Atkins Part 2: The merits of the Atkins diet

Beastt

I heard the same information. He was reported to be 258 pounds when he died, (they said that was technically obese for his height. I have my doubts.). Perhaps more telling is that he died of a heart attack... his third. The diet he prescribes is a heart attack waiting to happen but from a psychological view, if you're in it to make money, the best way is to sell people what they want to hear and that's exactly what he was doing. Tell them they can eat the fatty foods they like, (the same ones responsible for the heart-attacks and obesity problem in America and other places around the world), but make them leave out the sugar/carbohydrates so that the body is forced to burn the fats and proteins that it doesn't digest as well.

Assuming he was following his own diet advice, he's not the first to suffer a heart attack while on his diet. Do a search for "Atkins horror stories", if you want fair warning. Most nutritionists can explain why the diet is dangerous. Most people ask their doctors who, at least in the U.S., receive almost no education on nutrition.

I hope not to hear of any more unnecessary deaths/suffering based on what seems to be bad diet advice.

stevek

This is silly the whole low fat idea was never based on medical facts it was a marketing ploy. Only in America will we fall for such a thing hook line and sinker. Even the medial community fell for it. Fats must be bad they must cause all of the problems. It’s bull what causes the problems is all of the refined carbs and sugars we stuff into our faces. That's what has changed in the American diet.
Humans have always eaten a fair amount of fat. We are made to digest it fine it keeps us full. But grains are a new thing to our diet. And they have been refined so they are not all that nutritious and they are just filler.
Our food pyramid says we should get most of our calories from grain. That was not something doctors decided on it was the corporations that pushed that.
As long as you work the calories off you body can get rid of fat just as well as carbs.
Jumping on Dr. Atkins because there is fat in his diet is bull only the fist couple weeks is there a lot of fat. But guess what? People have been eating fat since we have been human without problems.
As I say again the low fat idea was a marketing ploy. It is not based on fact. We say that reduced fats helps but does it really? What if we tried reducing the carbs???? May do the same thing??? Well it sure seems so. Fat and carbs is not a good combo it seems.
Moderation in both may be a far better way to go. Or just exercise harder and burn them off. Since laziness is maybe a bigger problem still.

2LAP

There are a lot of people saying the same thing about Atkins... think about it for a second

These are the most sensible comments you've ever posted and I think you'll find the general line taken by the 'experts' on this site.

There are some very good physiological reasons for not eating high fat diets/meals SteveK, but I think I have pointed these out to you before. Using your word 'moderation' in fat, carbohydrate and protein is the way to go. Remember that different sources of fat, carbohydrate and protein represent different health benefits and risks - not sources of carbs, fat and protein are good for you and not all are bad!!!!

__________________
www.cyclingforums.com

limerickman

Diets : It's simple : energy in, energy out.
Expend more than you consume, is the only way in which weight can be controlled.
I think the whole diet industry is based upon creating insecurity ie
if you don't eat/do ABC, you'll gain weight or it's bad for you etc...

The problem here in the first world is that we've become lazy.
We get in the car to go to the shops instead of walking.
We take an escalator instead of the stairs.........

I'm not saying that additives in foods are not to blame - when you see the controversy over GMF's and the fact that cattle in the States (and other countries) are being stuffed with steroids, it's not wonder that dietary needs are not being adhered to.

But at the end of the day, it's down to how we chose to live our lives.
Our bodies are build to move and that's what we need to do.

patch70

I think that is actually an oversimplification! This fails to take into account changes in metabolic rate that occur with different foods, meal sizes, and meal timing.
For instance, if all you do is starve yourself, you end up losing weight briefly but then lowering your metabolic rate and drastically slowing your rate of weight loss.
Or, if two people take in the same number of calories, they will have different results depending on timing. If one eats 100% of daily calories at night or 50% each at breakfast and dinner, they will lose less weight than someone who has 5 meals of 20% each or 3 meals with a smaller night time meal.

patch70

Anyone that disagrees with Atkins calls it a "High fat, low carb" diet.
People that have had good results with it do a higher protein, moderate fat & moderate carbs diet (after the initial low/no carbs induction period).

ric_stern/RST

actually, it isn't. it's just simple physics



while, ultimately, the magnitude of the decrease will slow, you'll continue to loose weight until you die.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

limerickman

I'm not a doctor but if you take in less calories/food/fuel, than you use up through activity, I would have assumed that you would lose weight because the body would need to draw on it's reserves of fat to make up the difference.
As I say, I'm not a doctor but it seems to make sense.

