Atkins Lawyers Seek To Have Dieter's Lawsuit Dismissed

[nobimbo]

Posted on Tue, Oct. 26, 2004

Atkins lawyers seek to have dieter's lawsuit dismissed

BY MISSY STODDARD

South Florida Sun-Sentinel


FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - (KRT) - For 2 1/2 years, Jody Gorran of Delray Beach said, he extolled the virtues of the high-protein, low-carbohydrate Atkins diet.

But in October of last year, Gorran experienced chest pains, subsequently undergoing angioplasty for an artery that was 99 percent blocked. Gorran said he soon learned that while on the Atkins diet his cholesterol had skyrocketed from 146 to 230. He has sued the promoters of the diet, alleging a failure to warn consumers about the risks associated with it.

At a Tuesday hearing, lawyers for Atkins Nutritionals sought to have the case dismissed, arguing Gorran's health problems are more a result of poor food choices and family history than the Atkins diet.

Jupiter lawyer Martin Reeder told Judge Susan Lubitz that Gorran followed a "perverse version" of the diet that included "a peculiar regimen of pastrami and cheesecake," which Reeder said are not approved Atkins-diet foods. Reeder also said Gorran has a "very significant family history of heart disease."

Furthermore, according to Reeder, diet creator Dr. Robert Atkins warned followers of his diet - in both his books and on a Web site - that the diet was not a substitute for the advice of a personal physician.

Gorran and his attorney, Daniel Kinburn of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, called the Atkins diet "quackery" and said that at least a third of the people who go on the diet are at risk for heart disease.

Kinburn said Dr. Atkins "buried" his warnings about the diet's potential dangers on a copyright page in his books. Atkins promoters are more interested in making millions selling Atkins products - such as pancake mix and protein bars - than they are in saving lives, according to Kinburn and Gorran, a 54-year-old manufacturing company owner.

Kinburn said Gorran thoroughly researched the Atkins diet prior to embarking on it and even went so far as to have a CT scan of his heart, which showed no blockage. Gorran's "significant family history" of heart disease, as Reeder suggested, was an older sister who suffered a heart attack after a long history of high cholesterol, according to Gorran.

The quick rise in his cholesterol level didn't concern Gorran, he said, because Dr. Atkins' books and Web site said the diet would keep him safe so long as he strictly limited carbohydrates.

"He's a doctor with 30 years experience and 25,000 patients ... I believed him," Gorran said. "I thought he was ahead of the curve ... but it turns out he was lying."

Dr. Atkins died last year at age 72 after a fall.

For 2 1/2 years, Gorran said, he gave up bread and pasta and "ate nothing out of a box." He denies gorging on pastrami and cheesecake, as Reeder implied, insisting he may have eaten pastrami a half-dozen times. Though he did eat a 3-ounce slice of cheesecake about every third day, Gorran said it was prepared with the artificial sweetener Splenda, which is Atkins-approved.

Otherwise, Gorran said, he followed the diet religiously, eating hard cheeses, chicken, beef, salad, tuna fish and mayonnaise. He acknowledged personal responsibility for "being an idiot" and believing all of Dr. Atkins' claims.

Gorran isn't suing for money; he's seeking less than $15,000. Instead, he and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine say they just want warnings placed on the diet advising people that if a rise in cholesterol occurs, it could be fatal.

Kinburn suggested the following warning: It works for some people, it kills others.

Lubitz will issue her ruling on whether the lawsuit can proceed at a later date.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/nation/10021588.htm

[mio1996]

This article still doesn't tell us whether or not the cheesecake was lowcarb, just that it contained splenda. Seems to me like he is hiding something about that cheescake!

[ItsTheWooo]

I guess I was wrong. He sounds like he followed Atkins as written.

BTW, the lawyer is plain out lying when he says pastrami and cheesecake - when carb controlled - are not part of the Atkins plan. Pastrami is nothing but meat, fat, and curing agents... perfectly Atkins friendly. Cheesecake is dairy fat and eggs. If it was splenda sweetened, I'm assuming it's going to be crustless, and if it's crustless and splenda sweetened it's most likely low carb. Carb controlled cheesecake - every three days, and a 3 oz serving (max 300 cals) - is perfectly Atkins friendly. Heck, cream cheese is an induction staple food.

This really makes me reconsider what I've come to believe about nutrition.

Now that I think of it, this very forum has dozens of accounts of people who's cholesterol worsened on Atkins in some way or other. Usually they are told to alter something about their diets or to wait longer or retake the test...
Maybe they were right. Maybe a certain subtype of the population can't metabolize fat well?

One thing is certain, though. I will be making an appointment with my Dr. to get my blood lipids checked ASAP. My grandmother died of stroke, and both of my fathers parents had heart disease. Quite frankly, none of us are experts and I will readily concede that I've been mislead by low carb propganda into believing sat fat is good... if the case requires it. My health is too important to give control up to faith, like Jody Gorran did, and like I see lots of low carbers with worsening cholesterol do. I really need to know if I'm eating the right way for me. I'm not planning on abandoning carb control irregardless of result, but if it turns out my cholesterol is worse than it was, I'm going to stop all the full fat cheese, sour cream, and butter usage. Maybe try to change my diet more like south beach.

[dodg4kat]

It seems to me that if you are following Atkins for 2.5 years and are age 54 (I think I read that) that at some point in that two year span you would have had cholesterol, etc checked? I am only 32 and have that stuff checked every year as part of my physical exam. Plus there is no mention of grams of carbohydrates consumed, nor weight, exercise regimen,etc. All of those things are also predictors to age related diseases.
I feel for the man that he had to undergo surgery, but unfortunately I do not agree with the trend in US society to sue anyone and everyone when something unforeseen goes wrong. Atkins pretty much says that the diet doesn't work for everyone, especially for ppl who have a "normal" metabolism. He also recommends getting a fasting lipid profile and a GTT before starting the diet and at regular intervals once on it for extended periods.
Just a note, Atkins does recommend that meats and bacon are nitrate free..pastrami is a cured meat which means that unless he bought from special sources it has nitrates in it. Most commercial bacon does too.
While I am not trying to say that Atkins could NEVER be the cause of this man's blockage, I am voicing that there are many other stones left unturned in the coverage of the story. I would like to see some follow up by the newspaper to know what else has happened.

[dina1957]

This really makes me reconsider what I've come to believe about nutrition.

Now that I think of it, this very forum has dozens of accounts of people who's cholesterol worsened on Atkins in some way or other. Usually they are told to alter something about their diets or to wait longer or retake the test...
Maybe they were right. Maybe a certain subtype of the population can't metabolize fat well?

ItsTheWooo:
See my post under Cholesterol/Heart Desease forum.
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=179535&page=3
My husband dramaticaly lowered his total CHO and LDL in just 3 months without any medications just by cutting alsmost all saturated fats from his diet in form of red meat, egg youlks and full fat dairy (butter and cream included). His CHO ration favorably changed as well, putting him in low CAD risk cathegory.
Certain ppl can't metabolize saturated fat properly, hence there are raise in cholesterol. All in all, everyone's body is unique and gorging on cream cheese even as a low carb food will take it's toll at some point. It's safer to eat monosaturated fats, like olive oil, seeds/ nuts, and cold water fish. We still can get enough saturated fat/cholesterol with animal protein, like poultry, fish, egg yolks and red meat (both in moderation). Actually, goat milk cheese is lower in saturated fat/cholesterol and utterly delicious.
There is no need to drown your food in cream, butter and cheese. Unfortunately, some ppl use Atkins diet as an excuse to gorge on their favorite food like bacon, pastrami, cream, butter, cheese cake. . This is where I see the danger of the Atkins diet, especially for those who never read the book. JMO though.
:wave:
Dina

[K Walt]

Wooo.. . . I can see your concern. But I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in this publicity stunt.

First. there is NO evidence, slim or otherwise, that this guy's 'heart disease' was the result of his 'Atkins'. Think of it. Maybe 3 million, or 10 million people have eaten this way for years, and this is the ONLY case that has come to light? A little fishy. I can't believe you'd fall for this PCRM scam. From all your posts, you are WAY too smart for that. There are literally MILLIONS of people -- cardiac patients, mainly -- who are on low-fat diets, who CONTINUE to have heart disease, who continue to worsen, even without eating a LICK of saturated fat. My father, for example. Was thin all his life. But smoked like a chimney. Developed a blockage. Quit smoking. They put him on low-fat, Ornish. He followed it to the letter, for years. He gained weight. His cholesterol worsened to the point of putting him on statins. He looked puffy and bloated. And died suddenly anyway, doing everything RIGHT. Why don't people SUE ORNISH for his nonsense, dangerous diet? That is just as valid as this stupid lawsuit. One guy dies on ORNISH, and nobody sues? THOUSANDS of people die of heart attacks on low-fat, 'cardiac' diets. How come no one sues?


Second. How is it that these foods like 'butter' , sour cream, and cheese have suddenly become toxic? They have been the mainstays of many diets for at least a few thousand years -- as LEAST as long as the 'wholesome and healthy' whole grains? They are suddenly killing people?

Third. Even if you go no fat, low-fat, or modified fat, your body will store any exceess energy as fat -- which happens to be about 44% saturated. Why would you be designed to store fuel as 44% saturated fat if it were somehow deadly?

