New Article Feb 15th
 

Found a new article on the front page on:

www.cbsnews.com

Very interesting reading about Atkins! Seems they are doing a 2 year federal study on 360 people on Atkin's and the USDA's recommended diet.

Stay tuned! :D

Here's my favourite quote from the article :)


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain540776.shtml

I found at least 23 refrences in the media to this story, here's from Canada.com/AP

--

New research on Atkins diet challenges 30 years of nutritional dogma

DANIEL Q. HANEY
Canadian Press

Thursday, February 13, 2003

(AP) - Is it just possible Dr. Robert Atkins was right? That his high-fat, low-carb plan, ridiculed for 30 years as dangerous nonsense, actually is a good, safe way to lose weight?

The dietary elite are not ready to change their collective mind, but a half-dozen or so new studies have taken an objective look at the presumed evils of Atkins, and the results have been little short of astonishing: people on the Atkins diet lose more weight than those on the standard low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets - even though they appear to consume more calories - and do so without seeming to drive up their risk of heart disease.

All of the experiments were short and small. None by itself would make a big stir. But taken together, they undermine much of what mainstream medicine has long assumed about the Atkins diet.

"Some scientists are dismayed by the data and a little incredulous about it," says Gary Foster, who runs the weight-loss program at the University of Pennsylvania. "But the consistency of the results across studies is compelling in a way that makes us think we should investigate this further."

Until now, the opinion of the medical world on this subject has been essentially unanimous: any diet that emphasizes meat, eggs and cheese and discourages bread, rice and fruit is nutritional folly.

The American Medical Association set that tone a year after the book, Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution, came out in 1972, dismissing it as "potentially dangerous."

On the Atkins diet, up to two-thirds of calories may come from fat - more than double the usual recommendation - which violates the established belief that carbohydrates are the foundation of a good diet.

Despite this, Atkins' books have sold 15 million copies and practically everybody has heard of someone who dropped a lot of weight on the plan.

None of the studies - some done in an effort to prove Atkins wrong - has been published yet, but summaries presented at medical conferences "show pretty convincingly that people will lose more weight on an Atkins diet, and their cardiovascular risk factors, if anything, get better," says Dr. Kevin O'Brien, a University of Washington cardiologist involved with one of the studies.

The studies say nothing about how much people lose when they stay on Atkins more than a few months, whether they keep the weight off for good and whether their cholesterol rebounds when they stop losing weight.

Nevertheless, three decades of dietary gospel are in doubt, and those questioning it include some of the most prominent names in obesity research. For instance, one of the new studies was conducted by Foster with Drs. Samuel Klein and James Hill, the current and past presidents of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, the premier professional group.

"I'm part of the obesity establishment," says Foster, who has published more than 50 scientific papers on the subject. "I've spent my life researching ways to treat obesity, and 100 per cent of them have been low-fat and high-carb. Now I'm beginning to think, it isn't as it has appeared."

His Atkins study was intended to "show it doesn't work," yet after three months, the overweight men and women had lost an average of 8.6 kilograms, 4.5 more than people on the standard high-carb approach.

The big surprise was cholesterol. The Atkins dieters' overall profile changed for the better. Although their bad cholesterol went up seven points, their good cholesterol rose almost 12. (Changes in the high-carb dieters were less dramatic. Their bad cholesterol went down slightly while their good cholesterol remained unchanged.)

The largest difference was in triglycerides. The Atkins dieters' dropped 22 points. The low-carb dieters' didn't budge.

"It was unexpected, to put it mildly," Foster said. "It made us think maybe there is something to this."

Despite these data, the Atkins diet still gives many health professionals the willies. It encourages people to eat bacon, butter, prime rib and lots of other things loaded with saturated fat. And it lectures against such mainstay carbohydrates as grains, pasta and starchy vegetables, especially in the diet's first cold-turkey stage.

