More evidence for the Atkins diet

Puppycow · 2nd July 2012, 12:14 AM

Quote:

What was done by Dr. Ludwig’s team has never been done before. First they took obese subjects and effectively semi-starved them until they’d lost 10 to 15 percent of their weight. Such weight-reduced subjects are particularly susceptible to gaining the weight back. Their energy expenditure drops precipitously and they burn fewer calories than people who naturally weigh the same. This means they have to continually fight their hunger just to maintain their weight loss. The belief is that weight loss causes “metabolic adaptations,” which make it almost inevitable that the weight will return. Dr. Ludwig’s team then measured how many calories these weight-reduced subjects expended daily, and that’s how many they fed them. But now the subjects were rotated through three very different diets, one month for each. They ate the same amount of calories on all three, equal to what they were expending after their weight loss, but the nutrient composition of the diets was very different.

One diet was low-fat and thus high in carbohydrates. This was the diet we’re all advised to eat: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, lean sources of protein. One diet had a low glycemic index: fewer carbohydrates in total, and those that were included were slow to be digested — from beans, non-starchy vegetables and other minimally processed sources. The third diet was Atkins, which is very low in carbohydrates and high in fat and protein.

The results were remarkable. Put most simply, the fewer carbohydrates consumed, the more energy these weight-reduced people expended. On the very low-carbohydrate Atkins diet, there was virtually no metabolic adaptation to the weight loss. These subjects expended, on average, only 100 fewer calories a day than they did at their full weights. Eight of the 21 subjects expended more than they did at their full weights — the opposite of the predicted metabolic compensation.

On the very low-carbohydrate diet, Dr. Ludwig’s subjects expended 300 more calories a day than they did on the low-fat diet and 150 calories more than on the low-glycemic-index diet.

So, while this doesn't contradict the notion that "a calorie is a calorie" as far as it goes, the important thing is that what you eat affects your metabolism. So, in an important way, it does matter how you get your calories, not just how many of them you get.

Inside Mob · 2nd July 2012, 12:51 AM

This is not a direct response to the content of your post but to the thread title. Are you arguing "for the Atkins diet" in the sense that people should "do it more"? There are many studies saying it is harmful to overall health although it may aid in weight loss. Recent Swedish study with a sample size of ~43000 found that low carbohydrate and high protein diet increased the risk of heart disease significantly. The study states in the introduction that:

Low carbohydrate-high protein diets may have short term effects on weight control, but concerns have also been expressed, notably with respect to cardiovascular outcomes. Although low carbohydrate-high protein diets may be nutritionally acceptable if the protein is mainly of plant origin and the reduction of carbohydrates applies mainly to simple and refined ones, the general public do not always recognise and act on these qualifications.

So it's not a free pass to gorge yourself with bacon.

Study: Low carbohydrate-high protein diet and incidence of cardiovascular diseases in Swedish women: prospective cohort study

Tatyana · 2nd July 2012, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

What Really Makes Us Fat

So, while this doesn't contradict the notion that "a calorie is a calorie" as far as it goes, the important thing is that what you eat affects your metabolism. So, in an important way, it does matter how you get your calories, not just how many of them you get.

I think we need a link to the original research as a study of n= 21 is really going to tell us bugger all.

rjh01 · 2nd July 2012, 01:34 AM

One problem is that they only used 21 people for a month per diet. I would like to see 6+ months per diet. One issue for the Atkins diet is that it is hard to stick to it for a long time.

Skwinty · 2nd July 2012, 02:34 AM

http://www.runnersworld.co.za/nutrit...dietary-ideas/

According to Prof Tim Noakes, this diet is beneficial to those who are pre-diabetic and/or carbohydrate resistant.

