Very low-carbohydrate diets work for men and upper body fat

Scientists say that low carbohydrate diets, like the Atkins and South Beach Diets, may actually be the best option for men who want to slim. New research, published this week in the Open Access journal, Nutrition & Metabolism, shows that over 70% of men lost more weight and fat on a low carbohydrate diet, despite eating more calories.

Jeff Volek and colleagues, from the University of Connecticut, also show for the first time that a low carbohydrate diet is much more effective in losing fat from the stomach and chest. Upper body fat carries "a greater health risk than fat stored in other regions of the body," say the authors. They found that fat loss in men was three-times greater in the trunk area, when they were on a low-carbohydrate regime compared to the low-fat diet. Nearly all participants in the study (12 of 15 men and 12 of 13 women) lost more fat on their upper body on the low- carbohydrate diet.

Fifteen overweight or obese men, and thirteen women, were randomly assigned to a very low carbohydrate diet or a low fat diet. After fifty days, they were switched to the other diet. 11 of the 15 men did better on the low carbohydrate diet, six lost greater than 10 lbs more on the low carbohydrate diet, and one subject lost almost 25 pounds more. Similar results were found for women although the results were less dramatic.

Volek and colleagues also looked at whether weight and fat loss were affected by what order the diets were done in. Their data seem to favour undertaking a low carbohydrate first, suggesting that those who have concerns about long term 'low carb' diets could follow a low carb diet first followed by a low fat diet.

There is much debate about the health implications of long-term use of low carbohydrate diets. Volek's lab, whose work is the first-ever to be funded in part by the Robert C. Atkins Foundation, has previously shown that low carbohydrate diets improve cardiovascular risk factors.

For more information about low carbohydrate diets read the review by well-known endocrinologist, Samy McFarlane, in Nutrition & Metabolism. Dr McFarlane reviews the new book, 'Atkins Diabetes Revolution', by Mary C. Vernon, M.D. and Jacqueline A. Eberstein, R.N. McFarlane and co-reviewer Surender Arora, M.D. found the book "sufficiently convincing to make us believe that some form of low carbohydrate intervention is worth investigating and should be considered by practitioners. The highly negative un-scientific response of critics, if anything, encourages us in this direction."

This press release is based on:

Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women Volek JS, Sharman MJ, Gómez AL, Judelson DA, Rubin MR, Watson G, Sokmen B, Silvestre R, French DN, and Kraemer WJ. Nutrition & Metabolism 2004, 1:12 (9 November 2004)

The article is freely available at http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/12.

Source: EurekAlert

Is a calorie a calorie?

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 79, No. 5, 899S-906S, May 2004
© 2004 American Society for Clinical Nutrition

Andrea C Buchholz and Dale A Schoeller

From the Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison

The aim of this review was to evaluate data regarding potential thermodynamic mechanisms for increased rates of weight loss in subjects consuming diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate. Studies that compared weight loss and energy expenditure in adults consuming diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate with those in adults consuming diets low in fat were reviewed. In addition, studies that measured the metabolizable energy of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates were reviewed. Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an 2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.

Research Shows Low Fat Diet Makes People Moody!

Low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets worsen mood states in both humans and animals.

By Anthony Colpo, April 18, 2004.

In 1998, U.K. researchers reported the results of an experiment involving twenty healthy male and female volunteers. One group continued was placed on a 41% fat diet, while the other group consumed a 25% fat diet. After 4 weeks had passed, the groups were swapped around so that those originally on the low-fat diet were now consuming the high-fat diet, and vice-versa. Throughout the study, all meals were prepared by the university conducting the study and supplied to the participants. Both diets were specially designed to be as palatable and similar in taste as possible.

At the beginning and end of each diet period, every subject underwent a battery of psychological assessments, including various mood state questionnaires and an interview by a psychiatrist who was blinded to the participant's dietary status.

The study was tightly-controlled and adherence to the diets appears to have been high. HDL cholesterol levels declined during the low-fat period, a typical response on low-fat, high-carb diets, indicating that subjects ate the foods as supplied.

I feel fine, you #$%@!

What the researchers found was that, while ratings of anger-hostility slightly declined during the high-fat diet period, they significantly increased during the low-fat, high-carb diet period!

Tension-anxiety ratings declined during the high-fat period, but did not change during the four weeks of low-fat, high-carb eating.

