Atkins Part 2: The merits of the Atkins diet

2LAP

Thats exactly right and I see these kinds of figures regularly. The simplest way of acheiving a -1000 calorie balance is to reduce intake by 500 kcals (about 4 buscuits or 2 chocolate bars or a burger) and increase exercise by 500 kcals per day.

The problem with most people doing this is that they have no idea what they are eating in terms of energy and underestimate the amount of exercise they do.

A target of -500 kcals (or 1 lb weight loss) is often more attainable.

__________________
www.cyclingforums.com

2LAP

SteveK, you need to do some more reading in this area to help you sort out your own diet problems too (did you ever see a nutritionalist or a doctor?). There are many problems associated with eating high fat foods and some basic reading will reveal these to you.

Of course we have always eaten fat and its an important part of the diet, but high fat diets have risks associated with them.

In terms of the 'garbage' and 'refined' foods that you mention; most of these are the highest in fat composition, salt, simple sugars and very low in other useful nutrients. These foods are also particularly calorie dense, which explains why they contribute to obesity... their fat and carbohydrate compositions has very little to do with the weight gain associated with them.

__________________
www.cyclingforums.com

Beastt

"Eating too much [fat] and not exercising does [kill]."
...perhaps one of the best comments I've read here.

Much of what you have said, stevek, is very valuable information. Especially the parts about Americans (and others) eating astounding levels of pure garbage in their diets. The reduction of exercise in modern life is also a huge factor in many of the more alarming health problems of our day.

Unfortunately, so much data has been accumulated regarding the negative affects of a high-fat diet, that to avoid seeing the obvious relationship between excess fats and poor health requires an amazingly strong desire to deny the facts. In this case, "excess" means average.

I'm aware that there seems to be an automatic and very strong defensive reaction whenever a person's diet comes under fire. I don't wish to elicit such a response but the information presented definitely does show a strong correlation between high-fat diets and many of today's more pressing health concerns. For those who prefer not to believe the information, the choice is clear. They're welcome to deny or ignore it.

Because most of this information is a focus on the affects of fats in the diet and because a vegetarian diet naturally lends to a reduction in fat consumption, many references are made to diets devoid of meat, fish and poultry. This doesn't mean that fat consumption can't be substantially reduced without resorting to vegetarianism.

·Factory-farmed animals contain as much as 30 times more saturated fat than yesterday's free-range, pasture-raised animals. Americans also now eat twice as much meat as they did 50 years ago.

·The USDA shows that in 1990 the Average American consumed 169.3 pounds of red meat and poultry. In 2001 that figure had risen to 187.8 pounds. This has been the trend in America and many other countries for decades.
http://www.reapinc.org/MEAT%20CONSU...%20THE%20US.htm

·Discussing colon cancer specifically, the National Cancer Institute upon examination of the body of evidence, says that "colorectal cancer seems to be associated with diets that are high in fat and calories and low in fiber" and that "eating vegetables and fruits is associated with a decreased risk".

·Studies show that vegetarians have significantly lower rates of impotence, because meat, (fats and cholesterol), clogs up the arteries going to all your organs, not just your heart and brain.

·The allied naval blockade during WWI of German-occupied territories in 1917 forced Denmark most dramatically into nationwide vegetarianism. The death rate there from disease during the period dropped by 34%.

·Diseases which are commonly prevented, consistently improved and sometimes cured by a low-fat or vegetarian diet include, Strokes, Heart disease, Kidney stones, Breast cancer, Prostate cancer, Pancreatic cancer, Cervical cancer, Stomach cancer, Diabetes, Hypoglycemia, Peptic ulcers, Constipation, Hiatal hernias, Diverticulosis, Gallstones, Hypertension, Salmonellosis, Trichinosis, Osteoporosis, Colon cancer, Ovarian cancer, Endometrial cancer, Kidney disease, Hemorrhoids, Obesity, Asthma, and Irritable colon syndrome.

