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

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

[Dana113]

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.

Not to beat a dead horse but this statement confirms exactly what I have said all along. And that is that you DO NOT make your claims based on FACTS. You admitted it right there.

[Arioch7]

Protein builds muscle mass and carbs fuel glycogen in the muscle. I did not mean to imply that it would burn muscle.

I think carbs give me a better energy source. I eat plenty of protein. Every weight lifter knows exactlly what the macro-nutrients to the body.

I have read all of the studies you have and perhaps some that you have not. I lean more towards muscle and fitness, you lean towards Atkins.

All I am saying is that I am not fat, and no one that trains and eats like me is fat.

I mentioned the fact about a lot of people agreeing with me does not neccesarily make my point valid.

What I should have said is 95% of the sports trainers and athletes agree with me. As do most nutritionists. We are perfectly healthy. The only people I know on the Atkins diet are people that are trying to lose weight. As I said, I was fat my entire life and have not been so for about 14 years.

I always listen to Atkins people in person and they always tell me that it is working, etc, but in the end, they dont look and feel like the people I mentioned above so why should I listen to people that are not fit?

I know some of you might be upset by this but I know some damned fit people in person and they act like me. The problem is I see the results in the Muscle and fitness diet that I do not see with low carb people.

I am sorry I am so biased in regards to your diet but the only when I know who is fit that follows it is still trying but he is a bodybuilder.

I have plenty of information about conditioning and it works for me. I think I will post a question about your diet in the martial arts forum that I go to. I will link it.

Again, I meant no unpleasantry and I am sorry for any hard feelings. I think Zon is a little bit angry but there is no reason. The worst that will happen isI will get all those terrible things so shouldn't you all be trying to help me! :)

[Dana113]

Arioch, No one has claimed that Atkins is a diet for professional athletes or that it will turn one into the Terminator [even though he *IS* on Atkins!]. However, I thought I explained that I am a weight lifter [non-professional] with 19.6% body fat, so I know what works best. I guess that makes me an "expert" in your book.

The problem with your contention that: "What I should have said is 95% of the sports trainers and athletes agree with me. " is that none of them are cardiologists, trained researchers, endocrinologists and have conducted no research on thier own. And I doubt that they are experts on how to help a 300 lb sedentary woman lose weight.

Weight trainers are simply not experts, anymore than Joe Schmoe off the street. In fact, many of them still tout the widely discredited low fat myth that has created such health problems in this country. Being fit does not make one an expert on nutrition by a long shot. I also doubt that any of them are on Weight WAtchers or The Zone but that certainly does not render those diets ineffective.

If being fit is the criteria, then *I* must be an expert because I am extremely fit for a 45 year old woman. Rather, an expert is defined by WHAT THEY KNOW and whether it is TRUE or not. Anyone who claims that low fat is the way does not know what they are talking about, no matter how fit. On the other hand, someone who is extremely UNFIT probably doesn't have a clue either if they can't even get themselves in shape.

Even so, no one is suggesting the Atkins diet is for weight lifters or professional athletes, only that carb loading is foolish. Thier metabolism is dramatically different from a 300 pound, sedentary woman with diabetes II who has abused her body for years with refined carbs.

[Dana113]

P.S.

There are several Sports Trainers who do not agree with you:

http://www.ivillage.com/diet/e xperts/wlcoach/qas/0,5090,1658 30_77534,00.html

http://www.stumptuous.com/weig hts.html Go to eating, then "the carbohydrate myth: why "fat-free" likely isn't"

From the Director of Nutrition and Fitness from Gold's Gym


The Weight-Loss Lie

by: John Serpa
Are Americans living a $35 billion dollar lie?
Did you know that the American public spends an average of $35 Billion dollars per year on a certain item that is doomed to failure from the beginning and not one congressman or senator is calling for an investigation to look into it. What is this item? A new stealth bomber? Six thousand dollar toilet for a missile frigate? No, not even close. How about welfare or farm subsidies? You're not even warm. The answer is much simpler than you might think: Weight Loss.

