What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?

The New York Times Magazine ^ | 07/07/2002 | GARY TAUBES

[MArdee]

Did you notice that the topic at hand *IS* Atkins? If you aren't talking about Atkins then exactly WHICH low carb diet are you talking about?

When did the topic become specifically about Atkins?? The thread began with your assertion that one can lose more weight on a low-carb diet (you did not specify which one - see post 172)than on a high-carb diet even if the low-carb diet is higher in calories. You then posted two studies as "proof", but only one of the test diets is specifically identified as the "Atkins Diet"; the other is only called a "low-carbohydrate diet". In a subsequent post (#227), you presented two additional studies, but neither of the test diets is specified as the Atkins Diet; the Schneider's Children's Hospital diet is referred to as either a "controlled carbohydrate program" or a "high-protein, high-fat carbohydrate-restricted diet", and the other diet is most certainly not the Atkins Diet, but a 35% fat, "Mediterranean-style diet".

As to which low-carb diet I was referring to: very-low-carb diets in general. I don't get too caught up in the minutiae, as don't most scientifically-literate people.

[Arioch7]

Apoligies, living in liberal land drives me insane.:D

[Arioch7]

You may have a point there.

Not to be a wise guy but isn't Mr. Atkins sick? I had heard he had heart problems? I am being serious here.

[NukeMan]

I'll note thaat competitive bodybuilders almost always use the extreme low-carb diet in the last few months of contest preparation to cut up (lose fat). As bluefish noted, though, they aren't exactly representative....they are genetic freaks when it comes to building muscle, and are always on drugs to help anabolism (and decrease catabolism). Take it for what it is worth.

More interesting to me is the vehemence with which people cling to one view or another, both in this thread and the NY Times article. If it were an argument over creationism vs. evolution or some such, that would be understandable (worldviews are questioned). Dieting is not exactly trivial, but people cannot seem to be objective about it.

[Dana113]

As to which low-carb diet I was referring to: very-low-carb diets in general. I don't get too caught up in the minutiae, as don't most scientifically-literate people

MsArdee, apparently, "minutiae" such as WHAT constitutes a low carb diet may not be important to you, but you and I both know that it is important to real scientists who are sincerely seeking the truth. Obviously, that is a KEY issue if one is going to study low carb diets, lest they end up with egg on thier faces as you have here.

Low carb does not mean whatever subjective measurement you decide to slap on it. The fact is that Atkins has never claimed that one can lose weight on 37 grams of carbs, 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]. The strictest phase of his diet is 1900-2000 calories a day. You posted that study *TO ME* knowing that I was talking about Atkins. The problem is that your study is nothing CLOSE to Atkins and is not relevent to the discussion.

[Dana113]

Arioch, As usual, you do not know of what you speak and never back up your claims. I have supported every claim I have made. You are simply parroting popular propoganda that you "heard" [with no substantiation] that is easily dispelled with the original article that started this debate and the subsequent ones I have posted. [did you even read the article??]

you wrote: As far as Eskimos being tainted by our dietary choices, I just dont buy it.

Of course you don't buy it because you DON'T KNOW. You research nothing. You are only guessing and making it up as you go along. My claims are backed up with research - yours are not. The reason I believe in Atkins is because I have RESEARCHED IT and let the FACTS and the SCIENCE bring me to my conclusions - NOT the other way around. As is common with you anti-low carb people, you cannot back your claims up because you have NOT come to the conclusion honestly via FACTS, evidence from your own research. You simply take the lazy man's way out and parrot what you HAVE HEARD. You have come to a conclusion based on OTHER PEOPLE'S opinions and that is why you get caught with your pants down like this.

Let's look at the a study about native Alaskans:

Dietary Changes and Obesity Associated With Glucose Intolerance in Alaska Natives

Reference: Murphy, N.J., Schraer, C.D., Thiele, M.C., et al., "Dietary Changes and Obesity Associated With Glucose Intolerance in Alaska Natives," Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 95(6), 1995, pages 676-682.

