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

The Way We Eat Now

From the Harvard Magazine

Although flawed in places (e.g. the footnote 'Inner Wisdom'), this is a great summary of what went wrong over the latter part of the last century:

The Way We Eat Now

Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 76, No. 5, 911-922, November 2002
© 2002 American Society for Clinical Nutrition

Sharon S Elliott, Nancy L Keim, Judith S Stern, Karen Teff and Peter J Havel

From the Department of Nutrition, University of California, Davis (SSE, JSS, and PJH); the US Department of Agriculture Western Human Nutrition Research Center, Davis, CA (NLK); and the Monell Chemical Senses Institute and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (KT).

This review explores whether fructose consumption might be a contributing factor to the development of obesity and the accompanying metabolic abnormalities observed in the insulin resistance syndrome. The per capita disappearance data for fructose from the combined consumption of sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup have increased by 26%, from 64 g/d in 1970 to 81 g/d in 1997. Both plasma insulin and leptin act in the central nervous system in the long-term regulation of energy homeostasis. Because fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion from pancreatic ß cells, the consumption of foods and beverages containing fructose produces smaller postprandial insulin excursions than does consumption of glucose-containing carbohydrate. Because leptin production is regulated by insulin responses to meals, fructose consumption also reduces circulating leptin concentrations. The combined effects of lowered circulating leptin and insulin in individuals who consume diets that are high in dietary fructose could therefore increase the likelihood of weight gain and its associated metabolic sequelae. In addition, fructose, compared with glucose, is preferentially metabolized to lipid in the liver. Fructose consumption induces insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, hyperinsulinemia, hypertriacylglycerolemia, and hypertension in animal models. The data in humans are less clear. Although there are existing data on the metabolic and endocrine effects of dietary fructose that suggest that increased consumption of fructose may be detrimental in terms of body weight and adiposity and the metabolic indexes associated with the insulin resistance syndrome, much more research is needed to fully understand the metabolic effect of dietary fructose in humans.

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.

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

Put Fat Children on Atkins Diet

Overweight children should be put on Atkins-style diets to lose weight and prevent life-threatening diseases, a cancer specialist claimed today.

Professor Julian Peto, from the Institute of Cancer Research, believes high protein, low carbohydrate diets could be the solution to the country’s soaring obesity problem.

He told BBC Radio 5 Live: “We have a major obesity problem in this country. It is now overtaking smoking as the number one killer and I am very concerned that we need to tackle it early.

“Children especially need to be targeted. We should be weighing children in school regularly and we need to rethink dietary advice because the current advice clearly isn’t working.”

Full article: scotsman.com

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]

Weight Loss Chart 2004

New file uploaded today:

Weight Loss Chart 2004

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

On The First Law of Thermodynamics

From the British Medical Journal

Author: Barry Groves, Independent Researcher OX7 6LP

Weight loss on a low-carb diet has two components:

1. Reducing carb (and protein if necessary) intake so that the body no longer has a ready supply of glucose.

2. Increasing fat intake to supply an alternative energy supply.

The aim is to get the body to burn fats -- and crucially for weight loss, this includes body fats. The body will only do this in two circumstances:

1. Starvation (including low-calorie dieting)

2. When glucose is restricted by other means and fats are the only fuel supply available (low-carb, high-fat diets).

But what about the Laws of Thermodynamics?

The laws of thermodynamics, so often quoted by 'experts' (I have another word for them: 'ignorants') in support of the 'calories in = calories out' hypothesis, is a complete red herring as it takes no account of the way the body deals with different nutrients.

One major flaw in their argument is that the body does not use all the food we eat to provide energy. The primary function of dietary proteins, for example, is body cell manufacture and repair: making skin, blood, hair, and finger- and toe-nails, enzymes, etc. The amount of protein needed for this purpose is generally accepted to be about one gram per kilogram of lean body weight. As meats contain approximately 23 grams of protein per 100 grams, a person weighing, say, 70 kg (154 lbs) needs to eat about 300 g (11 oz) of meat, or its equivalent, every day just to supply his basic protein needs. Even eating this volume of lean chicken would provide some 465 kcals. These calories are not used to supply energy, they contribute nothing to the body's calorie needs and so must be deducted if you are counting calories.

