LCHF vs ATKINS

[walnut_face]

Thanks to @Totto for this

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/low-carb-diabetic-cooking-100-years-ago.52394/

A diabetics cook book written nearly 100 years ago, which is LCHF without saying so
Atkins was just a commercial venture on the back of LCHF.

In the same way there are folk writing books about intermittent fasting, and making a few bob on the back of that.
I was doing IF in the 70's and 80's and no doubt many of my peers did the same. Difference being none of us wrote a book, we just called it 'cant be ar**d to make breakfast'

 

[Totto]

I grew up in the sixties with a diabetic dad so low carb cooking isn't exactly new to me.

 

[AtkinsMo]

Robert Atkins never claimed to be the 'inventor' of the diet, but at the time he was very courageous. He really did stand alone, in the face of massive opposition. He didn't specialise in treating diabetics, but undoubtedly he had many, many diabetics amongst his patients. Just like Tim Noakes, who doesn't claim to be the inventor of LCHF now, but these people, with huge courage, are driving forward the agenda. And the science moves on and proof is being found all the time of the benefits of LCHF for the majority of people who have metabolic resistance or pre-diabetes or diabetes. I don't think that these people are all cynics, cashing in, Tim Noakes discovered 'the truth' after becoming diabetic himself, despite following a 'prudent diet' and exercising, to what most of us would consider, excess.

Much of the science that we are all grateful for was actually funded by the Robert and Veronica Atkins Foundation, we wouldn't be where we are today without that research. Tim Noakes is doing the same, all the money he makes from his 'Real Meal Revolution' goes to supporting the poorest people in South Africa in turning their health around.

Dr Richard Bernstein, although, no doubt he has a very successful private practice, is motivated, I am sure, by the extent of his personal experience, and his desire to help other diabetics.

 

[SunnyExpat]

The New York Times ran an interesting article on the late Dr Atkins

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/n...ctor-and-what-keeps-the-issue-alive.html?_r=0

 

[AtkinsMo]

Back in 2004, disputed, of course. Veronica Atkins authorised the release of all of the medical records from the admission of Dr Atkins, through to his death. My understanding was he was brain dead and in renal failure. Whatever the cause of his death, he helped thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands through his writing. His Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution is still a classic and the vast majority of the content is being validated by current day research, most of which, @SunnyExpat, you would dispute. But just because you dispute it, doesn't mean it is incorrect. Just like, because I believe it, doesn't mean it is correct. Only time will tell. My money is on the Cholesterol Heart Hypothesis being complete garbage, you will totally disagree. One of us is wrong, we shall see. If we both live long enough, one of us will have the chance to say, "I told you so". Good luck!

 

[SunnyExpat]

Back in 2004, disputed, of course. Veronica Atkins authorised the release of all of the medical records from the admission of Dr Atkins, through to his death. My understanding was he was brain dead and in renal failure. Whatever the cause of his death, he helped thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands through his writing. His Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution is still a classic and the vast majority of the content is being validated by current day research, most of which, @SunnyExpat, you would dispute. But just because you dispute it, doesn't mean it is incorrect. Just like, because I believe it, doesn't mean it is correct. Only time will tell. My money is on the Cholesterol Heart Hypothesis being complete garbage, you will totally disagree. One of us is wrong, we shall see. If we both live long enough, one of us will have the chance to say, "I told you so". Good luck!

Yes, you're the first generation that is physically trialling the new theories on cholesterol.
As to whether or not I totally disagree?
I just don't believe I need to drive cholesterol, up.
If it stays within guidelines by eating good, natural, healthy foods, I'm content to let that happen.

 

[AtkinsMo]

Yep, happy trialling - couldn't give a s*** about LDL (the women with the highest LDL live the longest) - happy my Trigs have plummeted and HDL has soared. So that means my LDL is most likely to be 'large and fluffy' and harmless. One day I might pay for a full lipid profile - or then again I might not, better to have confidence that all is well!

 

[SunnyExpat]

Yep, happy trialling - couldn't give a s*** about LDL (the women with the highest LDL live the longest) - happy my Trigs have plummeted and HDL has soared. So that means my LDL is most likely to be 'large and fluffy' and harmless. One day I might pay for a full lipid profile - or then again I might not, better to have confidence that all is well!

I allow for the diversity of gender, so I don't apply the same rule for both.
Having said that, I'm sure it will still be interesting for the others, (women) on here who do try to avoid raised cholesterol.

