Read an article on the Us govt nutrition site saying that the only clinically trialled diet is the good old "eat less and do some exercise" one. NO other diet, low carb or cabbage soup or whatever, have ever had an actual clinincal trial.

On the downside, it makes me wonder about the low carb diet. I've been doing it, and have lost weight, but where is the evidence to support it long term ?

On the upside, it did say that cutting down on both FAT and refined carbs was a good idea in general. It also said that the normal "eat less" diet was basically guarenteed to work, if you follow it.

Anyone else have any other thoughts ?

personally, I think the government, trials and all the so called healthy eating advise is all just marketing propaganda. So, the only trials and studies that seem to have been done (or that we hear about) are those sponsored by the companies that stand to make money from the results - therefore they make damn sure the results are in their favour.

From my viewpoint, so far I havent seen any overwhelming long term evidence that the current low fat/low cal diet mantra works. Look around you, the western world is getting fatter, with more obesety related deseases..... So is it the successful diet that the governments suggest it is??????

Hi there, Herbert. Your profile shows that you have not read any books on low carbing. That may be a good place to start as many of them explain the science (and provide references to studies) in support of low carbing. You also might want to check your stats as 100 pounds is bit low for a 5' 10" male.

Herbert, you may be "doing it", but are you doing it correctly? Pick up a book or surf the net, and you'll find out what studies have been done.

I personally will never follow the US nutritional guidelines,

then again I'm not an American!

But being a human being that is genetically related to American people I'm sure that our requirments would be very similar.

To quote one of your Countrymen Dr. Phill "How is that working out for you ?"

Making 10 million dollars is guaranteed to make you rich, if you will do it.

Part of the problem (and it's only a part) with these governmental pronunciations is that they assume everyone is the same, that "eating less" is as easy for one person as the next, that someone who gained 10 pounds over the years by having too many desserts is the same as someone who gained 100 or 200 or 300 pounds over the years because they can't control their eating. But they ain't the same people, and what might work for one won't work for the other, any more than telling someone to make 10 million dollars is a cure for poverty.

I am eating less - less junk! It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see that "could work long term". I know for sure eating sugary treats all day long doesnt work for a good weight loss regimine.

Assuming you do cut back a little on calories as you progress, there is nothing that will magically make you gain weight back when you hit your goal...it's just a matter of sticking with the diet. That's all that long term is with any diet, and the thing that most people have a problem with.

I think they say to cut fat for two reasons; first, that it causes you to get fat and have poor bloodwork (which we know is true only in an environment of many carbs), and second, that it's very calorie dense and reducing fat goes a long way towards reducing calories. The second fits in quite nicely with the idea of eating less. And yes, this diet will work for most people (assuming they haven't already destroyed their thyroid or messed with insulin sensitivity too much), but sticking with it could be tough.





Only...how many westerners actually follow the suggested western diet? It's tough to get to 300 pounds eating 1500 low-fat calories a day.

Because no one exactly follows this, ask almost anyone how many fruit and vegetables do they get a day... hardly any of them with meet the recommended daily intake with a lot only getting 5 vegetables a week rather than 5 a day.

Well, I'm not an american either (have updated my profile to reflect this to the sounds of "God save the queen" - sex pistols of course) but the US govt actually provides information to the world. Tried my govt, got bugger all. Fair play to em.

As for "doing it correctly", well I am following the atkins book rigorously, and I am losing weight. My question is, how healthy is it long term? Dr Atkins says "of course it's healthy" but then he would !

What I am asking is, where is the long term clinical study that shows possible after effects ?

You should take a look at the following link, I think it will shed some light on your queries:

http://blog.proteinpower.com/drmike...ver_failed.html

e

Granted a lot of folks don't or do only in a technical sense (c'mon...if schools can call ketchup a vegetable... ) but there are enough people here who can testify to the fact that following such a diet was disastrous for them, not only for their weight but also for their health, to lend credence to the claim that it is not the best for most.



I gained weight on it.

I guess that would depend on what you define as a long term study. Low carb vs. low fat has been studied for up to a year with low carb having a more beneficial effect on lipid profiles. Strange how nobody asked for long-term studies on the effects of a low fat diet when it was introduced and they still aren't asked for despite evidence that it's not as healthy as claimed.
Keep in mind also that you will not be eating at induction levels forever, especially if you follow the book so looking ahead to how you will likely be eating at maintainence (which is the long-term phase of your plan), what exactly is unhealthy about avoiding refined white flour, refined white rice and sugar? As far as I can tell, everything else is fair game within the individual's tolerance for carbs.

I said tough, not impossible.

but seriously,


does anyone know the long term consequences of eating meat, vegetables and fruit ??