Much of the fat we eat is also used to provide materials used by the body in processes other than the production of energy: the manufacture of body cell membranes, bile acids, hormones, the essential fatty acids for the brain and nervous system, and so on. All these must be deducted as well. Thus trying to determine, from food intake and energy expenditure alone, how much excess energy your body will store as fat will give a completely wrong answer. However, these other factors cannot be measured. Calorie counting, which is the foundation of practically every modern slimming diet, is both totally misleading and a complete waste of time.

There are also other anomolies: A figure often used is that one kilogram of body fat represents about 3500 calories. But according to the United States Department Of Health, Education and Welfare:

'On a high-fat diet, 4703 to 8471 excess calories were required for each kilogram of added weight. On a low carbohydrate VLCD [very low calorie diet], replacing fat calories with 8g/day of equivalent carbohydrate calories reduced weight loss by 1.68kg, corresponding to 3300 calories of carbohydrate/kilogram, possibly 2500 calories per kilogram for carbohydrate alone.'(Department of HEW Publication: NIH 75-708, Government Printing Office, 165-86.)

Are they are saying that it takes 4,703 to 8,471 excess calories of fat to add a kilogram of weight, yet it takes only 2,500 to 3,300 calories of carbohydrate to add the same amount? If so 'a calorie is a calorie is a calorie' is not so meaningful after all: a carbohydrate calorie is obviously much more fattening than a fat calorie. So do calories count? Well, perhaps -- but some don't count half as much as others.

Actually, excess fats aren't stored in the body. Any unused fat calories are excreted in urine and faeces. (Endocrinology 1962; 70: 579. Experientia 1963; 19: 319. Metabolism 1964; 13: 87-97. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1964; 115:424. Nature 1964; 201: 924)

There is an emerging scientific consensus that weight control is a highly complex topic and the old ideas that overweight people are lazy gluttons are now realised to be as absurd and insulting as the overweight have always thought they were.

By the way, ketones are derived from fats in food which has been bought and paid for. They are a valuable source of energy for cells that usually use glucose. It makes no sense to create in the body a situation where they are flushed down the lavatory.

Source: British Medical Journal

Water-induced thermogenesis

December 2003

Boschmann M, Steiniger J, Hille U, Tank J, Adams F, Sharma AM, Klaus S, Luft FC, Jordan J.

Franz-Volhard Clinical Research Center and Helios-Klinikum-Berlin, Medical Faculty of the Charite, Humboldt-University, D-13125 Berlin, Germany.

Drinking lots of water is commonly espoused in weight loss regimens and is regarded as healthy; however, few systematic studies address this notion. In 14 healthy, normal-weight subjects (seven men and seven women), we assessed the effect of drinking 500 ml of water on energy expenditure and substrate oxidation rates by using whole-room indirect calorimetry. The effect of water drinking on adipose tissue metabolism was assessed with the microdialysis technique. Drinking 500 ml of water increased metabolic rate by 30%. The increase occurred within 10 min and reached a maximum after 30-40 min. The total thermogenic response was about 100 kJ. About 40% of the thermogenic effect originated from warming the water from 22 to 37 C. In men, lipids mainly fueled the increase in metabolic rate. In contrast, in women carbohydrates were mainly used as the energy source. The increase in energy expenditure with water was diminished with systemic beta-adrenoreceptor blockade. Thus, drinking 2 liters of water per day would augment energy expenditure by approximately 400 kJ. Therefore, the thermogenic effect of water should be considered when estimating energy expenditure, particularly during weight loss programs.

