Why is Atkins attacked while Kimkins suffers a bit of a "controversy" over the effects of the diet? I know what diet I would prefer. And all I did was look at the recipes and amounts of food I would be allowed to eat.

Sheesh.

There is so much 'bad science' (or unscience, or misrepresentation of science) in today's world I'm seriously thinking that the most unhealthy thing you can ingest is the news.

From the study; "Although mean creatinine clearance values did not exceed
baseline values at week 6, creatinine clearance did fluctuate
significantly during the trial, and values for KLC at week 2 were
20% above baseline."

Incomplete. Mentions significant fluctuations in clearance, implies as a bad thing--but doesn't spell it out. The only thing spelled out is that the increase in clearance corrected itself at six weeks. Adaptation to the diet?

Also from the study; "Sedentary, overweight men and women [aged 20–60 y; body
mass index (BMI; in kg/m2) > 25] were screened for diagnosed
disease and use of prescription medications. Participants (n =
20) were stratified by age, sex, and BMI and randomly assigned
to 1 of 2 experimental diets: the ketogenic LC (KLC) diet or the
low-fat, nonketogenic LC (NLC) diet."

There's a reason they use single strains of mice in metabolic studies; you try to have as few variables as possible, so that you have a reasonable chance of seeing just what caused the different results of the various diets. If your going to use the cast of Gilligan's Island, your going to need a washout period and to test both diets on both sets of people if you have any hope of legitimacy.

I tried to find out if the fluctuation in creatinine in the study (as far as the given numbers allow) was within normal healthy levels--I found out I can't. I don't think anyone can without knowing the sex and age of each and every one of the low carb participants.

Science(?) is always changing it's mind. What really counts is what works for you. I am always open to new ideas.

Sorry to dissapoint you Pennink, but I was dx'ed with osteoprosis last year.
My always thin (for 89 yrs so far) mother also has it so it makes me wonder if there isn't a inherited quality to it. I didn't get a pass on it b/c I gained a lot of weight. I was still apx. between 150 to 160 when diagnosed. Lost journal from that time so I can't be sure.

It is strange that I had taken a good fall getting out of the shower months before the dx and didn't do any real damage. Just cuts on shins from the shower door and a hugh bruise on the hip from landing on it when trying to get off the door frame. Perhaps the fat protected my bones from the worse of the impact?
Glennette

How long were you heavier, Glennette?

I assume it makes a difference, as well as how much heavier. I was always heavy, from childhood, spending most of my 20s & 30s at 280 lbs or more. I've always assumed I was going to get a pass on osteoprorosis because of it. Well, because of that and my cheese addiction (lots of calcium).

Maybe the higher weight being protective against osteoporosis is affected by the whole bmi thing-- if some of your bmi is increased muscle mass, you probably have stronger bones, too.

There is another angle to this, arising from what's known as "Wolfe's Law".

http://www.wheelessonline.com/ortho/bone_remodeling

This says that bone strengthens in response to the stress placed on it. The bone also strengthens preferentially in the direction of the stresses placed on it.
This can be considered a "clever" adaptive response to changing conditions.
It is also considered the mechanism by which Astronauts can loss bone density after whirling around weightless in Space Stations for a few weeks or months.

The law implies that if you are actively carrying 200kg around on leg-bones for a few months or years, that your leg-bones will respond by increasing their density and strength.

Conversely if you lose 100 of those kg's your leg-bones will adapt by losing some of their strength and density.
Equally if you take to your bed for a few months at 200kg, so that your legs never take the weight. Your leg-bones will reckon there's no point is staying so dense and strong.

This has other implications for BMI measure. But I'll leave that for another day. (When I can get my refs in order)

Interesting quote I found in an article today about Barry Sears and the Zone diet:

I didn't concider the fact that I was thin (actually skinny) for the first 40 yr. and after getting up to 185 or so the first time, it all just melted off without dieting when my untreated thyroid formed a hyperfunctioning nodule. After apx. three year with that, I was rendered Hypothyoid by RAI and all the weight came back, plus about 20 lbs. I come from primarly skinny stock. I'm one of only around 3 of apx. 60 aunts, uncles & cousins that got fat. And only one was overweight all her life. She did live a good long life , I think she was near 80 when she died. I really don't know if she had osteoprosis, I'll have to locate one of her kids and find out.

Most of my family are big time milk product users, didn't help. I did have high calcium levels for a least 6 month before dx'ed so I guess I was leaking it out of my bones, the cause was never found for that.