PDA

View Full Version : disease proof does it again!


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



mrfreddy
Thu, May-03-07, 17:58
get a load of this nitwit over at www.diseaseproof.com (official blog for Dr. Fuhrman's low fat "eat to live" plan.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cancer-nutritional-wisdom-dangers-of-the-atkins-diet.html


I admit. It’s easy to poke fun at the low-carb lifestyle. What can I say? I’m a sucker for low-hanging fruit. But truth be told, Dr. Fuhrman makes it pretty clear that carbohydrate restrictive diets—like the Atkins Diet—are no way to achieve optimal long-term health. You only have to check out these posts to see why:
<note: these are links to more ridiculous diatribes on their blog>
* The Physician and The Student
* How a High-Protein Diet Works
* Increased Risk of Cancer Associated with The Atkins Diet
* Short and Long-Term Dangers of High-Fat Diets
* What Happens When You Tell The Truth About Atkins
* Examining Dr. Atkins' Death—UPDATED
* Dangers of High-Protein, Low-Carb Diets

But despite all this, millions of people pledge allegiance to a fad diet centered on animal fat. A huge concern for Dr. Fuhrman because—as he points out in the posts above—any diet where the majority of calories come from animal products increases your risk of cancer, heart disease, and a whole host of life-shortening maladies.


As you’ve seen, I’m quick to knock low-carb living. And so is Dr. Fuhrman, but, he’s smarter than me—yes, a little brownnosing here—so when he takes Atkins-type diets to task, he really exposes them for the over-hyped danger zones that they are.

Curious to hear what that sounds like? You’re in luck. Because it just so happens this week’s episode of Nutrition Wisdom is on that very subject. Here’s a bit I transcribed from the show. In it Dr. Fuhrman talks about how dangerous an Atkins-type diet can be for children and others. In fact, it can have deadly consequences. Take a look:

In recent years with the skyrocketing popularity of the Atkins Diet, there’s been a proportional skyrocketed increase in sudden cardiac death in young women. That parallels the increase in ketogenic diets. Right now we know that sudden cardiac death means irregular heart beat, as in cardiac arrhythmia. There has to be a warning on the Atkins Diet! There must be a warning that severe carbohydrate restriction—restricted ketosis—when you go into ketosis because of severe carbohydrate restriction, as a weight control method. There could be a traumatic increase in sudden death.


There was an important study in the Southern Medical Journal about a sixteen year-old girl who died after two weeks of following an Atkins Diet. They found that she was in profound acidosis, with about a twenty point base deficit because undeniably keto-acidosis caused acidosis in the blood. In other words, you can become highly acidic. We get dramatic lowering of potassium levels, especially when you first start out on the diet.

The continual denial of the dangers by the people who embrace and promote this ketogenic diet—it’s understandable why—because people are often economically invested with their egos and their food preferences into this diet. But, the risk of caloric restriction ketosis and carbohydrate restriction ketosis is very powerful and with a lot of studies done on children who were put on ketogenic diets for seizure disorders and they use this for people who have seizures that are retractable—meaning they can’t be helped any other way—and they warn the parents of these children that it increases the risk of kidney stones, kidney failure, increases the rate of infection, and sudden cardiac death, including cardiomyopathy and cardiac-arrhythmias. For example, one study following children put on ketogenic diets—like an Atkins-type diet—they showed fifteen percent developed cardiac enlargement and dilated cardiomyopathy. Of course the diet had to be stopped.

Another study followed 129 children and found that seventeen developed severe complications and four people died out of the 129; two of sepsis because of the increased risk of infection, one of cardiomyopathy, and one of lipoid pneumonia. The point is when doctors are very careful they know these are dangerous diets, and they advise people of the dangers, but if a person wants to try it it’s their right. But the claims made by the Atkins people, for example, Atkins himself used say prevent breast cancer with butter, reverse heart disease with fillet mignon, it’s all the lying and misinformation and lack of telling people the risks of a diet that has such a great amount of dangers.

Lying? Of course they’re lying. There are millions of dollars at stake here. Can’t let unsightly truths get out—politicians have known this for years, but fortunately the truth does eek its way out every once and a while. For example, get a load of this study in European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Dr. Fuhrman emailed it to me the other day. Apparently prolonged consumption of a low-carbohydrate–high-protein diet is associated with an increase in total mortality. Read on:

Subjects methods:
Follow-up was performed from 1993 to 2003 in the context of the Greek component of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nutrition. Participants were 22 944 healthy adults, whose diet was assessed through a validated questionnaire. Participants were distributed by increasing deciles according to protein intake or carbohydrate intake, as well as by an additive score generated by increasing decile intake of protein and decreasing decile intake of carbohydrates. Proportional hazards regression was used to assess the relation between high protein, high carbohydrate and the low carbohydrate–high protein score on the one hand and mortality on the other.


