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 > Exercise Forums: Active Low-Carbers > Beginner/Low Intensity
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Fri, Nov-03-00, 11:18
tamarian's Avatar
tamarian tamarian is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 19,570
 
Plan: Atkins/PP/BFL
Stats: 400/223/200 Male 5 ft 11
BF:37%/17%/12%
Progress: 89%
Location: Ottawa, ON
Default

Thursday November 02 03:06 AM EST
Yo-yo Dieting Ups Heart Disease Risk
By Anne Burke
HealthScout Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 1 (HealthScout) -- If you're thinking about shedding the 10 extra pounds you lost but somehow managed to find again, you just might want to start loving yourself the way you are.

Women who repeatedly lose weight and gain it back have less of the good kind of cholesterol that helps reduce the risk of heart disease, claims a new study.

Levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) -- the good cholesterol -- are particularly low in obese women who repeatedly gain and lose weight, the study says. Even thinner yo-yo dieters, whose weight goes up and down like the toy, also have lower HDL levels than women who stay at the same weight, the study says.

"We have more reasons now to believe that dieting, per se, may be harmful," says Dr. C. Noel Bairey-Merz, medical director of the Preventive and Rehabilitative Cardiac Center at the Cedars-Sinai Research Institute in Los Angeles.

If you're fat or overweight, don't diet because it doesn't work anyway, Bairey-Merz says. Instead, she says get lots of exercise and make healthy food choices, and the weight will come off.

Yo-yo dieters analyzed by Bairey-Merz and her colleagues at three other institutions had 7 percent lower HDL levels than those who didn't diet in cycles -- 52 milligrams per deciliter vs. 56 milligrams per deciliter.

Although small, she says the difference is important. Previous studies have shown that each 1 milligram-per-deciliter increase in HDL cholesterol can decrease coronary heart disease risk by 3 percent.

The findings are significant because of the scarceness of research on the possible detrimental effects of weight cycling, says Joanne Ikeda, co-director of the Center for Weight and Health at the University of California, Berkeley. .

Medical professionals should not encourage weight cyclers to continue dieting, Ikeda says.

"We should help these people adopt a healthier lifestyle and help them be fit fat people. That in itself will help them reduce their chronic disease risk," she says.

Yo-yo dieters who participated in the study intentionally had taken off at least 10 pounds at least three times in their lives.

In the United States, many of the 40 percent of adult women who diet simply end up packing the weight back on, says Marion Olson, a research associate at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, who participated in the study.

And that has consequences, says Dr. Howard Hodis, an associate professor of medicine and preventive medicine at the University of Southern California.

"It's clear that this up-and-down weight losing and gaining is not a healthy thing. If what the study found is true, this just confirms that," Hodis says.

The researchers looked at 485 women who had complained of chest pains and were undergoing coronary angiography, or an X-ray examination of the blood vessels or chambers of the heart. Twenty-seven percent said they'd yo-yo dieted, with 19 percent having lost and gained 10 to 19 pounds; 6 percent had cycled 20 to 49 pounds, and 2 percent had cycled 50 pounds or more.

"We had a few people who cycled 10, 20 or 30 times," Bairey-Merz says.

The effect of yo-yo dieting on HDL levels had nothing to do with other factors, such as having a greater body mass index (your height/weight ratio), abdominal fat, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, diabetes or race, Olson says.

Results of the study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, appear in the November Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

What To Do

Eat lots of fruits and vegetables each day, says Bairey-Merz. "An interesting offshoot when you eat those fruits and vegetables is that you happen to lose weight," she says.

To learn more about healthy eating habits, check the Food Guide Pyramid online.

Or, you may want to read previous HealthScout articles on dieting.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/hsn/20...ase_risk_1.html
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Nov-03-00, 11:22
tamarian's Avatar
tamarian tamarian is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 19,570
 
Plan: Atkins/PP/BFL
Stats: 400/223/200 Male 5 ft 11
BF:37%/17%/12%
Progress: 89%
Location: Ottawa, ON
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by tamarian
"We should help these people adopt a healthier lifestyle and help them be fit fat people. That in itself will help them reduce their chronic disease risk," she says.


This is interesting, and I agree with it. Some lose weight without being more fit, and actually lose more muscle than fat, and end up lighter in weight, but with more body fat ratio.

Wa'il
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Nov-03-00, 20:46
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 37,203
 
Plan: LC paleo/ancestral
Stats: 241/188/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 52%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default

Here's another article along the same theme. Don't be put off by the title, it's just a rhetorical question.

BUT ISN'T IT UNHEALTHY TO BE FAT?