The original high protein/low carb diet was the Banting diet, some time before Atkins re-introduced it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting

casebro · 2nd July 2012, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Inside Mob

This is not a direct response to the content of your post but to the thread title. Are you arguing "for the Atkins diet" in the sense that people should "do it more"? There are many studies saying it is harmful to overall health although it may aid in weight loss. Recent Swedish study with a sample size of ~43000 found that low carbohydrate and high protein diet increased the risk of heart disease significantly. The study states in the introduction that:

Low carbohydrate-high protein diets may have short term effects on weight control, but concerns have also been expressed, notably with respect to cardiovascular outcomes. Although low carbohydrate-high protein diets may be nutritionally acceptable if the protein is mainly of plant origin and the reduction of carbohydrates applies mainly to simple and refined ones, the general public do not always recognise and act on these qualifications.

So it's not a free pass to gorge yourself with bacon.

Study: Low carbohydrate-high protein diet and incidence of cardiovascular diseases in Swedish women: prospective cohort study

43,000 ? But how many were on diets? were a significant number on Atkins style? How many were actually losing weight? How many lost weight ? Were the most obese the ones on the Atkins? Matched for body weight? I think I may go study that study.

None of the other studies have shown Atkins style to be harmful. The most robust study was done with all overweight people, comparing diets head to head.

quarky · 2nd July 2012, 06:00 AM

Some calories require more calories to process than other calories.
Raw carrots, for instance, require lots of chewing, and chewing isn't free.

Inside Mob · 2nd July 2012, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by casebro

43,000 ? But how many were on diets? were a significant number on Atkins style? How many were actually losing weight? How many lost weight ? Were the most obese the ones on the Atkins? Matched for body weight? I think I may go study that study.

None of the other studies have shown Atkins style to be harmful. The most robust study was done with all overweight people, comparing diets head to head.

The study concludes that:

The associations of low carbohydrate, high protein, and low carbohydrate-high protein scores with cardiovascular outcomes were not, in general, statistically significantly different between women whose protein intake was mainly of animal origin and those whose protein intake was mainly of plant origin.

and

However, the underlying trend between low carbohydrate-high protein score and incidence of cardiovascular disease was essentially monotonic, indicating that our findings are applicable across the spectrum of carbohydrate and protein intakes of the participating women.

So according to this study if you increase your protein intake at the cost of carbohydrates you are going to have a bad time. It does not matter what the protein is or where it comes from. And it seems that the ratio of protein in your diet has direct correlation with heart problems.

The OP has not made it clear what he means by "for the Atkins diet". In diet discussion people seem to forget that the goals of the diet should be stated. If he means that Atkins is a viable weight loss method when used temporarily by obese people then I have no opinions. I have not taken a stand whether or not Atkins or any other low carb diet will make you skinny easier or faster. In fact it might be easier to get skinny on Atkins than a regular calorie restriction diet but I don't really care. People confuse the ability of a particular diet to get you ready for swimsuit season as a proper diet for long term health. You see as is the case most of the time in life the easiest solution is often not the best solution. The best solution (but maybe harder) for long term health seems to me a well balanced diet with complex carbs, not over indulging in protein and not getting fat. Is boring I know.

Beerina · 2nd July 2012, 06:25 AM

IIRC, you have to burn through most of your liver's 2-day store of glucose before you start actually losing weight as in fat.

If true, this suggests diets low in carbs would keep you out of the weight-storing mode better.

Inside Mob · 2nd July 2012, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

IIRC, you have to burn through most of your liver's 2-day store of glucose before you start actually losing weight as in fat.

If true, this suggests diets low in carbs would keep you out of the weight-storing mode better.

This can be true I'm not contesting this. The OP is indicating that Atkins is superior but not against what and in which task.

tensordyne · 2nd July 2012, 07:07 AM

If you want to go on a diet to be healthy and not worry about how much you eat while still losing weight, it is simple, eat a mostly raw vegan diet while making sure to include plenty of starches (contra to Atkins) and staying away from processed flour and sugar (specifically, sucrose and derivatives).