It is widely estimated that we spend approximately $35 billion per year on weight loss programs, products, and potions and you know what? They don’t work! It is not even that they don’t work, They can’t work! The typical weight loss program that you pick up at the checkout isle of your local grocery store or a commercial weight loss center goes against human physiology and the way our bodies are designed to work. They are in a sense physiologically incorrect.

What am I talking about? Let me explain, the typical weight loss program is based on a steady caloric reduction which enables the body to lose weight. Sounds good so far right? The problem is that no one ever bothered telling us what we were actually losing. Fat? Not entirely, when you decrease your caloric intake to or below your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), daily caloric requirement needed to maintain lean mass while only conducting involuntary activity (heart beating, lungs breathing, etc..), your body has to get by on less energy yet still do the same amount of work. It becomes even more counter productive when "voluntary activity"(exercise) is added yet caloric intake is still at BMR. When forced into this situation the body simply begins to "lighten the load." This means the body perceives that it is about to go into a state of caloric (energy) deprivation which prompts the body to begin rid itself of whatever material that most consumes calories. This material just so happens to be our lean muscle.

So what is weight loss then? Well it is actually a combination of lean muscle and fat loss, not just fat loss as most people believe. Still doesn’t sound that bad? Let’s take this a step further then. When you begin to reduce your lean muscle mass, you are also damaging your metabolic rate(i.e., metabolism). Our body’s ability to burn up or a use calories for energy is directly dependant upon the amount of lean mass we have. What most people do not realize is that our lean mass is actually our calorie burning machinery. Calories, specifically fat, are burned in our muscle: Lower it and you lower your ability to burn calories! What we have done at this point is we have lowered the amount of calories we can now consume/burn on a daily basis. This means if we consume any excess calories above our daily BMR needs, we are very likely going to store the surplus as fat. When this happens it then becomes necessary to live off of 1,000 calories or less for the rest of our lives if we wish to keep our weight down due to the muscle loss. Just ask Oprah about her "Opti-fast Diet" experience.

It has been calculated that up until the 1940-50's the average American woman took in 3,000 to 5,000 calories per day. Today the average American woman takes in less than 1,500 calories per day and is on some type of weight loss program. Today one out of every three people in the United States is considered obese. In the 1970's one out of every four people was. As we become a society more and more dependant upon appetite suppressants and commercial weight loss centers, we have also become largely a more unhealthy society due to incorrect dieting practices. Only when a person has embarked on a program that includes identifying the proper amount of daily food intake (based on body statistics and goals), the proper amount of aerobic (fat burning) exercise, the appropriate amount of diet augmentation (food supplements), and the proper amount of resistance training needed will they be able to truly alter their body’s appearance and maintain that appearance. Until then, do your best to avoid those good marketing/bad science weight loss programs in your checkout isle.

©1996 by John Serpa
Nutrition and Fitness Director-Gold’s Gym, Santa Barbara, CA
CFT-NASM, Nutrition Consultant

[Arioch7]

Fair enough. It might not make you an expert but it works for you so that is something you know to be true.

My system is good to go and has worked for me for a while so I will stick to it.

BTW, Is Arnold using the Atkins diet?

[Dana113]

That is what I hear! One of my atkins buddies told me he writes about it in his book. Not a big fan of the Terminator but the guy has good taste in diets!

[raygun]

I'm not so sure about the Atkins Diet. Studies show that sooner or later, high-protein diets result in renal (kidney) failure.

The most healthy diet to follow bar none, is the diabetic diet. That is true whether or not one is diabetic, obese or not.

[tabsternager]

Good post and I agree entirely.

I read a quote from a doctor who said that dieting is like holding your breath -- when you do finally breathe again, you gasp for air.

[nanaimo12]

>>I choose to believe Joslin, HArvard, MIT, AMA, JAMA, Association of sports medicine, the entire New England Medical community, and just about every credible scientific source in the world.

Just because a medical source is *generally* reliable and credible, does not mean that it is *infallible*. Doctors and scientists are human beings, as prone to mistakes and jumping at the latest fad as anyone else, but can be damnably slow to admit significant errors. This is particularly the case when an entire generation may possibly have been placed at GREATER risk of chronic disease because of misinformation, and an entire generation of health-care providers has been trained on the premise that the low-fat diet is a healthful one. It is also very easy to "read in" results to a study that you wish to see, in spite of the hard facts; sometimes this is in good faith, other times it is intellectual dishonesty.