Fourth. The populations around the world who have the LEAST amount of heart disease DO NOT eat fat-free vegan diets. The French eat more fat and cheese than we do. The Japanese (the darling of the low-fat set) eat more eggs and cholesterol than even WE do. The Chinese -- those rural peasants who eat virtually no fat, die of strokes MORE than we die of heart disease.

Fifth. Most people don't believe this, but 'cholesterol' is a lousy and poor indicator of heart disease. The people of France have exactly the same levels of cholesterol as the people of England. They both smoke like crazy. They both weigh about the same. But the French have a FRACTION of the heart disease. Why? If cholesterol is the ENTIRE story, that couldn't be.

Sixth. There has been NO study -- NOWHERE-- that shows that decreasing saturated fat, or any kind of fat, has any effect on heart disease, or on mortality. Search PubMed and find one. There is NO evidence that reducing your saturated fat intake will prevent or slow or ward off heart disease. It's fashion, it's folklore, it's superstition. But it ain't fact.

If you're concerned, try eating low-fat, sort-of-low-carb for a while. And see what happens. If you feel better, then stick with it. If it makes you feel more confident, great. But I wouldn't be so sure that it will affect heart disease in any way.

[Nancy LC]

I agree with K Walt, not just because I'm on this band wagon, but his reasoning is sound. You don't know what this guy was doing or how far advanced his heart disease was before he started Atkins. However, if there was a family history of heart disease and stroke in my family, I'd be covering my bases by getting cholesterol checked and doing what I could to keep it as low as possible... I'm not sure I'd take statins though.

What I would do to hedge my bets (am doing in fact) is eat more fish and take fish oil capsules, make sure I'm getting exercise and doing all the stuff that seems to help. But I'd also make very certain I didn't go back to eating refined carbs.

I think your philosophy about nutrition is similar to mine, get your nutrients from food not a pill bottle. And its the stuff like eating veggies, nuts, berries, fish and stuff that seems to be healthiest. I think our instincts are good, this is the way humankind was meant to eat. I don't think its a cure-all, because there are probably just some problems that are genetic and we just can't do anything about yet, like Huntington's disease and juvenille diabetes. It might be that there are certain people that have genetic flaws that predispose them to certain illnesses. I hope not. Hopefully a good healthy diet is the best way to deal with that or if not, medical intervention.

I have an acquaintance whose entire family has died quite young from heart disease. She's just now hit 40 and is "doing everything right". Including exercising, eating low-fat, staying slim... but she's seeing her cholesterol get bad too. In her case, I doubt if even Atkins could help her. It's definitely genetic. We know that otherwise healthy people eating and exercising and doing everything by the book are dying of heart disease just like their parents. So... either there's nothing they can do about it, or perhaps the prescription for "doing everything right" isn't the right prescription. Maybe high cholesterol for these people is only a symptom of some other problem.

[ItsTheWooo]

ItsTheWooo:
See my post under Cholesterol/Heart Desease forum.
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=179535&page=3
My husband dramaticaly lowered his total CHO and LDL in just 3 months without any medications just by cutting alsmost all saturated fats from his diet in form of red meat, egg youlks and full fat dairy (butter and cream included). His CHO ration favorably changed as well, putting him in low CAD risk cathegory.
Certain ppl can't metabolize saturated fat properly, hence there are raise in cholesterol. All in all, everyone's body is unique and gorging on cream cheese even as a low carb food will take it's toll at some point. It's safer to eat monosaturated fats, like olive oil, seeds/ nuts, and cold water fish. We still can get enough saturated fat/cholesterol with animal protein, like poultry, fish, egg yolks and red meat (both in moderation). Actually, goat milk cheese is lower in saturated fat/cholesterol and utterly delicious.
There is no need to drown your food in cream, butter and cheese. Unfortunately, some ppl use Atkins diet as an excuse to gorge on their favorite food like bacon, pastrami, cream, butter, cheese cake. . This is where I see the danger of the Atkins diet, especially for those who never read the book. JMO though.
:wave:
Dina

Excellent post, Dina.
The problem isn't just that people are following the diets improperly. THe problem is the diets and general consensus is that eating these foods - butter, cream cheese, heavy cream, full fat cheese - on a regular basis, is not only not unhealthy but health promoting. In low carb communities and in the literature, there is this belief that saturated fat is just as good if not better than monosaturates. There is also the belief that fat metabolism has nothing to do with heart disease, and it's only about sugar. Some even go so far as to claim cholesterol is not related to heart disease at all.
Lots of people read the propaganda from westonprice or mercola or some other source, and they start to believe - and tell others - that drowning your food in butter and cream cheese and pork rinds is a good idea.
I must admit, I've bought into it totally and am just as guilty as the others. I often recommend people eat more butter and cream and cheeses and animal fat. I also must admit my belief that saturated fat is healthy (or not unhealth) comes mainly from hearsay, not necessarily personal experience. What can I say, when you hear something repeated often enough you come to take it as fact. This can also be said of saturated fat phobia, ironically enough. Either way, the way low carbers perceive sat fat is certainly as unbalanced as the way the general public does (just reversed).

In prior posts I made, I was certain Jody Gorran was lying, or doing something wrong. Maybe this was just denial. It seems pretty obvious now that he was most likely following Atkins as written, since he has now explicitly clarified the details of his diet. Furthermore, there are several cases on this forum where people have experienced worsening cholesterol after Atkins. According to a poll, 50% had improved cholesterol, but 32% had worse cholesterol, post Atkins. Even if we assume some of those with worsening cholesterol are doing something "wrong", that's still much too high of a percentage to concede that the high fat and/or high saturated fat diet has no adverse effects on health. Keep in mind, a lot of these people are also losing weight. That your cholesterol should worsen with weight loss is very troubling.

I don't know what to believe anymore. Part of me is buying the low carb mantra. "Saturated fats are perfectly fine, a high saturated fat diet isn't a health risk to anyone" etc.
Another part of me is saying: "Don't be a fool. These low carb dieters are only saying these things about sat fat because they found a way to lose weight and eat "bad food" too. They've boughten into the diet industry's dangerous lies for the promise of effortless weight loss. Don't you be just as naive!"
Then another part is saying "Don't you see what's happening? The PCRM propaganda is working. You are considering removing animal products from your diet! Don't be a fool, you KNOW this works for you."

All in all I feel very confused. I always doubted the saturated fat = good claims, I don't see how it's possible for ignorance in the medical community to run SO deep as to have something so completely wrong. In the back of my mind I always thought something was iffy with it.

I'll just say one thing. Reading this recent post about the Gorran case lead me to investigate the cholesterol problems of other low carbers (by reading the cholesterol forum). I saw lots of cases of people who had normal cholesterol, only to find abnormalities several months afterward. These aren't isolated cases like we are lead to believe by the Atkins industry, as a conducted poll showed 30% of LCers had worsening blood lipid panels. I also, ironically enough, read a post from Dr. Stephen Byrnes in 2002, advising forum readers to ignore cholesterol levels as unimportant and unindicative of CHD. Dr. Byrnes died of stroke (often related to arterial plaque build up localized in/near brain) several months later. I believe in the universes ability to give signs. That, my friends, is a sign.

Anyway. I guess all I can do is be responsible for my own health and to try my hardest to avoid the comforts of giving up control to propaganda and herd mentality. This is a loaded issue... Atkins wants us to believe sat fat is benign, going so far as to say the LDL raised by sat fat is "fluffy" and "harmless" perhaps even "beneficial" (if I hear the word "fluffy" to describe saturated fat LDL raising one more time...). PCRM wants us to believe animal fat is toxic and the less animal products the better. Mainstream science thinks saturated fat should try to be reduced. Jody Gorran wants us to know some people might be hurt by the high fat diet.
I - we - are bombarded by propaganda. It's tempting to believe the one you want to believe (i.e. Atkins), but what we want and what is real might not necessarily jive.
All I can do is try to be rational, to avoid forming my opinions for non-emotional reasons, and to be as open minded as possible.

This requires information and education, and being receptive to it.

With that said, I've just made an appointment with my doctor to get a full checkup & blood work up done. Before I make any judgments, I first want to see the sort of health I, myself, am in. It is only possible to be rational when you have the facts, and I can't have the facts until I see the doctor. We'll see what happens. I'll definitely post my results here.

[K Walt]

"Actually, goat milk cheese is lower in saturated fat/cholesterol and utterly delicious."

I agree. It's delicious. But it ain't lower in satfat and cholesterol than cow's milk cheese. Check out the USDA database.

Goat's milk 100 gms. = 4.14 grams fat. 2.667 grams saturated

Cow's milk 100 gms. = 3.66 grams fat. 2.278 grams saturated

Goat's milk cheese, semisoft 100 gms = 29.84 grams fat. 20.6 grams saturated.

Cow's milk cheese, Gouda 100 gms - 27.44 grams fat. 17.614 grams saturated.

Goat cheese is good food. I'll grant you. But it ain't low fat. And it ain't low saturated fat.

[ItsTheWooo]

Wooo.. . . I can see your concern. But I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in this publicity stunt.

That was my immediate reaction.

This new information makes it really hard for me to deny the potential validity of his claims any longer.