Food That Kills > http://youtu.be/KNCGkprGW_o
The Starch Solution > http://youtu.be/yZ3hS9jpmm0
Chocalate, Cheese, Meat and Sugar ... > http://youtu.be/5VWi6dXCT7I
Sugar: The Bitter Truth > http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

Check out 'Forks over Knives' if you get a chance as well (it is on Netflix if you have that).

Do your own homework though.

quarky · 2nd July 2012, 11:19 AM

There have been some 'pockets' of places that produce a high % of old, healthy people.
They have been studied, by nutritionists, amongst others.

The sad fact, as I've seen it, is that an adequate diet, which keeps you in a state of near constant hunger, and appreciation for every bite, no matter its source, is the common denominator...coupled with a lifestyle that imposes lots of exercise; a culture that has its own flavor; an environment that has natural beauty and intensity; and good genes.

Perpetual Student · 2nd July 2012, 12:03 PM

The medical community was very hostile to the Atkins diet from the very beginning, before there were any studies or any scientific basis for such hostility. I would look very closely for bias in any study showing a low carbohydrate, high protein diet to be harmful. Recently, evidence has surfaced that the low fat high carb diet recommended for so many years is not very healthy, yet the dogma persists, seemingly because the medical community is so intellectually invested in that dogma.

Inside Mob · 2nd July 2012, 12:33 PM

Yes there are biases when humans are doing the science thing no suprises there. But throwing around unsubtantiated and broad claims about how the medical community somehow as a monolith opposes high protein diets is absurd. And by the way if we start comparing on these broad terms fad diets and the nutritional advice of health officials I claim that fad diets have much much worse track record.

quarky · 2nd July 2012, 12:39 PM

Raw polar bear liver has lots of vitamins. It used to be a health food, evidently, for the Innuit. But now the bears are concentrating industrial pollutants, and they are getting nervous too.

A diet needs some soul.
Whatever that means.

Our confusion stems from the odd privilege of having so many choices of what to eat.
Its fairly new. There will be neurosis.
My personal kinkiness has hopes of most of us moving away from domestic mammal exploitation. Its just kind of icky, frankly. Turning pasture to forest would sequester lots of carbon.
Atkins requires serious carnivores.
Its appropriate in the arctic.

But how much, in the 'burbs of New Jersey?

tensordyne · 2nd July 2012, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by quarky

There have been some 'pockets' of places that produce a high % of old, healthy people.
They have been studied, by nutritionists, amongst others.

The sad fact, as I've seen it, is that an adequate diet, which keeps you in a state of near constant hunger, and appreciation for every bite, no matter its source, is the common denominator...coupled with a lifestyle that imposes lots of exercise; a culture that has its own flavor; an environment that has natural beauty and intensity; and good genes.

You forgot lots and lots of veggies. Although this needs a link from an outside source for argument's sake (both my additional requirement and your own).

quarky · 2nd July 2012, 03:19 PM

Google "Los Viejos".

I'm too lazy.

Perpetual Student · 2nd July 2012, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Inside Mob

Yes there are biases when humans are doing the science thing no suprises there. But throwing around unsubtantiated and broad claims about how the medical community somehow as a monolith opposes high protein diets is absurd. And by the way if we start comparing on these broad terms fad diets and the nutritional advice of health officials I claim that fad diets have much much worse track record.

There is nothing absurd about it. Although certainly not a monolith (your word), the medical community, as represented by its officialdom (the likes of the AMA, NIH, etc.), has a long history of being intellectually invested in some dogma that has little scientific support. Recently, we have seen PSA tests and annual chest x-rays go the way of blood letting and leeches. The continuing advocacy of high carbohydrate diets for so many decades in spite of the lack of scientific support is just another example.
By the way, calling low carbohydrate diets "fad diets" is a bit absurd and demonstrates an ignorance of history: consider Stillman (1967) Atkins (1972) and even Dr. John Rollo (1797). Even if you confine the concept to Atkins, we are dealing with some 40 years. That would be like calling ibuprofen a fad medication.