"There are many principles in the Atkins diet that go against what we know," says Dr. Robert Eckel of the University of Colorado, senior author of the American Heart Association's policy on high-protein diets. "It keeps people away from staples of the diet that we know are associated with less heart disease."

Research has shown that people have the best chance of avoiding heart disease, high blood pressure and cancer if they eat a varied diet with plenty of fruits, vegetables and grains.

"It's scary if people leave out these very important food groups and just depend on high-fat, high-protein foods," says Wahida Karmally, nutrition director at Columbia University's clinical research centre.

Furthermore, people on the Atkins plan may get a quarter of their daily calories from saturated fat, which research has shown clogs the arteries and leads to heart attacks.

Mainstream scientists wave off the Atkins camp's answer to this - that saturated fat is harmlessly burned off unless it is eaten with large amounts of carbohydrates.

Traditionalists explain the cholesterol improvement seen in the Atkins dieters by saying slimming down improves cholesterol levels, but add the benefits are probably overshadowed any damage done by all the unhealthy fat that people ate.

Why people lose more weight on the diet is also not clear, although some researchers say they buy one of Atkins' arguments: people stick with it because fat and protein satisfy the appetite. Eating lots of carbohydrates raises insulin levels, lowers blood sugar, and eventually makes people ravenous.

Skeptics say another of Atkins' ideas - that people lose more weight on his plan even if they actually eat more calories - violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Some of the new studies, however, suggest Atkins may be right, with Atkins dieters losing more weight than those on low-fat diets despite eating more calories.

"Surprised? Definitely," says Bonnie Brehm, a registered dietitian. "We really don't know what the answer is."

And the Atkins weight loss was not simply dehydration, as critics often contend, since dieters in one study also lost twice as much body fat.

Despite these results, many of the researchers who did the studies are reluctant to recommend the Atkins diet for now, saying they know too little about its long-term effects. A large new study just under way could settle those doubts.

This federally sponsored project will randomly put 360 overweight men and women on the Atkins plan or the U.S. Department of Agriculture's standard high-carb, low-fat diet, then watch them in painstaking detail for at least two years.

Despite the professions' unease at the findings so far, some of the researchers involved expect that if the Atkins approach proves safe and effective in larger, longer studies, established opinions will eventually change.

"It's difficult to swallow," says O'Brien, "but the data are the data, even if they go against 30 years of dogma."

© Copyright 2003 The Canadian Press

Canada.com

There seem to be two types of researchers out there -- researchers like O'Brien and Foster (quoted earlier in the article) who are open-minded enough to look at the data and acknowledge that they may have been WRONG in pushing lowfat, high carb diets; and researchers who just bury their heads in the sand and ignore any data that disproves their original assumptions. I really admire the researchers who are able to change their beliefs to fit the data.

Has anyone read Thomas Kuhn's book on paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions? I think that is what we have going on here -- a paradigm shift with regard to diet and some people are just never going to be able to make it.

One small nitpick. Again they are giving the impression that fruits, vegetables and grains are left out. It's only grains really that is eliminated. Being a nutrition director at a clinical research centre, you'd think he would bother to read about the Atkins Approach before making statements about it.


Overall this is really a great article and very significant. It's a good snap shot of what is going on the the moment. No one really wants to believe this new data, because it puts EVERYTHING in question, but they are having no choice.

The paradigm shifts IS happening and it's unavoidable. Atkins will be proven right. Maybe they will find that some aspects of his program aren't optimal, but he will be right enough to shut up the critics. I'm wondering if swallowing this bitter pill will have a more far-reaching impact on the medical community. Will it teach them humility ? How hard it must be to swallow that you have been wrong for 30 years.

What I'm expecting next, after more studies come out, and low-carb finally becomes an unescapable fact is a whole slew of "where did we go wrong" articles. Especially after it becomes clear that not only is low-carb the way to go, but high-carb is downright dangerous. I'm hoping that this will cause some changes in medical research.

