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 > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, Oct-13-02, 09:59
tamarian's Avatar
tamarian tamarian is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 19,540
 
Plan: Atkins/PP/BFL
Stats: 400/223/200 Male 5 ft 11
BF:37%/17%/12%
Progress: 89%
Location: Ottawa, ON
Default What If Both The Medical Establishment And Dr. Robert

I received this by email from the author, who wanted to share this:.
--

WHAT IF BOTH THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT AND DR. ROBERT
ATKINS HAVE PROMOTED BIG FAT LIES?
by Gregory Ellis, PhD, CNS

WHAT IF IT'S ALL BEEN A BIG FAT LIE? This was the title
of an article published by the New York TIMES SUNDAY
MAGAZINE on July 7, 2002, authored by Gary Taubes.
Taubes contends that, after more than 30-years of
attack by the American medical Establishment, the well-
known champion of the low-carbohydrate diet, Dr. Robert
Atkins, may have been right after all. Further, he
argues, it may be the medical Establishment's own
dietary recommendation to eat less fat and more
carbohydrates that's actually the root cause of the
burgeoning obesity epidemic that has a strangle-hold on
the American population.

There are many important issues surrounding this
debate. The first, and most important, one concerns the
SOLITARY focus on DIET COMPOSITION as the primary
factor undergirding the obesity and overweight
epidemic. A second issue is the majority opinion that
a high consumption of dietary fat is the cause of
obesity. This second point, however, must not be viewed
in isolation because it's also the majority opinion
that fat and its associated components such as
cholesterol are the primary cause of the so-called
heart disease epidemic. We must, therefore, keep at the
forefront of our thinking the fact that fat has been
implicated as the cause of both epidemics. As a result
of this belief, DIET COMPOSITION tops the list of
factors that contribute to the increased rates of both
obesity and heart disease.

In 2002, the "fat-theory-as-cause" of these two
conditions is being discredited. Comfort-desiring
Americans found solace in the idea that our medical and
scientific specialists had uncovered the cause of these
two conditions. Although it's a widely held belief that
fat is an evil and deadly substance, the public
remained confused as to the best methods to control
their ever-expanding waistlines. Clearly, they were
comfortable with the idea that eating less fat was
heart-protective, but the failure of low-fat foods to
solve their weight control problem proved that
something was very wrong about what it took to control
bodyweight.

Acknowledgement of these observations is a recent
phenomenon: Interested observers are beginning to
question the supposed efficacy of the low-fat
eating recommendations after 30 years of our national
experiment with low-fat eating. Some have surmised, as
does Gary Taubes, that the rise in obesity meshes quite
well with the beginning of the low-fat experiment. More
importantly, and the very basis of his article, is the
fact that some of our medical elite have also made this
same observation: obesity may, in some way, be partly
related to low-fat eating.

Dr. Robert Atkins' rise to fame began with his
publication in 1972 of DR. ATKINS DIET REVOLUTION.
His book met with much criticism from the scientific
and medical Establishments, but the public gobbled it
up in spite of the harsh criticism. He has been much
maligned by the scientific and medical Establishments
since then, and these attacks are no less vicious today
than they were in 1972. But, the cracks in the walls
are getting deeper, and according to reports, Atkins
has been asked to speak at several major medical
schools about his findings.

But, as you'll soon see, the Atkins approach is as
seriously flawed as the low-fat diet, but for
different physiological reasons.


WHAT CONTRIBUTION HAS TAUBES' ARTICLE MADE TO THE
DEBATE?

What has Taubes' article accomplished? Well, it
certainly flushed out the talking heads. The proponents
of all the different dietary schools of thought have
voiced their concerns. There's Dr. Dean Ornish, the
vegetarian zealot, who pontificates that eating pork
rinds and sausage is dietary suicide. Dr. Andrew Weil,
champion of the high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet program,
shares with the world his contrarian view concerning
the low-carbohydrate regimen despite the fact that he's
so fat it should be obvious to anyone that he can't
make a real contribution to the dialogue.

Taubes' article did nothing to change anybody: in fact,
it solidified each "expert's" position because these
people can't possibly ever admit that they were wrong.
We'd all know, then, that they hadn't done their
homework and that they were largely ignorant of the
facts that underlie obesity.

More important, however, is the fact that the article
dragged the American people out of their comfort zone,
dispelling their belief that it had all been figured
out for them. Now they're concerned that we really
don't know what's going on and that our unchallenged
reliance on medicine and science may have been
misguided. So a number of fundamental, cherished
beliefs are now tarnished, and people just don't know
what to do. Everyone's getting fatter, and even if
people aren't overweight, many have too much fat on
their bodies, and too little muscle, making for an
unsightly and uncomfortable appearance. So, if people
were confused before, with all the hundreds, indeed
thousands, of weight control opinions buzzing around,
they're even more confused now with the release of
Taubes' paradigm-shifting article.

In the aftermath of the article, web chat rooms and
forums were besieged with cries for help. The news
media scrambled to set up interviews with anyone who
had an opinion. Unceasing chatter filled people's
discourse and minds. Everyone was trying to figure out
what it all meant. Unbelievably, the article has
elevated the issue to one of the top news items of the
day. But more importantly, it demonstrates how
thoroughly confused everyone is about what to do about
bodyweight regulation. The single-minded focus on DIET
COMPOSITION as the controlling factor in overweight and
obesity obscures all the more important factors in
seeking workable solutions to weight control. And no
one, not the media, not the "expert" interviewees, have
derailed the attempt to keep us focused on DIET
COMPOSITION which plays only a minor role in bodyweight
regulation. The failure to move DIET COMPOSITION from
center stage seriously hampers finding effective
strategies people can use to reach their goals.

It's clear that people have been, and are, unable to
control their bodyweight, no matter what diet they
follow, Atkins' diet included.

They're lost souls because nothing they have done
works; they just keep getting fatter or fail to lose
any weight when they try. Taubes' article, therefore,
opened Pandora's box, raising, as it did, more
questions, yet, at the same time, providing few answers
or solutions. So, now it boils down to a few renegade
physicians, scrambling off the sinking ship, slipping
and sliding on a deck greased with the failed remains
of the low-fat dogma. The renegade doctors and
scientists became renegades because they were among the
very few who actually did what doctors are supposed to
do: they observed. They saw colleagues losing weight
when following Atkins' low-carbohydrate diet even
though they had trashed the man for more than 30 years.
One doctor was quoted as saying that he paid no
attention to Atkins because he, and all his colleagues,
thought that he was a "jerk."

The U.S. government never funded studies to look at the
low-carbohydrate diet. Now, Taubes tells us, it's
willing to provide such funding because of pressure
from the renegade doctors. Interestingly, when the
renegades talk openly to their fellow physicians, who
are still faithful to the low-fat regimen, they are
shouted-down because, again, to admit misunderstanding
and a lack of knowledge isn't a common characteristic
of medical doctors.

Everyone has an opinion but, despite that fact, it
seems that there's a profound shortage of knowledge and
facts about what is involved in controlling one's
weight and, in particular, the role that DIET
COMPOSITION plays. Now, it seems that some, still only
a few, researchers want to test the Atkins diet, and
other versions of low-carbohydrate diets, a desire
shared by a group of other low-carbohydrate supporters.

