Atkins diet

[Mgv]

Someone on the horizon website brings up a good possibility:

asked about the Montaignac diet, and why it appeared to work. The answer was blindingly simple. "Any ABC type diet has a high chance of success" was the response. "So, what is the ABC diet?" I asked. "On Monday you eat as much as you want beginning with the letter A, on Tuesday with the letter B, and so on. The issue is it forces you to think about what you eat."

I suggest that the Atkins diet doesn't control calories by suppressing the appetite through protein, but it controls calories by limiting the breadth of opportunity to buy and consume calories, because one needs to think about what is a protein/fat etc. Given the need to think about it, there is more opportunity to reject the possibility of buying/consuming more calories (or vice versa, there is less opportunity to accept the dessert/starter etc).

I would be interested in your opinion on this, and would be delighted to hear if any scientific studies have been undertaken into this side of the picture, ie the psychological, rather than the physiological.

this makes far more sense to me, as I have seen it following a different sort of diet - you don't just eat or dirnk things now - now you actually think about it and selectively chose what you consume - all the things thus consumed have less over processed rubbish in them, and consequently lower calories.

[Toktokkie]

Cholesterol levels are lowered whenever people lose weight, no matter what diet. However, that is no indication that those levels will remain low, or that there is not artery clogging fat in the arteries.

Even though I did not have a weight problem I did have a very high cholesterol reading. I cut down on my meat consumption and my cholesterol dropped down to normal.

Also interesting to note is that blood clots from injuries and operations are common with people who have excessively high cholesterol. It is one of the reasons that doctors check their patients blood before an operation. Determining a safe level of cholesterol prior to an operation is critical in preventing potential blood clots and evaluating the possible success of an operation. The fact that Dr. Atkins developed a blood clot from his injury is evidence that he could have been suffering from extremely high cholesterol.

Here's another interesting study with children on Atkins type diets:

The August 20, 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article “The effect of a high-fat ketogenic diet on plasma levels of lipids, lipoproteins and apolipoproteins in childen.” In this 6-month study, 141 children (average age 5.2 years – 70 boys, 71 girls) were placed on an Atkins-type diet for seizure disorders. Researchers found an average increase in total cholesterol of 58 mg/dl, “bad” LDL-cholesterol of 50 mg/dl, triglycerides of 58 mg/dl, and a decrease of “good” HDL-cholesterol of 7 mg/dl. Follow-up of these children at 12 and 24 months showed continued adverse changes in these risk factors for heart disease. All of these deteriorations are serious indicators of poorer health from a high-fat, ketogenic diet.

The most obvious conclusions from the results of this study mean ketogenic diets promote serious artery damage. The earliest signs of artery damage seen in children are fatty streaks and the later lesions seen in adolescents and young adults are fibrous plaques. Cholesterol levels reflect the chance of finding artery disease upon examination of the arteries (for example, by autopsy) or by clinical events later in life, such as heart attacks.

Here is an example of what increases in cholesterol will mean for your future health: Healthy young men age 20 to 25 years with cholesterol levels of more than 210 mg/dl were found to have 5 times the rate of heart disease 30 to 40 years later compared to those who had cholesterol of less than 170 mg/dl.2 In other words, a difference of 40 mg/dl means 5 times the risk of future heart disease. Now consider that the changes produced by the ketogenic diet in this study of children in 6 months were even worse – 58 mg/dl – an average increase in total cholesterol of 174 mg/dl to 232 mg/dl.

[Tara]

Originally posted by Joan
I have not seen it Tara... did they mention a maximum amount of fat (saturated as well as unsaturated) that is allowed per day, or not?

No they didn't Joan, they went literally by the (Atkins) book which says the dieter can eat as much as he/she likes as long as they limit carbohydrates.

It was suggested in Horizons that high protein intake suppressed the appetite, thereby causing the dieters to actually consume fewer calories because they ate less. But they didn't say whether this was absolutely for sure the reason why it works.

There were a lot of perhapses, may's and could be's regarding the reasons why it works. The upshot being that they don't know why it works.

What a pity Dr Atkins died last year, I am sure he would have loved to have seen all this going on about his diet!

Incidentally, my husband went onto it in 1973, I remember baking special no carbohydrate bread for him! It worked then too :haha:

[Tara]

IMO to suggest that Dr Atkins "could" have been suffering from high cholesterol is speculative sensationalism at it's worst. It is obvious that such a high profile person as he, would have had a major autopsy and results of this would have been made public very very quickly if there was any connection between his diet and his death.

It does not necessarily follow that if someone suffers from blood clots that he/she has high cholesterol. There are any number of reasons why this could happen, high cholesterol being only one of those reasons.

Don't you feel that it is irresponsible for doctors to put children - average age 5.2 years, suffering from seizures and NOT obesity (which is what the diet is for) onto a high protein, Atkins type diet? If a person has no fat to burn off, then why go onto the diet? Why put children, who didn't need it onto this diet? Also, it being an Atkins type diet does not mean it was the Atkins diet, as presented in his book, about which we are debating now.