At first I thought "oh, he's just an ARA. I'm sure they'll [the low carb industry] find dirt on him to prove it".
No dirt ever came uncovered. He's a salesman with no interest in animal rights or veganism.

Later statements he made show that he admits that PCRM has an agenda, but he went with them anyway because he knew they were the only ones with the resources - and motivation - to fight for him. But he personally has no interest in ARA.

Then I started to think, especially with the claims that he ate cheesecake 3xs a week with pastrami sandwiches from new york delis, that maybe he was following the diet improperly, yo-yoing or some such.

Now we see that Gorran closely monitored his diet, the cheesecake was a modest controlled sugar portion enjoyed only once every 3rd day, and pretty much followed a quasi-induction diet (which Atkins, and the majority of the Atkins community, believes is perfectly healthy).

You have to admit, it is kind of a stretch at this point in time, knowing what we know, to continue to deny that it is impossible the Atkins diet caused or exacerbated his heart condition.

I want to believe as bad as anyone else that what I'm doing is right. But I refuse to throw reality and objectivity out the window. It just might be possible it was bad for him. It might be possible it is bad for any of us. We need to see doctors and not IGNORE warning signs, like the late Stephen Byrnes advices.

At this point in time, even Atkins - the company - is admitting that as much as a third of people do poorly on the diet, health wise. You have to admit, if not for Jody Gorran, a lot of people (myself included) would be aware that Atkins considers some people "fat sensitive". The impression I got from the books was the same as Gorrans, and the same as yours now - that fat is alright for everyone and is totally unrelated to health, that i's all about carbs.

First. there is NO evidence, slim or otherwise, that this guy's 'heart disease' was the result of his 'Atkins'. Think of it. Maybe 3 million, or 10 million people have eaten this way for years, and this is the ONLY case that has come to light? A little fishy.

Atkins has only been popular since like 2001.
For all you know, there could have been lots of people like Stephen Byrnes - staunch cholesterol deniers who dropped dead of strokes at a young age. No one cared to talk about them, because up until recently the pro-fat anti-sugar movement was very, very small and politically insignificant.


I can't believe you'd fall for this PCRM scam. From all your posts, you are WAY too smart for that.

He had a checkup prior to Atkins, which showed perfect cardiac health.
Checkups on Atkins showed his cholesterol went up.
A couple years later, he had heart disease.

You say I'm too intelligent to fall for this PCRM propaganda, I say you're too intelligent to shut your eyes to reality. This is reality.

Look, I am not so deluded to think that PCRM cares about human health.
However, I'm also not so deluded as to lie to myself and swallow - unquestioningly - every bit of propaganda we are given from Atkins and other related industry.

Perhaps most people can eat saturate fat or total fat to their hearts content. However, is it so unreasonable to assume that maybe only some people are sugar-sensitive (and need low carb), and some people are fat-sensitive? Is it unreasonable to believe that an even smaller minority are both saturated fat and sugar sensitive?
As it is now, in the low carb community and industry, we are lead to believe that all people = carbohydrate intolerant (sooner or later), and all people = do best on a high fat, low carb diet.

All I'm saying is maybe we should question the belief. I don't like dogma, no matter it's form, even if I ultimately agree with the source of the dogma (the values of high fat and carb control for some people). It prevents reason and objectivity. That's never a good thing.

With that said, it is simply irrational at this point in time, knowing what we know, to continue to deny that diet had any role in what happened to Jody Gorran. While I'm not implying that we should do a 180 and all buy country crock spread and become vegans, all I'm trying to say is that all of us try to avoid falling to either extreme. There is a lot of evidence supporting a high fat diet link between CHD in Gorran's case. To deny this evidence is to be irrational, and mindlessly espousing low carb dogma.
In times like these - when you're core beliefs are challenged - all you can do is trust is rationality. You can only be logical if you're objective and emotionally detatched from any eating philosophy. Can you honestly say you are being as objective as possible when you refuse to consider diet played a role in Jody Gorrans CHD?
It's not that I don't understand the temptation. Look, low carb changed my life. I am VERY emotionally biased pro-low carb. Still, I try my very hardest to not let this bias color my perceptions of reality and health.

There are literally MILLIONS of people -- cardiac patients, mainly -- who are on low-fat diets, who CONTINUE to have heart disease, who continue to worsen, even without eating a LICK of saturated fat. My father, for example. Was thin all his life. But smoked like a chimney. Developed a blockage. Quit smoking. They put him on low-fat, Ornish. He followed it to the letter, for years. He gained weight. His cholesterol worsened to the point of putting him on statins. He looked puffy and bloated. And died suddenly anyway, doing everything RIGHT. Why don't people SUE ORNISH for his nonsense, dangerous diet? That is just as valid as this stupid lawsuit. One guy dies on ORNISH, and nobody sues? THOUSANDS of people die of heart attacks on low-fat, 'cardiac' diets. How come no one sues?


Second. How is it that these foods like 'butter' , sour cream, and cheese have suddenly become toxic? They have been the mainstays of many diets for at least a few thousand years -- as LEAST as long as the 'wholesome and healthy' whole grains? They are suddenly killing people?

Third. Even if you go no fat, low-fat, or modified fat, your body will store any exceess energy as fat -- which happens to be about 44% saturated. Why would you be designed to store fuel as 44% saturated fat if it were somehow deadly?

Fourth. The populations around the world who have the LEAST amount of heart disease DO NOT eat fat-free vegan diets. The French eat more fat and cheese than we do. The Japanese (the darling of the low-fat set) eat more eggs and cholesterol than even WE do. The Chinese -- those rural peasants who eat virtually no fat, die of strokes MORE than we die of heart disease.

Fifth. Most people don't believe this, but 'cholesterol' is a lousy and poor indicator of heart disease. The people of France have exactly the same levels of cholesterol as the people of England. They both smoke like crazy. They both weigh about the same. But the French have a FRACTION of the heart disease. Why? If cholesterol is the ENTIRE story, that couldn't be.

Sixth. There has been NO study -- NOWHERE-- that shows that decreasing saturated fat, or any kind of fat, has any effect on heart disease, or on mortality. Search PubMed and find one. There is NO evidence that reducing your saturated fat intake will prevent or slow or ward off heart disease. It's fashion, it's folklore, it's superstition. But it ain't fact.

If you're concerned, try eating low-fat, sort-of-low-carb for a while. And see what happens. If you feel better, then stick with it. If it makes you feel more confident, great. But I wouldn't be so sure that it will affect heart disease in any way.

Slow down!
I'm not advocating that fat is BAD, that low fat diets are HEALTHY, that we all should stop doing LC and eating fat right now because of this one isolated case.

I'm merely offering the following...

1) It is a very real possibility that we all have unique metabolic needs. Whereas one person thrives on saturated fat, another becomes ill. As it stands right now, the general consensus is that saturated fat = healthy or benign for all. This might not necessarily be true.
I know personally I feel like death when I don't eat enough carbs. Eating more fat doesn't help either... I feel over stuffed, queasy, tired, and sluggish but not more energetic at all. It's easier for me to see that super low carb and high fat might not be ideal, it might be harder for you if you're one of those who loved induction.

2) If 1 is true, and if Atkins was aware of this, then Atkins is irresponsible for not making it more clear to the public that a significant portion of the population (up to 1/3) has this supposed saturated fat intolerance. IF it is true, for these people following induction as written is a very real health risk.

3) I'm not saying the low fat diet is for everyone. I'm not at all saying high carb is healthy for everyone. That's not my point. In fact, the exact opposite is what I'm trying to say. I'm just saying maybe we should be more open to the possibility that what works for some people might not work for others. There is this belief in the community, I'm guilty of it too, that the way *I* eat is the way *everyone* should be eating. In other words, it's the belief that a low carbohydrate high fat diet is nutritionally ideal for humanity.

4) Finally, too many people confuse what they "want" to be true, with what they perceive to be true. Just because you are losing weight eating bacon doesn't necessarily mean you're doing what's best for your health. People should get check ups and monitor their health when they radically alter their diets. They should LISTEN to their doctors and not ignore warning signs like radically worsening cholesterol profiles.

Anyway. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm a dummy falling for ARA propaganda. All I can say is, better safe than sorry. This warning is not lost on me. The risks are too great to dismiss it.

[Lisa N]

For all you know, there could have been lots of people like Stephen Byrnes - staunch cholesterol deniers who dropped dead of strokes at a young age

Woo, I need to correct something here. Stephen Byrnes did not "drop dead" of a stroke. He was very ill for quite some time with HIV and the stroke was another unfortunate consequence of that disease process.

[ItsTheWooo]

Woo, I need to correct something here. Stephen Byrnes did not "drop dead" of a stroke. He was very ill for quite some time with HIV and the stroke was another unfortunate consequence of that disease process.

Thank you for clarifying. I perhaps spoke in haste by offering him as evidence... I apologize.

I feel like I should apologize for being so argumentative, and filling this thread with far too many posts. I just want to say one final thing. I've not changed my opinions of the therapeutic benefits of a high fat, low carb diet. I also don't think it's likely that most people can't handle saturated fat.

I still believe that for most people, reducing carbs, cutting processed food, and even increasing some kinds of fat will lead to an improvement in health.