Having dissed the low-carbohydrate diet for more than
30 years, these doctors now propose studying it!

Unfortunately, they don't have the training, or
experience, or slightest clue as to the sort of
questions that should be asked in designing the
studies. They're wholly ignorant of the volumes of
existing scientific literature that are already
available, literature that addresses many of the
questions they're asking. They want to do it all over
again as if it hasn't already been done. But it has.

And to whom are they turning for guidance? None other
than the redoubtable Dr. Robert Atkins.

Is this a good choice? That answer is easy. No. In
fact, it's a very poor choice. Why? Because it's
clear that many people fail to achieve bodyweight
regulation when following the Atkins version of the
low-carbohydrate diet. Some succeed, but that number
represents only a small percentage of all those who
have followed this regimen.

You didn't know this? Just visit any of the low-
carbohydrate chat rooms. Or talk to colleagues at work
-- or people you meet at social functions. Millions
have tried the Atkins plan. And many millions have
failed to lose weight or to lose as much weight as
they've wanted. What's the main complaint? They all say
it: it's the Plateau in losing weight where weight loss
simply ceases. No matter how much they cut their carbs,
no matter how much they try to stay in ketosis (Atkins'
magic land of weight loss success), they can't do it.
Ketosis also stops, along with the weight loss,
somewhere around weeks 3-5 of the plan. If they're one
of the fortunate 25%, they lose some weight, but even
these people reach a Plateau, stalled in
their efforts to lose more weight. They have no
idea what to do about it, and Atkins' solutions
simply don't work, despite his claims that they do.


WHAT IS AT THE APEX OF BODYWEIGHT REGULATION?

What, then, is at the apex of bodyweight regulation?
One thing and One thing Only: the much-maligned
calorie. Now, that seems rather simple doesn't it? You
may even have heard about this calorie thing
already. But, I'll tell you: It's not simple. It's very
complex, and if you don't understand every aspect of
calorie control, you're doomed. The secret resides,
therefore, in the balance between the calories you
consume and the calories you burn. I call this the
Energy Balance Equation. I understand its complexities,
and I'll teach them to you. When I do, your confusion
will melt like butter in a hot pan. I can make you an
expert in the nuances of bodyweight regulation. And
quickly.

There's simply no question about the "factness" of this
Law regarding the calorie. It's the Law of Nature.
And no one can get away with breaking Mother
Nature's Laws. It's worse than trying to cheat on
your taxes, trying to get away with breaking the Laws
of Mother Nature. Don't bother mounting an argument
against them because you'll lose.

OK, if it's this simple, why then is everyone so
confused? Because it has never been made clear that
this is the One and Only Fact you must first know
before you try anything else. You've been hoodwinked
into believing that DIET COMPOSITION is the most
important factor in bodyweight regulation. Taubes'
article only reinforces that notion, further clouding
truth-seeking. You can now easily see the myopia in all
the competing camps because DIET COMPOSITION has
been their focus, one way or another, for decades.
There has been no effort to prioritize the facts
involved in the successful regulation of bodyweight.

Does the low-carbohydrate diet work? Yes. Do I support
a low-carbohydrate diet? Yes, but only the correct
version. Why does it work? It works for one reason and
one reason only: It reduces food consumption, thereby
reducing calorie intake. It adheres to the Laws of
Nature. Does this automatic reduction in food
intake work for everyone? Absolutely not. Why? I don't
know.

It works in varying degrees: in some, it reduces
food intake significantly, and in others, not at all.
Then it fails. But, no matter what, DIET COMPOSITION
and the low-carbohydrate diet are only part of what I
call the 100% Weight Loss and Weight Control Solution.

Why does one stall-out in his weight loss when
following the Atkins version -- and also the others --
of the low-carbohydrate diet? Because as one loses
weight, his calorie needs decrease, so he must eat less
to continue losing or to maintain the new, lower
bodyweight. And the decreasing calorie needs gradually
overcome the ability of the low-carbohydrate diet to
reduce food intake automatically. At this juncture, the
individual must be acutely aware of his calorie intake
and reduce food consumption so that weight loss can
proceed. I detail this whole process in my chapters
about DIET COMPOSITION and in my DR. ELLIS'S 100/100
PLAN and in Dr. Ellis's version of the low-carbohydrate
diet.

I have counseled Atkins' failures for more than 10
years, and this is no small number. Our Establishment
weight loss experts, whose own dietary advice has
failed, now propose siding with Atkins, whose dietary
advice also has failed. Even if a fairy godmother
tapped these doctors on the head with her smart-stick,
50 years from now they'd undoubtedly know little more
than they know today because they have no experience
and no knowledge of any of this. They simply don't
even know what questions to ask; that's why they're
blindly turning to Atkins. And Atkins is grinning like
a Cheshire cat. But he shouldn't be because he's wrong
too.


SO BOTH STANCES HAVE BEEN BIG FAT LIES.

The docs are just as confused as the public. They'll
study the low-carbohydrate diet to death, something
that has already been done, and they'll come up with
more incorrect theories and misinformation, just as
they did when they bought into the low-fat diet scam in
the first place -- all because they don't know what
they're doing.

Why, indeed, would you expect anything else? They
couldn't figure it out in the last half-century, so
what changes have occurred that will make comprehension
happen today? Taubes' and the renegade medical doctors'
observations suggest that low-fat eating is partly
responsible for the overweight epidemic. Does it follow
then that we should hand over the responsibility of
determining which dietary regimen is the better one to
the same medical Establishment that gave us the false
recommendations in the first place? This institution
took more than 30 years to make the INESCAPABLE
OBSERVATION that the low-fat diet is implicated in
weight gain. Now, how long will it take them to
discover this same truth, not just by observation, but
by Science, and, then, arrive at some conclusions about
the physiological and biochemical processes involved? I
argue that they simply will not be able to do it under
any circumstance, particularly if they base their
initial studies on the fatally flawed version of the
low-carbohydrate diet that Atkins has had on the table
for the last 30 years.

The science has been around for more than fifty years.
The low-carbohydrate diet was exhaustively studied,
particularly by Dr. John Yudkin, who published his
seminal paper back in 1960, having found the same
thing that the more recent studies are finding.

Why must we repeat studying what we already know?

Now, if you want, you can wait around until this new
group of scientists, who haven't studied the
historical records, perform the same research all over
again, or, better yet, you can read all about it now:
every last detail and piece of information that
you need and want. You can end the confusion
immediately. And this includes our scientists too
because I've pulled it all together for them as
well. Do you want to wait or...

do you want it today?


I have written 600 pages of SOLUTIONS. Why me? I got
fat, really fat, at age 12. I spent the next 43 years
of my life researching every aspect of how the body,
itself, regulates its weight. And do you know what I
discovered? Everything. I learned it all. And I can
tell you accurately, precisely, and exactly how you can
succeed. You see, bodyweight is governed by the Laws of
Nature, and we all must obey these inviolate Laws -- or
we're doomed to fail.