·The International Atherosclerotic Project undertook a study from 1963 to 1965. Autopsies were performed on over 20,000 bodies from all over the world. People who lived in areas of high fat/cholesterol consumption had markedly more atherosclerosis, heart attacks and strokes.

·"In regions where... meat is scarce, cardiovascular disease is unknown." '- Time Magazine (March 26, 1984, pg. 62)

·A study published in Lancet under Dr. Inder Singh placed 80 diabetics on very low-fat diets. At six weeks 60% no longer needed insulin. Within a few weeks that figure rose to 70% with those still needing it requiring only a fraction of their former dose.

·Many tests have been performed concerning the link between calcium loss and protein intake. Diets high in fat are almost inextricably also high in protein which we are told is good. Most people consume far more protein than is healthy, (about 30% of total calories), and like everything else concerning diet, too much is a bad thing, (humans need 2%-10% of their total caloric intake to be protein). In every instance, low protein diets increased calcium balance and high protein diets lead to calcium loss even when calcium suppliments of 1400 milligrams were taken daily. (Diets heavy in protein cause blood to become acidic. The body extracts a base - calcium, from the skeletal structure to balance the Ph of the blood. Only a very small amount of the calcium is reabsorbed. The rest is lost through urine which stresses the kidneys over time. Osteoporsis is now at epidemic levels in the U.S. and kidney disease is on the rise.)

·Fifty-five percent of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide residues in the U.S. diet are supplied by meat, 23% by dairy products, 6% by vegetables, 4% by fruits and 1% by grains.

·Men who consume meats, cheese, eggs and milk daily, (all high-fat foods) have 3.6 times the risk of prostate cancer than those who eat those foods sparingly or not at all.

·Dr. William Castelli directed the world's longest ongoing investigation into heart disease and diet (Framingham Heart Study, 1949 - Present). When asked which foods made the best choices he replied, "Vegetarians have the best diet. They have the lowest rates of coronary disease of any group in the country. They have a fraction of our heart attack rate and they have only 40% of our cancer rate."

·Those peoples with the highest consumption rates of meats/fats include Eskimos, Laplanders, Greenlanders and Russian Kurgi tribes. They also display the shortest lifespans, often as little as 30-years. Those also living difficult lives in harsh conditions which have among the lowest consumption rates of meats/fats include Russian Caucasians, the Yucatan Indians, the East Indian Todas and the Pakistan Hunzakuts. These peoples routinely live to be 90 - 100 years old.

·The United States is credited to have the most sophisticated medical technology in the world and one of the world's most temperate climates. One of the highest consumers of meat, fats and animal products in the world, it also displays one of the lowest life expentancies of the industrialized nations.

·It is hard to miss the pattern between animal-fat consumption and deaths due to circulatory disease. During WWII, in Norway, scarcity of animal fats resulted in a strikingly lower death rate from circulatory disease. (See charts in next post)

Stevek made another excellent comment regarding the commercial reasons for promoting certain types of diets over others. Huge corporations bring in billions of dollars in profits annually by selling food to consumers. Whenever there is money to be made, someone will be promoting ideas whether they are factual or not and this goes on as much within the food industry as anywhere else. The point is, those who profit from selling fatty foods and diet plans based upon them have much to lose if they fail to promote the idea that fats are somehow healthy or at least, not as unhealthy as most studies show them to be. This is often taken to the extent of, as you suggest, conducting or funding studies with the goal of proving their products, (and sources of income), to be healthy for the consumer. Often when two studies are found that seem to have opposing outcomes, a look into who provided he funding will offer a potential explanation. This goes on routinely within the marketing of high-fat, high-cholesterol foods.

The Egg Council even went so far as to fund a study, the results of which were released to the public in the vague form, "A new study has shown that egg consumption may not be as unhealthy as was once thought." The name of the study, the actual data and resources for obtaining the testing methods and actual findings were left out. The one perhaps useful piece of information included was that the study was funded by the National Egg Council.