However I do think it's likely that some people don't fare well on induction style very high fat very low carb ketogenic diets, just as some people don't have success with low fat high carb. I think there is strong evidence which supports the theory that Jody Gorrans CHD was exacerbated by or somehow linked to the induction style ketogenic diet. Ultimately I think people should get checkups and take responsibility for their health. Gorran failed to do this. You shouldn't listen to anyone or anything absolutely - not Atkins, not PCRM, not even your doctor.
Take responsibility for yourself. IF you think something is wrong, take charge and investigate.

Low carb is wonderful, I attribute low carb to numerous improvements in my life. Even Jody Gorran claims to still LC, just now he reduces fat. I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression that I've shifted sides or am now a supporter of the superiority of the low fat diet, either. I still think low fat high carb diets are unhealthy and unpleasant for most. I will continue to eat butter, eggs, sour cream, and other full fat animal/dairy products until I have sufficient reason to do otherwise. I really hope I don't have a reason, but we'll see what my blood work shows ;).

[DebPenny]

Fifth. Most people don't believe this, but 'cholesterol' is a lousy and poor indicator of heart disease. The people of France have exactly the same levels of cholesterol as the people of England. They both smoke like crazy. They both weigh about the same. But the French have a FRACTION of the heart disease. Why? If cholesterol is the ENTIRE story, that couldn't be.

Sixth. There has been NO study -- NOWHERE-- that shows that decreasing saturated fat, or any kind of fat, has any effect on heart disease, or on mortality. Search PubMed and find one. There is NO evidence that reducing your saturated fat intake will prevent or slow or ward off heart disease. It's fashion, it's folklore, it's superstition. But it ain't fact.
Woo, I have to agree with K Walt. And I'm banking on it too. I am one of those people whose cholesterol has gone up with low-carbing. A few months after I started low-carbing my Total was 180, LDL was 113 and my HDL was 51, triglycerides 80. My latest reading was Total 265, LDL 179, HDL 70, and triglycerides 81. My doctor saw 265 and started talking statins. I look at the whole picture and say HDL 70 great! Triglycerides 81 great! And without further tests, who's to say my LDL aren't all the good fluffy type? I also accept the argument that there is no proof, just dogma, that total cholesterol has any real bearing.

I'm currently convinced that I have a perfectly good lipid profile -- and CHD and cholesterolemia do run in my family. And I'll continue to enjoy my eggs and beef and other sources of saturated fat. And I'll also enjoy my fish and homemade mayonnaise (with olive oil) and other sources of monounsaturated fat. And I will continue to avoid plant-based polyunsaturated fats as I think that those are the real 'dangerous' fats. Plant-based polyunsaturated fats are high in omega 6s, and they turn rancid easily unless dangerously processed, and they can be turned into lethal trans-fats.

As far as this lawsuit, when it was first reported, Mr. Gorran was quoted as saying that he ate regular cheesecake often and he didn't say he was eating small amounts. I don't remember what he said or didn't say about processed meats such as pepperoni, but his story has definitely changed since he brought the suit.

So who do you believe? I prefer at this point to believe that there are still many questions to be answered, and I have to use my best judgement, which is to eat low-carb and continue to enjoy fatty foods including sat-fats and monounsaturated fats.

And I do well with carb levels in the 40s per day and feel quite well. When I go over, I feel bloated and on days when I've eaten next to no carbs, I actually feel better because for me carbs are heavy and protein and fats are light.

[Lisa N]

As far as this lawsuit, when it was first reported, Mr. Gorran was quoted as saying that he ate regular cheesecake often and he didn't say he was eating small amounts. I don't remember what he said or didn't say about processed meats such as pepperoni, but his story has definitely changed since he brought the suit.

DebPenny, this is an important point. It's quite possible that Mr. Gorran is being "coached" by his PCRM friends as to what his claims should be. Think about it. If you are hoping to have even a snowball's chance in hades of winning a suit, you don't go into it admitting, even inadvertently, that you were not following the program that you are bringing suit against correctly. If he did, any judge worth his law degree would look at him and say, "Operator error. Sucks to be you, but not the fault of the diet."
So...regular cheesecake and frequent mile high pastrami sandwiches (sans bun) becomes occasional Splenda sweetened cheesecake and pastrami maybe a handful of times while the rest of the time you were following the program rigidly. ;)
Either way, we have nothing but Jody Gorran's word that he followed the plan correctly and got the results he did. Given that he is steadily changing his story about how he was following the plan, I have my doubts. And...there is no realistic way for him to prove that he followed it correctly (and consistently) or not.

[liz175]

I don't have any opinion on the lawsuit filed by Mr. Gorran. As the daughter of a lawyer, I learned long ago that I didn't necessarily have all the facts just because I read the coverage of a trial in the press.

However, I do think that to some extent all of us following a lowcarb diet (or a lowfat diet or any other type of diet) are part of a long-term experiment and we should all monitor our health regularly. My cholesterol profile has improved in the 2-1/2 years I have been low carbing, and my husband's has as well, even though all he has done is eliminate some of the really unhealthy carbs (he cut out sugared sodas and really junky foods, but still eats well over 100 grams of carbs a day). I have my blood cholesterol measured every year and I will continue to do so. I would get it done every six months, but because my numbers put me in a low risk category for hear disease (less than a one percent chance of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years), my doctor doesn't recommend checking my cholesterol more often than once a year and insurance won't pay for it.

Wooo, if you haven't had a physical check-up, I strongly recommend that you follow through and do it.

[K Walt]

I repeat.

Hundreds of thousands of people on LOW-FAT diets -- prescribed by physicians -- die of heart disease every year. Why aren't THEY being sued?

I think someone should expose that danger.

[Samuel]

.... Maybe try to change my diet more like south beach.
Then you will be doing better than Gorran, but not better than Bill Clinton!

The last time I was on PRCM web site, they had an ad asking anyone who has been on Atkins diet and believes that his health has worsened to contact them so they help him sue Atkins. I believe this ad is what made Mr. Gorran do what he did.

I personally believe that Atkins diet is safer than the South Beach diet. I do have an explanation except that this is not the right thread for it.

[tom sawyer]

Clinton's case is not an example of the failure of South Beach. Get real.

Wooo, I want to compliment you on not being totally brainwashed by the party line. You can see that I'm thinking somewhat like you, from my post on the other forum.

The person who said we are involved in a great experiment, is absolutely right. Just as the poor souls of the last thirty years were part of an experiment (implemented by the government) with high carb that has resulted in so many health problems.

You can only eat fat, or protein, or carbs. We now know too many carbs is bad. Eating more fats and protein (which kind of come as a package deal for the most part) is all thats left.

Wooo, I take particular comfort in the fact that a low carb diet is more akin to our paleolithic roots, than is high carb. I think this single fact, gives much more credence to the low carb approach.

That said, I think it behooves us to practice the healthiest form of low carb that we can. I persoonally don't believe that satfat is bad for me, however I don't lap it up by the bucketful either. I use some satfats (butter. lard), some monounsat (olive), and some poly (caonla). I try and eat fish to get some EFAs, even bought a bottle of fish oil caps. I try and eat a LOT of good veggies though.

And I'm working on portion control now, because with portion control you can eat a little more of EVERYTHING and still be alright. Really, moderatoin in all things still applies to this diet. Too little carbs, means TOO MUCH of something else.

By the way, I'm in the category of having better blood lipid profile after doing this diet. I also think taht some of the people who are having elevated lipids, are simply mobilizing thier fat stores at the time of the test.

[tom sawyer]

Gorran's case is anecdotal. It shouldn't be discounted, but then again there should be some real research done on the topic of lc and effects on blood lipids. The only research I've ever seen, has shown that it IMPROVES blood lipids. No mention of this 30% that sees worse results. Not to denigrate the poeple on this site, but having 30% with worse blood lipids, may have something to do with the 30% + that report that they are "getting back on the horse" after cheating or quitting the diet. The poll we saw, would have to count as more anecdotal evidence.

I do believe what I've been told, that doing Atkins half-a$$ed is the most dangerous thing you can do to your health.

[mrfreddy]

Here's why I don't give a rat's ass about my cholestoral test results, in spite of the fact that I eat a lot of sat. fat:

1) Cholestorol levels have never been shown to have a causative link to heart disease.

2) Low carb diets have been shown again and again to improve your cholesterol (modestly lower LDL, dramatically raise HDL, dramatically lower triglycerides), although, given point 1, so what?

3) I agree with the whole Paleo diet thing - this is the diet we evolved on, or at least the closest modern equivalent. It's the low-fat approach that is actually the radical idea and that should approached with caution and skepticism.

[Samuel]

I do believe what I've been told, that doing Atkins half way is the most dangerous thing you can do to your health.This is what I see. The relation between carb reduction and resulting health benefit is not a linear relationship. You should either reduce your carbs to 60 grams or less per day (this depends on the person) or keep it high and reduce your fat intake. When your carb intake is under 60, your body processes fats in a manner which eliminates their danger.

The people who eat around 100-120 carbs are in more danger than anybody else. The reason is that they are not protected against fat. At the same time, their carb intake supplies them with only a small fraction of the energy they need, so they have to eat plenty of fat and ruin their health.

The South Beach diet in its second stage does exactly that. I know they ask people to do portion control, but who can stand being hungry?