What is the Fatal Flaw in the Atkins version of the
low-carbohydrate diet? Atkins denies the Law of Nature
and, instead, claims that the calorie theory is a myth,
exalting carbohydrates as the primary regulator of
bodyweight. This notion leads to many flaws in his
program's design. His success, limited as it is, has
been achieved because of the powerful effect that
carbohydrate reduction has on reducing food intake.


WHAT DOES BIOCHEMISTRY HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

Taubes tells us about the growth in the understanding
of Endocrinology 101, a term coined by Harvard
researcher David Ludwig. It's Ludwig's contention that
Endocrinology 101 was poorly understood during the
1960's when the whole anti-fat dogma was fueled by the
belief that fat was the cause of heart disease. In
conflict with Ludwig's argument, however, is the
historical fact that Endocrinology 100 (which
preceded 101 by about 100 years) was all very well
worked out by 1960. Therefore, all the elemental
science was in place for those scientists who might
have chosen to read it and, hence, we could have
avoided the decisions that have taken the country down
the wrong road for the last 40 years.

Important to any discussion about DIET COMPOSITION is
the understanding, well-known already by 1960 and first
discovered in 1852, that carbohydrates turn-on a
process in the body in which they are rapidly converted
to body fat. Carbohydrates have been the darling of
nutrition scientists for decades. It was believed, and
still is today, that carbohydrates are the primary
source of fuel for all of the organs and tissues of the
body. In fact, as late as 1966, many researchers
believed that carbohydrates provided 100% of the fuel
needs of exercising muscle. We know now, in 2002, that
80% of the fuel requirements in resting man are
supplied by fat and that 75% or more of the fuel needs
of exercising muscles are supplied by fat. As I've
said, the fact that carbohydrates are rapidly converted
to body fat was known by 1960, and it was also known
that eating fat, and no carbohydrates, abolishes
entirely the process that leads to increases in body
fat stores. But no one seemed to read the papers,
certainly not those who were responsible for dictating
public dietary policy.

The low-carbohydrate diet has a long history, dating
back to the early 1800's. It had been trotted-out
publicly by the 1920's and was introduced nationally
on a very large scale during the 1950's as the Dupont
diet because Dr. Alfred Pennington introduced it to the
corpulent executives of the Dupont company in
Wilmington, Delaware. It was highly publicized in
HOLIDAY magazine and picked up the moniker of the
HOLIDAY diet. By the time Atkins wrote his book, the
diet had been used for decades.

Where did Atkins go wrong in damning the calorie
theory? Well, we need a little more history to get that
answer. It has been well-known for 150 years, at least,
that man is held accountable by the Laws of
Thermodynamics, the Laws of Conservation of Energy.
This, of course, is the Energy Balance Equation:
calories in vs. calories out. Nutritionists have long
accepted the calorie theory, and to help them
understand the causes of obesity, they gathered
information about what people ate and how much physical
activity they performed. Interestingly, the self-
reports of the overweight and obese indicated that they
didn't eat more food than normal weight people. So the
idea arose that obese people had a metabolic defect, a
disease. Do you think this made a confusing situation
even more confusing? You bet it did.

Around 1983, Dr. Dale Schoeller, of the University of
Wisconsin, really threw a monkey wrench into the wheels
of obesity-theories by introducing a new technique,
doubly-labeled water: a method that allows scientists
to accurately measure people's calorie burn over a
period of several weeks. Extensive studies were
undertaken using the doubly-labeled water technique
after about 1990. It was inarguably discovered that the
obese didn't, in fact, require the same number of
calories as their normal weight counterparts. What was,
in fact, discovered is that they burned MORE calories
and that calorie burning was related to bodyweight. The
results of these studies trashed at least 75 years of
nutritional scientific findings, as well as existing
theories. These facts, of course, invalidate the
nonsense spewing out of the mouth of Kevin Trudeau, the
infomercial salesman selling Atkins' video tapes.
Trudeau tells us, with great aplomb, the "fact" that
thin people can eat all that they want, while fat
people, eating the same amount, keep gaining. This is
why confusion reigns: People with no training,
infomercial salesmen, and doctors too, spew endless
amounts of misinformation every day and in every way.

It's now known that all people tend to under-report how
much food they eat by a whopping 20-50%! They also
over-report their physical activity by about 50%. This
is what caused Atkins to reject the calorie theory.
He'd ask his new clients what they ate, and they, in
turn, under-reported the amount they ate, and he
believed them. In my book, I detail Atkins'
misunderstandings through an exhaustive analysis of his
faulty beliefs.

Atkins would put the client on a low-carbohydrate diet
of a known calorie content, which was higher in
calories than the amount the subject REPORTED that he
consumed previously. Thus, he developed his idea of
"Metabolic Advantage," his belief that a low-
carbohydrate diet allowed its followers to lose weight
while consuming more food than those on mixed diets.
This, of course, is a mistaken assumption.

We can calculate people's calorie needs based on
formulas because we are not very different from one
another. There's no such thing as a "fast" or "slow"
metabolism despite what most people believe. Calorie
needs are based on body size and on the amount of
physical activity we perform; it's that simple.

What of the low-carbohydrate diet? I detail all of this
in my grand opus, Dr. Gregory Ellis's ULTIMATE DIET
SECRETS. In short, carbohydrates are converted to body
fat; they're not the preferred fuel of the body's
tissues, and they do send a signal to the body to store
this fuel as fat. The main hormonal signal for this is
a shift in the ratio of the two pancreatic hormones,
glucagon and insulin. Most authorities implicate
insulin as the primary driver of this process, but it
is, rather, the digested carbohydrate itself, glucose
or blood sugar, that drives this process. In fact,
there's a whole metabolic shift that occurs in the body
under the influence of carbohydrate eating that turns
the body into a highly efficient fat-making plant, even
down to an increase in the genes that manufacture the
enzymes responsible for converting carbohydrate fuel
into fat.

And what happens to appetite and hunger when
carbohydrates are converted to fat? The blood is
cleared of fuel, and the "active" tissues, denied fuel,
send a feeding signal to the brain that drives
appetite. The result? Overeating. This is what I call
starvation in the face of obesity -- both processes
occurring simultaneously. More about this shortly.


IS DIET COMPOSITION THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN
BODYWEIGHT REGULATION?

Taubes attempts to reconcile some of the other issues
that may underlie the obesity epidemic. But, here
again, we get more questions than answers. He
interviewed Dr. William Dietz, who runs the nutrition
division of the Centers for Disease Control, about the
role of too little physical activity in the etiology of
obesity. Dietz denies a relationship and points to the
increase in "leisure exercise mania" that has occurred
since about 1970, citing that this apparent increase in
daily physical activity did nothing to stop the
burgeoning increase in weight gain. This suggested to
him that physical activity isn't implicated as a cause
of the obesity epidemic. He doesn't understand,
however, that, as leisure exercise increased, total
daily physical activity decreased to an even larger
extent so that total daily calorie burning is less now
than it was 30 years ago. This is a process that's been
on-going in the increasingly-mechanized Western nations
ever since the end of World War II.