Inside Mob · 3rd July 2012, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

There is nothing absurd about it. Although certainly not a monolith (your word), the medical community, as represented by its officialdom (the likes of the AMA, NIH, etc.), has a long history of being intellectually invested in some dogma that has little scientific support. Recently, we have seen PSA tests and annual chest x-rays go the way of blood letting and leeches. The continuing advocacy of high carbohydrate diets for so many decades in spite of the lack of scientific support is just another example.
By the way, calling low carbohydrate diets "fad diets" is a bit absurd and demonstrates an ignorance of history: consider Stillman (1967) Atkins (1972) and even Dr. John Rollo (1797). Even if you confine the concept to Atkins, we are dealing with some 40 years. That would be like calling ibuprofen a fad medication.

You can't just accuse the whole medical field of being dogmatically against high protein diets without some proof. Stating it does not make it true. And in addition to this if you claim that they have history of such behavior (blood letting, x rays) and even if you demonstrate it you are committing a fallacy called affirming the consequent.

Calling Atkins a fad diet is a matter of judgement. Wikipedia states that Atkins gained wide spread popularity in 2003 and 2004. This is in line with the general boom of high protein diets. Atkins was a fad in the beginning of 2000s. Thick rimmed big plasticy eyeglasses are a fad now although they were also a thing fifty years ago. Things can be a fad even if the original inception date was many years ago. This is not hard.

So you have not provided proof for the medical field in general being dogmatically against Atkins, your reasoning is fallacious and the term fad that I used is not unreasonable although it is a matter of judgement.

2nd July 2012, 12:14 AM	#1
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,787	More evidence for the Atkins diet What Really Makes Us Fat Quote: What was done by Dr. Ludwig’s team has never been done before. First they took obese subjects and effectively semi-starved them until they’d lost 10 to 15 percent of their weight. Such weight-reduced subjects are particularly susceptible to gaining the weight back. Their energy expenditure drops precipitously and they burn fewer calories than people who naturally weigh the same. This means they have to continually fight their hunger just to maintain their weight loss. The belief is that weight loss causes “metabolic adaptations,” which make it almost inevitable that the weight will return. Dr. Ludwig’s team then measured how many calories these weight-reduced subjects expended daily, and that’s how many they fed them. But now the subjects were rotated through three very different diets, one month for each. They ate the same amount of calories on all three, equal to what they were expending after their weight loss, but the nutrient composition of the diets was very different. One diet was low-fat and thus high in carbohydrates. This was the diet we’re all advised to eat: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, lean sources of protein. One diet had a low glycemic index: fewer carbohydrates in total, and those that were included were slow to be digested — from beans, non-starchy vegetables and other minimally processed sources. The third diet was Atkins, which is very low in carbohydrates and high in fat and protein. The results were remarkable. Put most simply, the fewer carbohydrates consumed, the more energy these weight-reduced people expended. On the very low-carbohydrate Atkins diet, there was virtually no metabolic adaptation to the weight loss. These subjects expended, on average, only 100 fewer calories a day than they did at their full weights. Eight of the 21 subjects expended more than they did at their full weights — the opposite of the predicted metabolic compensation. On the very low-carbohydrate diet, Dr. Ludwig’s subjects expended 300 more calories a day than they did on the low-fat diet and 150 calories more than on the low-glycemic-index diet. So, while this doesn't contradict the notion that "a calorie is a calorie" as far as it goes, the important thing is that what you eat affects your metabolism. So, in an important way, it does matter how you get your calories, not just how many of them you get.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

