Atkins Lovers......fight back please?

[pixypie]

HI All, I looooooove the Atkins diet - been on it almost a month, and loving it - just found this article while looking for low carb products online - somebody please please please retalliate with something more positive and recent???

Long term low-carb diet leads to cholesterol rises
15 February 2006
A low-carbohydrate diet may result in more weight loss after six months than a low-fat diet, but long term could raise bad cholesterol and increase the risk of heart disease, claims a new meta-analysis study. Low-carbohydrate dieters get most of their energy from protein and fat, with the Atkins diet one of the best known regimes. Concerns have been raised in the past about the effect of low-carb diets on blood lipid levels and the risk of heart disease.
An international team of researchers from Switzerland and the US looked at five trials comparing low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets published since 2003, with a total of 447 people and analysed weight loss, and blood levels of cholesterol and triglycerides. They found that low-carbohydrate, non-energy restricted diets appear to be at least as effective as low-fat, energy-restricted diets in inducing weight loss for up to one year. After six months, people on the low-carb diet lost, on average, 3.3 kg more than those on the low-fat diets. However, after 12 months there was no significant difference in terms of weight loss between the two types of diet. The volunteers on the low-carbohydrate diet had higher levels of both total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (bad) cholesterol.
The study authors concluded that the unfavourable changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels caution against the conclusion that low-carbohydrate diets can be generally recommended to promote weight loss. Although this study confirms claims that short-term adherence to this diet does result in weight loss, it however supports previous nutritional concerns about low-carbohydrate, high-fat/protein diets, with many experts warning against long-term complications.
Researchers from the University of Oxford presented a study at the 2005 American Heart Association Conference reported that following the low-carb diet decreased the heart's energy stores by about 16 per cent. In contrast, trials of reduced-fat diets, in conjunction with other lifestyle modifications such as increased physical activity, have demonstrated long-term maintenance of weight reduction and delayed on-set of diabetes.

Source: Nutraingredients , Alain Nordmann, Archives of Internal Medicine (Vol. 166, pp. 285-293).

[OzLover]

I suggest you read this article by Gary Taubes. Also his book Good Calories, Bad Calories.

What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? - New York Times


As you read members stories you will hear about the fact that their cholesterol numbers have decreased. Do some more research!!!

[matawguro]

Originally Posted by pixypie

An international team of researchers from Switzerland and the US looked at five trials comparing low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets published since 2003,...

This is known as a meta-study, or rather a study of studies. For all we know they were cherry picking the studies that supported their hypothesis.

The volunteers on the low-carbohydrate diet had higher levels of both total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (bad) cholesterol.

Do you notice that there is no mention of HDL, nor any mention of HDL/LDL ratios. That's because numerous studies, (more than 5) have shown that HDL rises much more than LDL on a low-carb diet. HDL to LDL ratios actually improve, which is a more important marker than the amount of LDL alone.

Lot's of links to studies at Atkins.com.

[Georgiana]

First of all, whenever some study is summarized in popular articles, things get a bit twisted. The 'flavor' of the article is in the end the one that the unspecialized author wants it to have. Therefore, whenever one reads one of these articles, it is better to take a look at the published paper before interpreting the data and making false assumptions about it.

Second, these studies are not made to be 'good' or 'bad', to show that X is right and Y is wrong. The aim of most of the people involved in research is to find the truth about something, whether we like that something or not. These scientists get the data, analyze it, and then come up with some conclusions. In most cases, the results are trustworthy - they gain absolutely nothing from pushing forward one conclusion or the other.

Now coming back to the article, I didn't have time to read it page by page, but I skimmed through it and here are some observations and quotes I have found important.

• The data used in the paper you are referring to comes from six different studies. The first one was done on people eating <= 20 g of carbohydrates per day for the first two weeks, who then increased their carb intake to 40-60 g. The second was also done on people eating <= 20 g of carbs per day for the first two weeks, but who then increased the carbs intake "until desired weight stability". The third one considers people with a carb intake of <= 30 g/day. The fourth one asked for <= 20 g carbs / day, "with weekly addition of 5 g", "unlimited amounts of animal food and eggs, 4 oz of hard cheese, 2 cups of salad vegetables, and one cup of low carbohydrate vegetables daily". The fifth one asked for <= 20 g carbs / day, with a gradual increase to 50 g/day.

• None of these diets is really Atkins. They are low carb diets. The fourth one sounds especially bad. Eating only 3 cups of vegetables for 6 months (this was the length of this particular study) is an idiocy. On Atkins, you only eat 3 cups in the first two weeks, and then you start including other veggies. After Rung 1 you also include nuts, seeds, milk, yogurt, fruits, etc.

• In, let's say, 50 g of carbs per day, one could easily include highly processed foods and not the natural foods recommended when doing Atkins. The participants might have binged on diet coke or other sugar-free foods, might have eaten tons of cheese, or might have pigged on salami. The participants were responsible for buying their own food, so no one had any true control over their menus.

• There were also many limitations mentioned by the authors: "the quality of the included trials was moderate", "no trial reported blinded outcome assessment", "dropout rates were substantial", "follow-up in the trials was too short to look at cardiovascular morbidity or mortality", etc.
• The last point I will make is taken from their conclusions: "On the basis of our results from meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials published subsequent to the systematic review, we believe there is still insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets to induce weight loss, especially for durations longer than 6 months."

As is the case with any diet, it is advisable to consult your doctor before starting Atkins. However, I bet most people don't do it. I didn't. But if you want to see how your health evolves and be able to make adjustments in your menu, undergoing a medical examination is probably a good idea.

Personally, I believe that even if, let's say, you do Atkins for 6 months or 1 year and at a routine control you are told that you have a high LDL cholesterol, you can still do Atkins. All you need are some sensible changes in your food choices - mono and poly fats in favor of saturated fats, reduced caloric intake, etc.

As Jimmie says,

JUST BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN EAT 3 HELPINGS OF IT. REMEMBER PORTION CONTROL.

[ValidRouge]

As matagawro said, they do not mention HDL levels, nor triglyceride levels which are better indicators of heart disease risk than LDL or total cholesterol by themselves.

I can only speak for myself, after 2 1/2 years of following Atkins my lipid profile continues to improve every 6 months that I've had it tested.

[Georgiana]

As matagawro said, they do not mention HDL levels, nor triglyceride levels which are better indicators of heart disease risk than LDL or total cholesterol by themselves

They appear in the original article. Both values (HDL & triglyceride) increased for those following low-carb diets. The HDL to LDL ratio also increased.

[SunnySmile501]

Carbohydrates are the only thing to raise triglycerides, so how could a low carb diet cause them to rise? In the two plus years I have been low carbing, my triglycerides plunged from 150 to 73. My HDL went from 26 to 58. My LDL came down significantly.

[Georgiana]

Originally Posted by SunnySmile501

Carbohydrates are the only thing to raise triglycerides, so how could a low carb diet cause them to rise? In the two plus years I have been low carbing, my triglycerides plunged from 150 to 73. My HDL went from 26 to 58. My LDL came down significantly.

Oops, I think one thing and write something else!

You're right, Sunny. The level of the triglycerides went down by 35% on average. Sorry!

[theredhead]

I've been low-carbing for almost five years and my levels are awesome. Good enough for me!