Which is the best diet for long term use?

Negoba wrote: At least here in America, I think the #1 things to be improved are reducing soda / pop intake to maybe once a week, and preparing your own food. People eat out alot here and just by making your own sandwich out of simple ingredients, you can improve the nutritional value and reduce the calories of your food.

Blacksword wrote: Reffering specifically to the Atkins diet, known as a Ketogenic diet, numerous official health care and disease research bodies have urged caution. Notably Cancer Research UK, and similar organisations in the US, have warned against high protein/fat diets, where carbs intake is minimal. In the short term weight is lost very quickly. This is chiefly down through body water loss.

You're certainly right about the water loss. But the upside is that along with the water loss there is usually also a drop in blood pressure. In any case, most serious low-carb books recommend to measure your weight loss progress in waist size, not weight.

Blacksword wrote: In the longer term, the body goes into a state of Ketosis ( a semi fasting state). As it's not getting it's energy from carbs, it starts to burn muscle mass instead of fat.

I would object here. You're right that when you stop eating carbs, your body starts to convert protein to glucose in order to feed the brain. However, after a while ketosis sets in, which means that your liver starts to produce ketone bodies (from fat), which can then be metabolized by the brain. In any case, on a low-carb diet it's vital to eat sufficient protein. Which isn't all that hard, since you're allowed to eat meat, eggs and dairy products.

Blacksword wrote: Also, because the diet prohibits most fruit, and a lot of veg, the person misses out on many vital nutrients and antioxidant vitamins, which cant be sourced through vitamin supplements, despite what the the supplement industry may lead you to believe. This can lead to an increased risk of gastro-intestinal and colorectal cancers. Low carb diets can, apparently lead to liver problems, but I cant remember exactly why that is.

Eskimos thrive on a zero carb diet (they eat a few berries in the summer, the rest is fat meat) without any cancer, and without developing symptoms of malnutrition - the same is true for western people who join them. On the other hand, Eskimos get the same diseases that we get once they adopt a western lifestyle (read: carbs from agriculture).

I strongly recommend the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taube if you're interested in nutrition ... it's a long read, but he basically describes the whole history of dieting and nutritional science in the last century.

Blacksword wrote: So, in the short term, you will lose weight quickly with Atkins, but it is not a diet that should be sustained, by all accounts. Heart research charities have warned that it can cause damage to the heart, and raise cholestrol to dangerous levels too. The fats in the diet can often not be burned off effectively through exercise, because people on this diet often dont have sufficient energy to 'work out' because they haven't consumed sufficient carbs to provide that energy.

Heart research charities and institutions are tainted by the misconception that fats are bad and carbs are good that got started when Ancel Keys published his studies in the early 1970s. Everybody approved and people bought into the idea to such an extent that when the results didn't confirm the predictions, everybody was too committed to admit it. This is why even today doctors will still recommend low-fat, high-carb diets even when they know that they're more likely to cause harm than prevent it. You're welcome to disagree of course, but this is my opinion after having read about a dozen books on the subject.

I've eaten almost no carbs at all in the last 48 hours - only fat and protein (well, I had a teaspoon of glucose for sweetening in my tea yesterday, and a tablespoon of dried berries this morning). Yet I've just completed a strenuous exercise in the gym:

Lat Pull: 2x7x50kg
Shoulder Press: 2x7x35kg
Dips: 2x7x70kg
Butterfly: 2x7x28kg
Reverse Butterfly: 2x7x15kg
Lower Chest: 3x8x40kg
Mid Chest: 3x8x40kg
High Chest: 3x8x20kg
Rowing: 3x7x70kg
Lat Pull Variation: 3x8x70kg

And afterwards I walked the 1km back home. What did I eat today?

Morning: Two glasses of milk, one cappuccino with cream, tablespoon of dried berries
Lunch: A big piece of cooked salmon (must have been about 10 ounces) with mushrooms, vegetables (low-starch) and sauce hollandaise
Dinner (before going to the gym): One sausage

EDIT: Supper: two stirred eggs with bacon and cream, one big slice of cheese (Gouda)

I swear, I didn't feel any more exhausted as usual after the workout (back when I was eating carbs). Actually, I feel better - though slightly dehydrated (I'm having three glasses of water now).

Blacksword wrote: I've known two people, in middle age, who tried Atkins. Both complained of frequently feeling nauseous and weak, and both were advised against it by their doctors.

