Which brings me to the overall point that I've been making on this whole thread that the battle among diets in this world is a joke.

There was a time in my life when I took all of my medical advice from Paul Harvey. When Dr. Harvey told me to add grape juice to my diet, I did. When he told me drinking would kill me I stopped drinking. When he reported about a study touting the health benefits of beer and hard liqour, I started drinking again.

When Dr. Harvey reported that some scientist somewhere found that gardening might cause Parkinson's disease, I quit my favorite pastime. I decided to take it up again after Harvey told me that drinking lots of coffee appeared to reduce one's risk of Parkinson's. Of course, I had to buy a new coffee pot because I quit drinking coffee years ago due to high blood pressure. I stopped watching TV after a study suggested that spending a lot of time in front of the tube leads to Alzheimer’s. But when another study found that drinking two to three glasses of alcoholic beverages per day significantly reduces the chance of getting Alzheimer’s, I cranked up the TV, but now I make sure I have a stiff drink while watching.

My point (if I have one) can best be summarized by Sarasota's succinct post #6 on this thread: "Why does it have to be one diet or the other? Let everyone find what works for him/herself and get these drummers off their soapbox(es). For God's sake, people, figure it out for yourself based on how you feel--and look in the mirror once in awhile to do a reality check."

So I'm sorry if you misunderstand from where I'm coming (I'm certainly no Kum-ba-ya type) and I'm sorry my previous post solicited such a visceral reaction from you. Perhaps you're running a little low on B-12.

[Alouette]

Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide

[Prof Engineer]

Bottled or tap?

Same thing. Read the labels.

[Ichneumon]

Its been known for years that DHMO kills. Most of the water we drink today contains staggering amounts of DHMO contamination - far worse contamination than arsenic ever was. But there are too many multinational corporations that use DHMO in their products, that contribute too much $$$ to politicians, for us to hope that the Bush administration will ever do anything about it.

DHMO has caused billions of dollars of property damage in the Midwest, and recently California. Several years ago a large DHMO spill 14 miles away from Johnstown, PA, killed 2,209 people in the town, including 99 entire families and 396 children under the age of 10.