Whoah....no need to shout. I'm right across the monitor from you.



Right. After 3 years at 30 grams of carb per day, my kidney function is still perfect (as a diabetic, I have kidney function studies done every 6 months) and the last x-ray I had showed my bone density to be better than average for a woman my age.
BTW...10 people do not a "study" make and coming to the conclusion that something "may" cause a problem is not anywhere near showing conclusively that it will.
Can anyone say "scaremongering"?

First of all, QUIT YELLING.

>>YOU ARE ON A LOW CALORIE DIET!

Wrong. When I was on the diet you described, I was on a low calorie diet. Btw, we are not all on Atkins here. Upon low carbing, I was eating more calories than I had previously and still lost weight.

>>WHOLE GRAINS ARE GOOD

Maybe, but they're totally unnecessary. Our paleolithic ancestors survived without them for hundreds of thousands of years. Virtually all paleopathology points to agriculture and grains as being detrimental to a society's health.

KETOSIS IS THE BODY'S EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Incorrect. That's an opinion.

>>SATURATED FAT LEADS TO LONG-TERM COMPLICATIONS AND HEART DISEASE

This has ONLY been demonstrated in the presence of the modern high-refined-carbohydrate diet. The cause is insulin. Saturated fat has never been demonstrated to be harmful in those who eat a low carbohydrate diet. If you disagree, go find the study that shows this. At the same time, explain why our ancestors hardly ever died of heart disease, despite eating far more saturated fat.

>>EXERCISE! EAT OFTEN, EAT WHOLE GRAINS, REDUCE SATURATED FATS, INCREASE OMEGA-3 SOURCES OF FAT, EAT FRUITS, VEGETABLES, BEANS, NUTS AND SEEDS AND DRINK WATER

Thank you for agreeing with us. Though you forgot the protein, you've just described a low carb diet.

So if you're so right, why have so many people on this forum alone had such extraordinary results? I'm not just talking about weight loss: I'm talking about complete cessation of diabetes medications, improvement in conditions such as PCOS and depression, and better cholesterol profiles? That was a very short list, by the way.

I'll tell you why: because we're eating what we evolved to eat.

So you think my kidneys are going to bomb out any time now. Okay: show us one documented case of kidney or liver failure because of a low carb diet. You won't find it because it hasn't happened.

Even if there was a slight risk, I am so much healthier now, I'll take it.

Btw, keto breath is a heck of a lot better than plaque breath. There's little for mouth bacteria to feed on in a low carber. What do YOUR teeth look like first thing in the morning? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Isn't the PCRM associated with PETA? Like I am going to trust a bunch of militant Vegans to tell me that my WOE is all washed up? I can tell you, for me, my diet is NOT low calorie. I eat more now than I ever did on any other "diet" I've ever been on...and that is a LOT of diets! I know a calorie when I see one, or taste one, and...shoot!...I sometimes drink the fat out of the pan from the meat I cooked! I know that isn't good to do...too many Omega 6 tansfatty acids and all, but if that is LOW Calorie, I'm a monkey's uncle! Incidentally, what happened to this guy? Are you still there? Or are you like Iknowall...hop in, cause a stir, and leave 'cause you can't take the heat in our meat-filled oven?

And don't even start about how good grains and beans are for us! Before either of them, there is NO EVIDENCE in the fossil record of any autoimmune disorders such as diabetes, lupus, MS, arthritis, cancer...to name a few. That tells me something.

My kidneys were just given a bill of health by my doctor in my bi-annual physical. He says I'm in better shape than I was two and a half years ago..before starting this woe. Then, I was 95 pounds heavier, had high blood pressure, cholesterol problems, kidney problems, and blood sugar problems...I was just waiting to die...Sorry, fella, or lady...I'm not buying your couched Vegan hype.

I am not a "vegan militant" nor am I undercover for the PCRM. Obviously no body of research, no matter the source, is going to sway any of you. You've made up your minds and that's that. I think we can all agree that obesity is the real enemy here. What I don't like, is that Atkins preys on people's desperation to lose weight quickly. He falsely states that carbs are making us fat, where excess calories are the real culprit. According to a long-term epidemiological study, every man, women and child has consumed 200kcals more, and expended 200kcal less in the past 20 years (on average). In one study FUNDED AND PUBLISHED BY Dr. Atkins, they reported that during six months on a high-protein/low-carbohydrate diet:

• 70% of patients were constipated.
• 65% had halitosis.
• 54% reported headaches.
• 10% had hair loss.

