Man sues Atkins empire- diet is unhealthy!

[Ted Striker]

Well, I have researched water alot latley and it can be a problem.

Guys can look bloated because we get too much water retention in our chests and stomach. This can be caused by a hormone imbalance (too much estrogen) and also by taking too much sodium in the diet

Woman usually get the bloat in their legs, and you see this happen as a part of PMS.

If you guys want to temporarily see the difference, get some dandelion root extract and you will lost about 5-10 pounds of water. Just don't do it all the time.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Then I would expect something more than a citation to a textbook.

...and I don't understand that. How is a textbook, which is undoubtedly put together by people who know what they're doing (PhDs), reviewed by other people who know what they're doing (other PhDs), and used by still others who know what they're doing (college professors), in a hard science, inferior to single papers written on short studies with small sample sizes?

The poster I've been repeating has taught biochemistry for the past two years, and is using textbook citations because they are convenient.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Cuz everyone knows Consumer Reports can be bought and paid for.

Consumer Reports is honest, but by their very nature limited. I would buy a stereo on their recomendation, but not a computer.

I have a full CR archive going back to about 1993. Which issue?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Here is some research in support of Atkins. Like most research, these tend to be narrowly focused. I challenge Atkins-bashers to post similar published research in support of their views.

Comparing low fat and low carb, a Duke University study.
Another one, a University of Cincinnati study
And another, a University of Pennsylvania study
Low-carb and cholesterol, a Mayo Clinic study

There are many many more. I invite people to investigate for themselves what actual research has discovered instead of just taking some person's opinion on the matter. Frankly, one of the things that attracted me to the Atkins diet in the first place was the extensive bibliography of cited research. How many other diets have anything even close to this?

...and we have our first answer, from another biochemist!

Originally posted by MDA
the first study was 24 weeks - six months.

Second study - six months.

Third study - one year "The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year."

Four stinking percent?

My biggest problem with the last study (one year): It states that a low carb diet is perfectly safe for obese people who are obese and have atherosclerosis. That doesn't necessarily extend to the general population.

None of these studies tell us anything about the consequences of remaining on a low carb diet in the long therm or on the effects long-term ketosis. Other human disorders DO tell us what the consequences are.

Here's one other short study in children

It's going to take long term studies to prove to some people just how safe or dangerous Atkins is. I already think its dangerous, but if others want to act as human guinea pigs to answer the question, good luck to them.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12928468

"A high-fat ketogenic diet produced significant increases in the atherogenic apoB-containing lipoproteins and a decrease in the antiatherogenic HDL cholesterol. Further studies are necessary to determine if such a diet adversely affects endothelial vascular function and promotes inflammation and formation of atherosclerotic lesions."

Again, this study is too short to clearly answer the question of safety of this diet in children, but it suggests a connection between ketosis and atherosclerosis.

I'm supposed to be working.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
...and I don't understand that. How is a textbook, which is undoubtedly put together by people who know what they're doing (PhDs), reviewed by other people who know what they're doing (other PhDs), and used by still others who know what they're doing (college professors), in a hard science, inferior to single papers written on short studies with small sample sizes?

The poster I've been repeating has taught biochemistry for the past two years, and is using textbook citations because they are convenient.

In my experience, admittedly liberal arts intensive, text books are written by grad students, and are not peer reviewed at all, unless you consider profs using the books to be peer reviewing. Maybe they are different in the hard sciences, I don't know. That doesn't mean they aren't useful of course.

Secondly, text books, by virtue of covering a large area don't usually focus on specific areas, to the extent that scientific studies and papers can.

Thirdly, citing a text book that probably costs $100 dollars and would have to be ordered online to check the citation is a bit daft, wouldn't you say? Surely there is some knowledge more readily accessible.

[The Mad Monk]

Not really. Text books in a hard science field, possibly excluding the really theoretical, esoteric stuff, all tend to say the same thing about any given subject, assuming they are contemporaries.

It's in the way they say it, how well they're geared toward instruction (as opposed to simply reference, I've used both), that makes them different.

[Sava]

meat is good

vegetarians are dumb. throw rocks at them.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Not really. Text books in a hard science field, possibly excluding the really theoretical, esoteric stuff, all tend to say the same thing about any given subject, assuming they are contemporaries.

It's in the way they say it, how well they're geared toward instruction (as opposed to simply reference, I've used both), that makes them different.

which makes it all the more strange to me, that if there was some basic scientific flaw in atkins, which the poster asserted, why it hasn't been hammered publicly.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by General Ludd
A vegetarian diet is the epitome of a healthy diet. It keeps you going, you don't have to worry about diseases and all that nasty stuff you get from meat, and it keeps you fit.