No matter what Gorran is going to say in court, I think he has been getting over 100 carbs a day and eating plenty of fat rich food. I'm not sure about Clinton (I was actually joking when I mentioned his name before), however he may have been also doing the same.

[rissa]

Clinton's case is not an example of the failure of South Beach. Get real.


So very right - his was a combination of so many years of a poor diet and a family history of heart disease.

[tom sawyer]

Sorry for the "get real" comment, wasn't trying to be rude.

Clinton's case was one of "too little too late".

Not sure whether you can say that "under 60g carbs is safe, over is hazardous". I think it depends on metabolism. We've got to be eating significantly fewer carbs than we need for energy, in order to keep our fat-burning metabolism activated. And the issues relating to hunger, are going to depend on what our actual intake is. Spreading out the carbs, and keeping the glycemic load low and even will help with that.

[K Walt]

A few quick perspectives on this whole thing.

1. I'm currently working with an endocrinologist on a book about the low-carb dietary approach to Type 2 diabetes. His data show that while the lipid response to low-carb (higher fat) eating is complex (at least among diabetics) the results from numerous studies show that approximately 1 out of 20 patients will see a rise in LDL and/or total cholesterol on such a plan. Westman and Yancy at Duke found this, as well as other researchers. The current theory is, these people somehow are very efficient at reabsorbing cholesterol from the gut, hence the elevated levels. Does this mean these people are now clogging their arteries around the clock? There's no data on this at all. These may NOT be the people who end up with heart disease. No one really knows. It simply hasn't been studied. They seem to respond well to reducing high cholesterol foods -- not necessarily fat. Or even saturated fat.

2. Current 'politically correct' guidelines specify no more than 10% of calories from saturated fat.

Analyses of suggested meal plans for both the South Beach Diet and Atkins (sorry, I don't have the references on this laptop) show that they both include approximately 20% or so calories from saturated fat. Okay, it's about double. But neither diet -- as presented -- is 'swimming' in saturated fat.

Figure that lard (considered GHASTLY by the mainstream) is only about 44% saturated, about 45% monounsaturated. (About the same as OUR own adipose tissue.) Not much different than adding a dash of butter to olive oil. It's about the same for 'demon bacon', too.

Even pure beef fat is barely 44% saturated fat. And much of that is stearic acid, which has been shown NOT to increase LDL. (Not that that matters, of course.) If ALL you ate were fatty porterhouse steak (no veggies, no olive oil, nothing else) you'd be eating just 27% of your calories as saturated fat.


With dairy and cheese, the percentage of saturated is more than 60%.

Bottom line, eliminating meat and dairy isn't going to reduce saturated fat ALL that much.

If you want, you could do Atkins on 10% sat fat, easily,if you wish. Skip the cheese and butter. Skipping meat won't help much.


3. But note, if you think that lowering saturated fat will PROTECT you from heart disease, there is no evidence for that. I haven't yet seen one study, or any sharp clinical data on individuals (not stuff about countries) that shows reducing saturated fat has any effect on the incidence or death from heart disease.

[tom sawyer]

Skip the cheese and butter?! Fat chance!

You're preaching to the choir on the satfat issue. Anything that is a natural part of an animal, has been a part of our diet for thousands of years. The lack of decent evidence of any negative effects, is not surprising.

When people call me lard-a$$, I counter "ain't we all?"

[A_Team_Gal]

The South Beach diet in its second stage does exactly that. I know they ask people to do portion control, but who can stand being hungry?



Just as those individuals following Atkins or any other low-carb diet get edgy when some one misunderstands their way of eating, so do we who are following the South Beach Diet plan. Please, before making these types of statements, at least understand what SBD is all about, okay?

South Beach states - as does Atkins - that one is to eat until they are satisfied but not stuffed. No mention of portion control.

Also, I've been on SBD since May 1, 2004, and do have to "stand being hungry." When I'm hungry, I eat. Just as the plan states. And, uh, I believe Atkins makes the same statement?

I've read posts from you in the past, and realize that for some reason you vehemently dislike South Beach. I'm not sure why, and I don't think I really want to know. But if a plan works for people, and as long as no one is pushing it on you to do, what's the problem? Isn't that the exact same thing those who follow Atkins desire? Why can't turnaround be fair play?

[dina1957]

The people who eat around 100-120 carbs are in more danger than anybody else. The reason is that they are not protected against fat. At the same time, their carb intake supplies them with only a small fraction of the energy they need, so they have to eat plenty of fat and ruin their health.

Samuel:
I can argue with this statement. Actually, it's quite the opposite for me , as soon as I've upped my cabrs intake to 100-120 g a day (from a low GI, whole food and high fiber sources), my energy level has skyrocketed. I finally feel alive, which I didn't for a while being on 50 g a day. As for the fat, I do eat modest amounts of olive and flax oil/seeds, nuts, 1-2 whole eggs a week, plenty of cold water fish and low fat plain yougurt, and small amount of goat cheese. My LDL dropped 15 points in a month wihtout lowering my HDL too.
When my carbs intake was lower, I felt like my body was dying, no energy, bad moods, depression, and cravings for more protein and fat, meaning my body was starving even my fat intake was around 70% and I also ate plenty of protein. I was slugish and sleepy, could barely exercise and my muslces were achy all over.
Now, I have so much more energy, that I workout sometimes, twice a day: cardio in AM and weights in PM for 6 days a week, and I'm almost 48.
So, let's be careful not draw any conlusion made on assumptions.
Regards,
Dina

[dina1957]

Anything that is a natural part of an animal, has been a part of our diet for thousands of years. Yes it was, but it didn't accounted for 70% of your calories, saturated fat was used as an addition to a healthy whole food diet,and BTW, butter and cheese were not affordable to the general populaiton unless you have your own cattle. Actually, a good quality cheese and butter are still expensive!
As for how saturated fat is good nowdays, it's again a question. Mostly commerical dairy and meat products are loaded with hormones and antibiotics, unless you can afford and have access to 100% organic farming. Butter is a good source of vitamins A and E, when it's made from raw milk and when the cattle is fed 100% of grass and forage, not the corn and other grains, loaded with pesticides. Same goes for beef. I doubt that you can get lots of Omega-3 and CLA from commercial meat, ultrapastorized cream and butter and cheese.
Fortunately, we have access to 100% organic raw mil and butter in SF but it's quite pricey , milk goes for almost $13 a gallon and butter is about $10 a pound. Not too afordable for general population, I'd say, especially if you have a large family to feed. The color of this butter is intence yellow and it taste completely different from the commerical sweet butter. The milk is also taste absolutely different, not as sweet I'd say but very pleasant.
My point is, saturated fat now days is not as healthy as it was even 50-60 years ago, not to mention 100+. Animals are given hormones and antibiotics, feed is loaded with pestisides, I'd think twice before eating lots of this stuff.

[tom sawyer]

I agree that the relationship between carbs and health is not linear. However, I tend to think a little more like Dr. Ellis, that going ultra-low carb is not necessary to reap the major benefit, which is appetite suppression. What I don't know is, what actual level of carbs is low enough to get this benefit. I do believe that, whatever your level, you should spread it out as evenly over the course of the day as possible, maybe tapering off a bit at supper.

I would add, that I lost my weight on a mostly Atkins-like approach, so I can't deny that it is powerfully effective. And while I don't count carbs or calories, I do think I'm still pretty low on the carbs, and working on lowering the cals.

[arc]

Two years ago, my Dad had a triple bypass. Two of his arteries were 99% blocked. The wierd thing was, according to conventional wisdom, it shouldn't have happened. His cholesterol was always really low, he had low blood pressure, he ate relatively low fat, etc.

This, combined with the fact I was approaching 40, got me to really start investigating heart disease. After wading through all the junk out there, on both sides, I really don't believe cholesterol has any thing to do with it. I believe it's damage to the inside of the arteries that cause the clots. If your body has cholesterol handy, it uses that to plug the damage. If not, it uses something else (my dad's blockages were calcium).

Stress, homocystein, excess insulin have all been shown to damage the artery walls and it's possible that bacteria and/or virii keep the wounds open, much like stomach ulcers. This article is probably the closest to what I believe:

So what does cause heart disease? (http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.htm#heart1)

It's very complex and there are a lot of interacting factors. To point to one thing and say that's what caused his heart disease is too simplistic. Gorran's profession could very easily caused enough stress to give him heart disease, regardless of his diet.

[tom sawyer]

Thousands of years ago, people were eating pemmican on a regular basis. So I believe they COULD have been eating 70% cals from fat. Which, since fat has over twice the cals as protein or carbs, means that you could eat equal portions of lean meat, fat, and plant matter and be getting that much fat cals.

[Sona]

Tom, a question: Thousands of years ago (even hundreds of years ago), weren't people dying at much earlier ages from all sorts of other causes (causes that are now fairly treatable but were not back then)? By this I mean, while 70% of their diet may have been coming from fats (and sat fats), I'm assuming--rightly?--that they never lived long enough for the diet to have shown itself to be the obvious cause of any health problems (other than gout, perhaps :)). Also, weren't there pitifully few methods back then (if any) to determine whether or not eating that much fat (and sat fat) was healthy?

