tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post4576151882649084350..comments2024-02-18T15:43:14.717-05:00Comments on Moved to LivinLaVidaLowCarb.com/Blog: Stanford Researchers Confirm Atkins Diet Best For Weight Loss, Improved HealthJimmy Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-28297635246588908062007-11-13T23:10:00.000-05:002007-11-13T23:10:00.000-05:00I agree, Gloriana, which is why I wrote this blog ...I agree, Gloriana, which is why I wrote <A HREF="http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-is-there-such-trivial-weight-loss.html" REL="nofollow">this blog post</A> asking that very same question. The researchers say they don't force their study participants to remain on the diet strictly which to me proves nothing. Make them stay at 20-30g carbohydrates over a long period of time and that 10-pound weight loss easily becomes 100.Jimmy Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-49185633697594548712007-11-13T19:33:00.000-05:002007-11-13T19:33:00.000-05:00There is one element to this study - and others I ...There is one element to this study - and others I have seen related to low carb - which totally puzzles me. Why is there no significant weight loss? Heavens, I would say a weight loss of ten pounds during INDUCTION is not unusual. I was first attracted to Atkins when a co-worker of mine lost 120 pounds, then a friend lost 30 in two months. <BR/><BR/>I only lost a little over 60 pounds in a year, but that is not bad for a menopausal woman. I still am far from goal, but, though I've had plateau problems beyond the first year, I never had the slightest problem with gaining. I by no means have iron will power - it took eliminating starches and sugar for cravings to disappear.<BR/><BR/>As well, those in this study were hardly 'doing low carb' at all. Fifty grams of carbs is too high for most women - raising them to 150 grams is infuriating, because it guarantees weight gain - and this man's idea of 40 PERCENT intake of carbs, not forty grams, is a recipe for failure.<BR/><BR/>Yet this is not an isolated instance. Are there ANY medical studies (as opposed to our experience - which would show loss of probably a minimum of 50 pounds a year) which show significant weight loss?Glorianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931413675071311356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-21601709568140389762007-10-11T22:20:00.000-04:002007-10-11T22:20:00.000-04:00Robert, I don't buy into the PH balance theory, al...Robert, I don't buy into the PH balance theory, although there may be a minimal causal effect. If what you believe about the acidity of consuming meat and dairy products is true, then it would run counteractive to a low-carbohydrate nutritional approach. Those participants would not lose weight and would be extremely unhealthy. But that is just not the case. <BR/><BR/>I agree that we are supersized with larger and larger portions of (mostly high-carb) food and we could stand to move and wiggle more than we do. But I'm not about to cut back on my own personal meat consumption because it got me to where I am today.Jimmy Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-66572617069214608982007-10-11T22:06:00.000-04:002007-10-11T22:06:00.000-04:00Interesting. I am curious however. Are you familia...Interesting. I am curious however. Are you familiar with the PH balance theory? Where an over acidic or over alkaline condition in the body has been shown to lead to almost every malady known to man, including obesity? As you are probably aware, meat and most dairy products, when digested by the body, are highly acidic. While I do enjoy meat from time to time, I think a balance is in order here, through the consumption of a variety of healthy foods. The main problem today is that we are "supersized" to death, stressed out, with little time for exercise. Quantity over Quality has become the montra. Just curious what your take is on this. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-27604823148752733672007-08-18T00:21:00.000-04:002007-08-18T00:21:00.000-04:00Dr. Acocella, I just found this post when I was do...Dr. Acocella, I just found this post when I was doing a Google search. I suppose I am far too late for any discussion, but....<BR/><BR/>Did you read the full study? Do you know if the authors controlled for body weight?<BR/><BR/>I'm trying to think of possible etiologies for an increased risk of death with a decreased intake of carbohydrate.<BR/><BR/>The only thing that comes quickly to mind is the inreased prevalence of obesity in the low carb community.