I'm not saying low fat is the way to go, but Atkins has not produced one single study that is blind, carefully controlled variable, or peer-reviewed to prove his claims. Of Atkins "research", 5 of these 18 studies are just unpublished abstracts not peer-reviewed. Another 6 are either solely funded by the Atkins foundation or written by co-authors of other studies solely funded by Atkins. The remainder of studies are also questionable because of either sample size, short term investigation and/or lack of a control group. One, for example, “Effect of 6-Month Adherence to a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Program,” is prominently featured as a promotion of the Atkins diet. But they never mention that participants experienced serious side effects, including constipation, bad breath, headaches, hair loss and increased menstrual bleeding.

Further, the high profile New York Times article (What if it’s all a Big Fat Lie. July, 2002) which gave the Atkins diet an unfounded glowing report revealed the following;

“Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across as supporters of the Atkins diet,” said John Farquar, professor of medicine at Stanford University’s Center for Research in Disease Prevention. Farquar felt his views had been intentionally misrepresented by Taubes. “What a disaster,” he added. The editors of this particular piece were subsequently fired for fallacious journalism.

The fact is, people on Atkins lose weight because they are on a low calorie diet. Numerous studies have revealed that cutting out an entire category of foods will invariably yield a lower caloric intake. If you burn more calories than you take in, you will lose weight – period. I just don’t understand why people are willing to put themselves through all of those side affects when they can lose fat by exercising more and continuing to enjoy carbohydrate-rich foods. This is the most effective method for long-term success, without the possibility of damaging your kidneys. I agree (and so do many other bodies of nutritional research) that cutting back on simple carbohydrates is necessary, but whole grain carbohydrates should comprise a good chunk of any healthy diet.

Mel

Did you bother to read MY last entry? I don't have bad breath...never had it. I haven't had ANY side effects, except tremendous weight loss, an increase in lean body tissue with a reduction in fat, better health than I've ever had...and that is according to my doctor of twelve years! My high blood pressure dropped after two weeks of being on this "diet!" My firend, who had insulin-injecting diabetes, is no longer taking insulin because his symptoms are DISAPPEARING! This to the amazement of HIS doctor, who has NEVER seen anything like this happening in his career...to the point that HE is now on the "diet." MY kidneys were just examined and I have had kidney problems all my life...guess what? They are in better health than they have ever been since they started being tested! I used to get kidney stones quite regularly...you don't have to tell me about that one...Haven't had a kidney stone since I started doing this 2 1/2 years ago...that says something to ME! Science can do the double blind tests and all, but anectodotal evidence has some bearing, too, and we don't have to wait nearly as long for the results! I FEEL better than I've ever felt. OOPS! Not scientific, again! I lost 117 pounds on Weight Watchers and gained it back in three years...why? Because it is a DIET, not a WOL and I had to watch everything...I watch nothing on this WOE. I'm on Neanderthin...basically the diet of our ancient ancestors prior to the advent of agriculture...when people started genetically altering grass to make (harmful) phytate-containing GRAIN and started milking animals for their (harmful) lectin-containing dairy products which are designed for other animals, not humans, and genetically altering (harmful alkaloid-containing) legumes. Since all three of these INVENTIONS of Mankind, the fossil record showed an immediate increase in autoimmune disorders such as diabetes, arthritis, MS, and Lupus and Cancer from virtual non-existence! SCIENTIFIC Studies of hunters and gatherers still existing in the modern world have almost NONE of these disorders in their populations. These are Scientific studies, too! You must think we are all a bunch of dolts! I've done the research! So have many of us. This is a highly informed forum, contrary to what you seem to believe. I've researched diets for almost my entire adult life...a long time...and NOTHING ever worked like this woe. Contrary to what you may think, we DO know what we are talking about on this forum and this "diet" is NOT LOW CALORIE!!! I eat, on the average about 4000 calories a day and have lost almost 100 pounds and am keeping it off! So, don't sit there and tell me that a calorie is a calorie!! It just isn't, and that is all there is to it. I eat NO grains, or their by-products. I eat NO dairy or it's by-products. I eat pork rinds (sometimes dunked in left-over fat from my meat dish)EVERY DAY! I eat fat! I eat meat! I eat foul! I eat fish! And I eat tons of veggies slathered with my own olive oil salad dressing and nuts all over it. I eat handfuls of all kinds of nuts, except peanuts (which are legumes, which I also don't eat), and cashews (which are part of the poison ivy family and need to be cooked to be edible...I only eat what doesn't NEED to be cooked to be edible..just a rule of my woe). I also eat tons of fruit and berries. Not low-calorie, my misinformed friend! Not unhealthy, either! Our "diet" is the most "natural" diet Mankind has ever had during our over 10,000,000 year evolution from pure vegans to what we are today. About 5,000,000 years ago, our ancestors moved out of the forest and onto the savana and started eating meat until, at some point our systems no longer made certain absolutely necessary B vitamins that can ONLY be obtained from red meat. Biological systems cannot evolve to an entirely new eating style in 10,000 years. That is less than the blink of an eye in evolution. That is what happened with the advent of agriculture. It kept Mankind alive and kept the species from disappearing because all of the large animals that were used as a food source were being made extinct by efficient hunters and gatherers and their dog-friends. But, it IS NOT HEALTHY to eat all of those complex carbohydrates mixed with fat and meat!!! If you want to talk UNHEALTHY, research a vegetarian diet! That diet is totally UNNATURAL to the human digestive system and body.