Just being fat does not signify poor health. In fact, research shows that the health risks once associated with weight may instead by attributable to yo-yo dieting. Because fatness is most often caused by heredity and dieting history, and because 95-98% of all diets fail over three years, it is becoming apparent that remaining at a high, but stable weight and concentrating on personal fitness rather than thinness may be the healthiest way to deal with the propensity to be fat.

We must also consider that in our society, it is very difficult for fat people to stay healthy and become fit. Due to prejudicial medical treatment and harassment by health care professionals, many fat people do not receive adequate preventative health care, and procrastinate seeking treatment when there is a medical problem. In addition, many fat people do not feel comfortable participating in activities that would lead to a greater level of fitness due to social stigma. Due to the harassment they face, fat people rarely feel comfortable using public pools or health clubs, or participating in recreational exercise.


People of all sizes can strive for fitness by making sensible food choices, following an exercise program, and getting regular check-ups.

The issue of fat and health is a complex one, with many factors to consider. It may be healthier to remain at a stable high weight than to yo-yo diet.

Given that permanent weight loss is elusive for most fat people, the issue of fat and health is irrelevant. The only true option available is to be as healthy as you can, regardless of your weight. (Often times the health issue serves as a smoke screen to justify denying fat people their civil rights. The assumption that fat people are unhealthy is often used to defend discrimination in employment, educational opportunities, housing, and adoption privileges. Health issues should never supersede one's civil rights.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.naafa.org/documents/brochures/

© NAAFA
PO BOX 188620, Sacramento, CA 95818 Phone: 916-558-6880 Fax 916-558-6881

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Edited by doreen T on 03-11-00 at 22:00]
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Jun-05-01, 15:37
rainny's Avatar
rainny rainny is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 415
 
Plan: CKD
Stats: 245/215/130
BF:
Progress:
Location: Waller TX
Lightbulb interesting

RANT...
I have to consider the fact that the medical community in general makes allot more money off of health care for fat people! I mean when you think of all the medical problems that come with being fat besides heart problem...THEY ARE MAKING A KILLING!!
{In more ways then one!} And I believe that is one reason they have ignored and fought so hard to keep the low-carb diet form emerging. They say there is no long term studies to show that this diet is healthy...and that they don't know what the side effects could be...but yet they have known about it since...what... 1929{?} and they still haven't done any long term studies! Why not? I bet if this wasn't a BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR BUSSINESS and they where losing money they would jump right on it! On top of that they use it for children with epilepsy...but only as a LAST RESORT! What is up with that! That should be done first I think!
OKAY....BREATH...BREATH
END
LRRAINE
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Jun-05-01, 15:49
Trainerdan's Avatar
Trainerdan Trainerdan is offline
Posts: 2,518
 
Plan: Zone
Stats: 255/242/230 Male 75 inches (6'3")
BF:21%/15%/8%
Progress: 52%
Location: Philly
Default conspiracy theory

I agree that the medical community knows about the benefits of the low-carb diet, but won't embrace it.

Also, it fuels the whole diet supplement/publishing industries when all of the authors are slinging arrows at each other's programs. People hop from one book, to the other, and buy the "reccomended supplements" in each.

I'd like to take it a step further and say that I think that the whole "Food Pyramid" and "Low-fat" diet scheme was getnertaed by the USDA to boost our intake of grain products since we are one of (if not THE) world's biggest producers of wheat/grain.

I mean, if I follow that as a man, not even as an athlete, I need 11 servings of bread/cereals per day? Even when I am NOT low carbbing I don't take in that many servings of grains.

Fruits and veggies maybe, but not grains. Jeeze, that much bread/pasta would make my blood sugar go crazy! LOL.

Oh well, it's just a thought of mine. I can get deeper into this and tie in the medical community to the low-fat craze, but you would all think I was a nut. Just seems hard for me to believe that EVERYONE that I have put on a low-carb diet has gotten results (assuming the follow it to a T), but the medical communioty dismisses it as a fad and "dangerous".

RRRRRR .... OK, who got me started?
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Jun-05-01, 16:29
Mae West's Avatar
Mae West Mae West is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 45
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 218/198.75/130
BF:
Progress: 22%
Location: Wyoming, USA
Default It does seem odd

It does seem odd to me that with the American public spending millions (maybe billions?) on low-fat diets every year for the past fifteen or twenty years... obesity is now of epidemic status in the U.S.

If low-fat diets actually worked, why was the US public so much thinner in the 50's and 60's when all they knew was to "cut out the bread, potatoes, and desserts" when they wanted to lose weight? Few people were jogging, and fewer people were going to gyms during that time period. Diet sweeteners were rarely used. And yet our parents and grandparents had a much easier time controlling their weight than we do.

