Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


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!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 13:40
2000Xterra 2000Xterra is offline
New Member
Posts: 10
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 258.5/213/170 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: Vancouver, WA
Smile Low-Carb Diets Are Working, Study Says

Oct 13, 3:31 PM EDT

Low-Carb Diets Are Working, Study Says

By DANIEL Q. HANEY
AP Medical Editor

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) -- The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention - long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins - that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.



Interactive
Information on SARS



Latest News
CDC: SARS Fears May Swamp Emergency Rooms
4 Hong Kong Senior Citizens Are SARS-Free


Low-Carb Diets Are Working, Study Says




Latest Health News
Exercise Seen As Help in Cancer Fight
Low-Carb Diets Are Working, Study Says

Separated Twins Said'Remarkably Stable'

CDC: India Close to Eradicating Polio

Ex-Diplomat: India Must Educate on AIDS






The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design, conduct or analysis.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds.

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers," said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

---

EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated Press.

---

On the Net:

http://www.naaso.org

Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 13:52
ian559's Avatar
ian559 ian559 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 637
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 400/333/250 Male 5'9
BF:49.5
Progress: 45%
Location: cincinnati, ohio
Default

cool
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 14:00
Saintor's Avatar
Saintor Saintor is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 101
 
Plan: inspired Montignac SB
Stats: 238.5/179/165 Male 5'10 1/2"
BF:getting better :o)
Progress: 81%
Location: MTL, Canada
Thumbs up More studies to support LC claims.

Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 14:01
RoseTattoo's Avatar
RoseTattoo RoseTattoo is offline
Kid R
Posts: 1,168
 
Plan: Maintenance
Stats: // Female 5"1'
BF:Too darn much!
Progress: 90%
Location: PA
Default Low Carbers Eat More, Lose Weight

Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 14:18
becky160's Avatar
becky160 becky160 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 862
 
Plan: Atkins (Modified)
Stats: 242/216/155 Female 57
BF:shrinking!!
Progress: 30%
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Angry

Quote:
Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.


This really a Skeptics content.
They should take a look at our menus, and see if is really limited, NOOOOT!!!
One thing for sure is that we do eat much more healthier and varied. Maybe nt during induction, but yes, during pre-manintenance and Maintenance stages.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 14:24
2000Xterra 2000Xterra is offline
New Member
Posts: 10
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 258.5/213/170 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: Vancouver, WA
Default

I was eating a HUGE salad with Romaine lettuce, chicken strips, almond slices, sunflower seeds, cheddar cheese, hard boiled eggs, cucumber & Blue Cheese dressing when I first read this article. I had to laugh when it said that perhaps the food choices were limited.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 14:28
Lisa N's Avatar
Lisa N Lisa N is offline
Posts: 12,028
 
Plan: Bernstein Diabetes Soluti
Stats: 260/-/145 Female 5' 3"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Michigan
Default

Quote:
Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting their food.


BINGO! That's part of the metabolic advantage; it takes more energy for the body to digest fats, then proteins, than it does to digest carbs which break up quite quickly and easily. Pair that with the fact that you don't have your body's "fat storage system" cranked into high gear with high levels of insulin and it shouldn't come as a great surprise to these scientists that those eating low carb lost more weight than those eating high carb. C'mon, folks...it's not rocket science!
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 14:37
LilaCotton's Avatar
LilaCotton LilaCotton is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,472
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 229/205/170 Female 5'6"
BF:I have Body Fat!??
Progress: 41%
Location: Idaho
Default

Anyone who says food choices are limited simply has no imagination! Even in induction there are many, many wonderful dishes that can be prepared legally.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 14:58
alaskaman alaskaman is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 870
 
Plan: Dr Bernstein
Stats: 195/175/170
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: alaska
Default

When will they ever learn? "a calorie is a calorie" how lame, some calories promote insulin response, some don't. "endocrinology 101" as Gary Taubes put it. Anyhow, they never really believed a "calorie is a calorie" because the prof nutritionists have been putting it out for years that it isn't the pasta makes you gain, its the fatty sauces, it isn't the baked potato, its the butter. We can only be grateful for studies like this, but don't expect the lowfat crowd to admit anything right away.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 16:03
Arie's Avatar
Arie Arie is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 677
 
Plan: low carb & Atkins
Stats: 318/215/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 77%
Location: Northern California
Default Low-Carb Diets Are Working, Study Says

Yahoo stories tend to age and be gone after a while...
so here is the text...