An example of how terribly wrong doctors can be, in good faith: when a new diabetic drug called troglitazone (Rezulin) was introduced, it did not indicate that regular liver testing was vital. Doctors who, in good faith, prescribed it to their patients were not aware of this; as a result, a number of people suffered severe liver damage, and some died as a result. Rezulin was recalled briefly, then reintroduced *with* the warnings (but, I believe, is no longer available).

Some of the research that has been taking place that debunks the low-fat theory (and it IS a theory) has been taking place at Harvard University, under the auspices of Gerald Reaven and Walter Willett -- a fine institution with an admirable reputation for solid research.

Gary Taubes' article makes it abundantly clear that, for years, it has been extremely difficult for anyone who wished to actually do decent research assessing the effectiveness of the low-carb diet to obtain any US government funding until very recently. It has taken years of overwhelming clinical results and research from other countries to reverse this obdurate position (as well as a rapidly growing number of practitioners -- doctors, nurses and nutritionists -- who are prescribing a low-carb diet because of results they've seen in patients/colleagues or experienced themselves).

Re-read the portion of the article that relates how the low-fat paradigm came into existence -- no such firm evidence was in effect at its introduction; in fact, it is a little frightening at how a few well-placed people imposed their untested OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS on an entire populace (despite objections from reputable scientists), essentially making said populace unwitting research subjects.

Here's 1) a pilot study abstract posted at the ADA site, under Scientific Sessions (search under the abstract #), and 2) an abstract from a Kuwaiti study on the ketogenic diet, complete with overall data


A Pilot Study Comparing a Low Carbohydrate and Low Fat Diet on Weight and Glycemic Control in Obese Diabetics. The VA Low Carbohydrate Intervention Diet (VALID) Study

Abstract Number: 256-OR
Abstract Category: Behavioral Medicine, Clinical Nutrition,
Education
Abstract Scheduled: S8-M
Monday - June 17 2002
Authors: PRAKASH SESHADRI
FREDERICK F. SAMAHA
LINDA STERN
MONICA M. WILLIAMS
NAYYAR IQBAL.

There has been a great deal of controversy regarding the use of low carbohydrate diets in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Long-term studies demonstrating the benefits and safety of a low carbohydrate diet in type 2 DM are currently not available.[br]We prospectively randomized 25 obese type 2 diabetic patients to either a low calorie/low fat(n=12)(500 kcal deficit, restricted fat and carbohydrate diet)(LF) or low carbohydrate diet (n=13) ([lte] 30 gm carbohydrate, non-calorie restricted diet)(LC). Patients were given four intense three hour weekly dietitian led sessions followed by monthly support group sessions for a total of 6-months. Data was collected at baseline and after 6 months of diet.[br]At the end of six months, 6 of 12 subjects on the LF diet and 8 of 13 subjects on the LC diet completed the study. The results are summarized in the table below. A 6-month medication review showed 4 of 8 LC subjects had a decrease in diabetic medications. Of 6 LF subjects, 3 had an increase and 1 had a decrease in diabetic medications.[table1]This pilot study demonstrates that at least 6 month use of a LC diet in obese type 2 diabetics patients is associated with a significant reduction in weight and Hba1c. This is achieved without any deleterious affects on serum lipids. There was no statistical significance between the two groups in reduction of BMI and Hba1c. Larger studies of longer duration are needed to demonstrate the benefits and safety of a LC diet in type 2 DM.

****

Effect of Ketogenic Diet in the Reduction of Body Weight in Obese Patients.