Results:
During 113 230 persons years of follow-up, there were 455 deaths. In models with energy adjustment, higher intake of carbohydrates was associated with significant reduction of total mortality, whereas higher intake of protein was associated with nonsignificant increase of total mortality (per decile, mortality ratios 0.94 with 95% CI 0.89 –0.99, and 1.02 with 95% CI 0.98 –1.07 respectively). Even more predictive of higher mortality were high values of the additive low carbohydrate–high protein score (per 5 units, mortality ratio 1.22 with 95% CI 1.09 –to 1.36). Positive associations of this score were noted with respect to both cardiovascular and cancer mortality.

But sadly, this won’t phase the low-carb lemmings of the world. They’ll just yammer on and on about how much weight they lost and how great it feels not to give up their emotional attachments to fatty foods. “Whaa-whaa-whaa! Why can’t I eat steak wrapped in bacon and fried in butter every night—but I want it!”

catfishghj
Thu, May-03-07, 18:17
Steak wrapped in bacon and fried in butter, what a great idea. Now I know what I am having for dinner. Thanks for the idea.

322432
Thu, May-03-07, 23:13
Amazing that the Inuit and my ancestors, the Vikings, survived at all without Dr. Dipshit to guide their dietary choices. When one has to lie to further their agenda, they should either change agendas, or just shut up.

theoldlady
Fri, May-04-07, 06:26
There was an important study in the Southern Medical Journal about a sixteen year-old girl who died after two weeks of following an Atkins Diet.An entire "important" study about one girl? Controls? Double blind? BULLSHIRT!

the truth does eek its way out every once and a while.Illiterate dope.

I'll put my blood work up against anybody's, including this moron's. If he can base his condemnation of lc on a "study" of one obviously diabetic girl, I can base my support on my own excellent blood work.

kyrasdad
Fri, May-04-07, 08:16
But, but...two weeks of not eating sugar and refined flour will KILL you?! Had I known I would have started slamming down honey buns a year ago. I'm in mortal danger.

Whoa182
Fri, May-04-07, 08:22
Why the name calling just because he has a different opinion which there is actually evidence to back up his views?

theoldlady, i'd like to know what excellent blood work you got?

Fasting Glucose
Insulin
CRP, TNF-a, IL-6...
Full blood count
Lipids
Blood pressure
and more if you got them!

Excess of anything will kill you, doesnt matte if its fat, protein or carbs.

mrfreddy
Fri, May-04-07, 08:45
Why the name calling just because he has a different opinion which there is actually evidence to back up his views?



oh gee, maybe because he (Gerry Pugilese, the author and Dr. Furhman's minion blogger) started it? "Low carb lemmings" "low hanging fruit" , not to mention accusations that low carb proponents are liars, while at the same time he [edit: actually, he and Dr. Furhman] are induldging in the worst kind of propaganda-exploiting the case of one person's unfortunate death for their sick anti-Atkins jihad. By the same logic, whenever anyone who happens to be on a low fat "eat to live" style diet and has the misfortune to die, the blame must be placed squarely on the diet and the diet alone.

j_the_p
Fri, May-04-07, 08:59
"Lying? Of course they’re lying. There are millions of dollars at stake here."

You mean like the lying that the goverments do to convince us that saturated fat is bad and that canola oil and soybean oil are good? The lying they do for the sugar and grain industries so that they can make millions?

francisstp
Fri, May-04-07, 10:36
Who are standing to gain from a high following of low-carb diets? Organic farmers and meat producers? Geez, I'm sure they're all in cahoot!

ysabella
Fri, May-04-07, 10:43
francisstp: Keep the elephant swinging low over Greenland. ;)

Let us perform the secret handshake. *knowing nod*

64dodger
Fri, May-04-07, 10:45
It is always fun to get my laugh for the day from these morons.

I especially liked the double blind (girl was blind in both eyes) study.

Rachel1
Fri, May-04-07, 12:01
Why the name calling just because he has a different opinion which there is actually evidence to back up his views?

theoldlady, i'd like to know what excellent blood work you got?