Fatigue is often encountered during the induction phase. It means a lot of stress for the body, because it has to change its configuration. It used to optimize itself (to the extent possible) for carbohydrate consumption, now it must change to fat consumption. Obviously, the older you are the more difficult it is to do that, and there can be health hazards along the way. But then again you can also try to wean your body off the carbohydrates slowly, and simply reduce them by some extent and see how that is going.

Well, thanks for your comments and I hope my answers didn't offend you - as always, I don't mince words about my position.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - March 24 2010 at 02:32

Dean wrote: Drastic diets are needed for drastic situations such as obesity. Low-carb diets can result in rapid weight loss if, and only if, they are accompanied by a net reduction in calorie intake - apparent weight reduction without reducing calories is the result of body-water loss not fat loss. Just as rapid weight gain is unnatural, so is rapid weight loss. To lose weight you have to starve your body so that it begins to consume its reserves of fat, your energy intake has to be less than your energy output regardless of where you get that energy from (be it protein, fat or carbohydrates or any combinations there of). In any weight-loss program there is also a danger that along with the loss of bad fat there is also a loss of good fat and good muscle - this needs to be monitored and changes made accordingly or there will be health risks involved.

I disagree. I already agreed about the loss of water with Blacksword, but IMO you're using the theory of energy balance which essentially says that you have to eat less calories than you expend in order to lose weight.

What if carbohydrates mess up your hormones, especially insulin? Then your body would be forced to store more energy (fat) than it would normally do. It's interesting then that most obese people have elevated insulin (called hyperinsulinemia). Many studies have shown that many of these obese people will not lose weight when they eat less (but still carbs) than they expend. Why? Because their body can safe energy in other areas in order to compensate for the reduced caloric intake. The elevated insulin prevents it from burning fat.

What do you think about that approach? Most of it is based on scientific facts - theories that on their own aren't disputed by any serious physician, and have been in medical textbooks for decades. And if George Cahill's famous statement is true:

"carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat"

Then only by reducing the elevated insulin levels can we get rid of the excess fat, and the only way to reduce insulin is to reduce carbohydrate intake.

Dean wrote:   Rapid loss down to your ideal weight (within acceptable margins) is a short-term effect - uncontrolled you will bounce back and your weight will fluctuate - for long term results the weight loss needs to be controlled so that as you approach the ideal weight the percentage loss is reduced accordingly. You cannot crash-diet to your ideal weight and then stop (well you can, but it is a short-term win, you will never be able to maintain that weight - this is where many "diets" fail). In other words the diet you are on needs to be adjusted as your weight decreases so that by the time you achieve your goal you are no longer on a weight-loss (negative energy) diet, but on an equilibrium diet where the energy in equals the energy out. That equilibrium diet should not be a restricted diet, it should be a balanced diet of fat, protein and carbohydrates - psychologically it must not feel like a diet or even a healthy eating regime, but a natural consumption of the food you enjoy eating at a respectable level to maintain your weight and health.

I'm currently reading about the Protein Power diet, and it is designed as a life long plan. It has two induction phases with rigorous carbohydrate reduction while maintaining sufficient proteins, and a maintenance phase which you can essentially reach by slowly upping carbohydrate intake until you start to gain weight. Its whole philosophy is to correct the metabolic imbalance and achieve a lean and powerful body.

Now, of course for pathologically obese people in their 40s who lose 30% of their weight this might mean a few wrinkles ... but hey, I would rather have wrinkles than carrying all that weight around every day. And let's not forget that if this diet also achieves lower blood pressure and better blood values (blood sugar, triglycerides, LDL/HDL) ... what else could you ask?


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - March 23 2010 at 15:49

Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote: Negoba wrote: At least here in America, I think the #1 things to be improved are reducing soda / pop intake to maybe once a week, and preparing your own food. People eat out alot here and just by making your own sandwich out of simple ingredients, you can improve the nutritional value and reduce the calories of your food.     This is completely true... I use to drink a Pepsi per day and ate a lot in restaurants (especially with my ex girl) and I gain maybe 10 pounds... but now I only drink sodas at weekends ant tries to eat homemade food and I see results...   Hi cal... low fat for me... When you cut the soda drinks, you're reducing carbs, not fat ... so that move would actually be low-carb.

jampa17 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: When you cut the soda drinks, you're reducing carbs, not fat ... so that move would actually be low-carb. hmmm... interesting... well, if I do that AND besides do the low carb, it's better isn´t? I'm not sure... but I'm not that stricted about it... instead of 7 tortillas, I ate 3 or 4... and that's carb... I guess... crap...!!! I don't get it...!!!