Source: PubMed

Adiposity 101

"1 per cent Successful Long Term Weight Loss"
-Robert Jeffrey and colleagues

"Dieting may be the major cause of obesity"
-Jean-Paul Deslypere, University of Ghent Professor of human nutrition

Full article (very long): omen.com

New Study Suggests Calories May Not Count

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Oct. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- One of the most controversial aspects of low-carbohydrate diets such as the Atkins Nutritional Approach™ is their rejection of the tyranny of calorie counting. Critics of these plans claim that the reason people lose weight on low-carb diets is the same reason they lose weight on any other diet: they actually consume fewer calories, presumably because they are bored with monotony of all that steak. Now, a new study by Harvard researchers suggests that these critics are wrong and that people lose at least as much weight on a low-carbohydrate diet than those on a low-fat diet, even when they consume significantly more calories every day.

Last May two studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed the benefits of low-carbohydrate diets, but they left some open questions. "Some people have argued that if there is a difference between low- fat and low-carb diets as some studies have shown, it's due to caloric restriction because people are either bored and thus eat less or people are satiated and thus eat less," says Penelope Greene, a nutritionist at the Harvard School for Public Health and chief author of the new study. "My own view is that if it's boring then that's a particular concern, because that's not a diet that can be maintained. If it's caloric restriction because it's satiating and people are happy, I'm not sure that that's necessarily a bad thing. That seems like a good thing."

To prove that something more than mere caloric restriction is the reason that low-carb diets work, Greene and her colleagues had to improve on the previous "free-feeding" studies. In these experiments, subjects were randomly divided into two groups, and told to follow either a low-fat or a low-carb diet on their own. The researchers did not know how much the subjects actually consumed, which meant that it was possible that the low-carb eaters were leaving food uneaten on their plates. Greene and her colleagues, Walter Willett, Juniper Devicis and Antoine Skaf set out to perform a more carefully controlled, controlled-feeding experiment in which the subjects would be given prepared meals with portions weighed to the nearest gram.

Controlled-feeding experiments are notoriously difficult, Greene explains. "A lot of people didn't think we could do this," she says. After running the pilot study, which consisted of 21 subjects, she understands why. For several months she was putting in 10- to 15-hour days, seven days a week, supervising food preparation, color coding meals, and keeping records. The researchers contracted out the preparation of the food to an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, MA, Ristorante Marino. "They were very used to doing catering," she says, "but not in weighing food to the nearest gram." Furthermore, they had to produce two different preparations of most foods -- low-fat and low-carb -- at five different calorie levels.

The pilot study, which was performed last fall, consisted of three sets of seven subjects each. "This was a very motivated group," Greene explains. "They were all over-fifty, overweight and overly scared. We had hundreds of people who wanted to enroll." The subjects would pick up their meals every evening and return the uneaten portion from the previous day. "There was very, very little of that," Greene says. "What I got back were little dregs of lettuce, literally."

The first group was fed a low-fat diet, consisting of 1,500 calories a day for women and 1,800 calories a day for men. The second group was given a low-carbohydrate diet, but the same number of calories. To test the hypothesis that the weight loss is not due to caloric restriction, the third group was also fed a low-carb diet, but 1,800 calories a day for women and 2,100 calories a day for men. Over the 12-week course of the study this group consumed 25,000 extra calories. According to many diet books, 3,500 calories equals one pound, which means that the third group should have lost 7 pounds less than the other two groups. In fact, to within statistical error the subjects in all three groups lost more or less the same weight. "I think this was the most surprising thing, and made this very much worth doing," Greene said. "Keep in mind that there are people who would have argued that the second group should have not done as well because of all the fat they ate."

Greene is quick to point out that this was only a pilot study, though "probably the most elaborate pilot study I have ever heard of. The purpose of the experiment was to see if under these controlled conditions there was really anything to warrant a larger study. And the answer is yes, certainly."

Source: Yahoo

Low-Carb Diets Are Working, Study Says

By DANIEL Q. HANEY, AP Medical Editor

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention — long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins — that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design, conduct or analysis.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds.

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers," said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated Press.