I don't think low-fat diets are completely to blame for the "blowing-up" of America... McDonalds and Pizza Hut I think have to take part of the blame...

But it does seem a shame that the US Government and nutritionists seem to endorse only ONE diet plan for all people... no matter what their medical status.

And for me, (after gaining 100 lbs, and spending literally thousands of dollars on low-fat diets over the past 15 years) it was the *wrong* diet plan.

Mae West
218/213.75/130 Atkins since 6/3/01
"It's ok to crack a few laws every once in a while, as long as you don't break any." The Other Mae West
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Jun-05-01, 16:58
tamarian's Avatar
tamarian tamarian is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 19,570
 
Plan: Atkins/PP/BFL
Stats: 400/223/200 Male 5 ft 11
BF:37%/17%/12%
Progress: 89%
Location: Ottawa, ON
Default Re: conspiracy theory

Quote:
Originally posted by Trainerdan
I can get deeper into this and tie in the medical community to the low-fat craze, but you would all think I was a nut


Dan, you'll be surprised how many here would agree, so don't hold back.

Wa'il
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Jun-05-01, 17:33
rainny's Avatar
rainny rainny is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 415
 
Plan: CKD
Stats: 245/215/130
BF:
Progress:
Location: Waller TX
Angry Our NEW and IMPROVED Food Pyramid SUCKS!

I'm right there with ya...

1 in 4 American’s WERE significantly over weight…25%
we now have a epidemic in America where each year some 2 million new cases develop. When last quantified the decades damage was officially measured to be increase of 32% {20% or more above their ideal weight}


LOW-Fat diets are dangerous…
USDA study statistics proves it. Low fat started in 1975 and for the last 20 years the movement in this direction has become steady. But the figures carry with them an ominous warning. 200 years ago the average person ate less than ten pounds of sugar a year. Then almost exactly a hundred years ago, the lid blew off. In the 1890’s the craze for cola beverages swept the nation-which means that when we were thirsty and craved water, we got sugar as well. The net result was that the sugar intake, which had been twelve pounds a year in 1828, was nearly ten times that in 1928.
In those 20 years the per-capita consumption of sugar {including corn syrup} has escalated from a world leading 118lbs. a year to 150lbs. Meaning we are consuming 750 calories of sugar A DAY! And that is the average man and women, or child, not the sugar addicted! That means that over 1/3 of the all the calories an adult puts into his or her body each day come from the nutritionally empty and metabolically harmful caloric sweeteners! 190 grams of sugar and corn syrup A DAY! Compare that with the 300 gram of carb the government expects us to consume each day and we see that sugar now comprise over 60 percent of the carb total! To make things worse, the refined –white flour-has been exalted to a “MUST HAVE” by our government agencies that invented a new UNTESTED food pyramid!
Note: The cereals that have the highest sugar content on them have the seal of approval forms the American Heart Association. Often ½ of there calories are sugar.


Calorie Myth:
A calorie is an interesting little word that simply stands for a unit of
energy ~ precisely the amount of heat needed to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius at 1 atmospheric pressure.

Now, it has always been supposed that gaining weight results from taking in more calories than you expend through exercise, thermogenesis {the body’s own heat production}, and all the body’s other metabolic functions. And in fact, this is quite true.
What isn’t true is the notion that the only way to lose weight is to strictly control your intake of calories. That all diets are equal…and all that matters is how many calories you take in. THIS ISN’T SO!
Different diets have different effects on the amount of calories a person’s body consumes daily, and, by taking different metabolic pathways can cause the body to require different amounts of energy to do its work.


EATTING MEAT IS NOT BAD FOR YOU! It is what the human carnivore has eaten for MILLIONS OF YEARS!
In the 19 century people were liberal in the use of butter and lard, they where beef and pork eaters, and there eggs where unrestricted! Yet hardly anyone died of heart attacks. The first heart attack was describe in the medical journal in 1912…Dr. Paul Dudley White, who was Eisenhower’s personal cardiologist, recalled the he didn’t see his first heart attack until after his first year of postgraduate training in 1920’s. The 20th century Frenchman with his butter, cheese and goose-liver-pate’-laden diet has a heart disease rate 60% lower than American peers. The Frenchwomen does EVEN BETTER! She has the LOWEST heart disease rate in the western world. The French are less afflicted with obesity and heart disease than Americans. Yet there diet is HIGHER in FAT! {They eat a comparable amount of meat and fish, 4 times as much butter, and twice as much cheese as Americans.}
Now add the 60-year time span between 1910 and 1970 when coronary heart disease escalated from yet-to-be-recognized problem to the killer of more than half of us, this is what happened to our diet: The intake of animal fat and butter dropped SIGNIFICANTLY, while the intake of cholesterol was not changed, but the intake of refined carbs {mainly sugar, corn syrup and white flour} went up by 60%.
But all that fat is the problem…RIGHT? WRONG!
COMMON SENSE DICTATES THAT WHEN A LOT OF PEOPLE TRY THE SAME ANSWER TO THE SAME PROBLEM AND THEY ALL FAIL, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG!
Remember that the body was designed per-Neanderthal days when we didn’t have any candy bars. Your body’s capacity to deal with unrefined foods as they occur in nature is quite adequate; its capacity to deal with an excess of quick-energy, simple sugars is pretty poor, which is the true reason why out 20th century diet gets us into trouble.


