Oh! What a surprise!



Increase acid in the body? Hummm, don't grains also increase acids in the body?



Wouldn't that be a good thing? If they are truly talking about LDL cholesterol, wouldn't that mean the large fluffy LDLs which are holding lots of LDL cholesterol inside?



Rubbish. Either he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he does know but is pretending. Or covering for something.



I thought this one was debunked already. Were the subjects on VLC diet fully Keto adapted? Six weeks isn't long enough.

So were these subjects on induction level carbs of less than 20 grams for the entire six weeks? Exactly what were they eating? If I wanted to prove that my low carb diet is better than your low carb diet, I could give all the subjects on my diet 20 grams of veggie per day, and give all the subjects on your diet 20 grams of Twinkie.
But that would be unethical.

uh, most of us who have been carrying around a ton of weight will not have to worry about bone loss...

lots of skinny minnies do, however, have osteoporosis... it's the one thing I'll never be concerned with.

The reduction in loss??? Did these people actually gain fat and weight over the 6 weeks or lose less than with other diets? I think not!

Potassium salt (like Morton salt substitute) is a great source of zero carb potassium. You can hide it inside all sorts of stuff, just don't try to use it instead of salt because it doesn't taste the same. Since when did Atkins become a zero fat diet?--"so if you are taking in an extremely low amount of carbohydrates and only receiving energy from protein..." I get my energy from fat. Burp! Personally I think the writer ought to join us out here in Texas at the annual NASA Ballunar festival because they've got enough hot air in this article to lift off a hot air balloon minus the propane tank.

Journal of the American Dietetic Association paper, Blood ketones are directly related to fatigue and perceived effort during exercise in overweight adults adhering to low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss: a pilot study, was a two-week study....no surprise those initiating a ketogenic diet were more fatigued at the end of the two weeks. Phinney et al has demonstrated that one must fully adapt to a ketogenic diet before seeing energy and endurance return to pre-diet modification levels.

Same with the Osteoporosis citation - it is not a published study though, but a Letter to the Editor that includes unpublished data from - guess what - two weeks of dietary modification with no inclusion of foods consumed by the two groups. When the actual data is published than it may have some value, but just what is included in the letter, simply not enough to make a broad statement against ketogenic diets; especially when we consider data has been published showing no loss of bone for those following low-carb diets (measured in controlled-trials lasting longer than two weeks).

The last one, in AJCN, Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets, was also short term (six weeks) and had its problems....I didn't blog about it when it was first published, but with this new article out, I think it may be time to tackle the citations they're claiming now!

Edited to add: Short term trials like the above provide hints and are useful...but longer term studies are better measures of potential complications to health long-term. I think it's also important to say that even at 20g net carbs a day, one can meet/exceed nutrient intake recommendations - I draft menus all the time doing it and if researchers are not packing meals with foods that are nutrient-dense and within allowances, then that is shameful - it's not hard to do and it should be standard in such studies!

How many g of carbs would the last phase of Atkins (maintenance)
involve? Bet it looks a lot like the Zone diet.

Some can ultimately eat Zonish amounts of carbs, but as Atkins points out, many cannot. My maintenance level is 35g net carbs maximum. I gain fat & weight if I eat more than that.

Not real sure what mine is, but I'd guess around 100g..after that I start retaining water and start looking for more carbs. But I may actually eat more than that by the time you factor in fiber. For me, by keeping carbs low and protein high, with fat lowish (for calories mainly) I can eat less as my hunger is kept down.

Atkins maintenance levels depends on individual tolerance.....me, I can do anywhere between 90g and 150g a day and maintain; others stick to lower levels, some go higher.

Some people love the Zone - me? I find it difficult to plan within the ratios....but if someone likes the plan and can follow it and they're happy, that's what matters.