I know that in my case, it made me loose a lot of confidence in the "experts". How many people will have the same reaction I wonder...

Liz, I read Kuhn's book and reading the article I had a similar thought. What, I asked myself, are these guys like the physicists in the 1880s insisting that ether is all around us?

:D

(My blog entry on this)

New research on Atkins diet challenges 30 years of nutritional dogma
 

Is it just possible that Dr. Robert C. Atkins was right? That his high-fat, low-carb plan, ridiculed for 30 years as dangerous nonsense, actually is a good, safe way to lose weight?

The dietary elite are not ready to change their collective mind, but a half-dozen or so new studies have taken an objective look at the presumed evils of Atkins, and the results have been little short of astonishing:

During a few months on the Atkins diet, people lose about twice as much as on the standard low-fat, high-carbohydrate approach recommended by most health organizations.

They do so without seeming to drive up their risk of heart disease. Rather than going kaflooey, their cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and ominous bloodstream inflammation generally improve, perhaps even more than on the standard diet.

They appear to lose more weight even while actually consuming more calories than people on a so-called healthy diet.

All of the experiments were short and small. None by itself would make a big stir. But taken together, they undermine much of what mainstream medicine has long assumed about the Atkins diet.

"Some scientists are dismayed by the data and a little incredulous about it," says Gary Foster, who runs the weight-loss program at the University of Pennsylvania. "But the consistency of the results across studies is compelling in a way that makes us think we should investigate this further."

Until now, the opinion of the medical world on this subject has been essentially unanimous: Any diet that emphasizes meat, eggs and cheese and discourages bread, rice and fruit is nutritional folly.

The American Medical Association set that tone a year after the book, "Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution," came out in 1972. Its sarcastically worded critique dismissed the diet as "potentially dangerous." It called its scientific underpinning "naive" and "biochemically incorrect." And it scolded book publishers for promoting "bizarre concepts of nutrition and dieting."

On the Atkins diet, up to two-thirds of calories may come from fat—more than double the usual recommendation—and that violates everything medical professionals believe about healthy eating. Carbohydrates are the foundation of a good diet, most say. Eating calorie-dense fat is what makes people fat, and eating saturated fat is what kills them.

Despite this, Atkins' books have sold 15 million copies, uncounted millions have tried the diet, and practically everybody has heard of someone who dropped a ton of weight on the Atkins plan.

Finally, several research teams around the country have put Atkins to the test, driven largely by weariness at having nothing solid to tell patients and, in some cases, a desire to prove Atkins wrong. One study was even sponsored by the American Heart Association, long an Atkins skeptic.

None has been published yet, but summaries have been given at medical conferences. "They all show pretty convincingly that people will lose more weight on an Atkins diet, and their cardiovascular risk factors, if anything, get better," says Dr. Kevin O'Brien, a University of Washington cardiologist involved with one of the studies.

This is not the end of the story. The studies say nothing about how much people lose when they stay on Atkins more than a few months, whether they keep the weight off for good and whether their cholesterol rebounds when they stop losing weight.

Nevertheless, three decades of dietary gospel are in doubt, and those questioning it include some of the most prominent names in obesity research. For instance, one of the new studies was conducted by Foster with Drs. Samuel Klein and James Hill, the current and past presidents of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, the premier professional group.

"I'm part of the obesity establishment," says Foster, who has published more than 50 scientific papers on the subject. "I've spent my life researching ways to treat obesity, and 100 percent of them have been low-fat and high-carb. Now I'm beginning to think, it isn't as it has appeared."

His Atkins study was intended to "show it doesn't work," yet after three months, the overweight men and women had lost an average of 19 pounds, 10 more than people on the standard high-carb approach.

The big surprise was cholesterol. The Atkins dieters' overall profile changed for the better. Although their bad cholesterol went up seven points, their good cholesterol rose almost 12. (Changes in the high-carb dieters were less dramatic. Their bad cholesterol went down slightly while their good cholesterol remained unchanged.)