A medium size egg contains as much as 218 milligrams of cholesterol within its yoke. Egg yokes are the most cholesterol laiden food in the standard American diet.

If you look into human physiology, you begin to see why fatty foods along with the impurities they contain are so troublesome to humans. We have gastric acids which are only 1/20th as strong as those contained in carnivores. Our digestive systems are puckered and, in general, about 12 times the length of our bodies. Food passes through them very slowly and even more slowly when not accompanied by sufficient fiber, of which meats, dairy and poultry contain zero. Carnivores have digestive systems which are smooth and generally about 3 times the length of the body. It's little wonder that colon disease is so prevalent when research shows that meat literally rots within the human colon before being passed out of the body. A 5-foot, impacted human turd of the type contained in the colons of many people may be seen at www.rotten.com. Many references have been made over the years concerning the idea that the average American male, (over 50), has 5-pounds of undigested red-meat in his bowels. The correlation between high-fat and meat can't be overlooked.

The point is, we don't handle fats well, especially those contained within animal-based foods. We seem to get along fairly well with very moderate consumption when accompanied by proper amounts of exercise and fiber-rich foods, though with the pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and other impurities pumped into livestock, it seems thought amazing that we can cope at all.

People often forget that the human body is much better equipped to handle the threat of starvation than the threat of obesity. This is common among all animal species as the search for sufficient quantities of nutrients is the most consistent challenge on a daily basis. As humans living in developed nations we have beaten this basic struggle of life and now face the complications created by having too much of the wrong kinds of food available. We still have a craving for foods packed with life-sustaining calories, most obviously - fats. But fats are available in obscene quantities everywhere we look and we gorge ourselves at least 3 times a day. We stuff our faces while we sit on our growing posteriors and wonder why we don't feel well.

The health problems we face today are those of excess rather than deficiency yet people continue to buy up vitamins and all nature of suppliments all the while feasting 21 times per week. This has much to do with why weight-loss plans are so popular but we tend to forget that some may also dangerous.

Fats in moderation aren't bad, they're required. Carbohydrates in moderation aren't bad although they can be had in many forms in which the good nutritious parts have been processed out, leaving only a flavorful but unhealthy mass. Moderation, as stevek pointed out, is the key.

My apologies for being so long winded and I hope that you find the information helpful rather than offensive.

Beastt

·It is hard to miss the pattern between animal-fat consumption and deaths due to circulatory disease. During WWII, in Norway, scarcity of animal fats resulted in a strikingly lower death rate from circulatory disease. (See charts below)

Attached Thumbnails

 

patch70

Remember with any cohort study, associations found do not necessarily mean that there is a connection (eg, people with diets high in X have higher rates of disease Y. You cannot then say X leads to Y). There are always many confounders and the only way to prove a true connection is with a randomised, double-blind trial. Unfortunately this is generally impossible with diets so all you can say is that the two might possibly be connected.

>>The allied naval blockade during WWI of German-occupied territories in 1917 forced Denmark most dramatically into nationwide vegetarianism. The death rate there from disease during the period dropped by 34%.

This is one example where there are too many confounders to make anything of this. Maybe people were walking more? Maybe they were dying of war-related reasons or influenza instead? Maybe there was a change in pollution levels between the years looked at? Maybe diets changed in other ways eg people stopped eating pickled herring???

>>Diseases which are commonly prevented, consistently improved and sometimes cured by a low-fat or vegetarian diet include, Strokes, Heart disease, Kidney stones, Breast cancer, Prostate cancer, Pancreatic cancer, Cervical cancer, Stomach cancer, Diabetes, Hypoglycemia, Peptic ulcers, Constipation, Hiatal hernias, Diverticulosis, Gallstones, Hypertension, Salmonellosis, Trichinosis, Osteoporosis, Colon cancer, Ovarian cancer, Endometrial cancer, Kidney disease, Hemorrhoids, Obesity, Asthma, and Irritable colon syndrome.

This is wildly exaggerated and the level of evidence for most of these is miniscule.