Ratings of depression declined slightly during the high-fat period, but increased during the low-fat, high-carb period, mainly due to two of the low-fat subjects reporting significantly greater depression-dejection ratings.

As the researchers stated, the participants of this study were "a psychologically robust group who had never previously suffered from depression or anxiety, and who were not going through any 'stressful' events during the study." They further stated that "The alterations in mood observed in the present study may have been greater if subjects were feeling more stressed or were more susceptible to mental illness."

These observations raise some interesting questions. Could the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets that have been so heavily promoted over the last thirty years be at least partially responsible for increases in anti-social behavior witnessed during the same period?

That the answer could well be in the affirmative is supported by studies with our primate cousins...

Monkey business turns nasty on low-fat diet!

For 22 months, adult male monkeys were fed a "luxury" diet - (43% calories from fat, 0.34 mg cholesterol/Calorie of diet) or a "prudent" diet (30% calories from fat, 0.05 mg cholesterol/Calorie of diet).

Researchers observed that the low-fat diet monkeys were more irritable and initiated more aggression than the "luxury" diet animals. Hey, I'd be pretty damn ticked too if I had to follow a low-fat diet for almost 2-years!

The prudent diet resulted in lower total serum cholesterol levels. While our dopey health authorities automatically assume this is a good thing, the researchers noted: "These results are consistent with studies linking relatively low serum cholesterol concentrations to violent or antisocial behavior in psychiatric and criminal populations and could be relevant to understanding the significant increase in violence-related mortality observed among people assigned to cholesterol-lowering treatment in clinical trials."

If you don't want to end up a nasty old grump, then it might pay to regularly sink your teeth into a nice, fat, juicy steak!

C'mon, you know you want it...

References

Wells AS, et al. Alterations in mood after changing to a low-fat diet. British Journal of Nutrition, Jan, 1998; 79 (1): 23-30.

Kaplan JR, et al. The effects of fat and cholesterol on social behavior in monkeys. Psychosom Med. 1991 Nov-Dec; 53 (6): 634-642.

Source: The Omnivore

So who is this 'Omnivore' guy, anyway?

Why one man abandoned his 'healthy' low-fat diet.

Read full article here: The Omnivore

Interview: Gary Taubes

FRONTLINE DIET WARS
Science journalist Gary Taubes wrote the controversial July 7, 2002 New York Times Magazine article, What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? which turned the spotlight onto high-fat, low carbohydrate diets. In this interview, Taubes explains his motivation for writing his piece, the science behind the low-carbohydrate diet, and the contention he faced when he published his findings. "I got crucified in a variety of publications," he says "... It was fascinating. They go after the messenger as much as the message." He is currently writing a book that is a historical and scientific exploration of the hypothesis that weight gain and chronic disease are caused by excess consumption of easily digestible and refined carbohydrates. This interview was conducted Dec. 10, 2003.

What made you go after this topic in the first place?

Two things. I'd been reporting on salt and blood pressure, which is a huge controversy, and some of the people involved in that were involved in the advice to tell Americans to eat low-fat diets, and they were terrible scientists. These were some of the worst scientists I'd ever come across in my 20-odd year career of writing about controversial science.

I literally called up my editor and said, "I just got off the phone with so-and-so, and he's [taken] credit for getting Americans to eat less eggs and less fat. This guy's one of the worst scientists I've ever talked to, and if he was involved in this, then there's a story there." And that was it. I didn't know what the story was. I just knew there was a story.

Was there a personal motivation?

Before I did it, I was up at MIT, interviewing an economist about another story, a guy who runs a laboratory of financial engineering. He told me about being on the Atkins diet, and how effective it was. He was an Asian-American who had lost 40-50 pounds by giving up white rice, in effect.

I thought I would try it as an experiment, since I was going to write about fat and whether it really did cause heart disease and weight loss. I tried it, and it was amazing. You know, it's everything -- the 20 pounds that I'd never been able to lose, in six weeks, and I stopped exercising. It was kind of a surreal experience, and probably, in a sense, informed my opinions from there on in. I mean, after that happens, you say, "I want to know what's happening, and I want to know why."

Why is it so easy for us to believe that fat is a bad dietary ingredient?