I'm not saying this to stake out a position; I'm a low carber, striving for moderation in all things :D . It simply occurred to me that just because our ancestors ate a certain way (which I assume is because they had to eat that way) doesn't mean it was/is the healthiest way to eat--nor is there any evidence to support that their diet was healthy for them, given the mortality rate and the state of medical research at the various times in history.

Does this make any sense in the context of this discussion?

[mio1996]

I'll just say this:

Nobody forced me onto this diet, therefore I would never have a right to sue. The government, the media, and almost everyone else have been warning us to lower fat for much longer than I have lived. And yet I choose, of my own free will, to believe the words of Dr. Atkins, the Drs. Eades, Ray Audette, and others who are considered by the mainstream to be dietary heretics. Of my own free will I choose to eat a very low amount of carbohydrate and a high amount of fat and protein. And yes, at times I fail myself and I eat cake, cookies, or doughnuts (okay, sometimes all of that on the same day) and regret it later. Maybe I am killing myself, how could I know for sure? Yet it was my choice and I will live or die with it. If I have a heart attack tomorrow at the tender age of 26, I will not whine that Dr. Atkins mislead me; I will not cry out for restitution from any diet guru whom I chose to believe.

Bottom line: The decision to try Atkins (which he obviously wasn't following anyway) was entirely Gorran's. Therefore, I think the consequences should be entirely his to bear.

[Hellistile]

Tom, a question: Thousands of years ago (even hundreds of years ago), weren't people dying at much earlier ages from all sorts of other causes (causes that are now fairly treatable but were not back then)? By this I mean, while 70% of their diet may have been coming from fats (and sat fats), I'm assuming--rightly?--that they never lived long enough for the diet to have shown itself to be the obvious cause of any health problems (other than gout, perhaps :)). Also, weren't there pitifully few methods back then (if any) to determine whether or not eating that much fat (and sat fat) was healthy?


Here is a link to an article about hunter-gatherers that survived into this century that eat a lot of saturated fat that are long lived and how their diets affect their health.

http://www.theomnivore.com/catecholamines_HG_and_low-carb.html

[eve25]

Two years ago, my Dad had a triple bypass. Two of his arteries were 99% blocked. The wierd thing was, according to conventional wisdom, it shouldn't have happened. His cholesterol was always really low, he had low blood pressure, he ate relatively low fat, etc.



i was just going to post a question regarding this to woo or anyone else who is reevaluating lowcarb/atkins. so if you are eating a lot of saturated fat and then go and get a blood test and it turns out great, does that mean you are out of the woods???? i mean is that all we are looking at here?? are cholesterol results the #1 deciding factor??? my cholesterol is 170, so does that mean i am doing everything perfectly and dont have to worry???

[Samuel]

I can argue with this statement. Actually, it's quite the opposite for me , as soon as I've upped my cabrs intake to 100-120 g a day (from a low GI, whole food and high fiber sources), my energy level has skyrocketed. ......
As for the fat, I do eat modest amounts of olive and flax oil/seeds, nuts, 1-2 whole eggs a week, plenty of cold water fish and low fat plain yougurt, and small amount of goat cheese.
Dina
This is not the opposite of what I said. You are compensating by being selective in the food you eat like reducing your saturated fats and cholesterol intake which should work.

[dina1957]

This is not the opposite of what I said. You are compensating by being selective in the food you eat like reducing your saturated fats and cholesterol intake which should work.
Originally Posted by Samuel

The people who eat around 100-120 carbs are in more danger than anybody else. The reason is that they are not protected against fat. At the same time, their carb intake supplies them with only a small fraction of the energy they need, so they have to eat plenty of fat and ruin their health.

Well, you clearly stated that higher carb intake=lower energy level and will result in higher fat intake, which is dangerous if combined with higher carbs. I think I've got it right. My point was that higher carbs level DOES supply me with enough energy so I eat much less fat/protein and feel great overall. BTW high fat/low carbs never did the trick for me. I believe that quality of carbs we consume matters as much as the quantity, so goes for fats.

[Samuel]

I've read posts from you in the past, and realize that for some reason you vehemently dislike South Beach. I'm not sure why, and I don't think I really want to know. But if a plan works for people, and as long as no one is pushing it on you to do, what's the problem? Isn't that the exact same thing those who follow Atkins desire? Why can't turnaround be fair play?First of all I apologize. I admit that I know very little about the South Beach diet. If you are wondering why I don't feel very good about it, here is why:

It has happened so many times in the past that someone invents something which generates some debate, then someone else makes a copy of his invention, modifies alittle to please the inventor's critics and make a fortune overnight.

Dr. Atkins have developed his plan over 3 decades using himself and thousands of his patients. He has been criticized by many and actually spent all his life defending his invention. Only after his diet became popular we heared of the South Beach diet which to me is Atkins diet modified to please Atkins critics. This is why I don't feel so good about it.

[K Walt]

I'm assuming--rightly?--that they never lived long enough for the diet to have shown itself to be the obvious cause of any health problems (other than gout, perhaps :)). Also, weren't there pitifully few methods back then (if any) to determine whether or not eating that much fat (and sat fat) was healthy?


I've heard this line of reasoning, but there's a quirk in it. If you look at mortality figures from, say, 1900, you'll see a life expectancy of something like 54 years. Trouble is, that's an AVERAGE, which includes a lot of people who died at age 9 or 14 or 3 from influenza or smallpox. That brings the AVERAGE way down, but doesn't really suggest how long people lived.

I once spent an afternoon with a group who did grave rubbings (Taking imprints of old gravestones with charcoal and parchment paper) in an old church graveyard, which included graves from about 1800 on. Yes, there were PLENTY of people who died in their 20s, or teens, or even in infancy. But there were also a LOT who who lived to 70, and 80 or more (Which, by the way were the most popular headstones) This was all before low-fat, cholesterol, statins, antibiotics, or antioxidants, and even low-carb. Even before doctors.

My take: If you dodged smallpox or a fall from a horse, or a gunshot wound, you could easily live to 80 back then. Before spray-on PAM and fat-free salad dressings, or Ornish.

[arc]

i was just going to post a question regarding this to woo or anyone else who is reevaluating lowcarb/atkins. so if you are eating a lot of saturated fat and then go and get a blood test and it turns out great, does that mean you are out of the woods???? i mean is that all we are looking at here?? are cholesterol results the #1 deciding factor??? my cholesterol is 170, so does that mean i am doing everything perfectly and dont have to worry???

A couple of years ago, Men's Health magazine ran an article about how cholesterol was a very poor predictor of heart disease. There was a medical center in Chicago, I believe, that ran blood tests that looked at 10 different things to predict heat disease. Unfortunately, I don't remember what they were, except two were C-RP and homocysteine.

This goes along with other things I have researched. C-RP indicates that inflammation is present, which could indicate arterial damage (it can also indicate other things like arthritis, so it's not perfect). Homocysteine is a natural protein that can damage your arteries if in too high of concentration (homocysteine is metabolized with b vitamins, particularly B-6, B-1 and folic acid and can be reduced by eating natural, unprocessed food).

I don't think there is a for-sure test for heart disease yet. The causes are too poorly understood.

I'm still finding my way but so far here is what I'm trying to do: eat as little processed food as possible, with lots of vegies, try to reduce stress (excercise helps a lot here), take omega-3 and B-vitamin supplements, watch HDL and trygliceride levels, avoid transfats like the plague, and reduce polyunsaturated fats.

The interesting thing about cholesterol is that studies show LOW cholesterol can be dangerous. The book The Cholesterol Myths claims that studies show that women with high cholesterol live longer, if you look at total mortality, not just heart disease. Low cholesterol is associated with higher cancer risks.

Who knows :confused: I do what I can and try not to get too worried about. After all, I could do everything right and still get hit by a bus tomorrow. No guarantees. Ya gotta live life while you can, right? :D

[DebPenny]

Samuel:
I can argue with this statement. Actually, it's quite the opposite for me , as soon as I've upped my cabrs intake to 100-120 g a day (from a low GI, whole food and high fiber sources), my energy level has skyrocketed. I finally feel alive, which I didn't for a while being on 50 g a day. As for the fat, I do eat modest amounts of olive and flax oil/seeds, nuts, 1-2 whole eggs a week, plenty of cold water fish and low fat plain yougurt, and small amount of goat cheese. My LDL dropped 15 points in a month wihtout lowering my HDL too.
When my carbs intake was lower, I felt like my body was dying, no energy, bad moods, depression, and cravings for more protein and fat, meaning my body was starving even my fat intake was around 70% and I also ate plenty of protein. I was slugish and sleepy, could barely exercise and my muslces were achy all over.
Now, I have so much more energy, that I workout sometimes, twice a day: cardio in AM and weights in PM for 6 days a week, and I'm almost 48.
So, let's be careful not draw any conlusion made on assumptions.
Regards,
Dina
Dina, I have a question on your lowering your LDL without lowering your HDL. What happened to your triglycerides during that same time?

The reason I ask is that the way they 'calculate' LDL is to take total cholesterol subtract HDL and then subtract triglycerides divided by 4 or 5. So if your triglycerides went up (due to eating more carbs), that would appear to lower your LDL (i.e. if you went from 80 to 160 triglycerides -- and used 5 as your divider, you would be subtracting 16 in the first case and 32 in the second case. That's a difference of 16 and could account for your changed LDL numbers. (it's kinda like how they account for carbs in a food -- whatever's left over is carbs)

An actual test for LDL is expensive and hard to do apparently so they don't normally do it unless specifically called for and, if they do test specifically for LDL, then you get the break-down as to type.