Most scientists have concluded that the obesity
epidemic is LARGELY a function of the decrease in daily
physical activity and that it has little to do with
food intake. But what they don't know is that the
decrease in physical activity, itself, has a direct
impact on food intake because inactive people fail to
achieve an intake of food that adjusts itself downward
so as to match their decreased physical activity. This
is the case because a too-low level of physical
activity actually drives people to eat more food than
they really need. This extremely important but little-
known fact was discovered more than 50 years ago by
Dr. Jean Mayer. Recently Dr. Dale Schoeller has re-
validated Mayer's research by using doubly-labeled
water, a technique far more sophisticated than the
tools available to Dr. Mayer in the 1950's.

Unfortunately, current-day scientists consistently
miss the actual contribution of DIET COMPOSITION to the
obesity and over-fat epidemic because they have
universally bought into all the beliefs that "sanctify"
the low-fat dogma. This is scientific Reductionism at
its grandest -- and worst.

I discuss these details extensively in ULTIMATE DIET
SECRETS. As a side note, Dr. Dale Schoeller supports
the idea that decreased physical activity is one of the
main causes of the obesity epidemic. Dr. William Dietz,
as we've observed, has denied this relationship. Since
Dr. Dietz and Dr. Schoeller have co-authored scientific
papers, it's surprising that Dietz is unaware of
Schoeller's research. It's noteworthy that Dietz has
also used the doubly-labeled water technique in his
studies. So even at the level of the scientist, there's
mass confusion, and Taubes is unable to provide any
resolution because he's a journalist and must rely
solely on the opinions of those he interviews. And
those opinions do nothing to provide answers to the
public's dilemma. I am a scientist, and because of my
many years' investigation into every aspect of
bodyweight regulation, I can clear the air because this
is what I have spent 43 years studying -- and doing.


THE FAT THEORY OF HEART DISEASE

The fat theory of heart disease was first proposed in
1953 by Dr. Ancel Keys of the University of Minnesota.
Keys' study was a study in scientific skulduggery
because it was later uncovered that his data didn't
reflect the facts about the relationship between diet
and heart disease. Soon after the release of Keys'
findings, many scientists showed that the fat theory of
heart disease was false and untrue. Their research and
evidence, however, didn't stop the burgeoning
juggernaut led, largely, by the American Heart
Association's fueling of the fire. Keys' study,
however, still serves as the Rock of Gibraltar for the
proponents of the fat theory of heart disease. After
two decades of on-going research, Dr. George Mann
declared irrevocably that "Saturated fat and
cholesterol in the diet are not the cause of coronary
heart disease. That myth is the greatest scientific
deception of this century, perhaps of any century."

Taubes was able to uncover these shenanigans because
the facts about the invalidity of the fat theory
of heart disease are well covered in the scientific
literature, not hidden behind locked doors like
information about the Kennedy assassination. Taubes
says, "The case was eventually settled not by science
but by politics."

False as it is, the fat theory of heart disease came
to be closely associated with the idea that fat causes
obesity.

The public was never fully informed as to the
logic behind decreasing dietary fat as that
logic was understood by nutritionists. Fat contains
9 calories per gram; and carbohydrates contain less
than half that amount, 4 calories per gram. The
promoters of reducing fat intake reasoned that people
would reduce their calorie intake by 50% if they
substituted carbohydrates for fat. But it didn't work.
The take-home message for the people was that fat,
itself, made one fat. In a too simplistic sense, they
came to the notion that the fat eaten becomes,
directly, fat on one's body. This, of course, was in
direct conflict with the scientific fact that few knew:
it's actually carbohydrates that turn to fat. Fat,
when eaten with few carbohydrates, provides the
necessary calories and fuel for the active tissues,
thereby reducing food intake. Carbohydrates drive an
increased food intake because they are stored as fat,
which eliminates the availability of their calories
and fuel to the active tissues. The tissues, at that
point, are starving and do what they need to do to get
the fuel they want: They tell the feeding centers of
the brain to send out hunger signals so that the animal
(the human being) will follow his in-born Biological
drives and get some food. Unfortunately, the now-
educated animal eats carbohydrates and sets into motion
a vicious cycle of getting fat in the face of
starvation. What a Biological catastrophe.

Scientists, specializing in the study of what drives
appetite and hunger, have convincingly shown that we
don't eat for the number of calories that go into the
mouth: appetite and hunger are controlled by fuel
availability. Food that's stored (carbohydrates stored
as fat) is no longer available to be burned. We must
then eat more to provide fuel to the active tissues.
This desire to eat is a Biological drive and is not
easily overcome by Willpower. Plus, people have been
taught that hunger signals must be obeyed. Of course,
if the food you're eating is stored as fat, hunger
signals arising from the depletion of fuel in the blood
will spell disaster for bodyweight regulation. This
process is profoundly turned-on in people who have lost
weight, making it difficult for them to avoid "weight
gain relapse." And when the body is actively converting
carbohydrates into fat, any ingested fat gets carried
along for the ride into fat storage in the fat cells.
This storage of fat as fat, however, doesn't easily
occur when the diet is carbohydrate-reduced. So, it's
actually a mixed diet of carbohydrate and fat, the
"super-market diet," that drives weight gain, and the
real culprit is the carbohydrate, not the fat, because
carbohydrates create a nutritional and hormonal
environment that sets the stage for fuel storage as
fat. Fat merely piggy-backs along (via some complicated
enzymatic changes in the fat and muscle cells) for the
ride into fat storage because the fat-making and fat-
storage machinery are revved up into a high gear. Most
people's low-fat diets contain enough fat and
carbohydrate to qualify as a "super-market" diet.

In a recent survey I conducted, I discovered that 70%
of the people I polled believed that fat was more of an
issue in bodyweight regulation than calories. A fatal
misunderstanding! So Americans were granted a license
to eat all the low-fat food that they wanted. And they
did, decreasing, at the same time, how much they moved.

One could not have a more deadly prescription.

And the Atkins plan? Why does it fail so miserably?
For the same reason that the low-fat diet fails. He
grants people a license to eat all the protein and fat
foods that they want as long as they restrict
carbohydrates. Will this work? It works a little
better than the low-fat protocol but still not very
well. One group says, "Eat all you want of this food
type." Another says, "Eat all you want of this other
food type." You just can't eat whatever you want
because you must match what you eat to what you burn in
order to stay in calorie and bodyweight balance. I
teach special techniques that help people control
these processes.

Since bodyweight regulation is controlled by the Laws
of Nature, adherence to those Laws guarantees 100%
success rates. This is what I call Dr. Gregory Ellis's
100% Weight Loss and Weight Control Solution. If you do
what I recommend, you cannot fail.

In summary, Gary Taubes' article does nothing to allay
the confusion; it only adds to it. He must rely on what
he believes is expert opinion; in fact, however, it is
little more than misinformation. Misinformation,
needless to say, triggers only more questions, not
answers. He tells us that it all "may be settled sooner
rather than later and we might have some long-awaited
answers as to why we grow fat and whether it is indeed
preordained by societal forces or by our choices of
foods." And he places his faith for the uncovering of
the answers in the very same doctors who failed to
figure it out during the last 40 years. How does he
expect doctors, who had no clue for 40 years, to
become enlightened -- all of a sudden?