The idea is that fat has nine calories per gram, and carbohydrates and protein have four calories per gram, and somehow the theory is that the denser the calories, the more easier it is for us to eat more of them. What happened is in the '50s and '60s, when researchers started fingering fat as a cause of heart disease, the obesity researchers, the obesity community started advocating low-fat diets, which they had never done before. A low-fat diet is by definition a high-carbohydrate diet.

But you had this sort of synchronicity where you had the heart disease people saying, "Give up fat, saturated fat, for heart disease," and the obesity people started saying, "Give up fat because it must be the best diet because fat is the densest calories." They moved from there without ever testing actually either of those hypotheses, so the obesity people start recommending low-fat diets; the heart disease people are recommending low-fat diets. They have actually no idea whether it's going to cure heart disease, and the obesity people have no idea whether these diets even work. But because they believe that it's only the calories that [are] important, obviously if you give up the major source of calories in the diet, you must lose weight...

Read the full interview here: pbs.org

The Not-So-Funny Bloopers of Jane Brody

Celebrating decades of dietary confusion from the New York Times nutrition writer.

By Anthony Colpo.

March 25, 2004.

For decades, Jane Brody has been espousing the virtues of low-fat, high-carbohydrate nutrition from her syndicated column in the New York Times, one of the world's most widely-read newspapers. Reading one of her more recent columns reinforced in my mind just why so much of the population is utterly confused about what constitutes a healthy diet.

I present the following gems of wisdom from Brody's March 23, 2004 column, Sane Weight Loss in a Carb-Obsessed World - High Fiber and Low Fat.

"Name this product", begins Brody. "The ingredients label says it contains the following: "Water, ultrafiltered fat-free milk, calcium caseinate, cream, buttermilk, tricalcium phosphate, salt, disodium phosphate, mono- and di-glycerides, carrageenan, locust bean gum, natural flavor, sucralose (Splenda), acesulfame potassium, vitamin A palmitate and vitamin D3."

No, it's not some weird dessert. It is Hood's Carb Countdown Dairy Beverage, a low-carb substitute for real skim milk that claims to provide "75 percent less carbs and 50 percent more protein than whole milk." A half-gallon of the Hood's beverage sells for $3.99, compared with $1.48 for the same amount of real, unadulterated fat-free milk."

Brody's description of "...real, unadulterated fat-free milk" is an oxymoron if ever I've heard one! Does Brody know that milk comes from cows, and that in nature there's no such thing as a cow that produces fat-free milk? Does she know that when fat is removed from milk, so too are crucially important fat-soluble vitamins such as vitamin A and D? That's why synthetic vitamin A and D - "vitamin A palmitate and vitamin D3" - are added back to low-fat and skim milks!

If Brody is attempting to state, in her own clumsy way, that a healthy diet should be based on whole, minimally-processed fresh foods, regardless of whether it is low- or hi-carb, then I am in full agreement. But alas, that does not appear to be what she is saying at all. Brody proceeds to denigrate the whole low-carb concept, beginning her attack with a misleading interpretation of a recent study that appeared in the January 26 edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine:

"As a recent 12-week study of 34 men and women in their 60's so clearly demonstrated, those who consumed, without caloric restrictions, a diet high in fiber-rich carbohydrates (63 percent of calories, with 26 grams of fiber per 1,000 calories), low in fat (18 percent of calories) and moderate in protein lost more weight and a higher percentage of body fat than did those who ate the same number of calories of a typical American diet, that is, one high in fat (41 percent of calories) and relatively low in carbs (45 percent of calories).

The study showed that a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet could result in weight loss and reduced body fat while preserving muscle mass, even without any change in caloric intake, as long as the carbs were low in added sugars and refined starches. And the weight is lost without having to avoid delicious, health-promoting fruits and instead eating lots of fiber-free and fat-laden eggs, cheese and meats.

How can this happen? It happens because fiber-rich carbohydrates offer three major benefits to the weight-conscious eater: they hold water in the gut, take longer to digest and some of their calories are eliminated unabsorbed. In other words, they can fill you up before they fill you out."

I have to wonder if Brody even read the full-text of the study, or simply relied on the highly-misleading press-releases sent out by the study's authors; if she did the former, she would have discovered that the study participants in the high-carbohydrate groups actually consumed about 400-600 calories less per day than those in the control group! Over the 12-week period of the study, the high-carbohydrate subjects consumed around 33,000 to 50,000 calories less than the average subject in the control group.(Hays NP) It's no surprise that they lost more weight!