"Carbs" is short for carbohydrates - it includes sugar, anything made with flour, rice, pasta, starchy vegetables (potatoes, beans, peas, corn) and fruit (the sweeter, the more carbs).

Tortillas for example are high-carb because of the wrapper (made from corn, I believe) and if they contain starchy vegetables like beans. The low-carb solution when you encounter tortillas would be to only eat the contents, and skip the beans.

thellama73 wrote: I take so called "nutrition science" with a large grain of salt. For me, common sense trumps all these studies that frequently contradict each other.No amount of studies will make me believe that orange juice is bad for me. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Another thought on that ... maybe there's a pattern in the contradictions. Outlining that pattern is one of the key aspect of Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories". When you're faced with contradicting studies, you have two options: Either you say "to hell with studies" or you say "let's find out which of the conflicting positions is more likely to be true". And I can say that in my honest opinion, after having read those books, there are far more good reasons to believe the low-carb position than the high-carb position.

Blacksword wrote: Mr Progfreak. No offence taken at all. Why would there be? Doctors sometimes disagree with each other, but as yet, I've not been aware of a GP who thinks the Atkins diet is a healthy or sustainable approach to weight loss. Family doctors dont have any vested interest in advising against this diet.

Well, if you accept the proposition that such a diet might remove symptoms like obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and high cholesterol, I certainly see a vested interest on behalf of the doctors - it would mean that they lost an easy to treat patient (in terms of diagnosis and medication, not in terms of an actual cure). And on top of that, the diet is in conflict with the current paradigma "low-fat, high-carb", so if any doctor was to recommend "high-fat/protein, low-carb", they would have a lot of explaining to do. So these medical doctors (maybe even without any harmful intent) might just be playing it safe.

Blacksword wrote: I dont mean any offence to you, but someone who may be desparate to lose weight, will seek literature, and other information sources that offer somekind of approval for these crash diets.

I don't think that I'm "desperate". But I am disillusioned as to the "high-carb, low-fat, just eat less and exercise" approach. I am in favor of low-carb because not only is it different than this other approach which I *know* for a fact doesn't work, but also because the reasoning behind low-carb makes sense, and many scientific facts support it. IMO the worst thing about this situation is that so many doctors and nutritionists are ignoring these facts. Well, maybe the fact that many studies that are critical of low-carb are funded by big food corporations gives us a clue ... why on earth would they be interested if people stopped eating those easy to produce high carb foods and drinks?

Blacksword wrote: I would agree that a high carb diet is not conducive to weight loos, and this is why the type of carbs you consume should be moderated, but certainly not illiminated or drastically reduced. Whole grain cereal is a good source of slow release, high fibre carbohydrate. Carbs from rice, pasta and potato, can be significantly reduced, but I dont think should be banished. Have you tried the type of diets where you dont eat carbs and proteins together in the same meal? My mums partner tried that - through slimming world I think - and it worked quite well.

I think that such an approach can work if at the same time carbs are reduced. Many successful diets try to sneak in the reduction of carbs while drawing the focus on other aspects of the diet - maybe to avoid drawing criticism from the majority of nutritionists advocating high-carb.

In any case, when it comes to biochemistry I still think that the *cause* of the problem is carbohydrate.

Carbohydrate drives Insulin drives Fat.

So anything you do to reduce carbs is good. Many people posted here claiming that they lost weight when they eliminated the sugar from sodas, for example. That's a clear path from reduced carbs to weight loss.

So what happened - got sick of atheism and now low-carb is your current crusade?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ no luck ... I'm still an atheist. But I can see the parallel lines of thought ... in a way, both atheism and low-carb lie at the end of pathways of logical reasoning and evaluation of the available facts.

I was thinking the parallels were more about you spawning 13 different threads about this and annoying everyone. 

Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: When you cut the soda drinks, you're reducing carbs, not fat ... so that move would actually be low-carb. hmmm... interesting... well, if I do that AND besides do the low carb, it's better isn´t? I'm not sure... but I'm not that stricted about it... instead of 7 tortillas, I ate 3 or 4... and that's carb... I guess... crap...!!! I don't get it...!!! "Carbs" is short for carbohydrates - it includes sugar, anything made with flour, rice, pasta, starchy vegetables (potatoes, beans, peas, corn) and fruit (the sweeter, the more carbs). Tortillas for example are high-carb because of the wrapper (made from corn, I believe) and if they contain starchy vegetables like beans. The low-carb solution when you encounter tortillas would be to only eat the contents, and skip the beans.