<BR/><BR/>An association is not a cause. What do you think?Valerie Jacobsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11563804379569719021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-1827139363265694712007-05-03T08:46:00.000-04:002007-05-03T08:46:00.000-04:00Dear Jimmy and blog members -I am posting a resent...Dear Jimmy and blog members -<BR/><BR/>I am posting a resent prospective, cohort study that followed and investigated nearly 33,000 subjects who were evaluated for percent of calories in their diets from protein and carbohydrates and compared their intake with morbidity and mortality for over a decade. The authors conclude that, "Prolonged consumption of diets low in carbohydrates and high in protein is associated with an increase in total mortality". This is a well designed, peer-reviewed study. I know that the low-carb approach focuses caloric intake on high-fat but we all agree by default this diet style is also low-carb and high in protein, as fatty food are often derived from high-protein foods. I know I'm in the lion's den here but Jimmy often posts opposing view and allow hearty debate. My post will hopefully inspire such discourse. I will not editorialize, but simply post the study and listen to you and you're reader’s comments. I will say that there's no reason that we need to dispute the efficacy of the study itself. Let's go from the position that the study is not flawed, let's discuss the science and findings. The conclusions of the authors are reproducible and consistent. What do you all think? If you do post this study I applaud your willingness to explore the science and not ignore nor dismiss it.<BR/><BR/>I am keen on hearing the comments.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Steven Acocella <BR/>Board Certified Dietitian<BR/>Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine<BR/>Master of Science Human Nutrition<BR/>Fellow - American College of Lifestyle Medicine<BR/>Diplomate - American Clinical Board of Nutrition<BR/><BR/><BR/> European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2007) 61, 575–581. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602557; published online 29 November 2006<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Low-carbohydrate–high-protein diet and long-term survival in a general population cohort<BR/><BR/>Guarantor: A Trichopoulou.<BR/><BR/>Contributors: AT is the principal investigator of the Greek EPIC project and has the supervising responsibility for all aspects of this project. TP is the physician directly involved in the implementation of this study. PO is the coordinator for data analysis. C-CH and DT are the epidemiology consultants.<BR/>1Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece <BR/>2University of Massachusetts Cancer Centre, Worcester, MA, USA <BR/>3Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Correspondence: Professor A Trichopoulou, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Athens Medical School, 75 Mikras Asias Street, Goudi, Athens GR-11527, Greece. E-mail: antonia@nut.uoa.gr<BR/><BR/>Abstract:<BR/><BR/>Objective: We have evaluated the effects on mortality of habitual low carbohydrate–high-protein diets that are thought to contribute to weight control.<BR/><BR/>Design: Cohort investigation.<BR/><BR/>Setting: Adult Greek population.<BR/><BR/>Subjects methods: Follow-up was performed from 1993 to 2003 in the context of the Greek component of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nutrition. Participants were 22 944 healthy adults, whose diet was assessed through a validated questionnaire. Participants were distributed by increasing deciles according to protein intake or carbohydrate intake, as well as by an additive score generated by increasing decile intake of protein and decreasing decile intake of carbohydrates. Proportional hazards regression was used to assess the relation between high protein, high carbohydrate and the low carbohydrate–high protein score on the one hand and mortality on the other.<BR/><BR/>Results:During 113 230 persons years of follow-up, there were 455 deaths. In models with energy adjustment, higher intake of carbohydrates was associated with significant reduction of total mortality, whereas higher intake of protein was associated with nonsignificant increase of total mortality (per decile, mortality ratios 0.94 with 95% CI 0.89 –0.99, and 1.02 with 95% CI 0.98 –1.07 respectively). Even more predictive of higher mortality were high values of the additive low carbohydrate–high protein score (per 5 units, mortality ratio 1.22 with 95% CI 1.09 –to 1.36). Positive associations of this score were noted with respect to both cardiovascular and cancer mortality.<BR/><BR/>Conclusion: Prolonged consumption of diets low in carbohydrates and high in protein is associated with an increase in total mortality.<BR/><BR/>Keywords: diet, survival, protein intake, carbohydrate intake, cohort studyUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001404997238604444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-66858809478084260352007-04-29T06:30:00.000-04:002007-04-29T06:30:00.000-04:00Eating less calories than the body needs on a long...<I>Eating less calories than the body needs on a long-term basis ... is not a healthy way to lose weight in my opinion. Exercise is the only true way to reshape the body in the long-run.</I><BR/><BR/>*rolls on floor laughing*.