Summary: Obesity was virtually nonexistent in Alaska in aboriginal times, when carbohydrate consumption comprised only 3 to 5 percent of the total diet. Between 1962 and 1972, incidence of obesity was significantly higher than it had been 25 years prior. By 1978, carbohydrates constituted 50 percent of total calories, with a majority of those carbohydrates being of low nutrient-density. Researchers in this study sought to investigate associations between changes in food intake and its relation to body weight and glucose intolerance in Alaskan natives. In this study, nutrition screenings of 1,124 participants (20 years of age and older) were completed in 15 Alaskan villages during 1987 and 1988. Subjects were classified into those who ate native ethnic foods and those who ate Western foods. Body Mass Index was used to define weight status. Researchers noted that Athabascan Indians had twice the rate of non-insulin dependent diabetes (NIDDM) as did Yup'ik Eskimos. This appeared to be related to eating greater amounts of non-indigenous foods (white bread, soda, Tang/Hi-C, potatoes, rice cereal, shortening and deep fried foods), while at the same time eating fewer native carbohydrates (greens, berries, Eskimo potato) and fats (salmon/fish and seal oil). Subjects who were glucose intolerant weighed more than other subjects and consumed less seal oil and more non-ethnic, Western protein. Individuals underage 30 consumed significantly less indigenous protein and fat and more low-nutrient-density carbohydrate than individuals 60 and older. The authors noted that increased consumption of sweetened soda, increased incidence of overweight, midsection obesity and loss of fitness in Arctic children parallel non-Arctic children as do the escalating rates of NIDDM in children. The authors concluded that lower intake of seal and salmon fat was the most important factor in the increased rates of obesity and NIDDM in Alaska.

[Nov3]

Dr. Atkins has an infected heart muscle. The condition cannot be caused by diet anymore than eating cold cereal could give you a cold. By the way, his cardiologist said that his arteries looked wonderful.

[Arioch7]

Ok. I did not say that I knew for a fact that the Eskimos were not affected by our dietary choices, I said I did not buy it.

What else in my article was wrong?

I will et you know the reason I am not posting scientific studies. The thing is that almost the entire scientific community agrees with me. If I quote them, you will say that I am "Parroting," the status quo which IMHO is a conveniant way to say nothing I post will change your mind.

Lets see, how about this quote, it has Harvard AND the ADA...

"Atkins explains it this way: when carbohydrates are severely restricted, the body is missing its main energy source—glucose that is made from carbs—and so it burns its own fat to use as energy and you lose weight.

The American Dietetic Association’s explanation is this: A low-carb diet forces the liver to produce that missing glucose, in the process sacrificing muscle and other lean tissue.

Since a low-carb diet depletes muscle tissue and water quickly, dieters see instant results. But when a normal diet is resumed, the muscle tissue is rebuilt, water is restored and weight quickly returns.

“It’s calories and portion sizes that have made us fat, not complex carbohydrates,” says Dr. George Blackburn, a leading obesity expert at Harvard University.

“Every diet that lowers your overall caloric intake is going to make you lose weight,” adds Dr. John Foreyt, director of Nutrition Research at Baylor College. “You could have people stand on their heads and they’d lose weight.”

Since 95% of the bloody world agrees with me, I could post a billion others. When I posted anything such as carbs being the brains main source of energy, you said I was falling for thier propoganda.

About my misunderstanding of the condition known as Ketosis which I apoligized for, I also have medical essays which I will post so as to not make this too long.

The reason I am not doing any RESEARCH is because I have done it before and since I have been training for over fifteen years I think I have a handle on it but if it is research you want, I will give it to you. Of course, it will be flawed "Anti-Atkins;" research by your estimation.

[Arioch7]

About my use of the word Ketosis... from an essay by Dr. McBride from the idealdiet.com

"As a long term maintenance plan, there is a concern that ongoing ketosis may present some hazards, and this is the major criticism of this diet plan. In some cases the definition of ketosis is at issue - some persons mistake the ketosis of a low carbohydrate diet with the ketoacidosis of a diabetic who does not obtain adequate insulin, or the normal ketone levels caused by fat metabolism with the ketosis of excess fatty acid breakdown.

As for the safety of long-term ketosis with adequate calorie intake, enough scientific studies have not been performed to provide an answer on this, although no adverse effects have been noted to date, especially on liver and kidney function. One issue which has not been studied adequately is that of potential calcium and bone loss from acidification of the bloodstream by ketones over a prolonged period of time."

[Mr Frumble]

Arioch7 states "Japan is the country that has the most longevity, the most healthy people in the world. That is FACT."

Where is this a proven fact, in FACT the Japanese have much higher rates of stomach cancer and strokes. I would say it is highly subjective to state they are the healthiest.

The alleged health of the Japanese diet may be due to other factors like their higher intake of Omega 3 fatty acids (they eat more fish) or their higher intake of green tea, or maybe even their lower consumption of carcinogenic, heart damaging Omega 6 fatty acids. The point is that we don’t know, and copying part of someone else’s diet because you think you know what’s going on is erroneous.

Got this info from www.geocities.com/tbkfitness/l owfat.html

[Arioch7]

I was not trying to be a wise guy, I was just curious.

Lets go with some more of my unsubstantiated claims, this one is from the MCDougal wellness center about the Zone and other low carb diets....

"Their popularity has finally caused a long over due backlash from the scientific community. The American College of Sports Medicine, The American Dietetic Association, the Women's Sports Foundation, and the Cooper Institute for Aerobic Research have made their concerns known in a recently published brochure titled "Questioning 40/30/30."