There are so many factual examples now of adults who have benefited from this diet that an example such as the one presented does not hold water I am afraid.

[Toktokkie]

Originally posted by Tara
It is obvious that such a high profile person as he, would have had a major autopsy and results of this would have been made public very very quickly if there was any connection between his diet and his death.

Exactly. People asked for autopsy results to be made public so that the condition of his arteries could be made known. I find it rather questionable that the family chose not to have an autopsy performed.

[i]

Don't you feel that it is irresponsible for doctors to put children - average age 5.2 years, suffering from seizures and NOT obesity (which is what the diet is for) onto a high protein, Atkins type diet? If a person has no fat to burn off, then why go onto the diet? Why put children, who didn't need it onto this diet? Also, it being an Atkins type diet does not mean it was the Atkins diet, as presented in his book, about which we are debating now.

[/B]

According to researchers at Johns Hopkins Children's Center, there are many epileptic children who don't respond to modern medicines and yet they find that a low carbohydrate and high protein diet like the Atkin's diet produces ketones (the product left after the fat is burned) builds up in the blood and inhibits these seizures.
The down side of this research showed risk factors for heart disease in children.

No one is going to convince you of anything you don't want to believe. No skin off my nose. :p

[Tara]

Originally posted by Toktokkie
No one is going to convince you of anything you don't want to believe. No skin off my nose. :p

That's precisely the point tokkie, it's not a question of belief, it's a question of reading and understanding the facts as presented and then making a decision based on those facts, not if's, but's or maybe's.

The world has become virtually paranoid with constant bombardment from the media of could, and perhapses. Such as the most recent 'could' (which to us SAffers is not new at all because it did the rounds in the 70's already) whereby it is claimed that shaving the armpits and using deo/anti perspirant, could (note the could) cause cancer of the breasts. Yesterday a (IMO good) reporter asked the "scientist" concerned if any cases of cancer of the breast directly caused by this have yet been established, and the "scientist" said no, not yet, but there could be a connection! Sorry Tok, but that's not good enough for me.

So let's have hard unadulterated facts please, our health, both mental and physical, should not be a question of believing, it should be all about knowing.

[Toktokkie]

Originally posted by Tara
The world has become virtually paranoid with constant bombardment from the media of could, and perhapses. Such as the most recent 'could' (which to us SAffers is not new at all because it did the rounds in the 70's already) whereby it is claimed that shaving the armpits and using deo/anti perspirant, could (note the could) cause cancer of the breasts. Yesterday a (IMO good) reporter asked the "scientist" concerned if any cases of cancer of the breast directly caused by this have yet been established, and the "scientist" said no, not yet, but there could be a connection! Sorry Tok, but that's not good enough for me.

So let's have hard unadulterated facts please, our health, both mental and physical, should not be a question of believing, it should be all about knowing.

It's your prerogative to put into, and onto your body, whatever you want until the irrefutable evidence is there. Your choice. Many smokers who have said the same thing have died from lung cancer.
Just earlier this month, according to a British study, it was stated that the chemicals found in most underarm deodorants have been detected in breast cancer tumors. The study also suggests that these chemicals entered the body through the skin, most likely under the arm, but since the study merely "suggests," that might not be enough evidence for you but it is for me.

I've had cancer 3 times so please don't tell me to wait for "unadulterated facts." I was given unadulterated facts about what turned out to be the very thing that started my journey with cancer years later. So, while I may not have had breast cancer, a known fact is that 60% of all breast tumors are found in the one fifth of the outer upper quadrant of the breast (closest to the armpit). I don't need to wait for any more evidence than that. Not paranoid, just cautious. :p

Sorry for the hijack. Back to the Atkin's diet. You like it. It works for you. More power to you.

[Tara]

Originally posted by Toktokkie

Back to the Atkin's diet. You like it. It works for you. More power to you.

Sorry to hear about your cancers and hope you are cured now.

I still maintain that sensationalist reporting can do more harm than good.

I don't need Atkins to work for me, I am slim I also don't eat anywhere near enough meat to be able to go onto it, being the recovering vegetarian that I am.

I still maintain that it has not been infallibly proven to be dangerous.

[spam]

Originally posted by Toktokkie
Cholesterol levels are lowered whenever people lose weight, no matter what diet. However, that is no indication that those levels will remain low, or that there is not artery clogging fat in the arteries.

Even though I did not have a weight problem I did have a very high cholesterol reading. I cut down on my meat consumption and my cholesterol dropped down to normal.

Here you contradict yourself....at the moment I knbow I'm overweight and my cholestorol is high...but even following a strict diet did not cure it...exercise did. Some people are prone to high cholesterol,

[Toktokkie]

Originally posted by spam
Here you contradict yourself....at the moment I knbow I'm overweight and my cholestorol is high...but even following a strict diet did not cure it...exercise did. Some people are prone to high cholesterol,

Where's the contradiction?