He's wrong, of course; we have all the answers right
now. I wrote them all in my book, ULTIMATE DIET
SECRETS. And I, unlike my scientific brethren, knew
what questions to ask because I have personally done
everything there is to do in the bodyweight regulation
game. After I solved my own obesity problem, I decided
to develop a good physique. But to do that I had to go
the extra mile because developing a good physique means
paying exquisite attention to details.

So as our scientists plunge into a study of the
flawed Atkins' program, little new light will be shed
on bodyweight regulation because Atkins disavows the
Energy Balance Equation. It'll take them at least ten
years to figure out the flaws in the Atkins' plan, and
then, instead of realizing that the problem is directly
related to the faultiness of Atkins' basic premise,
they'll blame the low-carbohydrate diet and, thus, send
us all off on another 20 years of wild goose chasing.

There's no longer any need, however, to wait for the
answers people need. Every single one of them is
already written in the pages of my book. We need no
further studies; and we don't need to wait 40 more
years to get the information that's available today.

Gregory Ellis, PhD
Certified Nutrition Specialist
July 23, 2002
www.ultimatedietsecrets.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sun, Oct-13-02, 14:15
Janeydi's Avatar
Janeydi Janeydi is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 221
 
Plan: Hybrid
Stats: 181/157/130 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 47%
Location: Texas
Default

Speaking of infomercials!
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sun, Oct-13-02, 16:49
Kristine's Avatar
Kristine Kristine is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22,798
 
Plan: Primal/P:E
Stats: 171/155/155 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Default

Heh heh... yeah. He had me up until:
Quote:
Now, if you want, you can wait around until this new group of scientists (...) perform the same research all over again, or, better yet, you can read all about it now: (...) I have written 600 pages of SOLUTIONS..."


I agree with his opinion that calories *do* count, but I disagree with his discrediting of the Atkins program because Dr A. supposedly says you can eat all the protein and fat you want. I read DANDR, and I don't remember reading that part. I remember it being more like, "eat until you are satisfied but not stuffed." Eating like that, I barely get *enough* calories in, let alone too many.

>>"There's no such thing as a "fast" or "slow" metabolism despite what most people believe. "

What?! I'd really like to know what he means by that. I've *dieted* my way to slow metabolism. I wasn't *imagining* the icy cold hands and feet, the blue fingernails, the low blood pressure and heart rate, constantly being cold and tired... And hasn't he ever heard of hypothyroidism?

Still interesting, though. Might be a good read if it's ever at my library.

Last edited by Kristine : Sun, Oct-13-02 at 16:54.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sun, Oct-13-02, 16:53
suze_c's Avatar
suze_c suze_c is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,082
 
Plan: SuManKins
Stats: 321/249/221 Female 64 inches
BF:Let's not go there
Progress: 72%
Location: Midwest Flatlands
Default

I read almost all of this guys' spiel, until I got to the part that said that there is NO SUCH THING as a fast or slow metabolism,...then I had to stop... Ok Mr.-Know-It-All, if caloric intake is SUCH a factor in weight gain, then why don't you explain to me how my son, who is 22 yrs. old, 5 foot 9 inches tall, who has cerebral palsy does NOT, and I repeat NOT GAIN WEIGHT EVEN EATING A CALORIC LEVEL OF 4,000-5,000 calories PER DAY!!!
Go ahead... try to explain that... he has seen nutritionists, and dieticians, and doctors, and none of them can give an answer to it. He is unable to walk,unless with assistance,can get off of couches and chairs by himself, and can crawl by himself, but has no high amount of activity in any given day... I have been told that those with cerebral palsy have a 25% higher metabolic rate than most do... and oh yeah, by the way.... if there is no such thing as metabolism making a difference in the way that someone loses weight, then why is it when someone raises their metabolism by: 1.) eating, and/or 2.) exercise, and/or 3.) drugs.... how is it then, that those people then lose weight? HHmmm something to think about isn't it? I am sure going to send this Mr. Ellis an email regarding this article as soon as I am done reading it... and I am going to ask him the very same question that I asked here.

Last edited by suze_c : Sun, Oct-13-02 at 16:58.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sun, Oct-13-02, 17:04
Kristine's Avatar
Kristine Kristine is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22,798
 
Plan: Primal/P:E
Stats: 171/155/155 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Default

Hi Suze! Maybe you could ask if he'd mind if you post his answer to this board. I'd be curious.

Though I'm always interested in reading debate over Atkins and LC; so far, he's made too many generalizations that are inaccurate. I'm doubting that this gentleman, though knowledgable, has much new information to offer.

<i>Edit:</i> ...but at least he's good looking. Check out his website.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Oct-13-02, 17:53
suze_c's Avatar
suze_c suze_c is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,082
 
Plan: SuManKins
Stats: 321/249/221 Female 64 inches
BF:Let's not go there
Progress: 72%
Location: Midwest Flatlands
Post Contacted him, now let's see the reply!

I contacted the dude alright... I pasted into my e-mail, what I posted in here... and as far as looks.... hmmm he has muscles, but he looks too similiar to Rick Flair in a few of his photos for my liking I am VERY curious to see what kind of reply that I am going to get on this.... if I get any at all! and IF there is a reply, I will be sure to put it in here!
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Oct-13-02, 19:28
MrFrumble's Avatar
MrFrumble MrFrumble is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 61
 
Plan: Little of everything
Stats: 293/247/200 Male 73 inches
BF:
Progress: 49%
Location: California
Default

Once I saw the words DIET COMPOSITION in all caps for the 3rd time I knew this guy was about to try to sell me something.

Got to give him credit though for riding the wave in his quest for profits.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sun, Oct-13-02, 19:38
rjakubin rjakubin is offline
New Member
Posts: 20
 
Plan: TSP-II
Stats: 169/175/175
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Lake County, Indiana
Default

After reading the information on his site, my first impression was that he discovered Leptin. It's not that much different than what and how Par Deus attempts to explain weight loss plateus.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Oct-14-02, 08:39
mrfreddy's Avatar
mrfreddy mrfreddy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 761
 
Plan: common sense low carb
Stats: 221/190/175 Male 6 feet
BF:27/13/10??
Progress: 67%
Location: New York City
Default

this where he lost me:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Millions
have tried the Atkins plan. And many millions have
failed to lose weight or to lose as much weight as
they've wanted. What's the main complaint? They all say
it: it's the Plateau in losing weight where weight loss
simply ceases. No matter how much they cut their carbs,
no matter how much they try to stay in ketosis (Atkins'
magic land of weight loss success), they can't do it.
Ketosis also stops, along with the weight loss,
somewhere around weeks 3-5 of the plan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


isnt it true that everyone on any kind of diet goes through plateaus? And isn't it true that if you stick with the lo-carb plan, that MOST people eventually come out of their plateau? So, this guy is bascially LYING, isn't he? Or he is simply misinformed, at best.

And a blowhard too! I just skimmed the rest, to discover he is trying to sell something. I suspected as much when he kept referring to DIET COMPOSITION repeatedly and out of context...