To tell you the truth, I don't trust my LDL numbers due to this method. But my health insurance isn't going to pay for the more expensive, more accurate test. Oh well. I guess I'll just have to be satisfied with my HDL of 70 and my triglycerides of 81. ;)

The interesting thing about cholesterol is that studies show LOW cholesterol can be dangerous. The book The Cholesterol Myths claims that studies show that women with high cholesterol live longer, if you look at total mortality, not just heart disease. Low cholesterol is associated with higher cancer risks.
And this is why I'm not the least bit concerned about my cholesterol numbers. Besides, my mom has an HDL level over 100 and they keep trying to put her on statins. NOT! :cool:

[neeam]

IMHO all sat. fat are not bad. coconut/coconut oil excellent sat
fat (MCT) whereas sat. fat in sour cream is not.

you need a certain amount of low GI carb for balanced production
of good and bad prostaglandins. hmm we all know that :) :agree:

[ceberezin]

Jody Gorran should be judged by the company he keeps. Anyone who links up with PCRM has no credibility.

As far as sat fat is concerned, the issue is far more complicated than just whether it raises cholesterol, as contributors to this bulletin board know very well. It's a question of what kind of cholesterol is raised by what kind af sat fat. There was a very interesting article on this subject in the latest issue of the Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/3/550

The authors point out that there are eight different kinds of sat fat, only two of which have a direct effect on cholesterol. Those two fats tend to raise LDL and HDL equally, which would have a beneficial effect on risk ratios. One of those fats is palmitate which is what carbs get turned into for storage as adipose tissue. They also point out that sat fat has a beneficial effect on the immune system. Once again, science trumps dogma. People who are having trouble controlling their cholesterol should look for other reasons than sat fat. Jody Gorran be damned!

[dina1957]

Dina, I have a question on your lowering your LDL without lowering your HDL. What happened to your triglycerides during that same time?
I have to dissapoint you but TRI didn't change, only LDL. I know the calculated could be grossly inaccurate but most of the insurances won't pay for direct test, I guess we have to trust this one. I think that high TRI are not related to eating more good high fibre carbs from vegetables and fruits, they are more related to high fat and high sugar food, like commercial baked goodies, soda, sweets, sugary drinks, juices. JMHO. Also, the way out bodies process fats and cabrs are unique, those with syndrome X have moe problems with high TRI and low HDL, I never had this problems with high carbs, higher sat fat is what raises my LDL. As for high HDL, I came across an article than questiones the "goodness" of HDL too.I'll try to find it again and will post it. May be this is why they are trying to lower it anyway, no one knows how low is safe enough. As for older folks, like our parents, it's not wise to put them on statins at all mostly due to the side effects. The cure can be worst than the desease.

[dina1957]

IMHO all sat. fat are not bad. coconut/coconut oil excellent sat
fat (MCT) whereas sat. fat in sour cream is not. may be it's because coconut oil acts more like ...carbs in our body and can be easily burned for energy? I always wanted to give it a try, but can't find a good use, even I've bought some virgin coconut oil

you need a certain amount of low GI carb for balanced production
of good and bad prostaglandins. hmm we all know that :) :agree:Amen to this one, I couldn't agree:agree: more

[Da Rosa]

Hey dina! Try this recepie: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=208184
;) yuum.

[tom sawyer]

Sona, did paleo man ever live to a ripe old age? I don't know if that is a question with a definitive answer. We have not a lot of archeological evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if his average age was much shorter than ours, but that doesn't mean there weren't elders that lived a lot longer. I do know that if his diet was not adequate, then he would have not survived, while those paleos that were getting adequate nutrition would survive and continue to adapt to their environment.

Whether or not a paleo-type diet is the best for longevity, I guess is something of an open question. I think it worked quite well for Mr. Banting, the man at the end of the 1800's that wrote about his experiences with the low carb diet. Dr. Atkins also lived an active and healthy life up until his untimely death from an accident. I do believe the positive effects on our own health now, earlier in life, will serve us well as we get older. So, in lieu of having an absolute answer to this question, I'm putting my money on a fairly healthy version of the low carb diet. That is, adequate fat for apetite control, wich a balance of sat and unsat fats, plenty of low carb veggies, and meat and fish of all kinds.

[tom sawyer]

Eve25, I'm in the same boat you are in! Exact same cholesterol, good ratios, low triglycerides. And I eat lots of eggs and satfats.

There are many who say that cholesterol isn't an accurate indicator of arterial health, so I don't know that good blood lipids means we are in the clear. What I do think, is that the way you feel, your level of energy, your activity level, are all indicators of circulatory health. And it is a good sign, when your blood lipids and blood sugar are in a normal range. I think it DOES mean that your body is not in a state of imbalance with respect to fat and sugar metabolism.

We could also get periodic treadmill stress tests, but I understand that those do not always show problems until an advanced state. Short of having an angiogram, I don't know that we can truly be sure what version of LC is the best.

I can say that there is every indication that a diet repleat with satfat, such as that described by Banting, will result in good health in old age. And that satfat was most likely a major component of our ancestors diet, going way back in history. I think I take the MOST comfort in that.

[Nancy LC]

Benjamin Franklin lived to be 84. I think there have always been people who dodged the bullets of disease or death by being eaten by a large carnivore, or their next door neighboor, and lived into advanced elderlyness.

But people don't die a whole lot of those old causes so they're living a lot longer and dying of relatively different causes.

It's all new territory and I think it hasn't really been researched enough. Unfortunately what research has been done lead people to certain beliefs that I think are most likely going to change as more research is done.

Doctors can be wrong. Look how long it took them to realize that ulcers are caused by bacteria, not stress, not eating spicey food. Even 10 years after discovering that, a lot of American doctors still didn't know this. It takes a LONG time for new information to make its way through the system. The NIH had to do a big campaign to get the information out to doctors.

I rather think that doctors should have ongoing education to learn about new advances. As far as I know, the only ongoing education they get is sponsored by drug companies. There may be some independent organizations that have seminars and conferences, like there is in my field, but I don't know how often regular MD's attend those sorts of things.

We're all floating in a soup of ignorance right now. Its best to realize that we don't know the truth rather than latching onto whatever bit of appealing looking truth floats by and cling to it for dear life. And you'd better be willing to look for truth again in the Chowder of Life because its a moving target when you realize how little we really know. Really, what we do know is that we don't know a whole lot. But right now, that bit of mushroom looks like the truth because it is low carb, I feel good, my lipids are good and I'm losing weight.

[tom sawyer]

Mmmm, chowder.

You are very wise, Nancy-san.

[Sona]

Manhattan or New England?

:)

[Nancy LC]

Manhattan is high carb, so it'd have to be New England.

"WHOA! Look out! Someone is dumping oyster crackers in the soup! We're under attack! Dive! Dive!"

[kyrasdad]

I would agree with Wooo and some others who don't take low carb on faith. Many of us have criticized "establishment" thinking on low fat that became dogmatic when the facts ran counter to the dogma. We should not be in the same mindset that the low fat folks were in. We argue with Vegan evangelists at times on these forums who clothe their religious beliefs in nutritional beliefs. I sure don't want to flip that dogma around in favor of low carbs.

However, it's my opinion that low carb/high sat fat works. I get my blood screened and I take stock of my general physical well being and believe that. I don't know that, but it's my theory.

I also think that even if Goran is telling the truth about what he ate, and his relationship with PCRM (neither is a given by a long shot), that doesn't mean low carb caused his heart condition. Elimination of other risk factors does not necessarily implicate his diet. To establish a causal relationship would require way, way more data than we have now.

For all of us, a healthy skepticism is in order. We should all be vigilant. My mindset is that I've got no particular stake in low carb other than it seems to help me lose weight like nothing else ever has. If it's proved to be dangerous to my cardiac health, I won't stick with it. However, even if it is, the weight I'm able to lose would surely offset some of the other theoretical risks low carb could bring.

[ceberezin]

No one should ever take low carb on faith. I am a low carber because I am a believer in good science, and the science is overwhelming. Low carbing keeps my weight down and makes me healthy because the science is right.

[jjoyb]

Sona, did paleo man ever live to a ripe old age? I don't know if that is a question with a definitive answer. We have not a lot of archeological evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if his average age was much shorter than ours, but that doesn't mean there weren't elders that lived a lot longer. I do know that if his diet was not adequate, then he would have not survived, while those paleos that were getting adequate nutrition would survive and continue to adapt to their environment.


Tom, I'm not sure this is an entirely accurate assumption given that the "fittest" are those that produce the most offspring and get them to survive long enough to produce more offspring themselves. All this having babies and raising them, especially in the "olden" days, took place VERY young and dying at the age of 50 from heart disease would not have much affect on your "survival of the fittest" ranking. As a matter of fact, having ones elders die at a younger age, after their children are old enough to have children of their own, might even be construed as useful because they don't take up needed food and space in a home or culture and the younger generation might do better for it...

that's my take on evolution anyway.

as for the rest of this discussion, I have really enjoyed reading the debate, and I wish that there were some way to know if Jody Gorran is telling the truth now when he says he followed the diet correctly, but since we can't know, I guess I will go forward with caution and visit my doctor regularly. :)

[Lisa N]

But people don't die a whole lot of those old causes so they're living a lot longer and dying of relatively different causes.