I have more from JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine and I have about 50 Muscle-and-fitness, four sports medicines books, various nutrional tomes, and interviews frokm coaches of professional athletes.

This one is to Dana, I dont mind if you all believe in this stuff but I do not like to be insulted when as I said, almost the ENTIRE scientific community is on my side.

[Arioch7]

There health HAS been going down hill lately but I will pull up the relevant data since it appears to be needed. Oh and I eat sushi and drink green tea. Yes, I do follow a culture over a thousand years old that has been healthy for most of its existence

Lets see, this one is from the Joslin center which is a diabetic center affiliated with Harvard Medical School and considered the top dog in the field. Oh, and that probably means it is the best in the WORLD! Note this is a ccarb guideline for someone that has DIABETES for gods sake!

"For example, a 6' 2" tall man with diabetes who weighs 180 pounds and wants to maintain his current weight might be told he could eat 350 grams of carbohydrate spread out over the day. His goal would be to spread those grams out over the course of the day so that he doesn't send his blood sugars too high at any one time. If he is taking insulin or oral diabetes medication, he might also have to manage when he eats his carbohydrate in such a way that there is enough sugar from his meals in his bloodstream when his medication is working its hardest."

Oh, I can get some from MIT as well, they have a health center affiliated with HArvard. Might I suggest that YOU people are the ones that have the erroneous data?

[Zon]

Not to be a wise guy but isn't Mr. Atkins sick? I had heard he had heart problems? I am being serious here.

It could be intentional or careless incompetence. One a telling sign of intentional dishonesty the later a matter of ignorance and denial. IMO, considering your claim of not being a wise guy I'd say it was intentional dishonesty. For a person stating they are serious to refer to a doctor (Dr. -- a doctor that has been mentioned several dozen times on this thread) as mister (Mr.) has been one or the other -- intentionally dishonest or, ignorant of your own denial thus simply incompetent -- you chose.

[Angelique]

Good post. My papa used to say the best exercise is to push away from the table. One should be able to eat anything in moderation.

[Arioch7]

One thing I have noticed is that people who follow his diet DO get very touchy indeed.

I heard a bit back, he had heart problems, so I asked the question. I dont use titles often, so I guess you got me there but do you really think I am dishonest or incompetent because I asked that question?

I myself love CG Jung and talk about his work in philosophy and psychology forums. I also talk about Sigmund Freud who I dont really care for but did you note that I do not use the term Doctor or Professor for either of them?

I think you are taking my criticism of Dr. Atkins a wee bit personal. You can go here and request a brochure by the American society of Spports Medicine... http://www.acsm.org/

However, they are a lot more harsh then myself in analyzing the low carb diet. Since I seem to be a bad person, then they would have to be evil incarnate.

[nanaimo12]

It's true -- Dr. Atkins had cardiomyopathy, which is infection of the heart muscle (just a note -- recently they've found that infection is a significant cause of heart attacks....)

An interesting discussion; however, something I haven't seen is extended discussion of the problems OTHER than obesity that are addressed by a low carbohydrate diet.

From what I have seen, obesity is a *symptom* of the underlying metabolic disorder (yes, this is a simplification of what does occur -- fat cells are more active biologically than most people know) and an aggravating factor; treating only one aspect of the problem, though, doesn't remedy all the problems....and what of those people who don't have obesity as a symptom/factor? Plenty of people of "normal" weight have unbalanced insulin metabolism!

A high level of insulin in the blood (hyperinsulinemia) is known to indicate an elevated risk of cardiovascular problems. Two examples:

1) a study where 1 group of dogs had insulin injected into their leg veins, and the control group was injected with a saline solution -- the first group of dogs had developed atherosclerotic plaques in their leg veins.

2) a study of policemen in Helsinki showed that those men with higher levels of insulin in their blood had a higher risk of heart disease (naturally, known as the Helsinki policeman study ;) )

As well, high levels of glucose in the blood (hyperglycemia) is extremely damaging to all parts of the body...that's why diabetes has so many associated complications such as blindness, loss of limbs, kidney failure, etc. This is a result of the process called "glycation", where glucose invades tissues such as nerve, blood, or muscle cells, or kidney nephrons, and essentially "caramelizes" it (of course, damaging it).

As well, since insulin is a hormone, if it is out of sync it can throw other hormones out of balance as well, including the sex hormones. I am a prime example of this -- I have an insulin-linked condition called "polycystic ovary syndrome", and one of the characteristics of this is male-pattern hair growth due to the elevated levels of male hormone in the blood, which is definitely NOT a desired characteristic in a woman! (other characteristics are: lack of or infrequent menstruation; impaired fertility; male-pattern baldness; obesity; greater risk of cardiovascular disease; greater risk of Type 2 diabetes; greater risk of uterine cancer -- definitely not something to take lightly.)