Sure, eating fiber-rich, starchy-carbohydrates can increase satiety, and consequently reduce calorie intake, when compared to the calorie-dense junk that dominates the average American diet; a number of studies have already attested to this. However, in order to increase satiety and reduce one's calorie intake, one does not need to suffer the anti-social consequences of turning one's intestines into a methane-production plant by eating a diet high in whole-grains and legumes! Numerous studies have found that subjects placed on low-carb diets, who are told to restrict carbs but to eat protein and fat without limit, unintentionally reduce their total calorie intake to the same levels seen among dieters explicitly instructed to limit their overall calorie intake!(Brehm B)(Foster GD)(Samaha FF)(Yudkin J)(Westman E)(Westman EC)

The control diet by the way, with a 45% carbohydrate content, was in no way a low-carb diet. Brody skirts around this issue by labelling it as "relatively" low in carbs, but she could have cited the numerous studies that have indeed compared truly low-carb and high-carb diets for fat loss. The overwhelming majority have found either greater weight loss or no statistically significant difference in weight loss between low- and high-carb dieters.(Rabast, et al. 1981)(Baron JA, et al. 1986)(Wadden TA. 1993)(Foreyt et al. 1993)(Alford BB, et al. 1990)(Golay A, et al. 1996, 1996)(Lean et al. 1997)(Torbay et al. 2002)(Sondike et al. 2003)(Volek et al. 2002)(Fleming RM. 2002)(Brehm et al. 2003)(Foster et al. 2003)(Samaha et al. 2003)(Wien et al. 2003) Only one study has ever found greater weight loss on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, and that study just happened to be authored by Richard Fleming, the Nebraska cardiologist and avowed low-carb hater who is currently in doggy-doo over his shonky acquisition of the late Dr. Atkins' death report. I have already explained at length why Fleming's study is a highly questionable piece of literature.

"How many people know, for example, that one pound of uncooked pasta is meant to serve eight — yes, eight, not four or two — people? And how many examined the nutrition facts label on fat-free cakes and realized that a serving was still the same size as the full-fat version, and that the calorie savings per serving was minimal?"

Jane, the blame for the rise in calorie-intake that has occurred over the last thirty years can be placed squarely at the feet of the low-fat movement, whose voluminous anti-fat propaganda led us to believe that, when it came to diet, fat-restriction was the be-all-and-end-all of weight loss. Oh sure, low-fat advocates are now complaining that that was never the intention, that people should have realized that they needed to cut fat intake and total calorie intake in order to lose weight. Maybe the low-fat establishment should have given that a little more thought before enthusiastically embracing and giving "heart-healthy" ticks to high-carbohydrate, fat-free garbage (like the fat-free cake Brody attempts to apologize for); garbage that possesses low satiety value and creates rapid surges in blood sugar, followed by hypoglycemic lows that send dieters running straight back to the pantry for another blood glucose-raising carb-fix.

"A diet high in fat and low in carbs has yet to be tested for long-term safety and effectiveness."

You've got to be joking! High-fat, low-carb diets - comprised of freshly-killed meats, and gathered non-cereal plant foods (nuts, fruits, vegetables) - have been subjected to the longest trial ever known: human evolution. This ongoing trial has so far lasted 2.5 million years, most of which has been spent on what is known as the paleolithic or hunter-gatherer diet. Depending on geographical location, this diet varied from high-carb, low-fat to high-fat, very-low-carb. Low-carb, high-fat diets tended to predominate in colder regions far from the equator, where edible vegetation was far less abundant than in tropical regions. Radioisotope analyses of paleolithic skeletal remains - which tend to be far more robust than those of modern humans - show that meat comprised a significant portion of our ancestors' diets. Depending on the stage of evolution, at least a portion of the earth's inhabitants subsisted on a low-carb, high-fat diet; in colder eras, such as the Ice Age, paleontologists believe that the majority of the population was, by necessity, consuming low-carb diets. Despite the politically-incorrect eating habits that humankind kept throughout much of its evolutionary history, humans have out-survived many other species that have long since been rendered extinct. And we did it all without fat-free cakes, white rice, pasta, or non-fat milk, Jane!