I also like how he tries to keep an objective, scientific tone, but seems to slip here and there. That "rats off the sinking ship" bit was a clinker!
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Oct-14-02, 11:29
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

Very interesting article, especially the first part relating how Gary Taube shook up the establishment and basically opened people's eyes to the fact no one really knows what they are talking about.

Where he lost me however is where he said, forget everything you have you learned and turn to me, poor lost souls, I have all the answers. That kind of attitude always turns me off.

He dismisses infomercials, yet he sounds exactly like one. He seems to have good things to say, yet his dismissive attitude towards any method that isn't his takes away from his credibility in my eyes. He sounds like a salesman.

He should learn to stop bashing other people and simply promote his own approach with less arrogance. Time will prove him right..........or wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Mon, Oct-14-02, 12:47
Gregory Gregory is offline
New Member
Posts: 9
 
Plan: Ellis Version
Stats: 200/200/200
BF:
Progress:
Location: Philadelphia
Default responses

He's dumb, arrogant, condescending, a salesman, so much detritus. Yes, I know, I know but thanks all for reminding me.

Anyway, I didn't want to let any of you down so here is the answer I posted back to my one detractor who believed for sure I wouldn't post.

I'm also curious as to how many of you responded to Taubes article. Did you go after him too? Interesting responses, very much as I expected. But anyway, ya gotta have fun in life.



Thank you for your supportive note.

I can only assume that you have no training in nutrition and therefore an extensive explanation about what you refute to be the known Laws of Thermodynamics is beyond the scope of an email. However, if you want the complete details on this subject, then I would refer you to my book or you could undertake a detailed exploration of the extant scientific literture on the subject of metabolic rates. I'd start my study using keywords in the PubMed database which you can access through any serach engine. Use "metabolism," "calorimeter," "doubly labeled water," and "metabolic rate." Also study the work by Dr. Dale Schoeller and Dr. Susan Jebb.

I don't make this stuff up. This is what one learns in a 43-year study of the subject of nutrition.

It was clearly the point of my piece to point out how everyone is so confused and you fully confirm my ascertation that this is the case.

I took it upon myself, however, for your benefit, to do a quick search for you in the scientific literature to see what we scientists know about cerebral palsy and resting metabolic rate and total daily energy expenditure. This is some of what turned up.

: J Am Diet Assoc 1997 Sep;97(9):966-70 Related Articles, Links


Total energy expenditure in adults with cerebral palsy as assessed by doubly labeled water.

Johnson RK, Hildreth HG, Contompasis SH, Goran MI.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington 05405,
USA.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize total energy expenditure (TEE) in free-living adults with cerebral palsy (CP) using the doubly labeled water technique, and to determine those physiologic variables and characteristics of CP that were markers of TEE in adults with CP. DESIGN: TEE was measured using the doubly labeled water technique in 30 free-living adults with CP (12 women, 18 men). To determine the best markers of TEE, the following factors were examined: CP status, resting metabolic rate (RMR), anthropometric characteristics and body composition by means of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and skinfold thickness measurements, energy cost of leisure-time activities, and oral-motor impairment.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Means +/- standard deviations, t tests, Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficients, Spearman rank correlation coefficients, chi 2, stepwise multiple-correlation regression analysis, and analysis of covariance were used to examine the relationships among variables of interest.

RESULTS: TEE was highly variable in the sample (mean = 2,455 +/- 622 kcal/day for men and 1,986 +/- 363 kcal/day for women). Stepwise regression analysis showed that TEE was best predicted in the sample by RMR, percentage body fat determined
by DXA, ambulation status, and sex (multiple R = .68, P = .003). When practical, easily measured variables were used, TEE was best predicted by height, ambulation status, percentage body fat by skinfold thickness measurements, and sex (multiple R = .61, P. = 018). The contribution of energy expended in physical activity to TEE was significantly higher in the ambulatory subjects than the nonambulatory subjects (25% vs 16%, respectively; P = .009). APPLICATIONS: The high degree of variability in
TEE, largely attributable to high interindividual variation in energy
expended in physical activity, makes it difficult to provide general
guidelines for energy requirements for adults with CP. Because ambulation status was an important predictor of TEE, it must be accounted for in estimating energy requirements in this population.

PMID: 9284872 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Am J Clin Nutr 1996 Oct;64(4):627-34 Related Articles, Links


Energy expenditure of children and adolescents with severe disabilities: a cerebral palsy model.

Stallings VA, Zemel BS, Davies JC, Cronk CE, Charney EB.

Division of Gastroenterology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. stallingsv~email.chop.edu

Spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy (SQCP) is a severe disability that is associated with abnormal physical activity, body composition, and food intake and with frequent malnutrition. This study examined the pattern of dietary intake, anthropometry, and energy expenditure in a group of subjects with SQCP aged 2-18 y and a normal control group. The energy expenditure
pattern was determined from resting energy expenditure (REE, n = 61 SQCP; n = 37 control group) by using indirect calorimetry and from total energy expenditure (TEE, n = 32 SQCP; n = 32 control group) by using the doubly labeled water method. Physical activity, including the chronic spasticity of SQCP, was estimated from the ratio of TEE to REE. Abnormal growth and body
composition were common and dietary intake was markedly overreported in the children with SQCP. Children with SQCP were divided according to body fat stores determined by triceps-skinfold-thickness measurements. The children
with low fat stores had a lower REE adjusted for fat-free mass compared with the SQCP and control groups with adequate fat stores. TEE was significantly lower for the SQCP group than for the control group. The ratio of TEE to REE, indicating energy for nonbasal needs, was significantly lower in the SQCP children than in the control group, with the adequately nourished SQCP
children having lower ratios than the more poorly nourished SQCP group. The nonbasal energy expenditure, such as for physical activity and spasticity, of children with SQCP was low. The nutrition-related growth failure and abnormal pattern of REE are likely related to inadequate energy intake.

Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995 Mar;76(3):281-3 Related Articles, Links


Caloric requirements of a spastic immobile cerebral palsy patient: a case report.

Taylor SB, Shelton JE.

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Eastern Virginia
Graduate School of Medicine, Norfolk 23507, USA.

This article documents the reduced caloric requirements for a spastic, immobile, cerebral palsy patient. We report an 11-year-old immobile, spastic, quadriparetic patient who remained obese despite receiving less than one half of the recommended basal caloric requirements for age. Basal metabolic rate was determined by indirect calorimetry using a Sensor Medics
2900 instrument. Standard reference sources indicate that an able-bodied 11-year-old child of comparable height requires 1,493 kcal/d for support of basal metabolic functions. Our patient was followed for 8 weeks on reduced calories and assessed for adequacy of diet by nitrogen balance studies and other appropriate parameters. Our data suggest that a subset of severely impaired children with cerebral palsy may require much less in total kilocalories per day for nutritional support than previous studies would indicate.

PMID: 7717823 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Pediatr Res 1991 Jan;29(1):70-7 Related Articles, Links


Body composition and energy expenditure in adolescents with cerebral palsy or myelodysplasia.

Bandini LG, Schoeller DA, Fukagawa NK, Wykes LJ, Dietz WH.

Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139.

We measured body composition, resting metabolic rate (RMR), and total energy expenditure (TEE) in a group of adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) and myelodysplasia (M) aged 13- to 20-y-old using indirect calorimetry and the doubly labeled water method. Fat-free mass (FFM), RMR, and TEE were significantly lower in both the CP and M groups than comparable easurements
in a control group of normal adolescent males and females. The ratio of TEE to RMR did not differ between controls and ambulatory M and CP subjects. However, TEE/RMR was significantly lower in the nonambulatory M and CP subjects than in controls (p less than 0.01). Our data indicate that energy
requirements are reduced in both populations because both FFM and activity are decreased. Although energy requirements were decreased in both groups, the relationships between FFM and body weight differed. FFM and body weight were significantly correlated with RMR only in the M group. These data suggest that the type of paralysis in a handicapped population may affect
resting energy expenditure.

PMID: 2000262 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

As you can see from the above, you are significantly over-reporting the number of calories that you are feeding your child. This is a common factor in human's belief systems. Just as humans under-report their food intake by 20-50%, you are similarly over-reporting what you are feeding your child.
Clearly, the metabolic needs for calories of those with cerebral palsy is significantly lower than the needs of the healthy and ambulatory.

It would be rather easy to locate a metabolic ward where you live or you could contact a company called www.healthetech.com and look for a fitness center or person who owns their BodyGem portable resting metabolic rate unit and then run this test at home on your child to confirm the above. It is simply impossible for what you say to be true. Impossible. We are all beholden to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Having these numbers in hand would assist you in making better choices for your child's health and welfare.

Sorry to burst your bubble of comfort, but there are known Laws in operation here and it is my argument that so many are being befuddled by misinformed souls.

It's facinating to me how staunchly those in error hold on to their beliefs in the face of a dissenting view. But, at this juncture, and with what I have presented above, your position is simply untenable in the light of an overwhelming amount of scientific research that's been going on for at least 150 years. And amazingly, I didn't do any of it. Must we then call all of these scientists "know-it-alls" too?

I describe all of these facts for you in my book Ultimate Diet Secrets. It also my contention that the vast majority of nutritionists, doctors, and dieticians are absolutely in the dark over this matter too, another point that you prove for me as well.

So, there is your answer. I have responded and I have answered because there is an answer. And I did all of this for in spite of the tone of your comments which I feel could have been presented in a far less adversarial manner. But that is the nature of the web I guess.

Dr. Gregory Ellis
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Mon, Oct-14-02, 13:55
tamarian's Avatar
tamarian tamarian is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 19,540
 
Plan: Atkins/PP/BFL
Stats: 400/223/200 Male 5 ft 11
BF:37%/17%/12%
Progress: 89%
Location: Ottawa, ON
Default

Hi Dr. Ellis,

I'm glad you joined us. I have posted the article, simply because it is of interest to low-carbers, and we're open to arguments on both sides, and use this forum to debate the merits of each.

We do monitor against personal attacks and flames here. Some members commented on the promotional aspects of the article, which I feel is a legitimate comment.

And if any member uses such terms as " dumb, arrogant, condescending" we would consider that a "flame" and the post would be removed, and membership suspendid due to violation of our user agreement. I'm glad this did not happen.

I planned on reading the article in depth and responding, if I have something of interest to say. This may take a while due to it's length.

However, I would like to point out that even though there are many medical references to the calorie theory, they erroneosly consider it from a thermodynamic aspect.

Quote:
I can only assume that you have no training in nutrition and therefore an extensive explanation about what you refute to be the known Laws of Thermodynamics is beyond the scope of an email.


Doctors and nutritionists often ignore biochemistry.

If I fuel my truck with a low-fat diet, or low-carb diet, it won't run. If I fuel my self with unleaded fuel, I won't run (for long) either.

True, they cite study after study on thermodynamics and whatever the latest theory happens to be. Yet, they cannot explain why the Atkins Diet work, nor prove why they claim low-carb to be unhealthy.

I would think with thousands of years before carbs started creeping more and more into our diets, the burdon of proof would be on the low-carb nay sayers.

I still plan on reading it more details and possibly offer further comments.

Wa'il
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Mon, Oct-14-02, 14:43
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

I won't argue that calories ultimately matter, even on low carb. However...our bodies are more complex than people want to give credit for and there are a host of factors that ultimately determine what a good calorie level will be for each individual, including (but not limited to) hormone levels, activity levels and age. One size does not fit all.
What if....eating one way naturally made you burn more calories during an average day than another simply because your body had to work harder to break down those foods into energy and the metabolic pathways for doing so were less efficient than others? Wouldn't you be able to eat more calories eating this way, and still lose weight, than in another fashion where the metabolic pathways for breaking down those foods into energy were much more efficient and therefore less energy was wasted in the process of breaking chemical bonds?
I won't argue that low calorie diets work, but at what cost? And...how sustainable are they for the long haul? How easy (and realistic) is it to stick with a program when you are hungry and your body is crying out for food? Hunger is a very powerful drive and to expect people to override that drive consistantly is unrealistic at best.
I agree that many people have tried Atkins or other low carb programs and failed. Is this design flaw or operator error? Trying a program for a few weeks and giving up when the weight doesn't come off as fast as you'd like is very different from sticking with a program for a decent length of time (more than 3-5 weeks) and giving your body a chance to rest when it needs it.
I disagree with the statement that many (if not all) people stop losing weight after 3-5 weeks simply on low carb diets. My own experience (as well as hundreds of others here on this board) after 18 months on low carb has proven that to be false. Granted, I'm losing at a slow pace, but this isn't a race and I AM still losing. Plateaus and stalls are common in all forms of dieting, even starvation.
Then there's the issue of insulin resistance. High levels of carbs contribute to that problem and this has been demonstrated scientifically. Diabetes (which means you are insulin resistant by nature if you are a type 2) is reaching epidemic proportions both in the US and in other countries. Why? Apparently DIET COMPOSTION does matter for some, likely many and should be the main focus for people who have this medical problem. Okay....so carbs are a problem for those with insulin resistance. What does that leave? Low amounts of carbs in the form of low GI veggies, fruits and nuts, proteins and fats. Sounds like low carb to me.
One more thought...if low fat/low calorie diets work so well, why are people getting fatter following them? Design flaw or operator error?
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Mon, Oct-14-02, 14:55
Gregory Gregory is offline
New Member
Posts: 9
 
Plan: Ellis Version
Stats: 200/200/200
BF:
Progress:
Location: Philadelphia
Default

Thank you for your reply.

I want the forum people to understand that I am not opposed to the low-carbohydrate diet at all, I am only opposed to those versions that elevate carbohydrates to a position that is super-ordinate to calories in bodyweight regulation. This appears to be the position held by most writers about low-carbohydrate diets.

The low-carbohydrate diet works through one mechanism and one mechanism only and that is its tendency to reduce calorie consumption. This was all pointed out by Dr. John Yudkin in 1960, years before the appearance of the Atkins program.

It is also my argument that diet composition is not the most important factor in bodyweight regulation -- physical activity is. I am only taking on the role of teaching as I have more experience in these issues than anyone of whom I am aware.