Source: yahoo.com

Eat Fat And Grow Slim

by Richard Mackarness, M.B.,B.S. (1958)

From the Foreword by Sir Heneage Ogilvie, KBE, DM, M CH, FRCS
Consultant Surgeon, Guy's Hospital, Editor of 'The Practitioner'
Late: Vice-President of the Royal College of Surgeons

THE STATISTICIAN looks on nutrition as a mater of calories, and on obesity as a question of upset caloric equilibrium. A calorie is a unit of heat, a unit of potential energy, but not a unit of nutrition. Prison governors, school superintendents, dictators whether of a nation or of a small community, talk in calories to prove that they are feeding their charges or their victims adequately. Fellows of the Royal Society, and doctors with political leanings, talk in calories as if the human body were a machine requiring a certain amount of fuel to enable it to do a certain amount of work.

A motor-car needs calories, and we give it calories in the form of petrol. If we give it good petrol it will do good work for quite a long time. But even a Rolls-Royce cannot find its own fuel. It cannot separate motor spirit and lubricating oil from the crude mixture brought by a tanker from the wells of Kuwait. It cannot clean its own pipes, clear its own choked jets, grind its own valves, re-line its own bearings when they are worn, and replace defective parts as they need renewal. The body can do all these things. but the body is not a machine, and to do them it needs food not fuel...

Full access to the book here: Eat Fat And Grow Slim

The Fat Fast (Atkins)

Counterintuitive as it may sound, if you can't budge the scale on Induction, a few days on this regimen may well allow you to break through metabolic resistance.

Certain individuals are so metabolically resistant that only more intense dietary restrictions prove successful. Once medications, thyroid problems and candida are brought under control, almost all overweight people who diligently adhere to the Atkins Nutritional Approach™ will lose and keep off weight. But for the small group of people for whom it does not work, more extreme measures are necessary.

To help these metabolically resistant people, Dr. Atkins has modified what he calls "the most effective weight-loss eating pattern ever described." British researchers Alan Kekwick and Gaston Pawan developed it, and Frederick Benoit and his team confirmed its superiority in burning off fat, compared to an absolute total fast. This extreme diet consists of 1,000 calories daily, comprised of 90 percent fat. No other weight-loss regimen has matched its ability to burn off stored fat. Dr. Atkins modified the Kekwick diet to make it as enjoyable as possible and dubbed it the "Fat Fast." He tried it on scores of patients and found it often worked for those who were unable to lose weight in any other safe, drug-free way.

The Kekwick diet forces the body into lipolysis so it burns its stores of fat. Lipolysis cannot take place if there is a significant source of glucose. Since all carbohydrates and some protein convert to energy by way of glucose, eliminating almost everything but fat from the diet forces even the most resistant body into lipolysis. That explains the 90 percent dietary-fat component. Lowering the caloric intake accelerates the need to burn up body fat—thus the
1,000-calorie limit.

The Fat Fast is one controlled carb program where you do have to count calories. You'll eat 1,000 calories a day, with 75 percent to 90 percent comprised of fat. Frequent feedings prevent hunger better than three meals a day, so you consume five feedings, perhaps one every four hours, comprising 200 calories
each. Because of the high fat content and frequent feedings, very few people
experience much hunger. The stumbling block for some people is the absence of
conventional meals. But most are willing to stick with it for a few days, even
if the food selections are unfulfilling.

Caution: The Fat Fast is actually dangerous for anyone who is not metabolically resistant. For people who lose weight fairly easily, the rate of weight loss is too rapid to be safe. But it carries very little risk for people who can barely lose on any other regimen.

Step One: Eat Mostly Fat
Begin with five 200-calorie feedings per day and follow for four or five days. Each item equals approximately 200 calories:

*[Note:* 1 ounce is about 25g]

• one ounce of macadamia nuts or macadamia nut butter
• two ounces of cream cheese or Brie
• one ounce of tuna or chicken salad with two teaspoons of mayonnaise served in one-quarter of an avocado
• two deviled eggs made with two teaspoons of mayonnaise
• two ounces of sour cream and two tablespoons black or red caviar
• two and a half ounces whipped heavy cream topped with sucralose zero-calorie syrup
• two ounces of pâté (check label for fat content)
• two egg yolks (hard-boiled) with one tablespoon of mayonnaise