2nd July 2012, 12:51 AM	#2
Inside Mob Scholar Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 76	This is not a direct response to the content of your post but to the thread title. Are you arguing "for the Atkins diet" in the sense that people should "do it more"? There are many studies saying it is harmful to overall health although it may aid in weight loss. Recent Swedish study with a sample size of ~43000 found that low carbohydrate and high protein diet increased the risk of heart disease significantly. The study states in the introduction that: Low carbohydrate-high protein diets may have short term effects on weight control, but concerns have also been expressed, notably with respect to cardiovascular outcomes. Although low carbohydrate-high protein diets may be nutritionally acceptable if the protein is mainly of plant origin and the reduction of carbohydrates applies mainly to simple and refined ones, the general public do not always recognise and act on these qualifications. So it's not a free pass to gorge yourself with bacon. Study: Low carbohydrate-high protein diet and incidence of cardiovascular diseases in Swedish women: prospective cohort study
Inside Mob Scholar Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 76

2nd July 2012, 01:34 AM	#4
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,197	One problem is that they only used 21 people for a month per diet. I would like to see 6+ months per diet. One issue for the Atkins diet is that it is hard to stick to it for a long time.
	__________________ dddffffpppqqqq Want to use your computer for something that will make society better? See this thread for details Folding@home

2nd July 2012, 02:34 AM	#5
Skwinty Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The far side Posts: 4,972	http://www.runnersworld.co.za/nutrit...dietary-ideas/ According to Prof Tim Noakes, this diet is beneficial to those who are pre-diabetic and/or carbohydrate resistant. The original high protein/low carb diet was the Banting diet, some time before Atkins re-introduced it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting
	__________________ What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin

2nd July 2012, 05:23 AM	#6
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,797	Originally Posted by Inside Mob This is not a direct response to the content of your post but to the thread title. Are you arguing "for the Atkins diet" in the sense that people should "do it more"? There are many studies saying it is harmful to overall health although it may aid in weight loss. Recent Swedish study with a sample size of ~43000 found that low carbohydrate and high protein diet increased the risk of heart disease significantly. The study states in the introduction that: Low carbohydrate-high protein diets may have short term effects on weight control, but concerns have also been expressed, notably with respect to cardiovascular outcomes. Although low carbohydrate-high protein diets may be nutritionally acceptable if the protein is mainly of plant origin and the reduction of carbohydrates applies mainly to simple and refined ones, the general public do not always recognise and act on these qualifications. So it's not a free pass to gorge yourself with bacon. Study: Low carbohydrate-high protein diet and incidence of cardiovascular diseases in Swedish women: prospective cohort study 43,000 ? But how many were on diets? were a significant number on Atkins style? How many were actually losing weight? How many lost weight ? Were the most obese the ones on the Atkins? Matched for body weight? I think I may go study that study. None of the other studies have shown Atkins style to be harmful. The most robust study was done with all overweight people, comparing diets head to head.
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,797	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

2nd July 2012, 01:08 AM	#3
Tatyana Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Experiment 1: Flame and Flesh Posts: 3,431	Originally Posted by Puppycow What Really Makes Us Fat So, while this doesn't contradict the notion that "a calorie is a calorie" as far as it goes, the important thing is that what you eat affects your metabolism. So, in an important way, it does matter how you get your calories, not just how many of them you get. I think we need a link to the original research as a study of n= 21 is really going to tell us bugger all.

2nd July 2012, 06:00 AM	#7
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Some calories require more calories to process than other calories. Raw carrots, for instance, require lots of chewing, and chewing isn't free.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