Fasting Glucose
Insulin
CRP, TNF-a, IL-6...
Full blood count
Lipids
Blood pressure
and more if you got them!

Excess of anything will kill you, doesnt matte if its fat, protein or carbs.

I am not Theoldlady (although I am AN old lady!), but here are my results after about five years of low-carbing. I don't have insulin, CRP, etc., because they're not done as part of the standard workup here:

Fasting glucose 4.5 (all results are in mmol/L)
Total fasting cholesterol: 5.98
LDL 3.23
HDL 2.42
Trig .73
TTL:HDL ratio: 2.47 (should be below 4)
LDL:HDL ratio: 1.33 (should be below 3)
Trig:HDL ratio: .3 (should be below 1.8)

Blood pressure tends to be low (110 over 65-70ish)
Body temp tends to be low (96-98-ish)
Weight is in the healthy range, though I'd still like to lose 10 "vanity pounds."

I restrict carbs to, usually, less than 40 per day. I eat lots of veggies and also lots of fats, including sat fats. I don't ususally intentionally restrict calories. Sometimes I eat a LOT of calories, maybe 2000 a day (I'm only 5'1"). Just about everybody in my family is overweight and we have a strong history of diabetes and heart disease. I am 51.

Rachel

theoldlady
Fri, May-04-07, 13:17
theoldlady, i'd like to know what excellent blood work you got?<bats eyelashes> I'm pleased to find out that there is something about me that you'd like.

kyrasdad
Fri, May-04-07, 13:21
Why the name calling just because he has a different opinion which there is actually evidence to back up his views?

A: He's been name-calling.

B: He exploited a girl's death in his campaign. Even you have to admit - two weeks of a high fat diet isn't going to kill anyone.

C: The "evidence" he uses is not "actual"; it ignore contrary facts and is skewed toward his world view. Cronbies and Lowcarbers are guilty of the same, just so you don't scratch your own glass house while throwing rocks.

neverwhere
Fri, May-04-07, 13:45
Yes, he expoited her. If she even really exists. Two weeks, even if it turns out we are all wrong about this woe, will not kill anyone. If it did, I would would have been dead a long time ago from my mcdonals and hostess cupcake binging.

And what reuputable physician confuses ketosis with ketoacidosis?

keywstdame
Fri, May-04-07, 17:04
And what reuputable physician confuses ketosis with ketoacidosis?[/QUOTE]

You are quite right! :thup:

LilithD
Fri, May-04-07, 19:07
"They found that she was in profound acidosis, with about a twenty point base deficit because undeniably keto-acidosis caused acidosis in the blood."

So ketosis = ketoacidosis, eh?

What a moron.

NorthPeace
Fri, May-04-07, 22:43
First I want to say that I do not endorse physicians attacking physicians personally, or attacking their data without scientific foundation. In my own guild, that is grounds for peer disciplinary action.

Second, if I had visited DiseaseProof.com before reading ETL I would not have bothered to read the book or start ETL in my own life.

Third, it did not happen that way. My physician recommended I go hear Fuhrman speak. I did so, and heard David Jenkins also. Fuhrman said (to paraphrase) "I want you to read the whole book, think about it and then do what your good sense tells you." I bought the book and read it, which made more scientific sense to me (all things considered) than Atkins, Schwarzbein, the Zone, Pritikin, Ornish or WeightWatchers. I joined drfuhrman.com (the real ETL site, the one managed by Dr. Fuhrman and his kids), which has a membership fee (a very low one if your life is on the line), and is of considerably higher quality than diseaseproof.com. I found out about diseaseproof.com too late to be turned off ETL.

Here are the numbers, 79 days apart, with dietary changes (SAD to ETL 6 week plan), light exercise and no drugs, except that caffeine may have messed up the BP and I took ibuprofen for joint pain:

Jan 30 -> April 19
BP 142/90 -> 138/88 :(
Chol 186 –> 151 :)
HDL 36 –> 36 :D
LDL 122 –> 102 :D
TG 144 –> 69 :D
Chol/HDL 5.3 –> 4.6 (risk ratio) :D
FG 128 –> 101 :D
GTT 239 -> still a bad reaction to starchy veg and bread :(
A1c -> 6.2% and likely to drop further :)
Weight ~238 –> 219 :D
Belt notches -3 :)
Can stand up for 3 minute -> slow motion kick boxing :)
400 m swim -> more than 1000 m if I want :)
6 ibuprofen daily -> 2 per week? :)

I am now increasing exercise to improve BP. I still have poor glucose regulation. The rest seems pretty good. The doctor has put me on metformin and a BP med, and cancelled plans to prescribe cholesterol meds.