Jeff Volek and I covered the whole low-carb bone loss myth in our book. We wrote:

Myth 3: “Low-carb diets lead to bone loss!”
In contrast to the scientific evidence, another common criticism of diets low in carbohydrates, and again, high in protein, is bone loss. This concern seems to be based on a misunderstanding of basic metabolism. Critics claim that low-carbohydrate diets, and diets rich in animal protein, increase the acidity of your blood, which causes calcium to be leached from your bones. The theory is that because calcium is alkaline—the opposite of acidic—it’s used by the body to buffer the higher acid levels, bringing blood pH levels back to normal. To support this notion, these critics cite evidence that higher protein intakes are associated with acute increases in the amount of calcium excreted in the urine. This, they say, is an indicator of calcium loss from the bones. Over time, this is suggested to cause actual bone loss.
However, this mechanism of bone loss is not substantiated by clinical data or long-term epidemiologic studies. In fact, the published research shows the opposite. A critical review published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition actually concluded that low-protein diets have adverse effects on bone, whereas higher protein intakes have a positive impact. It turns out that the increased calcium in the urine— with higher protein intake—is due to increased absorption of calcium from the intestines. So protein causes more of the calcium you eat to be absorbed, resulting in more calcium available for your bones. Some of this additional calcium may not be needed by your bones, though, and so it’s simply excreted, accounting for the mysterious increase in urine calcium on a higher protein diet. It’s important to remember, though, low-carb diets such as TNT are actually high-fat diets, not high protein.

As far as low-carbohydrate diets specifically, though, a 2006 study conducted at South Florida University determined that a strict low-carb diet—40 grams or less a day—had absolutely no effect on markers of bone loss or bone formation over a three-month period. In fact, the low-carb dieters didn’t differ in either of these measurements from study participants who consumed a typical American diet.

Sears' Zone Diet works on the principal of keeping protein/carb in a strict ratio. This ratio prevents insulin secretion, which is why Atkins works. My problem with the Zone is it also seems to be a CR kind of diet. At 170 pounds I was eating around 800 calories per day.

Good lord! My basal caloric needs just to keep warm, digest food, and pump blood to my brain and organs is about 2500 a day. Lets not even think about moving heavy objects, digging holes, using a jack hammer, putting together cast iron pipes, moving bags of concrete, climbing ladders, lifting cases of wine......

I would end up having a heart attack on a cr diet.

The way it's supposed to work is rather than increasing protein/carb calories in response to work load, you increase fat intake. So ultimately the calorie count goes up but not a huge amount. Like Atkins, the body is becoming a fat-burning machine.

Hi Adam,

Yeah, the bone loss myth is one that wont die. Here are sources I found on that....

"A Low Carb Diet Screws Up Your Bones!
"As of May 2006, the scientists conducting the studies continue to be “surprised” by the result that more protein in the diet at the very least causes no harm, and in most studies improves bone density rather than causes bone loss"
http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/fa...arbboneloss.htm

You also have to keep in mind that there are a couple of cultures that, for centuries, had thrived on a low (or NO) carbohydrate/higher protein/high fat diet. Among them are the Inuit people. Had a low carb diet caused bone damage, generation after generation of this way of eating should have left them mangled and broken. Instead, those sticking with their ancestral diet are perfectly healthy while those who have adopted a more Western style of eating with increased carbohydrate consumption are the ones who are unhealthy.

"Today, when diet books top the best-seller list and nobody seems sure of what to eat to stay healthy, it’s surprising to learn how well the Eskimo did on a high-protein, high-fat diet."
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oc...start:int=0&-C=
http://wifezillasway.blogspot.com/2...pid-things.html

The discover article was interesting but the effect was rather spoiled in the end and she said the following [QUOTE]Just before rumors surfaced that Robert Atkins had heart and weight problems when he died, Atkins officials themselves were stressing saturated fat should account for no more than 20 percent of dieters’ calories. This seems to be a clear retreat from the diet’s original don’t-count-the-calories approach to bacon and butter and its happy exhortations to “plow into those prime ribs./QUOTE]

Looks like that bit of propaganda by the PRCM was damn succesful :/

And I think that the "officials" here were simply trying to be more politically correct in order to gain acceptance for their business, as that's what it has turned into.