From: Brian Atkins (brian@posthuman.com)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 10:27:16 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> the process. They also noted that ketosis was not present after six months.
> Either the keytosis stopped working, or the participants were no longer
> following the diet at that point.
Actually there is a third possibility which is that the body naturally
adjusts and from then on it only produces enough ketones to meet needs,
so no "extras" get excreted.
Anyway, I think the important thing that has been shown by this study
and the previous studies (there have indeed been previous studies of low
carb diets) is that for some reason, people on these diets tend to
naturally consume fewer calories. If further studies of low(er) carb
diets continue to show no real negative effects on health, then it would
seem that these kinds of diets should be suggested to obese/overweight
individuals who need to lose weight.
>
> They seem to refute that macronutrient ratios had any effect. The weight
> loss in the beginning of the Atkins diet was due to the consumption of less
> total calories. They concluded that "When the energy content of an
> energy-deficit diet is stable, macronutrient composition does not influence
> weight loss." It appears that equal calories produce equal weight loss no
> matter what the macronutrient combination is. This seems to refute the idea
> that different calories contribute to weight gain differently. It supports
> the idea that reducing total calories is equally effective for weight loss
> on high-carb, low-carb, high-fat, low-fat, high-protein, or low-protein
> diets.
Sure, but the "bigger picture" is that low-carb seems to reduce
appetite. If so, this IS an effect of the macronutrient ratios.
>
> For LDL (bad) cholesterol, the conventional diet dropped it while the Atkins
> diet increased it. The difference between the groups lessened toward the
> end of the year.
>
> For HDL (good cholesterol), both diets increased it, while the Atkins
> increased it at a higher rate.
Of these two, it is my understanding that HDL is much more important in
terms of CVD risk. Also, did they report on other things like Lp(a)? I
have also heard that low carb diets tend to lower this.
Finally, did they report on the breakdown of LDL size? If not, why do
these studies continue to use measurements of CVD risk that appear to be
from the 1980s? Today, we know there is a much wider array of things to
look for that are more important than simple "total cholesterol"
measurements.
>
> For triglycerides, both diets decreased it. For some reason, the
> conventional diet reversed direction and went back up toward the end of the
> year
>
> They even mentioned that "These data do not demonstrate an effect of
> macronutrient composition, independent of weight loss, on insulin
> sensitivity in obese subjects without diabetes." This even implies that
> high-carb diets are not worse for insulin sensitivity and causing diabetes
> than the equivalent number of protein or fat calories! (This had a
> disclaimer about the study's unreliability, small size, etc.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't lower HDL & higher triglycerides
associated risk factors for developing diabetes? It seems to me that if
I had to pick one of these diets to help prevent it, I would pick the
one that showed the most weight loss, best HDL increase, and lowest
triglycerides after one year of testing: low carb.
-- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 23 2003 - 10:38:05 MDT