<BR/><BR/>You do understand that exercize pushes up the body's requirement for calories, and that fat loss then occurs when your daily calorie requirement has been pushed over your total intake, right?<BR/><BR/>You can tone all the muscle you want, but if you keep your metabolized calorie intake over your expenditure, you'll retain every ounce of that fat. <BR/><BR/>You've got almost no chance of actually building muscle mass if you're processing less calories than expenditure, too. That's why body builders do growth/cut cycles -- excess calories during building phases, and then insufficient calories to trim off the slight fat gains.<BR/><BR/>You are always going to lose at least some muscle mass if you take in less calories than you are expending. It's unavoidable. But the body is very slow and reluctant to remove resources it's using. Exercizing a muscle greatly reduces its wastage.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, by far the best approach for losing weight is to both restrict intake and exercize the entire muscle base. The exercize component ups your metabolic requirements so in effect you're dieting harder, helps minimize muscle wastage, and improves your mood to boot.<BR/><BR/>But don't fool yourself. The only ways we have at the moment to remove body fat are to hack it out, or to process less calories than you use -- exercize included.<BR/><BR/>This stuff really isn't rocket science.<BR/><BR/>And Matt... Why on Earth are you so desperate to convert people away from a weight-loss regime that demonstrably works, and works well? No matter how bad the (seemingly mythical) poor health implications of a low-carb diet are, they're nothing compared to the very horrifying implications of obesity. Whose mental voice are you trying to persuade or defend against?Ghostwoodshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14155918958191766438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-60431117990486239462007-03-22T23:18:00.000-04:002007-03-22T23:18:00.000-04:00I am COMPLETELY unsurprised that insulin dropped m...I am COMPLETELY unsurprised that insulin dropped more on Atkins than on the other diets, AND that BP also dropped. Dr. Atkins used to say that hyperinsulinism was a greater indicator of the potential for BP problems than even salt intake. I wonder how many other things he said are going to be proven right before the medical establishment and the media finally stop shortchanging the man's contribution to society.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02873453257184351629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-33488159484273849372007-03-17T13:28:00.000-04:002007-03-17T13:28:00.000-04:00Nice try again. You say there are two studies tha...Nice try again. You say there are two studies that show muscle mass is not lost on low-carb.<BR/><BR/>1) The research by Manninen was not a study, but a review of other studies. It uses no quantitative technique to come to its conclusion. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition study I referenced above was a much more comprehensive meta-review of other studies.<BR/><BR/>2) In the study by Layman, J. Nutr. 135:1903-1910, August 2005, subjects on the low-carb diet with no exercise LOST LEAN MASS (space may not be wide enough for proper formatting):<BR/><BR/>TABLE 3 Body weight and composition for adult women at baseline and after 16 wk of consuming reduced-energy diets with a carbohydrate:protein ratio >3.5 (CHO) or <1.5 (PRO) with or without a supervised exercise program (EX: 5 d/wk walking and 2 d/wk resistance training)1<BR/>Group PRO PRO + EX CHO CHO + EX P-value <BR/>D2 E3, 4 <BR/><BR/>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR/> <BR/> kg <BR/>Body weight <BR/> Baseline 86.1 ± 4.6 93.7 ± 3.5 79.8 ± 2.7 <BR/> Post-test 76.3 ± 3.9* 85.9 ± 3.5* 73.1 ± 2.8* <0.05 0.98 <BR/>Fat mass <BR/> Baseline 39.0 ± 3.0 40.9 ± 3.6 40.6 ± 2.0 36.3 ± 2.2 <BR/> Post-test 33.1 ± 2.4* 32.1 ± 2.9* 35.6 ± 2.1* 30.8 ± 2.3* <0.05 <0.05 <BR/>Trunk fat <BR/> Baseline 19.6 ± 2.0 20.1 ± 2.2 20.1 ± 1.3 17.0 ± 1.2 <BR/> Post-test 16.0 ± 1.6* 15.1 ± 1.9* 17.1 ± 1.3* 13.8 ± 1.2* <0.05 0.11 <BR/>Lean mass <BR/> Baseline 50.6 ± 2.5 42.6 ± 1.4 51.7 ± 1.7 40.6 ± 0.8 <BR/> Post-test 48.6 ± 2.4* 42.2 ± 1.4 49.0 ± 1.8* 39.6 ± 0.8* 0.10 <0.001 <BR/> <BR/><BR/><BR/>1 Values are means ± SEM; n = 12.<BR/><BR/>* Different from baseline, P < 0.05.<BR/><BR/>2 D = Test for significant main effect of diet (PRO; n = 24: CHO; n = 24).<BR/><BR/>3 E = Test for significant main effect of exercise (EX; n = 24: control; n = 24).