Atkins

[Frank_Ridgeway]

One more thing about Atkins: You can get kidney stones if you fail to drink two liters of water per day (and the doc says other liquids don't count toward that total). You really do not want to ignore this advice if you are prone to them.

 

[Pastor]

If anyone, even a doctor, knew for sure about any of this, we wouldn't keep seeing new diet books every year. This would be settled.

Actually, it is pretty much is settled. The reason you see new diet books every year is due to people desiring the quick, easy and lazy methods.

People don't want to be told that it takes time to lose weight. Everyone thinks that shortcuts exist. So they jump on these gimmicks and only end up losing water weight which they gain back rather quickly.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Pastor's right. This isn't as difficult as people make it from a rational standpoint. It's difficult mentally and emotionally. Because it's a lot of what most people don't want to hear.

Overloading your system with too much protein is bad for your kidneys. The bulk of your diet should be complex carbohyrdates. Veggies and whole grains, in particular, will do your body a lot of good. You should cut out all trans fats and strive to get your saturated fats down to zero because they clog your arteries and contribute to more diseases than you can imagine.

What most people eat? High-fat diets filled with simple, sugary carbs. The fats are like food opiates. So people gorge themselves on it and when they get addicted to those foods, it is hard to stop. Sugary, simple-carb comfort foods taste good, so people don't want to get rid of those either.

But its exactly what you need to do. Most people almost intuitively know what is good and bad for them. Whole grains, good. Green veggies (and most other vegetables), good. That processed, bleached, fatty snack food that comes from a plant in the midwest, bad. That big slab of meat with fat dripping off of it, bad. That pint of ice cream with 80 grams of fat in the whole container, bad.

I know the bad stuff tastes good to most people. But get rid of that stuff and you will not just lose weight. You will do something that is actually sustainable and you will create habits that give you the best chance at avoiding bad diseases like diabetes, heart disease, stroke and cancer. No guarantees in life, but you really do reduce your risk factors substantially. I don't know why more people don't think that way as their motivation.

The knowledge is out there. It really is "settled."

 

[Mizzougrad96]

The only lazy diet would be gastric or a lap band...

Just about anything else, if it works for you, do it...

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Actually, it is pretty much is settled.

The knowledge is out there. It really is "settled."

OK, Dr. Blah-Blah and Dr. Yadda-Yadda. If you say so.

On second thought, I think I'll believe the Journal of the American Medical Association instead.

There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/289/14/1837?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=atkins+diet&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

 

[Pastor]

Frank, you are only talking about the recommendation of low-carb diets. However, everything about sustaining a positive, healthy and well balanced diet has been established years ago.

I'm sure there are some out there that are recommending them, but it really isn't the answer. Professionals the world over do not look at it as any sort of sustainable lifestyle choice and diet is supposed to be just that.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

My fiancee and I are thinking about trying the Atkins diet. She did it a few years ago and says she lost a good deal of weight, but it came back.

Has anyone tried it? It is good or just a lot of fail?

Sounds like its full of fail. Why try something again that didn't work for her?

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Frank, you are only talking about the recommendation of low-carb diets. However, everything about sustaining a positive, healthy and well balanced diet has been established years ago.

I'm sure there are some out there that are recommending them, but it really isn't the answer. Professionals the world over do not look at it as any sort of sustainable lifestyle choice and diet is supposed to be just that.

No, the study I cited regards the safety of the diet.

So does this:

Conclusions: A reported higher protein intake appears to confer some weight-loss benefit. Cardiovascular disease risk factors, biomarkers of disease, and serum vitamins and minerals improved with no differences between groups.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/1/23

Again, I don't think you're remotely qualified to declare the issue "settled." You don't have to admit the Atkins people are right. But there's no no credible substantiation that they're wrong, either.

 

[Pastor]

Frank, you are only talking about the recommendation of low-carb diets. However, everything about sustaining a positive, healthy and well balanced diet has been established years ago.

I'm sure there are some out there that are recommending them, but it really isn't the answer. Professionals the world over do not look at it as any sort of sustainable lifestyle choice and diet is supposed to be just that.

No, the study I cited regards the safety of the diet.

So does this:

Conclusions: A reported higher protein intake appears to confer some weight-loss benefit. Cardiovascular disease risk factors, biomarkers of disease, and serum vitamins and minerals improved with no differences between groups.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/1/23

Again, I don't think you're remotely qualified to declare the issue "settled." You don't have to admit the Atkins people are right. But there's no no credible substantiation that they're wrong, either.

Frank, what is settled and what I have continued to say is settled is the best means by which individuals can lose weight and live a healthy lifestyle.

Atkins, by and large, has you losing water weight which will be gained back immediately. The same goes for the South Beach Diet and other such gimmicks.

A balanced diet of 50% carbs, 30% protein and 20% fat produces the exact desired results. Eating this type of daily intake is a guarantee for weight loss. If you throw in a gym exercise, you will be even more set.

In terms of my qualifications, I guess you can say that I'm not a doctor nor a personal trainer. However, I have relatives who are and I have spoken to them quite a few times on this subject.