2nd July 2012, 06:24 AM	#8
Inside Mob Scholar Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 76	Originally Posted by casebro 43,000 ? But how many were on diets? were a significant number on Atkins style? How many were actually losing weight? How many lost weight ? Were the most obese the ones on the Atkins? Matched for body weight? I think I may go study that study. None of the other studies have shown Atkins style to be harmful. The most robust study was done with all overweight people, comparing diets head to head. The study concludes that: The associations of low carbohydrate, high protein, and low carbohydrate-high protein scores with cardiovascular outcomes were not, in general, statistically significantly different between women whose protein intake was mainly of animal origin and those whose protein intake was mainly of plant origin. and However, the underlying trend between low carbohydrate-high protein score and incidence of cardiovascular disease was essentially monotonic, indicating that our findings are applicable across the spectrum of carbohydrate and protein intakes of the participating women. So according to this study if you increase your protein intake at the cost of carbohydrates you are going to have a bad time. It does not matter what the protein is or where it comes from. And it seems that the ratio of protein in your diet has direct correlation with heart problems. The OP has not made it clear what he means by "for the Atkins diet". In diet discussion people seem to forget that the goals of the diet should be stated. If he means that Atkins is a viable weight loss method when used temporarily by obese people then I have no opinions. I have not taken a stand whether or not Atkins or any other low carb diet will make you skinny easier or faster. In fact it might be easier to get skinny on Atkins than a regular calorie restriction diet but I don't really care. People confuse the ability of a particular diet to get you ready for swimsuit season as a proper diet for long term health. You see as is the case most of the time in life the easiest solution is often not the best solution. The best solution (but maybe harder) for long term health seems to me a well balanced diet with complex carbs, not over indulging in protein and not getting fat. Is boring I know.
Inside Mob Scholar Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 76

2nd July 2012, 06:25 AM	#9
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	IIRC, you have to burn through most of your liver's 2-day store of glucose before you start actually losing weight as in fat. If true, this suggests diets low in carbs would keep you out of the weight-storing mode better.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

2nd July 2012, 06:31 AM	#10
Inside Mob Scholar Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 76	Originally Posted by Beerina IIRC, you have to burn through most of your liver's 2-day store of glucose before you start actually losing weight as in fat. If true, this suggests diets low in carbs would keep you out of the weight-storing mode better. This can be true I'm not contesting this. The OP is indicating that Atkins is superior but not against what and in which task.
Inside Mob Scholar Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 76

2nd July 2012, 07:07 AM	#11
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	If you want to go on a diet to be healthy and not worry about how much you eat while still losing weight, it is simple, eat a mostly raw vegan diet while making sure to include plenty of starches (contra to Atkins) and staying away from processed flour and sugar (specifically, sucrose and derivatives). Food That Kills > http://youtu.be/KNCGkprGW_o The Starch Solution > http://youtu.be/yZ3hS9jpmm0 Chocalate, Cheese, Meat and Sugar ... > http://youtu.be/5VWi6dXCT7I Sugar: The Bitter Truth > http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM Check out 'Forks over Knives' if you get a chance as well (it is on Netflix if you have that). Do your own homework though.
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933

2nd July 2012, 11:19 AM	#12
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	There have been some 'pockets' of places that produce a high % of old, healthy people. They have been studied, by nutritionists, amongst others. The sad fact, as I've seen it, is that an adequate diet, which keeps you in a state of near constant hunger, and appreciation for every bite, no matter its source, is the common denominator...coupled with a lifestyle that imposes lots of exercise; a culture that has its own flavor; an environment that has natural beauty and intensity; and good genes.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

2nd July 2012, 12:03 PM	#13
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	The medical community was very hostile to the Atkins diet from the very beginning, before there were any studies or any scientific basis for such hostility. I would look very closely for bias in any study showing a low carbohydrate, high protein diet to be harmful. Recently, evidence has surfaced that the low fat high carb diet recommended for so many years is not very healthy, yet the dogma persists, seemingly because the medical community is so intellectually invested in that dogma.
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

2nd July 2012, 12:33 PM	#14
Inside Mob Scholar Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 76	Yes there are biases when humans are doing the science thing no suprises there. But throwing around unsubtantiated and broad claims about how the medical community somehow as a monolith opposes high protein diets is absurd. And by the way if we start comparing on these broad terms fad diets and the nutritional advice of health officials I claim that fad diets have much much worse track record.
Inside Mob Scholar Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 76