Using three of David Jenkins' four cholesterol lowering foods, I might expect a 25% drop in his controlled experiment. I got -19% in real life; pretty good.

ETL is very compatible with DASH, which is a diet to address hypertension (though with little effect on mine as yet). I get about 5% of calories from saturated fat and less than 1500 mg sodium per day.

In conclusion:
1. What matters is better health for everyone, not that we all obtain it the same way.
2. Physician's lack of public civility does not impress me much.
3. The way I am eating generates more smiles than frowns for me.

Abd
Sun, May-06-07, 10:27
There was an important study in the Southern Medical Journal about a sixteen year-old girl who died after two weeks of following an Atkins Diet. They found that she was in profound acidosis, with about a twenty point base deficit because undeniably keto-acidosis caused acidosis in the blood. In other words, you can become highly acidic. We get dramatic lowering of potassium levels, especially when you first start out on the diet.

He is lying. I don't say that lightly. In the term "lying" I include reckless disregard for the truth. Not mere mistake.
I looked up the article. Here is an abstract:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb290/is_200209/ai_n5927529

This is the key sentence:
She had recently attempted weight loss using a low-carbohydrate/high-protein, calorie-restricted dietary regimen that she had initiated on her own.

Now, if the article itself calls the diet "Atkins," it is incorrect either in that or in this description of the diet. The Atkins diet is not an LC-HP diet, nor is it calorie-restricted. Atkins is LC-HF, the protein levels are relatively normal, as recommended. Did this girl attempt to do a low-carb low-fat diet? It would not be surprising, there is so much low fat propaganda out there. Further, an LC-LF-HP diet is generally considered dangerous, I certainly would not recommend it. Further, we know that in a normal person, even extreme LC does not cause acidosis. Her response was atypical, very atypical, unless there were other aspects about her diet other than its alleged resemblance to "Atkins."

The lying is in calling the diet "Atkins." This particular author (of the material posted at the beginning of this thread) should know better, and so I assume that the author *does* know better and is either being deliberately deceptive, choosing a nice rock to throw, or is so blinded by preconceptions that the author assumes that any piece of evidence which he thinks confirms his ideas must be valid. It's not all that uncommon.

The article is indeed an important one. Anyone who is considering a low-carb diet would be well-advised to carefully read Atkins and follow the diet without distorting it by trying to play it safe by making it low-fat -- which will either make it high protein or too-low calorie, both of which aren't good ideas -- and, as well, consulting a physician to make sure one does not have some condition that makes Atkins inadvisable. Such conditions are rare, so if the physician simply gives general advice that LC and Atkins are bad diets, you can know that, unfortunately, the physician is biased, and not up with the latest research, nor, indeed, with the deficiencies in the old research that supported LF diets. The latter is common and relatively excusable, the former is not. Not any more.

But if the physician points to a specific condition, which is dangerous all by itself -- this girl needed medical attention before she started Atkins, we can be relatively sure about that -- then following up on this and researching it carefully would be in order before making any drastic changes in diet.

Many conditions are *relieved* by LC dieting, including some serious ones, so the question is not simple. This lying author is pretending that a single incident like this is an indictment of LC diets under all conditions. After all, if it allegedly killed this girl, it must be at least mildly harmful to everyone else.

Of course, if a high dose of refined starches can kill some people -- and it can -- then, obviously, following this thinking, we should all avoid starches. How come they don't also make that conclusion? No, a normal person is not going to die from eating a high-carb high-glycemic index meal. Not from a single meal, and if that is the whole diet, not quickly either. Unless already ill. In this case, with diabetes.

I decided to see if I could read the actual article. Does it mention Atkins? Yes, it does, but it does *not* state that the girl was on an Atkins diet. Rather,

She had started a low-carbohydrate/high-protein diet 1 or 2 weeks earlier in an effort to lose weight. She had learned about the diet from video tapes, purchased from an advertisement on television. Her mother had been on the same diet. She had complied with the dietary regimen, eating meat, cheese, and salads without fasting.

No mention of Atkins here, and I don't think there are Atkins tapes being advertised on TV though it would not be at all surprising to find LC diets being promoted that way. What kind of diet was it? It is not said.