Unlike the low-fat diet (which, as previous posts indicated, was NOT based on solid scientific research before its imposition), the low-carb diet deals with the underlying problem of the imbalanced insulin mechanism.

As has been noted elsewhere, the current North American diet is FAR higher in sugars and starches than that of our hunter/gatherer ancestors, from whom we get our genetic inheritance. We simply are not designed to process that much glucose on a regular basis! and therefore it causes systemic damage over a long period of time (which is becoming progessively shorter, as the amount of sugars and starches in the average diet skyrockets). No wonder children are now being diagnosed with what was once called "adult-onset" diabetes!

It's a shame that Dr. Atkins' weight-loss regime and, in particular, the first stage of it, has been misinterpreted or simply not read properly. In another book of his (sadly, out of print) he expands on and explains his *entire* dietary regime. The weight-loss diet espoused in New Diet Revolution begins as a deliberately and carefully unbalanced diet to counter the metabolic disorder and "kick-start" weight loss; as the diet progresses, it becomes more balanced (but still much lower in carbs than the norm).

For those who are interested in the bodybuilding applications, do a Google search for "cyclical ketogenic diet".

As to the concern about kidney health, there is NO research that indicates that high protein damages normal, healthy kidneys. The only time that low protein is indicated, is when someone is in end-stage renal failure, basically where they're limping along on dialysis waiting for a transplant.

All glucose that is needed for body functioning (and a little bit IS needed) can be provided by protein and fat. The body can convert up to 58% of protein to glucose, and approximately 10% of fat (the glyceride portion) to glucose. The benefit of carbohydrate foods is not the carbs, but the micronutrients (such as the lycopene in tomatoes).

For someone who doesn't need to lose a significant amount of weight, the basic formula is to eliminate sources of refined sugars and starches, and keep the intake of high-glycemic foods such as baked potatoes to a minimum. High-fibre veggies are fine at any time! and low-carb substitutes such as almond meal instead of bread crumbs for dredging, or pork rinds instead of potato chips, are a good idea for anyone (surprise! pork rinds have less fat gram for gram than regular potato chips -- check the USDA database -- and they don't have the trans-fatty acids that are the truly bad fats as do potato chips).

Lots of other things I'd like to say, but I'll save it for later :)

[Mr Frumble]

Yes I drink green tea also because of it's proven health benifits, not because the Japanese appear to be healthier. I myself am of 100% German ancestry. This means agrigculture did not arrive in my neck of the woods until a mere 5000 years ago, potatoes only 500 years ago. So I've decided to eat what my ancestors have been eating for the 35000 years before agriculture arrived, a diet which happens to low carb. And it works great for ME. It probably does not work great for a Japanese person.

[jammer]

Someone mentioned the "Pig Diet". I wonder if that person is aware of the physiological term "Ketosis"

Of course--that is the basis of the high protein, low carb diet. Many of the people on it probably know more about ketosis than you do, despite your smug question.

[MArdee]

Low carb does not mean whatever subjective measurement you decide to slap on it.

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?

[Senator Pardek]

The greatest series of non-sequiters ever posted to FR:

Senator Pardek is like a real Senator. They like to proclaim that such and such is a huckster (see post #7) or harming people or wrong and then they propose to solve the problem. The Senators, like other members of congress manufacture problems so they can solve them and thus justify their jobs and unearned paychecks. They like to proclaim, "I'll use the government to compassionately protect the little guy."  In reality, they create problems that need not exist.

Politicians and bureaucrats create and implement roughly 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. That number increases on average from one year to the next. Each year they tell us that the new laws are "must-have laws" that people and society can't prosper without. They do that, so they imply, to keep people from running society headlong into destruction.

Yet how is it that citizens and the society they make up has managed to not only survive but increase prosperity when they didn't have this year's 3,000 new laws last year or for decades before? Likewise, how did citizens increase prosperity for decades prior to last year's 3,000 new must-have laws? And they do that despite a mountain of laws that they've already been saddled/burdened with. Thirty new laws a year is probably overkill. But 3,000 is insane.

During Clintons eight years in the White House alone, there were 25,000 new laws and regulations created. How many of those laws did you break? With that many laws piled on top of the ones that already existed virtually every citizen is a criminal.

However, if in a day it was physically possible to apprehended even one quarter of those lawbreakers society would come to a screeching halt. Yet with all these supposed criminals on the lose prosperity continues to increase.

Seems obvious that lobbyists and special interest groups seeking to buy access to government power in order to gain unfair competitive advantages would be non existent if politicians weren't putting government power up for sale in the first place. They sell the "little guys" snake oil (for example, a bogus/unhealthy dietary guide) while they sell access to government power to their big money donors/supporters.

Excuse me while I prepare my "Why Zon Is Like A Real (Paula) Zahn" essay.