The largest difference was in triglycerides. The Atkins dieters' dropped 22 points. The low-carb dieters' didn't budge.

"It was unexpected, to put it mildly," Foster said. "It made us think maybe there is something to this."

Despite these data, the Atkins diet still gives many health professionals the willies. It encourages people to eat bacon, butter, prime rib and lots of other things loaded with saturated fat. And it lectures against such mainstay carbohydrates as grains, pasta and starchy vegetables, especially in the diet's first cold-turkey stage; plenty of other healthy things, including many low-carb green vegetables and olive oil are allowed.

"There are many principles in the Atkins diet that go against what we know," says Dr. Robert Eckel of the University of Colorado, senior author of the heart association's policy on high-protein diets. "It keeps people away from staples of the diet that we know are associated with less heart disease."

Volumes of research suggest that people have the best chance of avoiding heart disease, high blood pressure and cancer if they eat a varied diet with plenty of fruits, vegetables and grains.

"It's scary if people leave out these very important food groups and just depend on high-fat, high-protein foods," says Wahida Karmally, nutrition director at Columbia University's clinical research center.

Furthermore, people on the Atkins plan may get a quarter of their daily calories from saturated fat, more than double the heart association's recommendation. Animal experiments and studies of large groups of people long ago convinced many experts that too much saturated fat clogs the arteries and leads to heart attacks.

Mainstream scientists wave off the Atkins camp's answer to this—that saturated fat is bad only if eaten with large amounts of carbohydrates. Otherwise, it's harmlessly burned off.

"When carbs are the primary fuel source, there are certain risks in excessive fat consumption," says Colette Heimowitz, the Atkins organization's research director. "But in a controlled-carb setting, when fat is the primary fuel source, the rules change. Those risk factors do not show up."

So how do the traditionalists explain the cholesterol improvement seen in the Atkins dieters? Weight loss. Slimming down reliably improves cholesterol levels, and they say its benefits probably overshadowed any damage done by all the unhealthy fat that people ate.

Why people lose more weight on the diet is also not clear, although some researchers say they buy one of Atkins' arguments: People stick with it because they are not constantly hungry. Fat and protein satisfy the appetite, the theory goes. But eating lots of carbohydrates raises insulin levels, lowers blood sugar, and eventually makes people ravenous.

But another of Atkins' ideas on the subject is far more contentious. He argues that people lose more weight on his plan even if they actually eat more calories. That's a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, skeptics say.

"A calorie is a calorie as far as weight reduction is concerned," says Dr. Michael Davidson, director of preventive cardiology at the Rush Heart Institute in Chicago.

Or is it? Some of the new studies suggest otherwise.

Dr. Stephen Sondike of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City put overweight teenagers on comparison diets for two months. The ones on Atkins lost twice as much as those on the low-fat diet. Yet they appeared to eat about 700 more calories a day than the others.

Less dramatic but still startling results came from another study at the University of Cincinnati. Women on Atkins lost twice as much while eating the same number of calories as the low-fat dieters.

"Surprised? Definitely," says Bonnie Brehm, a registered dietitian. "We really don't know what the answer is."

And the Atkins weight loss was not simply dehydration, as Atkins critics often contend, since the Cincinnati dieters also lost twice as much body fat.

But even if the diet is reasonable for a few months of slimming down, what happens when people level off during the maintenance phase of the program? Does their cholesterol soar if they eat all that fat without losing weight?

He put fit men on an Atkins regimen for six weeks with orders not to lose weight, and nothing bad seemed to happen. Their good and bad cholesterol went up proportionately, and their triglycerides fell. "I'd like to see more data," Volek said, "but ours provides evidence it doesn't have a negative effect on your heart."