I would argue with anyone who considers a 25-35% success rate from following a dietary regimen as something that "works." That is not working but failing when the possibility of success is 100% when following biological Laws that we are all held accountable to.

I take the position of trying to teach people how the body regulates its weight and have tried to remove the large amount of mythology surrounding this topic. I have also argued against the "Establishment" medical people for not understanding the basic biochemistry and physiology involved in bodyweight regulation, something Atkins has also failed to do. He simply fell into the low-carb diet and stopped trying to understand the whole process of bodyweight regulation and all aspects of it.

So what happens as one loses weight. Their calorie needs decrease and they must decrease their calorie intake or increase their expenditure or do a combination of both. This is just basic physiology that, unfortunately, few understand.

When I first did Atkins, following his recos to the letter, I gained five pounds. Gaining weight, not losing it, or not losing as much as one wants, is a feature of the low-carbohdrate diet plan offered by Atkins.

The low-carbohydrate diet can make a significant contribution to bodyweight regulation but it is not the most important factor. What it does do is reduce appetite and hunger and alter body composition in a somewhat favorable direction of fat loss and muscle gain.

Because one poster had the subjective experience of cold hands etc. does not invalidate the notion that we all have a predictable metabolic rate. That that rate DOES vary because of different factors WITHIN THAT INDIVIDUAL because of what he or she does does not invalidate the Laws of Thermodynamics, it only shows that a calorie consumed is a different beast than a calorie burned in the laboratory and that an INDIVIDUAL'S calorie needs vary as he changes. He can slow or up his metabolism a bit but this in no way remains if he returns to his previous state -- metabolism re-establishes itself. In normal healthy people at an average bodyweight there is no such thing as a SLOW or FAST metabolism, as I've said and now proven (on my very first day on the forum).

This was the purpose of my book: to explain why many of the observations made by people are real but also how to control what happens in the body when one tries to perturb it's homeostasis.

I find the unfounded comments made by posters rather fascinating, particularly the ones that say I am wrong. I assure you, I am not wrong, and if one would take the time to read my writing, they would find that I am not wrong and that there is a great deal of helpful information provided in my work.

I tell you exactly what is going on when Atkins works and tell you exactly what is happening when it doesn't. And many of you know it often does not work because you can read the posts of the people who fail on this very forum.

The body is controlled by Nature's Laws. They cannot be refuted. The Laws of Thermodynamics are irrefutable. They came before we did. They must be applied first and then the explanations for people's observations will be forthcoming.

I understand about forum rules and only want to discuss issues and try to remove personal assaults.

What I saw in response to the post of my piece looked very much like personal assaults. I consider someone calling me a "know-it-all" just as personally offensive as calling me an idiot or a jerk. There was no call for that type of comment. The poster could have just posed the question: How can you explain my observation? I would have been happy to explain and I even did although the tone of the response was not friendly.

As we found, the scientific research shows that parents of children with cerebral palsy over-report the child's food intake. The Laws of Thermodynamics hold, as they must. I believe that if this person now uses this objective information that she may be able to help her child more effectively. This is the purpose of good science and there is a lot of good science as well as bad science. I am only trying to take the subjective and make it more objective. I spent many years learning what I have learned and I had actually expected a more postive response from the people on this forum.

As to the so-called commercial nature of my piece -- I did not post it, I requested the forum to post it and they did. I did not spam anyone in any way. That piece was intended as a news release and it will be used in such a manner.

I am trying to get this country focused on the notion that it is not still a question of how to control our bodyweight. All of those factors are known but the medical community and people like Taubes, Ornish, Atkins, and Weil all spread some amount of misinformation. It doesn't have to be this way because there have been thousands of scientists who have explored these issues. I just happened to put it all between two book covers.

Because I know this stuff, does that make me a bad person, an arrogant one? Is anyone criticizing Charles Barkley's new book, I Might Be Wrong, But I Doubt It.

Why not read me before you criticize me. Sure, I want to sell books, don't we all want to sell something?

I'll be glad to respond to any questions any one has, but I only ask that they come to me in the right tone. I've been in flame wars before and I won't do them anymore.

Greg Ellis
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Mon, Oct-14-02, 16:14
suze_c's Avatar
suze_c suze_c is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,082
 
Plan: SuManKins
Stats: 321/249/221 Female 64 inches
BF:Let's not go there
Progress: 72%
Location: Midwest Flatlands
Angry THAT ANSWER PISSES ME OFF

Quote:
As you can see from the above, you are significantly over-reporting the number of calories that you are feeding your child. This is a common factor in human's belief systems. Just as humans under-report their food intake by 20-50%, you are similarly over-reporting what you are feeding your child.Clearly, the metabolic needs for calories of those with cerebral palsy is significantly lower than the needs of the healthy and ambulatory.
Quote:
It is simply impossible for what you say to be true. Impossible. We are all beholden to the Laws of Thermodynamics.


I READ THE TECHNICAL EXPLANATIONS FOR YOUR REASONING AND "THEN" I CAME TO THE SPOT WHERE YOU SAY I AM MISCALCULATING WHAT I FEED MY SON. SORRY DR. ELLIS, I KEEP A FOOD LOG OF WHAT MY SON EATS, AND EVERYTHING HE EATS IS KEPT IN THAT LOG, SO DO NOT GO TELLING ME THAT I AM MISCALCULATING WHAT HE IS EATING!! You think that your answer is SOOOOOO correct, and that EVERYONE must "fit the rule". Well, sir, there are exceptions to the rule, and it appears that my son is one of them, according to what you have tried to explain.
Quote:
And I did all of this for in spite of the tone of your comments which I feel could have been presented in a far less adversarial manner. But that is the nature of the web I guess
As far as how I addressed my reply, if you were in my shoes, you might be aggravated as well. I did NOT resort to name calling I am SICK of doctors who think that they have all the answers regarding my son. Since he was younger, it took years, and I LITERALLY mean years for him to gain 30 lbs. of weight, and he ate EVERYTHING that was recommended for him, all the high cal, fattening foods, excess in calories... But oh right... it is *the mom's fault... she must not be writing everything down right, there muct be some miscalculation somewhere...right?* WRONG! I have been more than able to keep a food diary, and track of fat/protein/carbohydrates/sugars... you name it... I can count it! And furthermore, contrary to your belief, I AM FAMILIAR with the law of thermodynamics, and at this time, I am using that law to lose my excess weight. And I WILL look to see if there is anyone in our area, that has a "BodyGem portable resting metabolic rate unit " and get a reading from that, and I am truly hoping to be able to locate such a unit, for then Doctor, I will have the necessary information to PROVE you wrong in what you have said in regards to my son's daily caloric intake, and your insinuations that you say I am miscalculating his calories. Thank you for your e-mail. (For those on this forum, my fellow LC'ers, sorry if anyone considers the above post rude,as I was merely answering HIS ACCUSATIONS towards me, and it was also disrespectful, that he could not answer me in an e-mail. I am giving an exact copy of this post to his e-mail on his website.)
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



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:37.


Copyright © 2000-2021 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.