Step Two: Modify the Fat Fast
If increasing the fat-to-carbohydrate ratio and cutting calories work, any
dietary change in that direction might get the job done. Next, you can try four
meals a day of roughly 300 calories for a total of 1,200 calories. That should
work, too, and what it allows is definitely more appealing to the taste buds:

• two ounces of beef chuck (do not drain fat) cooked in two tablespoons of
  olive oil
• two scrambled eggs with two strips of nitrate-free bacon
• two tablespoons of full-fat sour cream with a tablespoon of sugar-free syrup
  one-quarter cup chicken or tuna salad made with two tablespoons of mayonnaise
• three ounces of pâté (check label for fat content)
• one-and-a-half ounces of macadamia nuts

Step Three: Return to Induction
Try the 1,200-calorie regimen for a week, then go back to Induction. Or simply follow the concept of increasing the ratio of fat to protein. No one should have to feel that losing weight is hopeless. Sometimes the key to achieving your goal weight permanently is quite difficult to adhere to, but rarely is it simply impossible.

Source: atkins.com

Further reading: CarbSmart

In sickness and in health: Atkins at large

Dr James Le Fanu says eat more fat and grow thin

There is nothing equivocal, no "ifs and buts", about the scientific vindication of Dr Robert Atkins's politically incorrect "high-fat" diet, as reported in this paper last week.

For the best part of 20 years, legions of nutritionists, doctors, health educationists, food faddists and other busybodies have solemnly warned us about the wickedness of saturated fats in meats and dairy foods - how they make you fat, clog up the arteries, cause cancer and, indeed, virtually any illness known to man.

If only we were to embrace the more wholesome and ascetic virtues of a low-fat diet - piling our plates high with pasta, pulses and bread - we would be slimmer, our cholesterol levels would be lower and we would live forever.

As we now know, however, that is not how it has turned out. When the two types of diet were directly compared, those on the Atkins high-fat diet won hands down, losing twice as much weight, with lower levels of glucose and a better balance of fats in the blood. This outcome, so contrary to prevailing opinion, requires some explanation.

Full article: telegraph.co.uk

'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

Atkins diet 'is beneficial and twice as effective as rivals'

The controversial Atkins diet, which severely restricts carbohydrates in favour of unlimited amounts of fat and protein, is twice as effective as conventional diets at shedding excess pounds, new research has shown.

In a six-month trial, volunteers following the regime lost twice as much weight as those on more traditional low-calorie, high-carbohydrate diets.

And despite fears that the bestselling diet could be harmful in the long term, researchers found that the diet protected against heart disease by increasing levels of "good" cholesterol.

Full article: telegraph.co.uk

Fat that may benefit Diabetics reduces weight, blood sugar

"COLUMBUS, Ohio – Supplementing the diet with a certain fatty acid may lead to better weight control and disease management in diabetics, a new study suggests.

Diabetics who added an essential fatty acid called conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) to their diets had lower body mass as well as lower blood sugar levels by the end of the eight-week study. Hyperglycemia, or high blood sugar, is a hallmark of diabetes.

Researchers also found that higher levels of this fatty acid in the bloodstream meant lower levels of leptin, a hormone thought to regulate fat levels. Scientists think that high leptin levels may play a role in obesity, one of the biggest risk factors for adult-onset diabetes."

Full article: Ohio State University

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

Why The Scale Lies

We’ve been told over an over again that daily weighing is unnecessary, yet many of us can’t resist peeking at that number every morning. If you just can’t bring yourself to toss the scale in the trash, you should definitely familiarize yourself with the factors that influence it’s readings. From water retention to glycogen storage and changes in lean body mass, daily weight fluctuations are normal. They are not indicators of your success or failure. Once you understand how these mechanisms work, you can free yourself from the daily battle with the bathroom scale.