>>"In regions where... meat is scarce, cardiovascular disease is unknown." '- Time Magazine (March 26, 1984, pg. 62)

Because they are dying earlier of diarrhoea, respiratory tract infections, malaria, TB, HIV? As some developing countries improve their standard of health care, mortality from infectious diseases is falling and that from cardiovascular disease is increasing.

>>A study published in Lancet under Dr. Inder Singh placed 80 diabetics on very low-fat diets. At six weeks 60% no longer needed insulin. Within a few weeks that figure rose to 70% with those still needing it requiring only a fraction of their former dose.

A small study. Other small studies have shown a similar effect for people on low carbohydrate diets.

>>Those peoples with the highest consumption rates of meats/fats include Eskimos, Laplanders, Greenlanders and Russian Kurgi tribes. They also display the shortest lifespans, often as little as 30-years. Those also living difficult lives in harsh conditions which have among the lowest consumption rates of meats/fats include Russian Caucasians, the Yucatan Indians, the East Indian Todas and the Pakistan Hunzakuts. These peoples routinely live to be 90 - 100 years old.

Again, too many confounding variables. What are the smoking rates? What are the pollution levels? What are the vaccination rates? How good is their water supply? How good is their sewage system? How much has their lifestyle been compromised by their nation's dominant culture? etc etc

>>The United States is credited to have the most sophisticated medical technology in the world and one of the world's most temperate climates. One of the highest consumers of meat, fats and animal products in the world, it also displays one of the lowest life expentancies of the industrialized nations.

But the mortality rates fall into two poles. Wealthier people who get that medical care have very good life expectancies. Poorer people with little or no access to medical care don't. Perhaps poverty or lack of education or lack of access to medical care are to blame rather than the "American diet".

>>It is hard to miss the pattern between animal-fat consumption and deaths due to circulatory disease. During WWII, in Norway, scarcity of animal fats resulted in a strikingly lower death rate from circulatory disease. (See charts in next post)

See above; too many confounding variables to make anything of this.

>>A medium size egg contains as much as 218 milligrams of cholesterol within its yoke.

Consumption of cholesterol on its own is generally of minimal significance as you make less when you eat more of it. Excess consumption of monounsaturated and saturated fats is more important as these make the body start producing extra cholesterol.

>>We have gastric acids which are only 1/20th as strong as those contained in carnivores.

What is the evidence for this? With a gastric acid pH of 1 - 2, how do you get 20 times stronger? Using a log scale, 20 times stronger may not be all that physiologically relevant.

Also, if anything, our teeth are more like carnivores than herbivores.

>>The point is, we don't handle fats well.

I would say we don't handle a sedentary lifestyle well.

>>Moderation, as stevek pointed out, is the key.

Agreed.

stevek

I think you hit a bit nail there. we ahve become lazy and it is really hard on us. humans or any animal were never designed to stay still for long. I don't think our diet is as much of a problem if we work hard like we are meant too.

Beastt

Take a good look at the charts, Patch70. It's not a simple matter of during the blockade, deaths declined. Follow the line from point to point on each chart. The correlation is almost impossible to deny. If no other information were available to confirm what the charts seem to be showing, then it would be quite valid to doubt or dismiss the information. But that's anything but the case. You need to look at the scope of all of the information provided, (and I provided only a small amount of what I have which is only a miniscule portion of what is available), and see the big picture.

Of course there are a number of possible factors in practically any study. But when study after study after study shows exactly the same thing and the findings of those studies are then backed by autopsies, simple logic, anecdotal information, doctors, nutritionists and physiology, the only thing left for those who would rather not see the obvious is denial.

As far as human physiology is concerned, you handily missed the entire point. Take a good look in the mirror. Think you could take down even a small goat with those canines and hold onto it while it's bucking and kicking? Your mouth isn't even large enough to get a good grip and archeological information doesn't seem to suggest that the case has ever been different. Perhaps you should try to chew through a fresh hide with your blunt incisors. Certainly humans have hands that can help provide a good grip. Let me know the next time you see another primate, tackling, holding and killing prey. The incidents are remote.