The end result is what everyone doesn't want to hear: It takes a lot of time. Losing anything more than 3lbs per week is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

In terms of my qualifications, I guess you can say that I’m not a doctor nor a personal trainer. However, I have relatives who are and I have spoken to them quite a few times on this subject.

I think doctors who are specialized enough to conduct a study published in a major medical journal are likely a lot more qualified than your relatives. Doctors obviously disagree about diets or so many of them wouldn't be writing conflicting books on the subject. But participation in a study that isn't funded by proponents of any diet suggests a level of objectivity and expertise that far surpasses your assertions. I think the fact that they engage in such a study and sign their names to something that says despite their exhaustive efforts, they found no conclusive evidence either way speaks very well for the intellectual honesty because asserting a conclusion certainly would have been more satisfying for them. So they are the folks I think should be believed above all others.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Frank, you are only talking about the recommendation of low-carb diets. However, everything about sustaining a positive, healthy and well balanced diet has been established years ago.

I'm sure there are some out there that are recommending them, but it really isn't the answer. Professionals the world over do not look at it as any sort of sustainable lifestyle choice and diet is supposed to be just that.

No, the study I cited regards the safety of the diet.

So does this:

Conclusions: A reported higher protein intake appears to confer some weight-loss benefit. Cardiovascular disease risk factors, biomarkers of disease, and serum vitamins and minerals improved with no differences between groups.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/1/23

Again, I don't think you're remotely qualified to declare the issue "settled." You don't have to admit the Atkins people are right. But there's no no credible substantiation that they're wrong, either.

Frank, You can cherry pick things that 99 percent of the people on here don't understand and link to them out of context and you're still wrong. Read my first post on this thread. I put in a whole bunch of qualifiers. Two of them were that: 1) If you are obese, anything that makes you lose weight is going to be positive, because being obese is a huge health risk. 2) If you are on a high-fat diet and you start substituting protein based foods for fatty foods, it CAN be healthy--under the right circumstances.

Those are essentially the reasons the things that you linked to can't make catch-all recommendations. The reality of Atkins for most people is that 1) It cuts out complex carbs, which ARE essential to healthy living. Dietary fiber is health and vegetables are full of nutrients and antioxidants. There is no ambiguity in that. 2) In the quest to restrict carbs, it encourages fatty diets, which clog your arteries, promote heart disease and cancer. That is the reality of Atkins type diets for a lot of people. And again, there is no ambiguity about that. 3) If you overdo your diet and take in too much protein, it throws your kidneys out of whack. It makes you ketatonic, which is BAD for you. In fact, one reason why people see quick results on some of these diets is that they go from relatively low protein diets to diets that are giving them way more protein than the human body can handle, and it shocks their kidneys, which can't handle the strain and it results it water loss. That is not good weight loss. Once more, there is no ambiguity about that.

If you tell me someone has adopted a "low carb" diet, in which they have cut out bleached flour and sugar--because they were eating carb rich diets full of that crap--and they have upped their protein intake to within levels that are healthy for humans, yeah, there is nothing unhealthy about that. In fact, that is a great way to eat.

That's why all the studies in the world can't make blanket conclusions about "low carb" or "high protein" diets. They are not all the same, for one thing. The first study in JAMA you linked to basically said that. They can't even quantify what a low-carb diet is, because there are way too many stupid fads out there.

And in practice, compared to what the fad book might say, people end up engaging in unhealthy behavior very often when they start these diets -- thinking a fatty steak three times a day (but god forbid they have some broccoli; carbs *gasp*) is the way to lose weight and create a health lifestyle.

And Frank, I have a sister and a brother in law who are MDs. It doesn't make me one. And either way, there are a lot of MDs who still give people bad advice when it comes to things like nutrition. The typical radiologist or orthopedist, for example, who might be overweight and at risk of diseases himself, doesn't give a shirt and will tell people stupid things. So I agree with you about that, but I also don't hold a doctor's word as gospel--unless it is about something that doctor specializes in and something I have no way of understanding. Nutrition is not like that. It's not rocket science. And there are doctors with poor judgment, believe it or not.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Frank, You can cherry pick things that 99 percent of the people on here don't understand and link to them out of context and you're still wrong.

On what empirical basis do you assert that I "cherry-pick?" I chose the most recent relevant health-related study on the JAMA Web site, 2003. A 2007 study on the site concerned effectiveness as a weight-loss problem but not really the larger health issues. I haven't seen you link to anything to support your claims. There also were studies in 2005 and 2003 that were similar in scope to the 2007 report. Picking, say, 2005 while ignoring (hypothetically speaking) conflicting information in 2007 and 2003 would have been cherry-picking. What I did was go to the most credible source -- a top medical journal -- and link to the most recent relevant findings. Either you misunderstand the term "cherry pick" or you are being intellectually dishonest. Or it could be simple intellectual sloth on your part in attempting to dismiss this information as "cherry picking" without doing the heavy lifting of finding a more credible source than mine.