Yes, people are living longer but I find myself wondering how much of that is an outcome of more advanced medicine. Infants that would have died as infants (and thus dragged down the average lifespan figure) are being saved through modern medicine. Same thing goes for middle-aged people that have heart attacks and other problems or those with life-threatening injuries...medicine patches them up and keeps them alive longer than they would have lived without intervention.
I guess what I'm saying is....comparing our average lifespan today with that of much earlier peoples isn't exactly a fair comparison and I wonder what our average lifespan would look like compared to theirs without such intervention. ;)

[Nancy LC]

I actually think a lot of our longevity is due to silly things like: screens in windows, sanitation, refrigeration, water not infested with bacteria and then stuff like vaccinations.

The screens in windows one is funny. I never thought of it until I heard a doctor talking about it but a lot of deadly illnesses have been caused by insects and keeping them out of the house is a big plus. I think another one I heard was suburbia because it is less dense housing and so people aren't going to always be crowded right next to possibly sick people carrying a disease.

[Lisa N]

and then stuff like vaccinations.

Yes, improved sanitation and even things that we don't think about like screens in our windows (and not everyone has those, by the way) do make a difference, but the vaccination program is a big one. When averaging lifespan, one of the biggest influences isn't how old people live to be, but how many of them die at a young age. With vaccinations being routine in many places of the world, many diseases that previously killed untold numbers of children are being prevented and it's showing up in the lengthening of average lifespans.

[Angeline]

As a matter of fact, having ones elders die at a younger age, after their children are old enough to have children of their own, might even be construed as useful because they don't take up needed food and space in a home or culture and the younger generation might do better for it...

Actually I believe you are incorrect. Unless food and space was especially scarse, elders more than earned their place with their wisdom and accumulated knowledge. It is a recent phenomenon that elders are considered useless and a burden. In our ancestors time they were invaluable source of knowledge. Old women especially, apart from being a source of knowledge, could take care of the children, freeing up the younger women for food gathering activities.

[Quinadal]

Manhattan is high carb, so it'd have to be New England.

"WHOA! Look out! Someone is dumping oyster crackers in the soup! We're under attack! Dive! Dive!"
I think NE is more carby. It's got flour and potatoes in it to thicken the cream. Manhatten is tomato based. Unfortunetly, I LOVE NE chowder.... :p

[Lisa N]

I think NE is more carby. It's got flour and potatoes in it to thicken the cream. Manhatten is tomato based. Unfortunetly, I LOVE NE chowder.... :p

Traditional NE clam chowder (with potatoes, flour, etc...) would probably be a bit carbier than the Manhattan but it's quite possible to make a low carb version of the NE with Carb Countdown milk, turnips instead of potatoes and guar or xanthan gum for thickening if you need it (I've never thickened my NE clam chowder even when it was the high carb version). :yum:

[LukeA]

Just posting to say thank you lisa! new england clam chowder has always been a favorite of mine, so now with your suggestions i will be able to again make it :) (i too didnt use anything for thickening in all the times i make it, but the recipe i use has mostly cream rather than milk so its thicker because of that).

[Dodger]

I've made NE clam chowder by using cauliflower instead of potatoes. I also use cream instead of milk. I'm not sure it's actually a 'chowder' without potatoes.

[Lisa N]

I'm not sure it's actually a 'chowder' without potatoes.

To traditionalists, probably not, but it's still darned tasty. :yum:
Not to drag the thread too far off topic, but chowder actually refers more to the pot that it's cooked in (from the French chaudiere) than to the soup itself so any thick, hearty soup would probably qualify.
I've taken to using the Carb Countdown milk when I make milk or cream-based soups because it's got about half the carbs of cream and when I use the whole milk variety, doesn't seem to change the taste of the recipe significantly.
Hmmm...temperatures are supposed to drop here this afternoon. I sense a pot of chowder in the near future! :D

[DebPenny]

I have to dissapoint you but TRI didn't change, only LDL. I know the calculated could be grossly inaccurate but most of the insurances won't pay for direct test, I guess we have to trust this one. I think that high TRI are not related to eating more good high fibre carbs from vegetables and fruits, they are more related to high fat and high sugar food, like commercial baked goodies, soda, sweets, sugary drinks, juices. JMHO. Also, the way out bodies process fats and cabrs are unique, those with syndrome X have moe problems with high TRI and low HDL, I never had this problems with high carbs, higher sat fat is what raises my LDL. As for high HDL, I came across an article than questiones the "goodness" of HDL too.I'll try to find it again and will post it. May be this is why they are trying to lower it anyway, no one knows how low is safe enough. As for older folks, like our parents, it's not wise to put them on statins at all mostly due to the side effects. The cure can be worst than the desease.
Dina, I'm not diasappointed ;). I was just curious. My LDL went up and my tryglycerides stayed the same. But I still question the methods used to caculate LDL. If they really measured it, then that would be one thing, but how do they know that the level is really total-HDL-triglycerides/4 or 5 (also, some labs use 4 others use 5 - what's up with that)? It's too arbitrary to me. And those of us with 'high' cholesterol but low triglycerides are a new anomally that's not being accounted for. Most people with 'high' cholesterol also have high triglycerides.

And fat doesn't increase triglycerides, IMHO, it's just carbs. I eat high fat and my triglycerides are low. And of course, as has been stated in this thread many times, there is no proof that blood lipids cause or prevent CHO. So still no statins for me.
:cool:

[jjoyb]

Actually I believe you are incorrect. Unless food and space was especially scarse, elders more than earned their place with their wisdom and accumulated knowledge. It is a recent phenomenon that elders are considered useless and a burden. In our ancestors time they were invaluable source of knowledge. Old women especially, apart from being a source of knowledge, could take care of the children, freeing up the younger women for food gathering activities.

Angeline, I didn't mean in a cultural sense, I meant in a survival/physical sense. Certainly elders were considered important and wise in days gone by, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily improved the ability of a given group of people to outgrow and outlast a competing group. And survival is usually measured by what happens when food gets scarce and the weaker people die off. In good times, there is relatively little selection at all. Therefore, having older, revered people, taking up food that could go to the younger ones might actually slow you down in terms of survival. On the other hand, the elder's wisdom might help a particular group find a way to overcome the difficult conditions and improve their survival. That was really just speculation and commentary on the possibilities.

Either way, the point I was trying to make was the first one, that how long the longest living people in a culture live really makes no difference evolution-wise because once you get over 35-40 years old, in those days, you've already had all the kids your going to have and raised them to be old enough to defend themselves. Your evolutionary decisions have been made by surviving that far, and there is little advantage to living on past that age in comparison to making it that far in the first place. Picture a woman, who is blessed with the ability to make many healthy children, but dies at the age of 40 from heart disease (not that you'd know it back then), with 6 grown children ages 14-22. If she passed on both traits to her children, that would be a net asset, not a net hardship. In contrast, picture a woman who has a very healthy heart and lives to the age of 80. She is a picture of wisdom anbd helpfulness to hear community, well loved and respected and cared for all her life, but she has trouble conceiving and has only 1 child. While important to the community, she only helps her own genes minimally, and if she passed that on to her child, i.e. an average of 1 child per generation, she is likely to have her line die out within 1-3 generations.

It's interesting stuff to think about. I also agree though with the above posters who commented that the means of death back then were so much more accidental and from communicable diseases that we have avoided by modern society, that there really is no way of knowing how diet affected lifespan back then. They would never have gotten to the point of trying to optimize/evaluate diet (the way that we do) to live longer because there were so many other mortal risks they faced in life...makes it kinda hard to look back on and evaluate either...

[Samuel]

[/i]

Well, you clearly stated that higher carb intake=lower energy level and will result in higher fat intake, which is dangerous if combined with higher carbs. I think I've got it right. My point was that higher carbs level DOES supply me with enough energy so I eat much less fat/protein and feel great overall. BTW high fat/low carbs never did the trick for me. I believe that quality of carbs we consume matters as much as the quantity, so goes for fats.


Sorry for answering you late. I didn't mean that carbs lower your energy level. All I meant was that 100-120 carbs give 400-480 calories, so a man like Mr. Gorran would need at least 2000 more calories per day. If he pays attention to what he eats and makes sure to limit his choleterol and saturated fat intake, he could make it, but if he eats plenty of pastarami and cheesecakes he could not.

The important point which I believe in is that if Gorran has been reducing his carb intake to 60 or less and eating pastarami and cheesecakes, his heart could have done better. This point is very important to me. Dr. Atkins has believed in it all his life, but apparently, he could not find a covincing scientific explanation for it. So, he and his company after him have always been saying it with no clear details.

As an example, here is part of what Dr. Atkins wrote in the "Atkins for life" book in page 56 under the title "Saturated fats":

"In the past 3 decades, there has been a lot of media attention given to the connection between a diet high in saturated fat and heart disease. In a low carb envirinment, just the opposite is true."

Concerning your bad feeling when you eat around 50 carbs, I feel the same when I reduce my carbs to 10. This is not heart related and has nothing to do with my point.