Animals are given the things they need to obtain the food their bodies require. This is obvious from the front teeth of a beaver, allowing it to access and process the bark of its diet to the beak of parrot fish which allows them to nibble away at coral, to the spring-loaded claw of the mantis shrimp which allows it to defeat the protective shells of other crustaceans. It's sometimes less obvious such as in the case of the pre-digestive enzyme, ptyalin, which is present in the saliva of leaf & grass eaters, grain eaters, fruit eaters and humans but not carnivores.

Humans have had to develop tools in order to consume the levels of fat we now consume. The point being that if we needed that much fat in our diet to be successful as a species, we'd have died out early because we wouldn't have been able to obtain it.

The saddest part isn't that you're willing to deny the information for yourself. What's really sad is that you're helping to re-enforce the denial of someone who is already experiencing an obviously serious health situation. Stevek's chosen diet is very likely at least partially to blame for his condition. If he'd reverse his ideas on fat, (an honest change of diet, not just a placating one), for 2 months, then he'd know for sure. He'll never have a chance at that as long as you or others continue to feed him doubts no matter how much your arguments may be lacking. You're just telling him what he wants to hear. It's always easy to sell someone what they want to believe. Convincing them that their health and possibly their life may require that they loosen their grip on their beliefs is a much more difficult, but a more worthy task.

patch70

>>Take a good look at the charts, Patch70. It's not a simple matter of during the blockade, deaths declined. Follow the line from point to point on each chart. The correlation is almost impossible to deny.

The closeness of the graphs is one reason why it is so dubious. If animal fats were the problem, stopping them today would not lead to a significant difference in cardiovascular deaths for at least a couple of years.

I am sure you could accurately change the 'y' axis from "animal fat consumption" to "visits to the theatre" or "new enrollments at university" and get the same shaped graph during a time of war and a large naval blockade. Does that mean that going to the theatre or enrolling in university lead to cardiovascular deaths? Of course not. The two are associated in that the graphs are similar but this has clearly not established a 'cause-effect' relationship. Another example of this is that it used to be said that smoking was a risk factor for cancer of the cervix. However, it has become subsequently clearer that smokers are more likely to practise unsafe sex and have more partners and so are more likely to get exposed to nasty strains of human papilloma virus which leads eventually to cancer of the cervix. So although there is an association, smoking does not cause that particular cancer.

Furthermore, you are comparing different time periods which is always inaccurate. You cannot possibly control for all variables like war-related deaths, influenza pandemics (around that time), suicides, starvation etc. Can you assure me that there was not a local epidemic of Chlamydia pneumoniae before and after the blockade that led to increases in cardiovascular deaths? No. Your graph is interesting but is certainly not 'proof'.

>>When study after study after study shows exactly the same thing and the findings of those studies are then backed by autopsies, simple logic, anecdotal information, doctors, nutritionists and physiology, the only thing left for those who would rather not see the obvious is denial.

The level of evidence for what you say is very low. This doesn't mean that you are wrong, just that you don't have high level evidence to back up what you are saying.

>>Perhaps you should try to chew through a fresh hide with your blunt incisors. Certainly humans have hands that can help provide a good grip. Let me know the next time you see another primate, tackling, holding and killing prey.

Look at the teeth of cattle, horses, goats. They are very different to ours. Look at the teeth of cats or dogs. They are different but less so. You say our mouths are too small, then what about small carnivores like ocelots, cats, servals etc? Have I seen primates killing other creatures? Yes, chimpanzees, babboons, rhesus macaques etc.

>>Humans have had to develop tools in order to consume the levels of fat we now consume.

???

>>The saddest part isn't that you're willing to deny the information for yourself. What's really sad is that you're helping to re-enforce the denial of someone who is already experiencing an obviously serious health situation.