"What do I and my slender friends eat? Mostly — but not exclusively — whole grain breads and cereals; lots of vegetables, salads and fresh and dried fruits; poultry, fish, meat and dried beans and peas and skim milk. But we also eat mostly white rice and pasta, potatoes, winter squash, avocados, regular cheese, eggs, cookies and ice cream and an occasional piece of cake or pie."

Well Jane, I'm glad it works for you. The unfortunate reality is that countless other folks have tried a similar approach, and failed dismally to achieve their health and/or weight loss goals. I'm one of them. Throughout most of the nineties, I followed a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, based on so-called "healthy" complex carbohydrates like whole-grain breads, rice, rolled oats, sweet potato, and ate only the leanest meats I could find. As anyone who knew me back then could attest, I followed this diet religiously, so it wasn't my lack of willpower or discipline that failed me - it was the diet. After several years of eating a diet that I now realize humans were never designed to eat, my blood pressure had risen, my blood sugar metabolism had gone to hell, and I developed a rather impressive array of food sensitivities.

If readers are thinking that maybe I was just unlucky and an isolated case, they would do well to read Beyond Pritikin by Louise Ann Gittleman. Gittleman used to be a Director of Nutrition at the Pritikin Longevity Center, and for years she counselled people to follow the low-fat, high-carbohydrate, grain- and legume-based diet espoused by the late Nathan Pritikin. She left after seeing how the diet was continually failing people. She observed significant improvements when people first began the Pritikin program, but noticed during their follow-up visits that many patients were experiencing weight regain, fatigue, ravenous hunger and food sensitivities. What sort of dietary regimen does Gittleman recommend nowadays? A low-carb diet for weight-loss, and a moderate-carbohydrate diet for weight-maintenance!

"The second and equally critical factor in our ability to keep our weight down is regular physical exercise. I mean regular. We walk briskly for an hour each morning and, in addition, I swim three-fourths of a mile nearly every day. My friends and I walk to and from appointments where most other Americans would ride, and I do most of my shopping on foot or bicycle. And, I assure you, none of us view this as a life of deprivation and self-denial."

Ah, now you're talking, Jane! Ladies and gentleman, no matter what diet you follow, physical activity should be a regular part of your schedule. However, while exercise has been shown to at least partially counter some of the hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic effects of a high carbohydrate diet, it's no guarantee of protection, as running enthusiasts Jim Fixx and, more recently, Brian Maxwell unfortunately found out. Indeed, intense daily workouts did little to stop the deleterious effects of my own copious complex carbohydrate ingestion.

Upholding The Tradition

I'm hardly the first person to highlight the nutritional nonsense emanating from Brody's NYT column. Back in 1991, Dr. Russell L. Smith pointed out a number of Brody Bloopers in his outstanding tome, The Cholesterol Conspiracy, including the following from her November 15, 1986 column: "It is not advisable to consume large amounts of polyunsaturated fats because, while they lower the damaging LDL and VLDL cholesterol in the blood, they also reduce the protective HDL cholesterol." Less than a month later (December 10, 1986), Brody was reportedly telling readers that "Experts recommend substituting unsaturated liquid vegetable oils (corn, safflower, sunflower, soybean [all rich in polyunsaturates] and olive oils, for example) for saturated fats. Unsaturated fats help to lower cholesterol levels in the blood."(Smith RL)

Smith went on to quote a few more contradictory Brody-Bytes; "A problem results from overconsumption of polyunsaturates, which can interfere broadly with immune responses. Too much total fat, particularly too many polyunsaturates, can also promote the growth of cancers of the breast, colon, and prostate...a wise consumer would stick to a low-fat diet and keep consumption of polyunsaturates to a minimum level." These words were printed in the NYT on March 11, 1987; four days later, Smith reports, Brody authored an article in Family Circle advising readers that: "Polyunsaturated fats help lower cholesterol levels in the blood and, thus, offer protection against heart disease ... you'll want to look for a margarine that lists a higher proportion of polyunsaturates than saturates." Then in the October-November 1988 issue of Modern Maturity, Brody reportedly told readers to: "Try and use as little fat as possible and, when fat is added, primarily use vegetable oils such as olive, corn oil and safflower oil, and margarine."

Brody complained in a 1986 column, "the dozens of letters I have received in response to recent columns on fats and cholesterol in foods indicated that many readers remain uncertain about how to choose a heart-healthy menu." No kidding! If I relied on Brody's columns for dietary advice, I'd be pretty damn perplexed too!