I don't think anyone doubts that portion size, overall in the US is WAY out of line withwhat we really need, or that people taking in more calories than they use will get fat.

The thing is, to really understand why low-carb works you have to rethink what has been drilled into all of our heads for the past 30 years. Indeed part of the culprit may be calorie content. But why are we eating more? How did we get so out of tune with our bodies? Could it be because we are eating a diet that is less satisfying and less in line with what our body needs when we eat a high carb diet as we've been told? So we get hungry faster and what do we eat? More carb-based foods that don't satisfy us, trigger blood sugar spikes, and result in craving more food, usually carbs...and the cycle goes on.

The problem IS the carbs (actually it is the insulin response that the carbs trigger and how that effects us over time). Now, not everyone agrees on how restricted you have to be. South Beach is different from Atkins, is different form Protein Power, is different from someone doing Vegetarian Low-carb. Atkins folks will probably be amongst the most restricted and other people will regularly include some quantity of whole grains in their diet, but they are all operating based on the same principles.

I've been low-carb for a year. I've lost 50 pounds and 6 inches off my waist. My cholesteral is 162, my blood sugar level, to quote my doctor, is "perfect." I have lots of energy, I'm rarely hungry...you are right, you are not going to convince most of us that this is not a way to eat healthy, because most of us have had some or all of these results and are in fact, much healthier than we were, and much healtheir than we have been on other more traditional (low-fat) diets.

You have chosen a tough battle to fight. I can see why Atkins bugs you, to be honest the recent emphasis on Atkins food products bugs me because it is a serious distraction from the core of the diet as stated in his book, which is a return to the diet similar to the one that humans ate before the advent of agriculture. What we can't help though is the fact that many people out there doing "low-carb" are following the guidlines as laid out by a story they saw on NBC, or what their friends told them it was, rather than reading the book, or as most people on this site have done, reading A LOT of books, articles, etc that run counter to the accepted low-fat-mantra. That most of us have done lots of reasearch and read the studies and articles you bring up makes this a tough row to hoe.



No surprise there at all. We don't need as many calories as our ancestors did, we don't work on the farm, so why not cut out the things that were added to their diets to stretch them out and increase their calorie intake, like rice, wheat, many startchy root veggies, etc. and stick with the more nutrient dense veggies for our carbs, healthy fat sources (I leave this open to intepretation as opinons also differ greatly here) and protein-rich food sources like eggs, meats, dairy products.

Also, look up how much more sugar we are eating in the last 100 years too. Low-fat frankenfoods introduced since the advent of low-fat mantra have added even more sugar and high fructose corn syrup, to everything from Ice Cream to "healthy" non-fat yogurt.

Then do a search and correlate the introduction of large amounts of sugar and vegetable shortning (trans-fats) into the American diet, and the increase of heart disease and obesity in this country. You might be surprised.

Look at centarian studies, common threads in people living longer are not eating sweets and avoiding processed foods.



While I have not heard about the hair loss, or experienced it, in fact my hair is pretty nice and healthy these days, I would be interested to see the timing of all of these other simptoms. Halitosis is a result of being in ketosis, constipation and headaches are common in the induction phases as your body detoxes from carbs. It is litterally is carb withdrawl. These are clearly listed and discussed in his books.



Studies are underway. It has only recently recieved enough attention to merit a larger study in the eyes of the scientific community. The only people interested in funding it up to now were Atkins folks, so it makes sense that they are behind all the studies. But, apparently the existing information is making many professionals rethink their positions. Don't knock it just yet.



There was a whole thread about this on here somewhere, I'm sure someone can come up with the link.