Hussein M Dashti, Yousef Y Bo-Abbas, Sami K Asfar, Abdulla I Behbahani, Mousa A Khoursheed, Hilal M Al-Sayer, Nagi S Al-Zaid Dept of Surgery, Fac of Med, Kuwait Univ, Kuwait, Kuwait, Kuwait; Dept of Med, Fac of Med, Kuwait Univ, Kuwait, Kuwait, Kuwait; Dept of Physiology, Fac of Med, Kuwait Univ, Kuwait, Kuwait, Kuwait

To determine the long-term effects of ketogenic diet (consisting of 30 gms carbohydrate, 1gm/kg body weight protein, 20% polysaturated, 80% polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat) in obese patients following the
administration for a period of twelve weeks. In this study sixty-three obese patients (body mass index > 30kg/m2) with a high glucose and cholesterol level were selected. Female: male ratio was 2:1. The fasting blood sugar, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, Na+, K+, urea, uric acid and creatinine levels of these patients were determined before and after the administration of the ketogenic diet. Changes in these parameters were monitored at weekly interval for twelve weeks. There was a significant reduction in all the parameters examined (p <0.001), except in the level of Na+, K+, and creatinine, while the level of HDL-cholesterol significantly increased. The level of urea and uric acid increased transiently during the 2nd and the 3rd week and returned to normal level during the 4th week. These levels remained constant from 4th to the 12th week. Interestingly, there was a significant reduction in body weight (99 +/- 2.8 to 80 + 3.0 kg). The level of triglycerides (2.74 +/-1.2 to 1.2 +/- 0.5 mmol/L), cholesterol (5.4 +/- 0.14 to 4.72 +/- 0.28 mmol/L), LDL (4.13 +/- 0.14 to 3.1 + 0.12 mmol/L) and glucose (7.7 +/- 0.5 to 5.2 +/- 0.43 mmol/L) also significantly decreased. The level of HDL showed a
significant increase from 1.08 +/- 1.01 to 1.3 +/- 0.1 mmol/L.

In conclusion: - Ketogenic diet acts as a natural therapy for weight reduction in obese patients. It significantly reduced the level of triglycerides, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and glucose whereas the level of HDL increased in these patients. The side effect of other drugs commonly used for the reduction of body weight in such patients is not observed in patients who were on Ketogenic diet. These results indicate that the administration of ketogenic diet for relatively long period is safe to
follow.

****

For those who are wondering what the numbers mean:

Results:
- significant reductions in body weight, fasting blood sugar, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides
- significant increase in HDL cholesterol
- transient (temporary) increase in urea and uric acid, which levelled off after 4 weeks (this relates to kidney function, and determining risk for patients with gout; this means that there is no ongoing kidney problems, and patients with gout should be fine)
- sodium (Na), potassium (K) levels and creatinine clearance (which is a measure of kidney function) remained the same


Just as an aside....when my father asked his cardiologist about low-carb dieting, she gave her full approval, and indicated that a colleague of hers at St. Paul's Hospital (Vancouver, B.C., Canada) had done well on one, returning to the body weight he'd had in his 20's.

[nanaimo12]

>>Studies show that sooner or later, high-protein diets result in renal (kidney) failure.

Show me these studies to which you refer!

I belong to a LISTSERV group (that includes scientists, doctors and nutritionists, BTW) that has examined numerous studies related to low-carb, including many studies concerning high protein/liver and kidney health. NOT ONE has shown that a normal, healthy kidney or liver is damaged by higher protein intake!

The *only* time that one should NOT have a higher protein diet is during end-stage renal failure, essentially when the kidneys are barely functioning. This is usually due to severe illness, genetic disorders or to damage caused by ....(drum roll)....high blood sugars!

[raygun]

What studies, who promoted them and what epedimiological controls (name the authority monitoring these studies) were in place for these studies?

[Dana113]

Studies show that sooner or later, high-protein diets result in renal (kidney) failure.

Raygun, I would like to see the studies that show that low carb OR high protein diets result in renal failure.

[glory]

I agree. My dh and I tried Atkins and we felt terrible. There was little to no energy to exercise on this diet. We found we needed a certain amount of carbs to make exercise a reality(for energy). Worked out great for us. Together we lost about 90lbs on a reasonable diet including carbs. I have never tried it, but Weight Watchers imo seems like a reasonable diet that can be carried on for a lifetime. My best friend did this one and lost 75lbs and she's kept it off for nearly 10 years using the maintanence program now which is second nature at this point and includes a regular healthy variety of ALL foods!
I'm not saying that the diet doesn't work for some. I've seen successes on it as well, but my guess it really depends what is "making" you overweight. If it's a true insulin resistance than that diet is probably for you. If it's because you overeat and don't exercise, than a weight watchers diet and exercise will probably be just fine.