But I'll defer to wiser counsel !

patch70

If dieting were just "simple physics", then nearly everyone who wanted to lose weight would do so. Clearly it is more than just simple physics as such a large % of the population have difficulty.

A recommendations as simple as "Eat less, exercise more" has such a poor success rate because it is an oversimplification.

Sure, if you are a fit cyclist who wants to shed a few kgs, doing more hours on the bike and eating the same or less will work well. But it is a less helpful suggestion for the average couch potato.

patch70

And also ric, being a vegetarian, you don't think that you might just have a little vested interest in finding out the negatives of higher protein diets???

jstraw

Burning body fat for fuel os called Ketosis. If you consume a high carbohydrate diet, this food is converted to glucose very quickly, your body uses what it can and what it cannot, get's converted to fat and stored. This fat will never be converted to fuel as long as the supply of carbohydrates is sufficent to fuel your caloric needs and as long as it's in excess of what you need for your caloric burn-rate, you will add fat to your body. The mechanics of low-carb dieting are pretty straightforward. If you don't supply a steady stream of carbohydrates to be converted to glucose, if you eat slower-converting proteins, your body will go into ketosis and convert body fat to fuel. Additionally, a high carbohydrate diet typically induces dramatic peaks and valleys in your blood glucose levels typified by the broad swings between energy and lethargy so many experience trough the day. I could also say a lot about the impact this has on insulin production, the glycemic index and conditions such as hypoglycemia and diabetes. I won't bore you.

Our western diet is extremely high in carbohydrates, cultivated grains and the poison known as sugar and the like. Needless to say, this is not the diet the human animal evolved consuming.

In my opinion it's even a myth that endurance athletes need to gorge on carbohydrates.

ric_stern/RST

why on earth would simple physics lead to weight loss for nearly everyone who wanted to loose weight? just because a person might know that they need to consume 2500 kcal/day to maintain weight and 2000 kcal/day to loose weight, how would that lead to weight loss.

intrisically most people know they need to eat less (total energy intake) yet, because certain foods fulfill specific needs (mentally and physically) we find it hard to give these foods up.

it's the same for people trying to give up smoking: they know it will likely lead to cancer, yet they're addicted to the nicotine and find it hard to stop. likewise (and i'm not suggesting food is addictive like smoking) people find it hard to give up or cut down on certain foods. this is nothing whatsoever to do with the laws of thermodynamics




it isn't. people find it difficult to eat less and exercise more, but that's for other reasons (see above)



i thought this forum was "bike racing: health, nutrition and supplements". irrespective of that, people will loose weight if they eat less and exercise more.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

ric_stern/RST

irrespective of myself being a veggie (which i have never suggested anyone doing), there's certainly some evidence to suggest that a high protein diet is bad for you.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

2LAP

Well its perhaps good news then that the sceintific and sporting community has a different opinion on this matter.

Are you sure? This is a really dramatic/exagerated version of what is in nutrition text books and misses out many other key points.

Have you ever looked at what happens to insulin, triglycerides and glucose responses following exercise and exercise training. I think you'll find this bleak picture of yours changes again.

What is the typical western diet as you see it? I think that its likely to vary from country to country as much as it does from individual to individual. Its interesting to note the final stage of Atkins diet has almost as many kcals from carbs as the usual recomendations for a healthy balanced diet.

__________________
www.cyclingforums.com