|
|
|
Atkins Diet BlogsTake a peek at what Atkins dieters are writing in their weblogs. This content is constantly changing.
Gabriel Rotello: The Atkins Study: Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word Gabriel Rotello: The Atkins Study: Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word For years, critics of the Atkins diet argued that if anyone ever conducted a study that pitted Atkins head to head with other, more 'healthy' diets, it would prove beyond a doubt that the Atkins regimen of low carbs and high protein (and fat) will kill you deader than a doornail. Raise your choleste... Read the full post from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com via Blogdigger blog search for Atkins diet. Carbohydrates Appear to Suppress Hunger Longer Than Fats in Rats By Salynn Boyles Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 WebMD Medical News Nov. 9, 2004 -- The popular notion that carbohydrates make you hungry while fat keeps you full is being challenged by newly published research. In an animal study, rats fed a fat-rich diet produced more of an appetite-stimulating hormone than carbohydrate-fed rats, leading them to get hungrier quicker after eating. The findings offer clinical support for the idea that different foods affect fullness differently. But studies in rodents don't necessarily tell us anything about hunger in humans, a hunger expert tells WebMD, and the researchers did not examine the impact of protein on hunger. Recent research in humans has suggested that protein helps keep you feeling full longer. The strongest clinical evidence we have suggests that eating protein is associated with more feeling of fullness, California endocrinologist Francine Kaufman, MD, tells WebMD. "That is certainly the basis of protein-based diets, but this study does not address this. It does suggest, however, that the other main assumption of these diets -- the idea that carbohydrates are evil and should be avoided -- is wrong." The Hunger Hormone The rat study, reported in the November issue of the journal Endocrinology, examined the impact of fat or carbohydrates on the production of the hormone ghrelin. Produced in the stomach, ghrelin has been shown to trigger appetite and is believed to play a key role in regulating body weight. Levels of the hormone generally rise before meals and quickly decline after eating. Ghrelin levels were high in the rats following 14 hours of fasting, but they dropped when the animals were fed either fat- or carbohydrate-based food. Among the fat-fed rats, however, hormone levels rose again within 45 minutes of eating. Ghrelin levels remained low in the carbohydrate-fed rats. Next: Many Factors Drive Hunger Researcher Andreu Palou says the next step is to determine how different types of carbohydrates and fats affect ghrelin levels. Almost all of the currently popular weight loss diets restrict simple carbohydrates such as highly refined flours and sugars, which break down quickly and spike insulin levels. Complex carbohydrates that have lots of fiber are promoted by some weight loss plans but are limited by others, like the popular Atkins diet. "The rats in this study got hungry quicker when they ate diets that were high in fat vs. those high in carbohydrates," Palou tells WebMD. "But this is very basic research, and we don't yet know the role of specific types of fats and carbohydrates." 1 of Many Hunger Regulators Whatever the studies show, Kaufman says ghrelin is undoubtedly just one of many factors that drive human hunger. Feeling full is an incredibly complex phenomenon and there are clearly a number of regulators, she says. "The study of hunger in humans is still in its infancy, but it is hard to imagine that there will be one magic bullet to control it. If we were able to modulate ghrelin in some way, that probably wouldn't be enough." Kaufman has written a book on obesity and diabetes, scheduled for publication early in the spring. In it, she places much of the blame for the obesity epidemic on environmental factors. "We are living in a society where nutritionally poor food is everywhere and there is little opportunity for activity," she says. "Whatever may be happening (within the body), the environment has got to change to make it easier for people to eat better and get more exercise." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCES: Sanchez, J. Endocrinology, November 2004; vol 145: pp 5049-5055. Andreu Palou, PhD, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, University of the Illes Balears, Mallorca, Spain. Francine Kaufman, MD, professor of pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California; head of the division of diabetes and endocrinology, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles. A new anti-Atkins guru: "Steve Bayt" Do a google search for him, he's a hilarious nutjob. His claim to fame is becoming an "e-Editor" for anti-Atkins news articles. His byline is "if a newspaper wouldn't print, neither would I." A big "way to go" for Steve on the sound information sources. Like the internet or watching TV, if you read it in a newspaper, it must be true. ..::cough::....::mumble::...."peer-reviews science and or medical journals"....::hack::...."primary literature".... but whateva' A recent study confirms that limiting carbs results in greater weight loss (twice as much body fat loss) than limiting fat intake. Note that only the women on the low-fat diet were told to limit their caloric intake, and that the pedometer readings suggest that there was no difference in the amount of physical activity between the two groups. Article behind the cut. NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Obese women who follow low-carbohydrate diets, such as the Atkins diet, may lose more weight in a four-month period than those who go on low-fat diets, new study findings show. The reason for the greater weight loss, however, is not clear. "The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in resting energy expenditure, thermic effect of food or physical activity," write study author Dr. Bonnie J. Brehm, of the University of Cincinnati, Ohio and her team. In a previously published study, Brehm and her colleagues compared the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet versus a low-fat diet among obese women. They found that the women on the low-carbohydrate diet lost more than twice as much weight as those in the comparison group during a six-month study period. The researchers hypothesized that the greater weight loss among those on the low-carbohydrate diet was due to the women's greater energy expenditure. "If it's not calories in, it must be calories out," Brehm told Reuters Health. Some advocates of low-carbohydrate diets say that such diets promote increased energy expenditure, but this claim has not been formally tested, until now. To investigate, Brehm and her team randomly assigned 50 moderately obese women to a low-carbohydrate diet group or a low-fat diet group. Only the low-fat group was told to restrict their caloric intake. Forty women completed the study. By the end of the four-month study, women in