No. The fact is that people following a low carb diet become more healthy because they correct a seriously problem in human body chemistry that has been reinforced and made much worse by the high-carb-low-fat-mantra of the last 30 years.



And this bring us to the last point. You don't know it, or maybe you do, but you are advocating for a low-carb diet. You should read something like Southbeach, it is probably very much in line (though still fewer carbs) than what you are thinking of. Also pick up Protein Power for the in depth medical explanation of the effects of excess insulin on the human body. "Low-carb" is relative. If you eat meats, fish, poultry, eggs, green veggies, berries, dairy products, healthy fats, and SOME whole grains, you are eating still low-carb.

My suggestion is that you may very well have a point about Atkins marketing targeting people unfairly, but you are not arguing from a point of strength because you do not understand WHY many people, partcularly on this forum, think this diet works. We are not "cutting out" anything. At least not anything that wasn't "added in" to our diet in the last 14,000 years. We are eating in a way that returns body chemistry to a more balanced and natural state. The 14,000 years of agriculture we have had is a drop in the evolutionary bucket, and NOT enough time for the human body to adapt to eat large amounts of carbohydrates, refined or otherwise. Think of it this way. In that time period, most agricultural products have grown up to TEN times the size of their wild ancestors. Now think how hard it would be to collect a handful of grain, or oats, if the individual seeds were 1/10 the size they are know, and the plants grew randomly and wildly, rather than in nice cultivated rows. Would it even be worth the effort? Maybe if other foods were scarce, but when there are other sources around?

We can get into the differences between animals that are designed to consume carbs as a primary fuel source and those that are not, but that's also been done in another thread (or sevarl) before.

Your beef here seems to be primarily against Atkins, but it is unclear whether you dislike the marketing and the company, or actually dislike the diet itself. If it is the company and marketing you dislike then I totally understand, if it is the diet itself, you might want to do more research, from BOTH sides of the issue, so that you can really understand why it is that low-carb diets work, according to the diet's supporters. Despite the focus of the media, weight loss is practically just a by-product of what the diet really does for people. I think if you tool time to read, even with a skeptics eye, the reasoning behind why the diets work and get beyond the weight-loss that everyone looks at in medical studies and the media, you might find yourself with more solid ground to argue from.

*scratches her head*

Let me see, I am on a low-carb 'diet', so that must mean that I am NOT:

* 4-pointing my PhD courses at a rigorous university
* losing about 2 lbs of fat per week
* gaining an average of .5 lbs of muscle per week
* running out of machines at the gym that I have not maxed on lower body
* developing better cardio-fitness than at any other time in my life


Hmm. It all makes sense now. Too bad about all those hallucinations. I was enjoying them.

As for the 25 lbs of 'muscle' that I must have lost on my low-carb diet in the last 12 weeks, I never knew I had so much muscle flopping around just under my skin on my belly and upper thighs! Now I understand that all that jiggling was just... isometrics?

Back to reality - don't even get me started on bone mass since on this WOL, I have increased consumption of natural, calcium-rich foods like yogurt and cottage cheese, increased vegetable consumption, eliminated sodas except once in a blue moon, begun weight-bearing exercise, and added muscle (which adds weight and helps insulate/support/protect bones).

Nutritionalist? OMG *Friday gets fits of giggles*

OMG, I will now change my business card to read "Sociolologist". Actually, I kind of like that...

Cheers,

Fridayeyes, SocioLOLogist.

I'm curious where the battle is here.

Any diet is by nature a low calorie diet. It's impossible to take in more calories than you expend and lose weight -- no matter where those calories come from. Low carb is more efficient at burning fat, and studies have supported the reality that you can eat more calories low-carb than you can low-fat and still lose weight.

You just can't eat more calories than you need and still lose weight.

I eat 1500-1800 calories a day most days. If I ate 4000 calories of protein, it's likely that I'd gain weight instead of losing it. The metabolic advantage is true, but it isn't so extreme that you can totally ignore calories, even though you can be like I am; very loose on counting them. It's hard to eat 4,000 calories without carbs, so we lose.

As to the PCRM foolishness posted on this board, don't pay attention to it. It's got all the credibility of the National Enquirer.

How about this... none of you really no anything, there have not been any longitudinal studies done on LC diets, therefore longterm and any other side effects of the diet in question can not be proved or disproved. You can read and quote all of the studies you want, but until there are LT studies and those studies are replicated we are all SOL. That is why we all have to do what we think is right and what our bodies are telling us. Anyone that knows anything about research would be questioning about 90% of the studies that have been done. They are crap.

LOL! I mean know anything... haha. Not no anything.