This federally sponsored project will randomly put 360 overweight men and women on the Atkins plan or the U.S. Department of Agriculture's standard high-carb, low-fat diet, then watch them in painstaking detail for at least two years.

The study will try to answer three questions about Atkins, says Hill, who directs the University of Colorado's Center for Human Nutrition. "Does it produce weight loss? Is it a safe weight loss? And is it any better in the long run than anything else that has come along?"

Scientists will analyze the volunteers' blood and cholesterol in every way they can think of, as well as check their bone density, kidney function, body composition, exercise tolerance and more.

Despite the professions' unease at the findings so far, some of the researchers involved expect that if the Atkins approach proves safe and effective in larger, longer studies, those opinions will eventually change.

"It's difficult to swallow," says O'Brien, "but the data are the data, even if they go against 30 years of dogma."

This is the best article I've read yet! And scientists are supposed to say:

"but the data are the data, even if they go against 30 years of dogma."

I hope they correct that typo!

I read that line 3 times and couldnt figure it out till I saw the typo.

Aside from that great article! I am gonna email it to a few people I know


Thanks

Aside from the typo an overall very positive article. By George, I think they're beginning to get it! :idea:

I'm sick of hearing this crap about thermodynamics...it is based on the assumption that our bodies are 100% efficient with all sources of Calories...and any scientist worth his salt knows that's not true. Our bodies don't simply burn everything we eat and use every Calorie for energy. Some macronutrients (fat and protein) can be used for cell repair, muscle building, etc...In fact, getting inadaquete fat and protein can actually harm the body. Some fats are essential [we have to eat them] because they are needed for specific tasks. Up to a certain number of these fats will be used for those tasks, and not as energy. Further, our bodies are not 100% efficient. Breaking 1g of fat down into Ketones which we can use for energy requires the expenditure of 4 Calories. In addition, since the breakdown products of fat cannot be converted back into fat [for storage] any excess is normally excreted...Each gram of Ketone in your Urine [or Sweat/Breath] represents 13 Calories which are no longer available for energy (9 in the Ketone + 4 expended to make the Ketone.) Calories in - Calories out is still correct...They simply fail to understand that Calories out can be affected by dietary composition.

Could it be? Could it be? The emperor has no clothes!

Hi , I've been on the atkins diet now for about nine years .Occasionly I have come off it but found I felt better staying on it.Iwent on it to loose weight and stop the panic attacks the were occuring . I would rush off to see a doctor and he could not find anything wrong. This happened several times.Once I went on Atkins these stopped.

Like there's something wrong with a diet that either satisfies us so we eat less, or bores us so we eat less.

It is heartening to see a few scientists willing to follow the evidence, which is supposed to be what science is all about. And the important message is that those studies that support lowcarb diet can no longer be regarded as "isolated." There is a real body of evidence out there that can no longer be ignored.

That said, I have no doubt that the low-fat goons will strike back with a vengeance. They will insist that we *know* that a diet high in animal fat is bad for the heart, so any amount of research that purports to show the opposite must be flawed. But Gary Taubes's new book, which is due out soon, will target that "knowledge," so the timing is good.

In a sense, the low-fat paradigm isn't a true Kuhnian paradigm. According to Kuhn, a paradigm begins with a solved problem. After that, a period of "normal science" commences, with scientists trying to model new problems on the solved one, and to use the same methods to solve them. This lasts until problems start to pile up that don't get solved in the paradigm, and then there's a "revolution," a new paradigm, and a new period of normal science. In the case of the low-fat "paradigm," there never was any solved problem. There was no brilliant success to inspire a generation of imitators--unless you count Ancel Keys's "Seven Countries Study" as a brilliant success.

Just a note... the article is a month shy of being four years old. :idea:

Concerning Taubes's forthcoming book: http://web.mit.edu/knight-science/f...ews/taubes.html

Gah! I was excited until I realized the date on the story. Wha'choo bumpin' this old stuff for, Ubizmo? Oh wait, it wasn't you. Never mind!