<BR/><BR/>4 D x E was not significant for any variable.Wheeling Icehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11661914057194930620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-47888622672048580402007-03-16T19:06:00.000-04:002007-03-16T19:06:00.000-04:00While I agree exercise is an important facet of we...While I agree exercise is an important facet of weight loss over the long term, it is not as important as you are promoting. Dr. Mary Vernon from the University of Kansas has found in her practice with the patients she puts on a low-carb diet that getting their diet in order first is most important and then they will spontaneously start moving around as a result. It's the chicken before the egg argument.Jimmy Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-28240292402035124772007-03-16T18:56:00.000-04:002007-03-16T18:56:00.000-04:00Nice try again, Matt, but you must have completely...Nice try again, Matt, but you must have completely overlooked the STUDY by Dr. Donald Layman. He has looked at low-carb diets as they relate to muscle mass and concluded there is not the major loss as you are claiming.<BR/><BR/>Read <A HREF="http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2006/10/layman-low-carb-diets-need-protein-for.html" REL="nofollow">my interview with Dr. Layman</A> to learn more about his fantastic and eye-opening research (pay close attention to his answer to Question #6 and learn something, my friend).Jimmy Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-2351927671068630972007-03-16T12:53:00.000-04:002007-03-16T12:53:00.000-04:00In regards to low-carb and muscle mass, I looked a...In regards to low-carb and muscle mass, I looked at the "study" you mentioned. It was in fact not a study, but a review of other studies. <BR/><BR/>If you look at a more thorough meta-analysis, you will see that low-carb does indeed lead to muscle mass loss on average:<BR/><BR/>Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Feb;83(2):260-74. Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression.<BR/><BR/>pg. 269 - "low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a greater loss of fat-free mass than high-carbohydrate diets".<BR/><BR/>pg. 272 - "Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a greater fat-free mass loss than were low-fat diets".<BR/><BR/>Nice try, indeed!Wheeling Icehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11661914057194930620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-29234991488905536202007-03-16T12:21:00.000-04:002007-03-16T12:21:00.000-04:00Eating less calories than the body needs on a long...Eating less calories than the body needs on a long-term basis (no matter what type of diet) is not a healthy way to lose weight in my opinion. Exercise is the only true way to reshape the body in the long-run.<BR/><BR/>Also, I am looking into your studies about low-carb and muscle mass.Wheeling Icehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11661914057194930620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-91663499933048731022007-03-16T10:46:00.000-04:002007-03-16T10:46:00.000-04:00EXCELLENT question, Matt. I don't think it's the ...EXCELLENT question, Matt. I don't think it's the diets necessarily that don't work in the long-term, but rather the lack of support while following them that makes the difference between success and failure.<BR/><BR/>There are many ways to lose weight, but keeping it off takes an entire line of defense centered around supporting these people with continuing on their good habits long after weight loss is no longer an issue.<BR/><BR/>That's why I'm doing what I do here at my blog and will keep encouraging and educating people about what I have been able to do to keep my weight off three years and counting. :)<BR/><BR/>THANKS again for your comments!Jimmy Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-8627793911460295912007-03-16T10:31:00.000-04:002007-03-16T10:31:00.000-04:00Don't you think there's a reason people got off th...Don't you think there's a reason people got off the diets??? Could it be because these diets aren't sustainable in the long-term?Wheeling Icehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11661914057194930620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-65060578872952096282007-03-16T00:35:00.000-04:002007-03-16T00:35:00.000-04:00That's true, Matt, but ALL diet groups started gai...That's true, Matt, but ALL diet groups started gaining weight at that time because they basically got "off the diet." These dieters pushed their carb intake up over 150g daily after 6 months--no wonder they started gaining weight back. If they had just stuck to the plan, then their weight loss would have been FAR more impressive. MUCH MUCH MORE!<BR/><BR/>As for muscle mass loss, that's yet another myth. Google it for two studies that I've blogged about showing you DON'T lose muscle when you low-carb.<BR/><BR/>Nice try, though.Jimmy Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-75911097020429550382007-03-15T15:10:00.000-04:002007-03-15T15:10:00.000-04:00The Atkins group lost 10 pounds, but how much of t...The Atkins group lost 10 pounds, but how much of this was fat and how much was muscle? The study doesn't say.