both groups had lost weight and body fat, the researchers report in this month's issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. However, the low-carbohydrate group lost more than 10 percent of their body weight, while the low-fat group lost about 7 percent. Specifically, the low-carbohydrate group lost 9.8 kilograms (21.6 pounds) of weight and 6.2 kilograms (13.7 pounds) of body fat, while the low-fat group lost about 6.1 kilograms (13 pounds) of weight and 3.2 kilograms (7 pounds) of body fat, the report indicates. To estimate their level of physical activity, women in both groups were fitted with pedometers, which recorded the number of steps they took daily. At the start of the study, both groups of women had similar pedometer readings, and by the end of the study, there were no significant changes, according to Brehm and her team. Resting energy expenditure was also similar between the two groups at the start of the study and remained comparable four months later. The thermic effect of food (TEF), which comprises up to 10 percent of the amount of energy consumed daily, includes the energy expended during digestion. When the investigators obtained TEF measurements after the women ate breakfasts containing a similar number of calories, they found that those on the low-fat diet expended more energy in a five-hour period. This suggests that the low-fat meal was absorbed more quickly than the low-carbohydrate meal, the report indicates. Yet, even if the TEF of the low-carbohydrate meal had been underestimated, the researchers "would not have approached the amount of energy needed to account for the greater weight loss in this group," they write. "These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar," according to Brehm and her team. SOURCE: Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, March 2005 Survey: Users Confuse Search Results, Ads This is relevant because it's important to realize the value of peer-reviewed science and medical journal articles versus a lot of the "opinion" articles quoted by the anti-Atkins camp. Just 'cause you read it on the internet, doesn't mean it's true. That also goes for this article and peer-reviewed medical journals, but there, it's easier to be objectively critical about ANOVA results, population numbers used, and other such data. I can't do that with the Yahoo article, so, obviously take it with a grain of salt. The PCRM can say anything they want, all day long, and never offer one shred of clinical evidence...but it's amusing how often the anti-atkins camp will quote them. ::shrugs:: from This yahoo story By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer [But what is she selling?!?!?!?] lol NEW YORK - Only 1 in 6 users of Internet search engines can tell the difference between unbiased search results and paid advertisements, a new survey finds. The Pew Internet and American Life Project reported Sunday that adults online in the United States are generally naive when it comes to how search engines work. The major search engines all return a mix of regular results, based solely on relevance to the search terms entered, and sponsored links, for which a Web site had paid money to get displayed more prominently. Google Inc. marks such ads as "sponsored links," Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news) terms them "sponsor results" and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN uses "sponsored sites." Such ads are placed to the right and on top of the regular search results, in some cases highlighted in a different color. But only 38 percent of Web searchers even know of the distinction, and of those, not even half — 47 percent — say they can always tell which are paid. That comes out to only 18 percent of all Web searchers knowing when a link is paid. Forty-five percent of Web searchers say they would stop using search engines if they thought they weren't being clear about such payments, yet 92 percent of Web searchers say they are confident about their searching abilities. Deborah Fallows, a senior research fellow at Pew and the study's author, said the findings were surprising given that the same people are likely to know the difference between television programs and infomercials. "We're still in the infancy of the Internet," Fallows said. "People are still kind of so pleased that they can go there, ask for something and get an answer that it's kind of not on their radar screen to look in a very scrutinizing way to see what's in the background there." She said the results reflect blind trust on the part of the Web searcher rather than "anything nefarious on the part of the search engine." Nonetheless, the Consumer Reports WebWatch studied the top 15 search engines and found many of them could do better in disclosing sponsorships, particularly when they practice "paid inclusion." That is when sites pay to make sure they are included in a search engine's index, though without guarantees that their links will be displayed more prominently. The telephone-based Pew study was conducted May 14-June 17 and involved 2,200 adults, including 1,399 Internet users. Results based on Internet users have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. I was very successful on atkins last year.. in a 3 month period or less, I went from 202 to 168... I never made my goal 150 but I was content and comfortable 168-174.. well for the past 4 months or so, I totally fell off and have been going through extremely rough times in my marriage that I forgot about me.. I ate whatever was fast and convenient and comforting... I managed to only gain 10 pounds during that time but for some reason I gained 8 pounds this past week... I have no idea how that happened.. I couldn't have possibly eaten that much on T-day...well 18 pounds I've gained and I cried for a bit but cleaned out my fridge and cupboards of all the bad food...I re-started induction yesterday .. I have a flu right now.. so I had lots of water,6 small cubes of chedar cheese, 3 olives, 2 kosher pickles spears (not good i know, koshers contain 1-2 grams of sugar !) and a small bag of pork rinds throughout the day ..and at night I had 2 small hamburger patties and half a cup of green beans.. Today, so far I had 2 small patties (leftovers ) with one slice of swiss melted on one of the patties ... and water.. Tonite I plan on having a salad or eggs n bacon... BTW peperoni slices are a great snack too.. I haven't checked the scale for any progress but I will let all know soon! and to the rest of you who have started during this holiday season... let's be STRONG ..lol good luck to all of us THE DEAD DOCTOR'S DEAD DIET Of
course, I personally don't believe this emails POV, but I thought some
here might like to listen and talk about it. I especially
disagree that it is the "biggest fad diet of them all." I do
agree that it is doomed to fail because of how the U.S. keeps trying to
point us to eating grains instead of meats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
page 1 of 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
|
|
|
|
|
Low Carb (au) http://www.lowcarb.com.au for low carb diet resources