Obviously you are very passionate about your chosen diet and that is good for you. But not everyone is like you. Some people have intolerances of dairy, or gluten, etc. So should everyone avoid those things? No.
It's great that you have found a diet you like but at this stage there is no convincing evidence for any one diet being the best. There are many beliefs about what is right but nobody can back these up with high level evidence.

Beastt

Please note that I've cut the number of specific points of discussion down to keep the length of the post reasonable and, hopefully, avoid putting too many people to sleep.



Well, my fault for not including more graphs, data and research information but as full-featured as the forum is, it's still poorly equipped for such things. Other studies have shown that regardless of where you go to compile your data the same thing always seems to hold true; where fat consumption is high, heart disease is high, where fat-consumption is low, heart disease is also low. The same holds true when studies are done in places that have only recently adopted the western-culture eating habits of high-fat and high-protein. As the consumption levels rise, so do heart disease, colon cancer, osteoporosis, etc.

When you combine that with the logic involved in seeing that heart disease, (specifically, atherosclerosis), is caused by an accumulation of fats and cholesterol in the arteries and that this condition is highest where consumption of foods containing high levels of fats and cholesterol are highest, the correlation is obvious and compelling.



What I'm trying to point out by this is that we couldn't have evolved eating the levels of fats and proteins that we now eat. Since we didn't evolve eating that way, it's highly unlikely that our bodies are designed to handle such high levels of fats and proteins now.



It would seem that a few are doing an admirable job of backing these beliefs with very significant levels of evidence. Among them can be counted;
· Dr. Neal Bernard
· Dr. John McDougall
· Members of the Pritikin Longevity Center
· John Robbins (who utilizes dozens of other sources for his data)

You're quite correct. I am very passionate about it. But moreso because there is so much evidence to suggest that the high-fat, high-protein diets that have become so popular are directly related to many of the diseases which are becoming so common and cause such suffering. Much of that suffering may well be needless which makes it all the more tragic.

This particular diet issue seems quite remeniscent of the controversy regarding the theory that cigarette smoking may be harmful and possibly linked to lung cancer and several other disorders/diseases. The debate raged on for a decade or more with the tobacco companies funding study after study to combat the growing consensus. Eventually, the data against smoking became accepted widely enough to be considered indisputable. Prior to that even early Tour de France riders would often stop to have a cigarette before starting a grueling climb in the belief that smoking a cigarette would help "open up the lungs". I feel there is little doubt that the same thing will eventually become the case with high-fat, high-protein diets. The consensus is already mounting and the protein empire is tirelessly attempting to defend against the growing mountain of evidence.

I wish to thank you for your gentlemanly approach to discussing the topic. My "passion" did get away from me and I'm afraid my former post sounded a bit overly aggresive. Please accept my apology.

patch70

When it comes to evidence for the benefits of any diet, pretty much all studies are tainted with who funded them, how adherent to the diet the subjects were, and the type/duration of follow up. Population studies are useful but certainly not definitive (i.e. not Level 1 evidence which comes from a randomised, double-blinded trial - which is not feasible for a trial on diets) All those nations that are adopting a western-style diet are also generally having high carbs as well as fat & protein. Which is at fault? Also, they are living longer as sanitation and primary care improves. Maybe they just weren't living long enough before to see the cardiovascular mortality, the osteoporosis, the colon cancer.



Insulin is also involved in cholesterol & atherosclerosis. Is it the carbs, the fat, the protein or the fact that all are in excess that is the culprit?



I would question whether these people are truly objective, just as I would question Atkins and friends. You can show pretty much anything you want with bogusly conducted studies and with inappropriately chosen methods of statistical analysis.



Perhaps, but the same could be said for those pushing the low fat, high carb diet which has been the vogue for so long with success for only a relatively small % of those that follow it. My belief is that excess of all macronutrients is the particular problem, especially when combined with a sedentary lifestyle. I also have a sneaking suspicion that more evidence will come that a higher protein, moderate fat diet (note - not "high fat") is beneficial and will have more widespread success than the low fat diets. But at this stage, the answer is not in and I am happy to be proven wrong.