<BR/><BR/>Also, the Atkins group started regaining body fat from month 6 to month 12.Wheeling Icehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11661914057194930620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-3149361450756422502007-03-10T19:04:00.000-05:002007-03-10T19:04:00.000-05:00No overreaction. The 40-30 thing was unclear. His ...No overreaction. The 40-30 thing was unclear. His response was fine. IMHO 50g carb is probably too high for most women and no educated person suggests doing Atkins without supplements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-73548748257419954552007-03-08T16:46:00.000-05:002007-03-08T16:46:00.000-05:00[Thanks, Jimmy, for posting my comment above -- no...[Thanks, Jimmy, for posting my comment above -- not sure if it was enlightening or not, but thanks for suggesting that it was...]<BR/><BR/>I think that anyone who does a rigorous scientific study doesn't want to be too closely identified with the results, so that he or she doesn't get pegged as an advocate. <BR/><BR/>Jimmy is obviously a most aggressive advocate for low-carbing; Dr. Mary Vernon is an advocate; etc. etc. If he gets pegged as one of "those Atkins doctors," then he might not get funding from mainstream sources to continue his research, so that he gets the long-term results that will match his short-term results. <BR/><BR/>The question I have for the researchers who run from their own data is: when you find increased weight loss AND improved lipid profiles in the short-term, how could that be bad in the long-term? <BR/><BR/>If I as a patient take action to lose weight and improve my cholesterol and triglycerides, and then maintain all of that at a medically appropriate level by continuing to follow a low-carb maintenance plan, what is it that could happen in the meantime that would be bad for me? If I were able to achieve that following a low-fat plan, or by taking statin drugs, I would be considered a model patient. <BR/><BR/>Yet by achieving it via low-carb, I'm supposed to believe I'm undertaking something unproven and dangerous? More so than remaining obese and having what is considered an unhealthy lipid profile? <BR/><BR/>How is it that the same way of eating that improved my cholesterol profile will suddenly mutate into something that makes me worse off?Paula Brantnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15859788530575380792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-49647556175615693602007-03-07T16:19:00.000-05:002007-03-07T16:19:00.000-05:00Us low carbers may think Dr. Gardner overreacted. ...Us low carbers may think Dr. Gardner overreacted. However, I think we should give him a break. For him to make the some of the comments he did is a step in the right direction. It is difficult for the medical establishment to acknowledge a politically incorrect dietary approach. We've seen it before in other favorable studies. It will take a lot of time to overcome the inertia in the medical establishment, as other comments have noted. I know we want the medical establishment to acknowledge low carb right now, but we must be patient.<BR/><BR/>As for willpower, I didn't have the willpower to overcome the cravings from the low-fat, high-carb diet. It takes less willpower to stick with low carb.<BR/><BR/>At least THIS study is getting some media attention. The Houston Chronicle had a good, fairly positive article today. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/4607983.html<BR/><BR/>I also heard a quick report about the study on our local morning TV news about it. It showed someone grilling meat. They had to add that "experts" were concerned about the effects of eating "high fat and no carbs." Geeze, will these "experts" ever get a clue???renegadediabetichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11710855525093861921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-41829868444938429662007-03-07T13:25:00.000-05:002007-03-07T13:25:00.000-05:00Do you feel Dr. Gardner overreacted a bit in respo...<I>Do you feel Dr. Gardner overreacted a bit in response to my column? </I><BR/>He certainly did overreact - but then again, scientists are super-cautious by definition. It seems to me that he's not completely aware of the literal mountains of positive evidence that's readily available in the published literature.<BR/><BR/><I> Why is there such vitriol opposition...STILL?!</I><BR/>Well, that's the sad part, isn't it. A great scientist once said that "any scientific breakthrough starts as a blasphemy". The current low-fat mantra, after decades of pure communist-style indoctrination, is so effectively hammered down and, hence, so deeply rooted in our present belief [sic!] system that it is almost impossible to open minds - no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented. That is very discouraging, no doubt, but it also makes abundantly clear that we <I>have to keep exposing the truth</I>. That's why your work is so important, Jimmy! The <I>only way</I> to defeat the system is to keep exposing the lies, fallacies and nonsense - backed up by hard, irrefutable scientific evidence. I am convinced that eventually, the ivory towers will fall. Don't forget that there are already some mighty cracks (very!) visible in that geometric nutritional