A daily intake of 37.5 grams of carbohydrate IS a low-carb diet. That is a FACT. One can't be subjective when stating a fact.
The fact is that Atkins has never claimed that one can lose weight on 37 grams of carbs.
Actually, he does and he doesn't at the same time. How is that possible? Read this:
(Note: All comments pertain to the 1999 edition of "Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution").
- Atkins characterizes a study by Alfred Pennington as "exciting" because it demonstrated "success in dieters who restricted carbohydrate" (p. 67). Yet, he dismisses a study by Sidney Werner that did not demonstrate a low-carbohydrate metabolic advantage because the diet contained 52 grams of carbohydrate - "far too much for demonstrating ketosis and lipolysis" (p. 70). Problem is, the Pennington diet also contained 52 grams of carbohydrate. In fact, the two diets were identical. Pennington's study was rather vague: there was no control group and the amount of weight lost by the subjects was unspecified. Werner took Pennington's diet, added an isocaloric, high-carbohydrate control diet, confined his subjects to a metabolic ward for 35 - 49 days, and demonstrated that there was no difference in the rate of weight loss between the two diets.
You posted that study *TO ME* knowing that I was talking about Atkins.
Sorry, I didn't know mind-reading was a prerequisite for posting to this forum.
The problem is that your study is nothing CLOSE to Atkins and is not relevent to the discussion.
And the study you posted concerning the 35% fat, Mediterranean-style diet is??
...nor does he recommend a 1000 a day calorie diet [which does nothing but bring metabolism to a screeching halt after the initial weight loss and is probably mostly muscle loss anyway].
Let's take what you said here and apply it to that Schneider's Children's Hospital study you seem so fond of. The low-carb subjects in this study reportedly consumed an average of 1830 calories per day. The low-fat group consumed an average of only 1100 calories per day. Isn't it possible that the low-fat subjects lost less weight than the low-carb subjects because their metabolism was brought to a "screeching halt" by their low calorie intake, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with diet macronutrient composition?
I might also mention that the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Association are on record as not agreeing with the Atkins Diet.
Thie next excerpt is about the ZONE and fetures research from JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine...
"Seems kind of strange to think of a diet centered around beef, pork, lamb, chicken, eggs, bacon shrimp, lobster, and cheese preventing heart disease. But, Sears reasons that too much insulin production by the body is the primary culprit for causing heart disease, and the Zone diet will control insulin and prevent heart disease. He feels so strongly about this that he claims in his book that a very low-cholesterol, low-fat diet will actually cause heart disease. After looking over Dr. Dean Ornish's research he concludes, "My guess is that the people who stay on his (Ornish's) program will ultimately have more heart attacks, more strokes, and a higher cardiovascular death rate than the dropouts." He bases this on the fact that "good" HDL-cholesterol went down in Ornish's patients and triglycerides went up.
During the debate I pointed out to him that Ornish had corrected him over a year ago, by providing him the data showing his patients on a high-carbohydrate diet had a 50% decrease in risk of cardiovascular deaths. Sears admitted his error to Dr. Ornish and promised to make corrections in his book, but has not.
On a healthy low-fat, low-cholesterol diet "good" HDL-cholesterol goes down because all fractions of cholesterol go down. Worldwide the lowest incidence of heart disease is found where people eat the lowest cholesterol diets and also have the lowest HDL-cholesterol levels (2:367, 1981). Feeding cholesterol raises HDL-cholesterol (N Engl J med 325:1704, 1991). A long-term study of patients on a high-carbohydrate diet showed less risk of death from heart disease compared to those on the American diet (JAMA 173:884, 1960).
Sorry, but that is not low carb enough to lose weight properly, nor does it emulate typical low carb diets, which show greater weight loss than low fat diets. Some consider 150 to be low carb and others consider 15 to be low carb. You can't be subjective when you are refuting someone who is making claims and posting studies about ATKINS.
That is what *YOU* did and it failed because the Atkins diet is 20 grams and NOT 37 grams, rendering your refutation of my studies completely invalid.
Let's get back to the point of posting your study, which you seem to forget, and that was to refute my contention that folks lose TWICE the weight on a low carb diet than they do on a low fat diet. The studies I showed - and the studies referenced in the article - proved that point.
As the article above stated:
None of these studies have been financed by the N.I.H., and none have yet been published. But the results have been reported at conferences -- by researchers at Schneider Children's Hospital on Long Island, Duke University and the University of Cincinnati, and by Stern's group at the Philadelphia V.A. Hospital. And then there's the study Stunkard had mentioned, led by Gary Foster at the University of Pennsylvania, Sam Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis, and Jim Hill, who runs the University of Colorado Center for Human Nutrition in Denver. The results of all five of these studies are remarkably consistent. Subjects on some form of the Atkins diet -- whether overweight adolescents on the diet for 12 weeks as at Schneider, or obese adults averaging 295 pounds on the diet for six months, as at the Philadelphia V.A. -- lost twice the weight as the subjects on the low-fat, low-calorie diets.
In all five studies, cholesterol levels improved similarly with both diets, but triglyceride levels were considerably lower with the Atkins diet. Though researchers are hesitant to agree with this, it does suggest that heart-disease risk could actually be reduced when fat is added back into the diet and starches and refined carbohydrates are removed. ''I think when this stuff gets to be recognized,'' Stunkard says, ''it's going to really shake up a lot of thinking about obesity and metabolism.''