More recently, nutritionist Sally Fallon and biochemist Mary G. Enig, PhD, were driven to write a letter to the editor of NYT (which remains unpublished, but can nonetheless be read here) after reading some rather remarkable claims in Brody's July 15, 2003 column (Cholesterol: When It’s Good, It’s Very, Very Good).

Wrote Fallon and Enig:

"According to Jane E. Brody, your nutrition “expert,” the human anatomy “more closely resembles herbivores like cows and deer, strict vegetarians consuming only plant-based foods”... If this is the best the New York Times can do, the public is in serious trouble. Even school children know that the human digestive tract is completely different from that of ruminants like cows and deer, which have multiple stomachs, do not produce hydrochloric acid and have extremely long intestines compared to humans. The human digestive tract is much more like that of a dog than any herbivorous animal. If Brody is so wrong on this elementary fact, how can we trust anything else she says, including the merits of the plant-based diet she espouses? The Times is just emerging from the scandal of a journalist who made up news reports, but in your health section your most prominent health writer is still passing off falsehoods as fact."

That someone like Brody can have her Keystone Cop-like nutritional bloopers published in a major paper like the New York Times is a sad, sad indictment on the pitifully low standards that most media outlets demand of the nutritional information that graces their pages. As Dr. Smith wrote back in 1991:

"It is unfortunate for the American people that they have been and continue to be influenced by columnists who claim to be authorities but who are, in fact, not experts at all but purveyors of a montage of contradictory and inconsistent nonsense."

Smith's words are even more relevant today than they were back in '91, given the increasingly desperate behavior of low-fat proponents. As recent events have shown, these folks are not above misquoting studies and even telling outright lies in their attempt to suppress the rapidly rising popularity of low-carb nutrition (for recent examples of some rather bizzarre and misleading behavior by so-called low-fat experts, click here, and here).

References

Hays NP, et al. Effects of an Ad Libitum Low-Fat, High-Carbohydrate Diet on Body Weight, Body Composition, and Fat Distribution in Older Men and Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2004; 164: 210-217.

Brehm B, et al. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003; 88 (4): 1617-1623.

Foster GD, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, May 22, 2003; 348: 2082-2090.

Samaha FF, et al. A low-carbohydrate diet as compared with a low fat diet in severe obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, May 22, 2003; 348: 2074-2081.

Yudkin J, Carey M. The treatment of obesity by the "high fat" diet: the inevitability of calories. Lancet, Oct 29, 1960; 2; 939-941.

Westman EC, et al. Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program. American Journal of Medicine, Jul, 2002; 113 (1): 30-36.

Rabast U, et al. Loss of weight, sodium and water in obese persons consuming a high or low carbohydrate diet. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 1981; 25: 341-349.

Baron JA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of low carbohydrate and low fat/high fiber diets for weight loss. American Journal of Public Health, 1986; 76 (11): 1293-1296.

Wadden TA. Treatment of obesity by moderate and severe caloric restriction. Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1993; 119 (7, Pt. 2): 688-693.

Foreyt JP, Goodrick GK. Evidence for success of behavior modification in weight loss and control. Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1993; 119 (7, Pt. 2): 698-701.

Alford BB, et al. The effects of variations in carbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the diet upon weight loss, blood values, and nutrient intake of adult obese women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1990; 90: 534-540.

Golay A, et al. Weight-Loss With Low or High Carbohydrate Diet? International Journal of Obesity, 1996; 20 (12): 1067-1072.

Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1996; 63: 174-178.

Lean ME, et al. Weight loss with high and low carbohydrate 1200 kcal diets in free living women. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Apr. 1997; 51 (4): 243-248.

Torbay N, et al. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet in treatment of obese normoinsulinemic and hyperinsulinemic subjects. Nutrition Research, May 2002; 22 (5): 587-598.

Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors in overweight adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics, March 2003; 142: 253-258.

Volek JS, et al. Body composition and hormonal responses to a carbohydrate-restricted diet. Metabolism, July 2002; 51 (7): 864-870.

Fleming RM. The Effect of High-, Moderate-, and Low-Fat Diets on Weight Loss and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors. Preventive Cardiology, 2002; 5 (3): 110-118.