absurdity, the USDA Food Pyramid.Science4u1959https://www.blogger.com/profile/14032931049767819624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-35609137506375363172007-03-07T12:23:00.000-05:002007-03-07T12:23:00.000-05:00I was taken back by the update from Dr. Gardner. W...I was taken back by the update from Dr. Gardner. Who put a bee in his bonnet?? Something just doesn't jive there. As they say---"me thinks he doth protest too much"BGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17518968315887863047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-36943529375819054532007-03-07T11:57:00.000-05:002007-03-07T11:57:00.000-05:00Hey IB! Dr. Gardner got that "iron will" terminol...Hey IB! Dr. Gardner got that "iron will" terminology from me because he asked how I was able to lose my weight. It's not the whole picture, but you do have to be strong enough to endure.Jimmy Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-73770442186061265562007-03-07T09:38:00.000-05:002007-03-07T09:38:00.000-05:00One of my readers had trouble posting her enlighte...One of my readers had trouble posting her enlightening comment, so here it is:<BR/><BR/>I think it's fantastic news, and even more ammunition to use with the naysayers (except those who refuse to hear -- I'm not sure if any study will open their minds). Here's one question I still have after reading the results: <BR/><BR/>Those on the Atkins plan lost around 10 pounds in a year, with 88% of the participants sticking with the plan. Does the 10.4-pound average loss include those who did not stick with the plan, who either did not lose weight or might have even gained weight? While of course that reflects real-life experience (if all of us could stick with the Atkins plan perfectly, now that we'd discovered it, we would all eventually be at goal weight!), that also skews the averages. Since there are statistics for those who adhered to each plan, I would like to know what the average weight loss was for those who were considered to have stuck with each plan. <BR/><BR/>The reason why that's important: if you have 10 or 20 pounds to lose, it truly may not matter how you do it, as long as you select a plan that you're likely to stick with (which was essentially Dansiger's conclusion). But if you have as much or more to lose than the study participants (BMI of 27-40), then you'll want to select the plan that allows you to lose the greatest amount of weight in the shortest time. <BR/><BR/>I'm also curious about the 20/50 gram selection. I know they have to standardize it for each participant, but I know that 50g takes me out of ketosis/weight loss range (and I'm a female who meets all the criteria for the study). I realize that even Dr. Atkins doesn't recommend staying on induction forever, but it doesn't seem the study participants could tweak their plans the way that Atkins recommends to ensure that the number of carbs they consume keeps them in weight loss mode/ketosis. <BR/><BR/>If Dr. Gardner thinks that's dangerous, then there's no surprise there, but it's another thing that perhaps got in the way of Atkins participants losing even more than the average 10 pounds. Given that virtually everyone I have known on Atkins who has stuck with the plan for an entire year (and that's many many people, since my ex-husband used to manage a low-carb store) has lost well over 10 pounds (many lose that much in the first month!), then the results might also have been even more favorable for those following Atkins -- if they had been able to follow it the way that Dr. Atkins intended and to ensure they stayed in ketosis.Jimmy Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-63202409586039493852007-03-06T23:10:00.000-05:002007-03-06T23:10:00.000-05:00Believe it or not but this study was actually repo...Believe it or not but this study was actually reported in the mainstream media. Of course the critics had more than their say; they were quick to quote our ever-ready friend Ornish, basically stating that it "doesn't mean much" and baseless nonsense like that. But it is indeed good news, but I like most what Dr Vernon said about it: <I>the surprise is that it's still a surprise</I>. Indeed, how true. <BR/><BR/>Logic dictates that eventually the paradigm shift should occur, and I do hope and pray that I may see it happen in my lifetime. But even from the reporting that has been done so far, it's clear that the current bias and prejudgment, although absolutely baseless, is very deeply rooted. We can thank over 3 decades of media en Gov't lies, deceptions and propaganda for that. Nevertheless, we can always hope - for the sake of the millions upon millions of innocent victims that are killed every year by our "modern dietary wisdom". Or perhaps, in the end, the skyrocketing costs of healthcare will finally bring about the change that will end all the madness.<BR/><BR/>Excellent article, and keep up the good work, Jimmy!Science4u1959https://www.blogger.com/profile/14032931049767819624noreply@blogger.com