SUGAR IS A METABOLISM POISON!


REMEMBER…WE DID THIS TO OURSELVES! NO OTHER CULTURE IN WORLD HISTORY HAS EVER CONSUMED EVEN A FRACTION OF THE SUGAR WE 20th-CENTURY WESTERNERS DO NOW!


American Medical Association has ignored all finding. Although they did acknowledge reading ONE of the reports by Kekwick/Pawan. And all carb studies they have preformed in there “RESEARCH” never allowed patience to reach the stage of ketosis nor did they do the intro that jumpstarts your system to burn fat. AMA claimed that the low-carb diets produce mainly water loss, Kekwick/Pawan prove it only produced a SMALL AMOUNT OF WATER LOSS.
American Medical Association also reviewed two more studies on metabolic advantage. One was by Olesen and Quaade, which again showed extremely favorable results on a low-carb diet. The other was the Pikington study who also showed favorable results. The AMA attributed it to water weight…again.

STUDIES THAT WHERE DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED FROM THE AMA: First lets look at the study by Frederick Benoit and associates at the Naval Hospital. The study was a 1000 calories diet with 10 grams carb’s. 7 other men where put on a 10-day fasting diet. The men weigh between 230 and 290. The man who where fasting lost 21lbs BUT most of that was lean body weight: only 7.5lbs was body fat. The men on the Ketogenic diet lost 14.5lbs…14 was body fat. They lost twice as fast as those who ate NOTHING AT ALL! All Beniot’s {his papers where published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 1965}other exciting discovery was that on the ketogenic diet the dieters maintained their potassium levels, while there were major potassium losses when fasting. If you remember many dieters were losing there lives on very low-calorie formula’s diet that where very much like FASTING, presumably due to potassium losses leading to heart arrhythmia’s. Had the AMA excepted these studies for what they where these people lives might have been spared. WHY WASN’T THIS INCLUDED IN THE AMA’s CRITIQUE? Could they be INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST! The AMA also failed to acknowledge a paper by Charlotte Young {professor of clinical nutrition at Cornell University} she prove the diet worked better…but stated she still preferred the low-cal diet she had been working with for the last 20 years. GO FIGURE! Should she really be allowed to PREFER one diet to another…or should she be providing ALL the options and letting her patience decide what they want to do to help their body’s?
ONE MORE THING ABOUT THE AMA…WHEN THEY SPOKE OUT, NO FUTHER RESEARCH ON THE QUESTION OF METABOLIC ADVANTAGE WAS EVER DONE IN THE U.S. SOUNDS A LITTLE FISHY TO ME!

BRAKE IT DOWN:
NUMBER OF STUDIES SHOWING METABOLIC ADVANTAGE-10
NUMBER OF STUDIES SHOWING NO ADVANTAGE ON KETOGENIC DIET-0

Industry-dominated nutritionists held uncontested sway and convinced the unsuspecting public that white flour was so good for you everyone should have at least SIX SERVINGS each day! And that meat, eggs and butter were bad for EVERYONE! No voices pointed to the fact that meat eggs and butter are all produced by indecent producers and cannot be sold above the FAIR MARKET PRICE, whereas food consisting mainly of cheap reined ingredients {flour, sugar, corn syrup and corn starch} could be sold at an ENORMOUSE MARKUP! Doesn’t this prove that nutrition teaching is strongly influenced by economics!

MAKES MEEE SOOOOOO MAD! I have family dropping dead left an right from heart attacks...and then I think about my poor grandmother...SHE LOVED FAT! But the family wouldn't allow her to have it or to much meat because of her health! She died of a heart attack too!! But it was what we where told was best for her.

Hopefully this way of thinking will change SSSOOON!!!!
LRRAINE
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Review: "The Fat Girl's Guide to Life" gotbeer LC Research/Media 8 Tue, Feb-14-06 20:00
CKD 101 Trainerdan Plan comparison 3 Thu, May-22-03 13:28
Weight debate pits good fat vs. bad fat tamarian LC Research/Media 3 Mon, Jan-20-03 12:44


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:52.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.