Brehm, et al. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003; 88 (4): 1617-1623.

Foster GD, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, May 22, 2003; 348: 2082-2090.

Samaha FF, et al. A low-carbohydrate diet as compared with a low fat diet in severe obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, May 22, 2003; 348: 2074-2081.

Wien MA, et al. Almonds vs complex carbohydrates in a weight reduction program. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, Nov 2003; 27 (11): 1365-1372.

Smith RL. The Cholesterol Conspiracy. Warren H. Green, June 1991.

Source: The Omnivore

'Healthy' Diet May Increase Bad Cholesterol

Source: Yahoo

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - There is a plethora of evidence suggesting that low-fat diets, particularly those rich in fruits and vegetables are "healthy." However, in a small study of women, a diet low in fat and high in fruits and vegetables caused an increase in the plasma levels of oxidized LDL cholesterol, the "bad" cholesterol.

This finding was unexpected, Dr. Marja-Leena Silaste from the University of Oulu in Finland and colleagues write in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis. and Vascular Biology: Journal of the American Heart Association (news - web sites).

To explore how alterations in diet affect LDL levels, researchers put 37 healthy women on two different diets. Both diets were low in total and saturated fat. One was low in vegetables and the other high in vegetables and fruits.

They discovered that blood levels of LDL increased by 27 percent in response to the low-fat, low-vegetable diet and 19 percent in response to the low-fat, high-vegetable diet. Both diets also produced small but significant decreases in HDL "good" cholesterol.

Silaste and colleagues think the "most likely reason" for the increase in LDL levels in response to the diets is the increase in a carrier protein called lipoprotein a.

This is certainly possible, Dr. Mohamad Navab and colleagues from the University of California, Los Angeles, write in an editorial, but there are other possibilities as well.

"Whatever the explanation, the findings by Silaste et al are sure to provide the basis for further exciting and potentially important studies," they write.

SOURCE: Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, March 2004.

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: A Critique

Published in the American Journal of Cardiology:

Sylvan Lee Weinberg, MD, MACC
Dayton, Ohio

The low-fat "diet heart hypothesis" has been controversial for nearly 100 years. The low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, promulgated vigorously by the National Cholesterol Education Program, National Institutes of Health, and American Heart Association since the Lipid Research Clinics-Primary Prevention Program in 1984, and earlier by the U.S. Department of Agriculture food pyramid, may well have played an unintended role in the current epidemics of obesity, lipid abnormalities, type II diabetes, and metabolic syndromes. This diet can no longer be defended by appeal to the authority of prestigious medical organizations or by rejecting clinical experience and a growing medical literature suggesting that the much-maligned low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet may have a salutary effect on the epidemics in question.
(J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:731-3) © 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

Download the full article (published with author's permission): The Diet-Heart Hypothesis - A Critique [.pdf file]

The World's Biggest Fad Diet

(and why you should probably avoid it)

by Dean Esmay

The most common belief about diet in the United States today is that excessive fat in the diet is the primary cause of obesity, heart disease, and other health problems. This belief is extraordinarily widespread in both the popular imagination and in the medical community, and most especially among popular writers on diet. Consumer advocacy groups, professional medical organizations, and government health organizations almost universally endorse this concept. You can't even listen to stand-up comics talk about health or fat people without hearing a joke about fatty foods. The belief that fat is the dietary bad guy is about as close to universal as any idea in America.

And yet there has long been evidence that the danger of dietary fat may be greatly exaggerated. Unbeknownst to the general public, the theory that bad health follows high intake of fats in general or saturated fats in particular has long had its detractors--and the list of detractors has been growing noticeably in recent years.

Read full article here: http://www.survivediabetes.com/lowfat.html

The Health Myths

Myth: "It's that evil cholesterol and saturated fats that cause heart disease"

Book excerpt here

'I didn't even feel hungry'

Clinical trials published last week show that the controversial Atkins diet really can help people lose weight. That's not news to Suzanne Levy, now a size 12

26 May 2003

As moments go, it was one of the sweetest. I'm in the changing rooms, trying on a skirt. It fits - and it's a size 12. I'm blinking, squinting at the label. Is this a mistake? I've been a 14, and then a 16, for years. But there's no mistake - I look at the mirror, see my newly slim shape, and feel like weeping. I love Dr Atkins.