Funny how, among my acquaintances, it's the vegetarians who get various deficiency disorders.

No diet keeps you fit. Exercise keeps you fit. (And a low-protein vegetarian diet isn't the most helpful as far as exercising is concerned.)

As for keeping one going, well I figure I could keep my weight on a veggie diet if I switched water for cola.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Funny how, among my acquaintances, it's the vegetarians who get various deficiency disorders.

My acquaintance are better than yours.

No diet keeps you fit. Exercise keeps you fit. (And a low-protein vegetarian diet isn't the most helpful as far as exercising is concerned.)

A vegetarian diet isn't low protein, it's a meat-eating diet which is high protein.

And by fit, I meant that it does not pollute your body like how fastfood and other meat-centric meals tend to.

[Last Conformist]

@Colonel Ludd: Where you lay the reference level for determining whether a given protein intake is high or low is in the final instance arbitrary, but it's a fact that while protein deficiencies are not uncommon among vegetarians, few meat-eaters suffer problems due to too much protein. People who exercise very hard often need protein supplements, despite being on "high protein" meat-inclusive diets.

Basically, little protein kills you, plenty of protein is no problem, unless there's something else seriously wrong with your diet (like no fat, or too high overall caloric intake).

Blaming the unhealthiness of fastfood on meat is absurd. A couple of the chief problems are transfats from vegetable oils and too much sodium, for which we owe thanks to the plant and mineral kingdoms, respectively.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Where you lay the reference level for determining whether a given protein intake is high or low is in the final instance arbitrary

My point exactly. Saying that a vegetarian diet is low on protein because it doesn't match the intake of a diet which has much more than you need is meangingless and misleading.

but it's a fact that while protein deficiencies are not uncommon among vegetarians, few meat-eaters suffer problems due to too much protein.

Prove this.

If, as you say, a lack of protein kills and protein deficiences are not uncommon among vegetarians, why are we not all dropping dead?

And then you claim that too much protein is harmless. Too much of anything is bad. A protein excessive diet will stress out your organs, like any excessive intake will, and can lead to things like kidney stones.

People who exercise very hard often need protein supplements, despite being on "high protein" meat-inclusive diets.

Yes, weight-lifters and serious athletes all eat highly regulated diets and often take supplements, regardless of eating meat or not. Your point?

Blaming the unhealthiness of fastfood on meat is absurd.

I did not confine my statement to fastfood or try to blame it's unhealthiness on anything, I merely used it as an example of one meat-centric diet.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
People who exercise very hard often need protein supplements, despite being on "high protein" meat-inclusive diets.

There are still vegetarian bodybuilders and vegetarian triathletes, though, so go figure

If you're into intense exercise, you would probably need the upper range of what the body can process- about 1/g protein per lb. of bodyweight. This can be readily covered by supplementation with or without meat.

[Solly]

"This can be readily covered by supplementation with or without meat."

Explain how..

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by General Ludd


My point exactly. Saying that a vegetarian diet is low on protein because it doesn't match the intake of a diet which has much more than you need is meangingless and misleading.

It's perfectly meaningful - it's low compared to some given standard - and only misleading to idiots.

Prove this.

I do not have the time to search for papers on the subject right now. However, do a quick search for veganism-related webpages, and you'll see that many of them warns for the possibility of experiencing protein deficiencies upon switching to a meat-free diet.

If, as you say, a lack of protein kills and protein deficiences are not uncommon among vegetarians, why are we not all dropping dead?

Because most of you are not below the survival line for protein?

And then you claim that too much protein is harmless. Too much of anything is bad. A protein excessive diet will stress out your organs, like any excessive intake will, and can lead to things like kidney stones.

Granted, sufficent amounts of anything will kill you, by gravitation if nothing else. But show me a diet that's problem-free except it will kill you by too much protein.

Yes, weight-lifters and serious athletes all eat highly regulated diets and often take supplements, regardless of eating meat or not. Your point?

That a meat-inclusive diet, that you label "high protein", does not contain sufficient amounts of protein for some people.

I did not confine my statement to fastfood or try to blame it's unhealthiness on anything, I merely used it as an example of one meat-centric diet.

If putting the blame on meat isn't the point, what the heck is the purpose of bashing "meat-centric" diets in this thread?

What, btw, do you mean by "meat-centric"? Much fast-food is predominantly vegetable, after-all.