[glory]

LOL--too true! What you said just made me think about a discussion my dh and I had. We were thinking about how it seems some people think they are going to cheat death if they just eat the perfect combonation of foods and vitamins and exercise. Not gonna happen. One probably will go quicker with a steady diet of rich sauces or fast food, but the end result will be the same within a few years.

[glory]

AGREED!

[bluefish]

I'm not so sure about the Atkins Diet. Studies show that sooner or later, high-protein diets result in renal (kidney) failure.

I will suggest that you are either lying, or ignorantly repeating somebody else's lie, unless you can prove otherwise. Because it is impossible to prove a negative, the onus is on you to back your statement up. I will gladly admit I am wrong if you can do so, but I suspect that you can't. Repeating a lie often enough does not make it the truth.

[JediGirl]

bump for later reading

[Dana113]

glory,

Loss of energy is pretty common in the initial phases of Atkins because A) the body is adjusting to the elimination of junk food and caffeine that has caused blood sugar spikes, and B) the body is switching its fuel source from glucose to stored body fat. Its like an alcoholic going through withdrawals.

What happens after this transition is an enormous surge of energy because the body heals after years of abuse of the blood sugar and pancreas. The brain actually operates much more efficiently on ketones than glucose. I am 45 and have more energy than I did when I was in my early 20's and ran a mile every day. I work out 4-5X a week now and have plenty of energy.

The thing that really bothers me about weight watchers is that they allow junk food and have a very low success rate [Prevention Magazine]. I'm sorry, but a diet that can include pizza, cake, junk carbs like rice and potatoes and beer is not very healthy.

[Dana113]

LOL--too true! What you said just made me think about a discussion my dh and I had. We were thinking about how it seems some people think they are going to cheat death if they just eat the perfect combonation of foods and vitamins and exercise. Not gonna happen. One probably will go quicker with a steady diet of rich sauces or fast food, but the end result will be the same within a few years.

glory, Was I cheating death when I switched from low fat to low carb and lost 40 pounds? Was I cheating death when my cholesterol plummeted from 318 to 221? Was I cheating death when my triglycerides fell from 495 on my low fat diet to 66 on low carb? Was I cheating death when my hypoglycemia and low level depression was instantly cured? Was I cheating death when my body fat fell from 43% to 19.6%?

It might be a big joke to you, but an unhealthy diet and lifestyle DOES cause death and noone serious would claim otherwise. It is the LEADING cause of coronary heart disease in this country and has caused an epidemic of obesity and diabetes II in this country.

You sound like someone who is probably on a bad diet who is trying to justify or minimize the ill effects of such a diet.

[Osorris]

I would like to give a little feedback on the subject. I gained approximately 100 of my extra 128lbs on a lowfat diet that my doctor recommended to me, so that I could avoid getting type 2 diabetes. I ate between 1000 and 1400 calories a day and excersized between 45min and an hour and a half a day5 days a week. That would be a far cry from the lazy sloth filled picture of the couch potato who stuffs thier face all day. It never ceases to amaze me the trash floats out of peoples mouth- the down right bigotry you hear aimed at you as a fat person. "huh huh dont stuff your face lazy and you wont be fat...derrrr"

Reality check- that isnt the way it works for most of us. I worked my tail off and still gained weight. Now, since reading many books on nutrition and diet I decided to give a low carb diet a try. I started with Protien Power and moved on to a general low carb lifestyle. I have lost 69lbs and am well on my way to my goal. I eat around 1800 calories a day- quite a bit more than before but by no means the endless buffet people seem to think low carb dieters eat. No more constant migraines, back aches and muscle pain, now i excersize and enjoy it instead of the dreadful feeling like I was going to collapse halfway though I did before. As a bonus on top of all that my cholesterol dropped 50 points.

My general point is- I have learned from personal experience the low fat hype was just hype. It made me sick and made me gain weight. I am very glad people are finally doing the research and would hope that maybe some of the snotty people who make those blanket statements about slothful lazy fatties would take a moment to look, perhaps research before they spew that kind of trash from thier mouths on occasion. No offense to arioch7 there... it just popped your name up when I went to post, this post wasnt directed at you or anything.