I can't believe I've been posting here for 4 years :/

PS. Thanks for that link to the Gary Taubes interview. I simply can't wait for the book to come out. That's one book I am buying as soon as it comes out.


PPS. It seems to be listed on Amazon.com, although it's listed as not avalaible. The name is the same as the article. If features a big steak with butter on it. (made me hungry). Anyway, I hope the title and cover is only a placeholder, because if that's the actual cover it's as cheezy as it comes.

Atkins may be proven right, but my guess is that many of the researchers will never admit that. Instead, they'll confirm the basic principles of Atkins, but find some small thing wrong with the diet. Then they can point and say "Aha! We told you it was bad! Here's what you should be doing..." and lay out "Atkins with a small tweak" but with a different name. This avoids having to do the humility dance.

Not that I'm cynical or anything...

dogma Note: The term dogma is often applied to statements put forward by someone who thinks, inappropriately, that they should be accepted without proof.

[Chapter:] World Literature, Philosophy, and Religion


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

4 years? So where the he!! is this "federal" study?

Penn Medicine - Center for Weight and Eating Disorders Ongoing Research

Whew, thanks, Tyrion, found it at the bottom:



Gary Foster was the lead author of one of the "big 4" studies that shook things up in 2003-2004. I hope he does a good job with this one.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/21/2082

I think that is the study I am in - comparing low-carb (Atkins-ish) to low calorie (DASH). The study started in 2004 or 2005 and is monitoring each group for 2 1/2 years to see if maintenance on the two plans is any different. I am in the last group of the study and just started in November, so the study doesn't complete until mid-2008. Then the paper has to go through a peer review process before it can be published. I don't expect to see anything until 2009 or so.

Yes, thanks, Tyrion, for the link. I found this in a 2005 newsletter:

(ILSI News, Jan-March 2005, Vol 23, No 1, p. 7 link)

He may not be talking about results associated with his current study - since this does say he was summarizing "existing" studies. And I wish there had been mention of what kind of weight was lost - fat? Or fat and muscle?

2009...sigh.

Hi Everyone, interesting information
I have followed Dr.Atkins for the past 30 years. My mother turned me onto the diet. She found it late in her life when the damage was already done. Obesity, high bp, diabetes. I feel totally blessed to have eaten this way for most of my like. I would fall off like we do on any diet and get right back on.

I am 52 years old just passed a physical for 300,000 dollars life insurance. I am a gold member. My H was never overweight and as eaten sugar all his life, I noticed his belly and face started to look swollen, his belly was that high kind of a belly, went to MD blood piicture has unfortunately started to change high sugar, high bp, high cholesterol, change in liver function. Very quickly I switched him to Atkins. The sick looking pot belly that he started to get the swollen face has gone he was developing what they call syndrome X just eliminating the sugar he feels better more energy. Within 3 months BS normal BP normal will get retested by insurance company to see if they can come up with a better rate for him he isnt a gold member yet.

I am so glad that Dr. Atkins stuck to his guns and that research is happening to make it conclusive. I just wish I started H earlier and I am now encouraging the kids in that direction. I know they are watching and some things I do have already rubbed off. They dont like the bun with the hamburger

Loretta

tjf9 that's really cool. I assume you're in the LC side.

One of the problems with any diet study is that it can't be blinded-- you know what you're eating, there's no placebo.

The annoying part of these studies is poor compliance. I'm sure that's why LC always beats low fat for awhile, then the differences start to fade away. Will you be monitored in any way to be sure your carb intake isn't exceeding the guidelines???

They should try Google.

We turn in food logs every week with summaries of our total carb intake and exercise. No one is forcing us to stay under certain carb levels, although it is encouraged. The study I am in is looking at real world conditions - not what loss could be achieved if everyone were perfect. The intention is to give a group of people all the information and support they need to lose weight (on either method) and see if one method is better than the other in the long term.