However, the discussion prominently features mention of Atkins, not as being the specific diet the girl was on, but as a popular LC diet, which is true. Remarkably, the article level-headedly discusses major reasons why LC dieting works:

Low-carbohydrate/high-protein plans seem attractive to many dieters because these diets set no limit on the amount of certain types of foods one can eat, exclude hunger from the dieting experience, reduce appetite, and at times, produce steady weight loss, even after dramatic failures or weight gain on other diets.

With a high-protein/high-fat intake, there is the release of cholecystokinin, a known appetite suppressant. The lack of glucose in the diet also avoids the 1-hour postprandial insulin surge associated with stimulation of neurogenic feeding centers. Additionally, the increased reliance on fat to meet the metabolic demands results in the production of ketone bodies and systemic ketosis, which may also suppress the appetite and curb feelings of hunger.

So far, so good. Note that the mention of ketosis is simply recognition of the fact that on an LC diet, the body starts to bun fat. The way the body does this is with ketosis.

However, low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets are not without the potential for adverse biochemical and physiologic consequences. Ketone bodies compete with uric acid for renal tubular excretion, which can exacerbate disease in patients with gouty diathesis. Bloom and Azar[3] reported that postural hypotension can develop in subjects on low-carbohydrate diets. Using an isolated, perfused rat heart model, Russell and Taegtmeyer[4] showed that the beating heart loses contractile function (more than 50% in 60 minutes) when oxidizing acetoacetate alone.

This is, I think, all true, but conclusions could be drawn from these facts that aren't true. If you have particular conditions, LC dieting might exacerbate them. True. If you are on an LC diet, particularly when your metabolism has not shifted to burning fat, you could get light-headed under some conditions. Come to think of it, I've noticed that. Is this dangerous? Not normally. It might be, again, under some conditions.

And if you have some heart condition that makes your heart function marginal, it can be speculated -- it has not been shown -- that some possibly harmful effects could occur. This is the kind of result that will properly conclude with "further research is indicated." (LC dieting is totally abnormal for rats, I think! Humans, on the other hand, are clearly adapted to survive in health with practically no carbs at all, witness the Inuit.)

Does the article conclude that the Atkins diet is harmful? Does it conclude that LC diets are harmful? Not exactly:

In light of the previous reports of mortality related to liquid protein diets and the lack of information on electrolyte and physiologic changes during low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets, we do not recommend such dieting regimens. We continue to suggest moderate caloric restriction with a balanced macronutrient and micronutrient intake and increased physical activity under a physician's guidance. While it is possible that the patient's dietary regimen had nothing to do with her sudden cardiovascular collapse, continued surveillance for similar cases is suggested.

These authors support "moderate caloric restriction." Atkins, by the way, in studies, has shown to be exactly that, probably due to the appetite suppression from fat. Atkins is not an LC-HP diet, it is LC-HF, so these authors, intentionally or not, are actually silent on Atkins itself. Had the diet in this case been an Atkins diet, I suspect it would have been mentioned.
Instead it is not named, and I really do wonder why.

Further, the study clearly indicates the possibility that the diet involved "had nothing to do with her sudden [death]." And the recommendation of continued surveillance for similar cases is absolutely appropriate. Frankly, I wish we had regular, full-on epidemiological study of *all* diets, including those considered "normal" and "moderate."

A major problem is that it is easy to recommend "moderation, " after all, by definition, immoderation is harmful, but -- what is "moderate"? We really don't know. Is the vastly increased dependence on cheap processed carbs which has taken place over the last hundred years or more "normal"? Is the vastly increased dependence on grains which took place in a time span not long enough for serious evolutionary adaptation to occur normal?

"Normal" is not a proper standard. We can generally assume that what is normal -- i.e., common -- is not going to cause sudden death more than very rarely. But beyond that, it may not be particularly healthy, compared to alternatives that might look "extreme." The only way to find out, for sure, is to study the actual effects of diets over large populations, and that is expensive. Who is going to fund it?

It's obvious who must fund it. The public. If it is funded by industry, it will be tainted with bias, even if the researchers seriously attempt to avoid it. Atkins funded research, and quite clearly did not choose the researchers to favor his diet. He actually chose critics whose honesty he trusted. Yet when these studies are reported, it is always with the caveat that it was funded by Atkins. It's understandable. Funding often indicates bias.

But if we want real research that is unimpeachable, we must fund it. How? Well, I have ideas, and I've expressed them before here. I'm tired of explaining them with no effect. If you are interested, write me personally.... the ideas are gaining traction elsewhere, mostly in the political field. It's really the same problem. ... daniel AT beyondpolitics DOT org