2nd July 2012, 12:39 PM	#15
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Raw polar bear liver has lots of vitamins. It used to be a health food, evidently, for the Innuit. But now the bears are concentrating industrial pollutants, and they are getting nervous too. A diet needs some soul. Whatever that means. Our confusion stems from the odd privilege of having so many choices of what to eat. Its fairly new. There will be neurosis. My personal kinkiness has hopes of most of us moving away from domestic mammal exploitation. Its just kind of icky, frankly. Turning pasture to forest would sequester lots of carbon. Atkins requires serious carnivores. Its appropriate in the arctic. But how much, in the 'burbs of New Jersey?
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

2nd July 2012, 02:20 PM	#16
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Originally Posted by quarky There have been some 'pockets' of places that produce a high % of old, healthy people. They have been studied, by nutritionists, amongst others. The sad fact, as I've seen it, is that an adequate diet, which keeps you in a state of near constant hunger, and appreciation for every bite, no matter its source, is the common denominator...coupled with a lifestyle that imposes lots of exercise; a culture that has its own flavor; an environment that has natural beauty and intensity; and good genes. You forgot lots and lots of veggies. Although this needs a link from an outside source for argument's sake (both my additional requirement and your own).
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933

2nd July 2012, 03:19 PM	#17
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Google "Los Viejos". I'm too lazy.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

2nd July 2012, 03:31 PM	#18
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	Originally Posted by Inside Mob Yes there are biases when humans are doing the science thing no suprises there. But throwing around unsubtantiated and broad claims about how the medical community somehow as a monolith opposes high protein diets is absurd. And by the way if we start comparing on these broad terms fad diets and the nutritional advice of health officials I claim that fad diets have much much worse track record. There is nothing absurd about it. Although certainly not a monolith (your word), the medical community, as represented by its officialdom (the likes of the AMA, NIH, etc.), has a long history of being intellectually invested in some dogma that has little scientific support. Recently, we have seen PSA tests and annual chest x-rays go the way of blood letting and leeches. The continuing advocacy of high carbohydrate diets for so many decades in spite of the lack of scientific support is just another example. By the way, calling low carbohydrate diets "fad diets" is a bit absurd and demonstrates an ignorance of history: consider Stillman (1967) Atkins (1972) and even Dr. John Rollo (1797). Even if you confine the concept to Atkins, we are dealing with some 40 years. That would be like calling ibuprofen a fad medication.
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ Last edited by Perpetual Student; 2nd July 2012 at 03:43 PM.

3rd July 2012, 04:43 AM	#19
Inside Mob Scholar Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 76	Originally Posted by Perpetual Student There is nothing absurd about it. Although certainly not a monolith (your word), the medical community, as represented by its officialdom (the likes of the AMA, NIH, etc.), has a long history of being intellectually invested in some dogma that has little scientific support. Recently, we have seen PSA tests and annual chest x-rays go the way of blood letting and leeches. The continuing advocacy of high carbohydrate diets for so many decades in spite of the lack of scientific support is just another example. By the way, calling low carbohydrate diets "fad diets" is a bit absurd and demonstrates an ignorance of history: consider Stillman (1967) Atkins (1972) and even Dr. John Rollo (1797). Even if you confine the concept to Atkins, we are dealing with some 40 years. That would be like calling ibuprofen a fad medication. You can't just accuse the whole medical field of being dogmatically against high protein diets without some proof. Stating it does not make it true. And in addition to this if you claim that they have history of such behavior (blood letting, x rays) and even if you demonstrate it you are committing a fallacy called affirming the consequent. Calling Atkins a fad diet is a matter of judgement. Wikipedia states that Atkins gained wide spread popularity in 2003 and 2004. This is in line with the general boom of high protein diets. Atkins was a fad in the beginning of 2000s. Thick rimmed big plasticy eyeglasses are a fad now although they were also a thing fifty years ago. Things can be a fad even if the original inception date was many years ago. This is not hard. So you have not provided proof for the medical field in general being dogmatically against Atkins, your reasoning is fallacious and the term fad that I used is not unreasonable although it is a matter of judgement.
Inside Mob Scholar Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 76