Low-Carb Diets Are Working, Study Says
Health - AP to My Yahoo!



By DANIEL Q. HANEY, AP Medical Editor

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.



Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design, conduct or analysis.



Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds.

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers," said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated Press.

Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 16:22
Arie's Avatar
Arie Arie is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 677
 
Plan: low carb & Atkins
Stats: 318/215/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 77%
Location: Northern California
Default

My favorite reaction was

Quote:
"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."



The law of thermodynamics?? How can a scientist think of a human body as if it was an incinerator, or a Diesel engine... She actually thinks that we pour fuel in to our body and it is being burned as if we are an internal combustion engine.. Can we eat 14,000 calories once a week, and it'll be the same as eating a bit every meal? according to her way of thinking is would, just like an engine, fill up the tank once a week... How STUPID!

this way of thinking basically ignores hormones, fat storage (how many engines do you know that store partially burnt fuel?)... How many engines do you know that use enzymes to breakup their fuel? When was the last time you food was burnt by an internal fire in your body (weel, some mexican food feels like it does)..
How can she think of our body in terms of thermodynamics??
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 17:31
NickFender NickFender is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,042
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 283/250.5/190 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 35%
Location: Pacific NW
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arie
How can she think of our body in terms of thermodynamics??


I think thermodynamics is perfectly applicable to metabolism; we may not have a full enough understanding of the complexities of metabolism to see it in full effect, but it certainly governs the process. It's when we simplify metabolism with comparison to internal-combustion engines and concentrate only on the "thermo" and forget about the "dynamics" that we get into trouble, assuming that metabolic processes are the same regardless of the fuel source and ignoring or oversimplifying the other, often variable, conditions governing the performance of the system.

In this case, Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University (is she a scientist, researcher, student, janitor, or what?) tries to cast doubt upon the efficacy of a low-carb plan by suggesting that it could work only if it violates the laws of thermodynamics or produces some "miraculous metabolic effects", ignoring the widely accepted premise (as pointed out by LisaN above) that metabolizing fat is less efficient than metabolizing other fuel sources. If a scientist observes a process that appears to violates the laws of thermodynamics, she should know enough to redo her observations, reconsider her understanding of the system, or revisit her conclusions. From this, I conclude either that she does not have a background in science, or that she don't REALLY think the laws of physics have been violated, but rather, she has a dogmatic aversion to the premise.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 18:06
DebPenny's Avatar
DebPenny DebPenny is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,514
 
Plan: TSP/PPLP/low-cal/My own
Stats: 250/209/150 Female 63.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 41%
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default Just a thought

I find it rather interesting that they used percentages to govern the breakdown of the food. If the group getting 300 more calories had received the additional calories as fat (instead of some carbs, protein, and fat), I bet they would have lost as much or more than the LC group that got 300 fewer calories.

We're making progress...
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 23:21
Samuel Samuel is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,200
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 200/176/176 Male 5' 8"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

I see no laws of thermodynamics violated in Atkins diet.

When we are on a high carb diet we use glucose for fuel. We don't waste any of this fuel and if we have more of it we store it as body fat.

When we are on a low carb diet, we use ketones (which are carbon fragments) for fuel. Some of the ketones are lost without being used and none could be stored as body fat.

So if we are to use engines for comparison, we should be comparing a gasoline engine with an engine which runs on coal and leak some of its fuel! Who could expect the two engines to be equally efficient? Or in other words, who could expect the two engines to produce the same output energy when both get equal amounts of input energy?
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Mon, Oct-13-03, 23:41
GREYTSCOT GREYTSCOT is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 299
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 158/134/130 Female 5.7
BF:
Progress: 86%
Location: PWC, Virginia
Angry lc diets work but scientists still don't believe it!

All the evidence points to the effectiveness of a low carb diet but scientists just can't believe it. Read this article on a Harvard School of Public Health study just completed.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ow_carb_mystery

I think it's eventually going to sink in!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two Studies Vindicate Atkins Diet, One from New England Journal of Medicine gotbeer LC Research/Media 45 Sat, May-15-04 12:32
"FDA loosens standards for health claims on food labels" gotbeer LC Research/Media 0 Fri, Jul-11-03 16:57
Eating fat doesn't cause body fat Voyajer LC Research/Media 0 Sun, Jun-09-02 15:14


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:01.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.