No need to apologise!

Fixey

This is a cool thread
Ok, my best effort was loseing 40kg in 4 months for a body building contest (I lost a bet), Did it eating HUGE amounts of protien, LARGE amounts of Comp Carbs and as close to NO fat as possible. I then threw in a healthy dose of L-Carnatine and Ephedrine for good measure. Add also a nasty dose of running ( I h8 running ) twice a day and wham... my big gut and butt almost got up and ran itself off.

Did it work? Hell yes...
Was it healthy, Hell No
Do it again now I am 40kg over weight (again)? NO BLOODY WAY

think im with Ric here. I want to loose weight therefor output must be greater than input, I believe that is simple.

Take your argumentitive articles and contraditory studies and your success/horror stories and keep em....
common sense tells me Output > input = use of reserve fuel....

Fixey

A question.... my understanding is that Phase 1 of atkins is to teach the body to use fat not carbs as a fuel by deleting carbs while increaseing Fat/Protien....
How do we convince it to use the fat, a resource so coverted by the body it stores as much as we let it, and leave to protien alone? If the body was to use protien as its primary fuel source, that would be bad yes?

what scares my admitedly lamens brain on this is what I have seen in eating disorders....like almost transparent people whom at a closer look are clinicaly obease, eg a 30kg woman with an eating disorder died due to heart failure, her Body fat % was near 40, Clinically obease. in eating disorders when the body loseis its food source (carbs) it stores the best source of energy (fat) no carbs, storing fat..only leaves protiens and that is bad.

Beastt

Before saying anything, Fixey, I should point out that opinions still vary even among those touted as "experts". However, most of the information I have found seems to agree with your assumption that forcing the body to use protein for energy is a bad, even dangerous thing to do.

The preponderance of opinion among nutritionists seems to be that protein is intended to be used only for the building/rebuilding of damaged tissues. Exercising is all about damaging muscle tissue. After a hard workout, the muscles involved are riddled with tears and lesions, dead and dying cells. The body compensates by rebuilding the tissues to be stronger than they were. That's why exercising increases muscle strength. I apologize for the over-simplification but I believe that gets the basic idea across.

Opinions seem to vary as to what degree the body can utilize protein to produce energy. The most I've found suggests that a maximum of 10% of total energy can be derived from protein. The least suggested that the human body is incapable of utilizing protein to produce energy.

Aside from the people profiting from selling Atkins-like diets, there seems to be a strong agreement that the body is designed to burn carbohydrates as it's main source for energy. The primary system for prolonged energy storage is fat. Unused carbohydrates and fats can be stored in the body as can protein, although apparently to a lesser degree. It's important to remember that once protein has been converted to fat, it can't be utilized as a building material again. Most excess protein is excreted in the urine and there is some concern as to how this may effect the health of the kidneys when protein intake remains excessive for prolonged periods.

As with everything else, the amount of protein the body needs is highly disputed. Some claim that a healthy, active, adult male utilizes as little as 20 grams of protein per day. Others claim 80 or more but, so far, I've been unable to find anyone who believes the body needs the 160 grams ingested daily by the average American. Since that's an average, it may indicate that protein suppliments are, at least a waste of money and at most, a health hazard.

I hope you find the references below to be helpful.
--------------

http://www.alternative-healthzine.com/html/0101_1.html

An important aspect of our eating plan is that protein is very difficult to digest compared to carbohydrates and fats. When present in significant quantities, protein not only slows down, but also blocks the digestion of carbohydrates and fats, leading to undigested food and obesity. Proper digestion is the key to being slim.

Our bodies are exquisitely designed to burn nutrients for fuel in a very specific way. Carbohydrates are the main fuel source. When they are depleted, the body chooses fats next, the one nutrient designed specifically for storage and reserve energy. When fats are depleted, protein, the body's main structural component, is used, but only when severe depletion of carbohydrates and fats occur, a state commonly known as starvation or ketosis. Because protein for energy is primarily used to build cellular structures - not to create energy - metabolizing protein for energy is an incredibly inefficient way for the body to produce fuel.