And it looks like it's not just me. Last week, the first clinical trials of the Atkins diet were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The diet, which involves cutting out carbohydrates such as bread, pasta and rice, but eating plenty of protein and usually forbidden fats, has sold millions of copies and is much praised by celebrities such as Renée Zellweger. It has attracted plenty of controversy, too. Yet these trials show that people lose weight faster on this diet than using other methods and that it doesn't appear to damage your health, as its critics have suggested...

Full article: independent.co.uk

Praise the Lard

Detractors are being forced to eat their scathing words after two studies last week found that the Atkins diet works - and it's good for you, report Olga Craig and Robert Matthews.

Full article: telegraph.co.uk

Fat makes comeback after 3 lean decades

"For years in the test kitchens of Cooking Light magazine, virtually every recipe started with low-fat cooking spray. If a little more fat was needed, readers were advised to use margarine.

But no more. The nation's largest-circulation food and fitness magazine still preaches the value of lower fat cooking, but now recipes call for healthy amounts of canola oil, olive oil and -- egads -- even butter.

"We now know the kind of fat is more important than the quantity," said food editor Jill Melton. "We have loosened, and so have our readers."

All over the country, and especially in the food-sophisticated Bay Area, fat, in all its glorious, slick incarnations, is coming back. After three lean decades, chefs, home cooks and even the nutritionists who persuaded us to board the low-fat bus in the first place are rejecting the notion that fat is what makes us fat.

"We're beginning a new kind of balance," said Clark Wolf, a food and restaurant consultant in San Francisco and New York who works with New York University's Department of Nutrition and Food Studies. "In the '80s, we really had food phobias. People were afraid of cheese and butter and eggs."

Full article: sfgate.com

Hepatic de novo lipogenesis in normoinsulinemic and hyperinsulinemic subjects consuming high-fat, low-carbohydrate and low-fat, high-carbohydrate isoenergetic diets

"Compared with baseline, consumption of the high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet did not affect triacylglycerol concentrations. However, after the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, triacylglycerols increased significantly and DNL was 5–6-fold higher than in normoinsulinemic subjects consuming a high-fat diet. The increase in triacylglycerol after the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet was correlated with fractional DNL (P < 0.01), indicating that subjects with high DNL had the greatest increase in triacylglycerols.

Conclusions: These results support the concept that both hyperinsulinemia and a low-fat diet increase DNL, and that DNL contributes to hypertriglyceridemia."

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 77, No. 1, 43-50, January 2003

Full article: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Nonsense Slimming Diets

This century more than any other has seen a proliferation of slimming ideas. Most diets are based on cutting energy intake, others have made slimming claims for specific items of food. Classic examples are grapefruit, pineapple or fibre. We have had inert fillers, low-calorie this, low-fat that, diet pills and sweaty, plastic clothing. There were Low-Calorie Diets and Very Low Calorie Diets. There were even diets for diet haters. People lost weight and put it on again. Many were harmed, some died.

Full article: Second Opinions - Barry Groves, PhD

A low-fat diet doesn't fix bulge

The article on Caroline County's campaign promoting the ills of eating fat, particularly in milk ["What's the skinny? Caroline County works to convince residents to do dairy with less fat," Feb. 19] was both ironic and even sad in light of the Sunday article ["Atkins diet naysayers may end up eating crow," Feb. 16], which revealed that it could be excessive carbohydrates, and not fat, that present the real danger to our health.

Indeed, the low-fat-diet fad has left many people going hungry on unsustainable diets while the country gets fatter and fatter. Studies at Duke University, the American Heart Association, and others have shown that people can eat more, weigh less, have better cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and feel better on high-fat, high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets, while lowering their risk of diabetes and other diseases.

The danger of fat, and believing that fat causes you to be fat, is rapidly taking its place among the scientific facts that are stated so often that people believe them, even though the data never support them.

Unfortunately, it will be a long time before well-intentioned people who have been indoctrinated in the low-fat gospel can be turned around and even begin to believe that the experts could have been wrong, and the food pyramid was actually upside-down.

Russell Thomas

King George

Date published: 3/9/2003

Source: Freelancestar

The myth of the low-fat diet

For years, we've been advised to eat a low-fat diet in order to help prevent heart attacks and promote weight loss. But, says Jerome Burn, the latest research suggests that such a diet may actually do more harm than good.

Full article: Independent