Full article: primusweb.com

Stalls - Why the scales can lie

A biologist at Berkeley shared something very revealing on the low-carb BBS system a few years ago that helps us all through the erratic weight fluctuations you invariably encounter: Fat cells are resilient, stubborn little creatures that do not want to give up their actual cell volume. Over a period of weeks, maybe months of "proper dieting", each of your fat cells may have actually lost a good percentage of the actual fat contained in those cells. But the fat cells themselves, stubborn little guys, replace that lost fat with water to retain their size. That is, instead of shrinking to match the reduced amount of fat in the cell, they stay the same size! Result - you weigh the same, look the same, maybe even gained some scale weight, even though you have actually lost some serious fat.
The good news is that this water replacement is temporary. It's a defensive measure to keep your body from changing too rapidly. It allows the fat cell to counter the rapid change in cell composition, allowing for a slow, gradual reduction in cell size. The problem is, most people are frustrated with their apparent lack of success, assume they have lost nothing, and stop dieting.
However, if you give those fat cells some time, like 4-6 months, and ignore the scale weight fluctuations, your real weight/shape will slowly begin to show. The moral of the story - be patient! Your body is changing even if the number on the scale isn't.

Patterns of Weight Loss
Common patterns of weight loss from tracking a lot of people who become assimilated into the lowcarb lifestyle (hehe... resistance is futile!) a pattern emerges... the 2 week induction is pretty heady... weight lost just about every single day, enormous and unbelievable amounts of weight loss are reported. This is often followed by complaints that weight loss "stalls" or that the rate drops to only 1 pound per week.
Many people just don't know that fat-loss ...the actual goal when on a weight-reduction diet, is rate-limited. In other words, the human body has factors that prevent more than a certain amount of fatty-acid release from storage... and even more factors that prevent those released fatty acids from being used up instead of stored back into the fat cells.
A priority of the human body is survival. Anything that threatens its survival results in the cascade of events to maintain the previous status quo. Water fluctuations are one way the body does this. OK... so you done good on Atkins during induction... lost 10 pounds the first 2 weeks. Maybe 7 the first week and 3 the second. But, whoa! Weeks 3 and 4 there is NO loss! And weeks 5 and 6 is only 1/2 pound each!
So... what gives? Initially, the body jettisons the water attached to the glycogen stores that we diligently deplete to get into ketosis... this accounts for about 3-5 pounds of water. In addition, muscle stores of glycogen are not being replaced when used... which will account for the rest. All in all... MAYBE 1/2 pound of fat was metabolized during the first week... and MAYBE 1/2 pound of fat was metabolized the 2nd week. Of that 10 initial pounds, only 1 pound was fat and 9 pounds water... The body senses this lack and sirens start shrieking: Warning! Warning! Losing water... new thing... got to get back to the status quo! Brain tells body to produce and release that vasopressin antidiuretic hormone... more water is retained, and no weight loss noticed. Fat loss is still occuring, MAYBE even 2 pounds per week, because ketosis is firmly established and appetite supression is in effect... but water retention is hiding that continuing fat loss. The body is preventing dehydration with this mechanism, and that's a *good* thing.
From the perspective of the scale, it can be discouraging. Which is why the mantra: Water retention masks fat loss (repeated frequently to oneself) is helpful. Water retention will mask ongoing fat-loss for as long as the body retains the water. We can combat this by drinking more water... but we aren't going to totally overcome this mechanism during the initial water-loss phase of the Atkins diet. By weeks 5 and 6, things start to get back in balance, and the scale will begin to reflect the true fat-loss... which, as mentioned before is rate-limited. Individuals vary, but max weight loss runs about 2 pounds per week... under extremely optimal conditions... or 1% of body weight (whichever is the lower number).

So don't use the scale as an excuse to undermine your progress. Even when the scale is in a stall, fat loss can be occuring.

Author unknown

So unfair men are best at losing weight

By Elizabeth Day
(Filed: 23/03/2003)

The largest comparative dieting study ever conducted has found that men are far better at losing weight than women.

The six-month study, conducted by Surrey University, monitored 300 volunteers who were attempting to slim using the nation's four most popular diets.

At the end of the trial 13 out of the top 20 dieters were male, even though men made up only 30 per cent of the participants.

On average, men on the trial lost twice as much weight as women, even though all the dieters were randomly allocated one of four different eating programmes - Weight Watchers, Slim Fast, Rosemary Conley or Dr Atkins.

Full article: Daily Telegraph

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