People who go on high-protein diets are, in fact, starving themselves, which is why they are so successful in losing weight in the short term. But it's downright dangerous for the long term.

When the body metabolizes fats and proteins in the absence of essential carbohydrates, toxic byproducts are produced. These by-products are known as ketones or ketone bodies. When these build up to a high enough level in the body, an abnormal state known as ketosis is created. Those on high-protein diets desire ketosis, although it is abnormal and unsafe. They can tell by the way they feel, in fact, that they are going into ketosis because they feel a "high," and when they feel this "high," they know their high-protein diets are effective. In actual fact, this feeling heralds the beginning of a state of starvation.

Physiologically, ketones behave very much like psychotropic drugs. At low levels, they create a sense of euphoria - the ketotic "high" well known to high-protein dieters. At high levels, they produce sleepiness and disorientation. At even higher levels, coma can result.

Diabetics who receive insufficient insulin can get into this state quite quickly. The coma seen in newly diagnosed diabetics is due to extreme ketosis, combined with the acidosis produced when the body goes too long without sufficient carbohydrates.

The difference between diabetics and high-protein dieters is that diabetics actually consume carbohydrates, but because they lack the insulin to drive glucose into the cells, they replicate starvation on a cellular level. The result is a break-down in fats and proteins producing ketosis, which can lead to the so-called diabetic coma.
---------------

http://www.theeatingplan.com/diets/

Atkins Diet, Zone Diet, Sugar Busters... you are probably quite familiar with some of these high protein diets. The theory behind these diets is that since the body converts excess carbohydrates into fat, you restrict carbohydrates and force the body to "burn" protein and body fat as fuel.

These have become so popular because it allows you to eat meat and milk products without abandon. Weight loss during the first 2 weeks on a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet is impressive. The numbers on the scale seem to drop much faster on a low-carbohydrate diet than on a typical low-calorie diet (average of 7 pounds in 10 days).

However below are the problems with these diets that they won't ever tell you about...

Water weight loss. Carbohydrates provide the sugar (known as glucose) that our body first wants to use to fuel the activities of the body. These type of diets provide little glucose. This forces the body to use glucose reserves in the liver (known as Glycogen). Glycogen is made up of mostly water, and when depleted, water weight loss will be seen.

Muscle weight loss. When the body can not find glucose and glycogen to use for energy, it will start converting protein to glucose to use for energy. But it doesn't just use protein from foods for this energy, it will also use protein from muscles for energy, resulting in body muscle wasting, which also lowers your metabolism.

Calcium depletion. The breaking down of protein to glucose causes calcium depletion in the body, leading to Osteoporosis. There have been actual medical studies done to prove this. This is especially a problem for women.

Kidney disease. Uric acid levels are elevated during protein breakdown, causing excessive urination and long term kidney problems.

Other problems that occur with high protein, low carbohydrate diets are nausea, constipation, low blood pressure, bad breath, and fetal harm for pregnant women.

limerickman

Beastt,
I think that it should be said on behalf of everyone who has read this thread, to say Thank You to you for providing copious amounts of research data, in to what is a serious,a nd indeed life threatening, subject.
the sher volume of information and it the logic with which you present this data is far, far more compelling than the proponents of this or that diet.

Effectively, we are what we eat and I know that some people
will not appreciate my saying this, but it is a fact.
All of the data shows that we eat huge amounts of food - far more food than we need to eat on a dily basis.
Also we do not exercise enough.

This may seem to be a very simplified way of looking at this issue
of obesity and health but it is clear and unambiguous.
And God knows we need clarity in this whole debate.

It is my belief that the diet industry would have you believe that all permutations can be accomodated and that if you don;t do A-
you can compensate by doing B and vice versa.

Energy In (balanced food intake with the coorect rations of carbs,
proteina and fat) = Energy out: is at the end of the day how we
all need to go.