 

[bulkbiker]

Yes, you're the first generation that is physically trialling the new theories on cholesterol.
As to whether or not I totally disagree?
I just don't believe I need to drive cholesterol, up.
If it stays within guidelines by eating good, natural, healthy foods, I'm content to let that happen.

Problem is, who sets the guidelines?

 

[AtkinsMo]

No critical thinkers, that is for sure. 8 of 10 of the advisors to NICE have financial links to the Pharmaceutical Industry.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Problem is, who sets the guidelines?

Maybe it is a worldwide conspiracy, between every government, every doctor, every private or state health care system, every HCP, and every pharmaceutical company, to conspire to produce the same unhealthy target figures globally......

Or maybe it isn't?

 

[bulkbiker]

Maybe it is a worldwide conspiracy, between every government, every doctor, every private or state health care system, every HCP, and every pharmaceutical company, to conspire to produce the same unhealthy target figures globally......

Or maybe it isn't?

Conspiracy probably not.. some degree of stupidity and not enough people questioning accepted belief maybe.. it happens far more often than you think I am sure. Many HCP's just spout from the same hymn sheet without thinking.. and there is so much money slushing around big Pharma that truly independent research is well nigh impossible.

 

[AtkinsMo]

Sunny expat, I am interested to know, have you read any of the research produced in, say, the last 10 years? And what are your Triglicerides and HDL levels, and do you think they are relevant to anything at all? Or is it all about TC and LDL?

 

[AtkinsMo]

Maybe it is a worldwide conspiracy, between every government, every doctor, every private or state health care system, every HCP, and every pharmaceutical company, to conspire to produce the same unhealthy target figures globally......

Or maybe it isn't?

Or maybe, they are just as clueless about cholesterol as they are about how to manage diabetes! There is no money in promoting a LC diet (let's forget the HF bit that you find so controversial). Unfortunately, for the last 50 years, the Pharmaceutical Industry has had far too much influence on medicine in general. Your doctors (and all health professionals) are required to undertake Continuous Professional Development and virtually all of it is funded / provided by Pharmaceutical companies, lifestyle changes and nutrition are minor factors, they can generate no profits.

Is it Aseem Malhotra who recently said "All research conducted by Pharmaceutical Companies should be regarded as marketting until proven otherwise by independent experts". Independent experts cannot interrogate raw data, because it is not released as the Pharmaceuticals Companies are allowed to describe things like adverse reactions as 'Industrially Sensitive'. All that is reported is their interpretation of the results, not the raw data.

I think it was the Jupiter Study but it could have been the SSSS study, and there were thousands of participants, the mortality rate was actually higher in the treatment arm than in the placebo. Yes, fewer died of heart disease, but more died of cancer, accidental death, violent death, stroke etc etc. The overall mortality figures were not published at all for years after the initial good results on heart disease deaths were published.

Some statins side effects are minor, but minor things like depression, joint pain, muscle pain reduce the likelihood that you will be physically active and it is widely accepted now that statins raise blood glucose.

And statins, even when well tolerated can suddenly produce severe and irreversible side effects, like Rhabdomyalisis, that is why you have an annual liver function test, then there's Transient Global Amnesia etc. In short, there is no LDL level that would persuade me to either exclude saturated fats from my diet, to not avoid Omega 6 and I would never take a statin.

 

[Jillyp83]

Love the explanation rod! I certainly see this as a "lifestyle" and not a diet- indeed I began lchf to try to rectify the blood levels.....for some reason never thought about losing weight, obviously it happened quiet dramatically for me!!

Can I ask what a daily menu looks like to you?

 

[SunnyExpat]

Sunny expat, I am interested to know, have you read any of the research produced in, say, the last 10 years? And what are your Triglicerides and HDL levels, and do you think they are relevant to anything at all? Or is it all about TC and LDL?

I must admit, it's been a while, but I tend to improve on the published guidelines where I can,

a total cholesterol of 5mmol/L or less,
a non HDL-cholesterol of 4mmol/L or less
an LDL-cholesterol of 3mmol/L or less are
a fasting triglyceride should be 2mmol/L or less
a non fasting triglyceride should be less than 4mmol/L

https://heartuk.org.uk/health-and-high-cholesterol/cholesterol-tests---know-your-number

My own personal targets are trigs as low as possible, but once I got to 1 I tended to relax a bit on the downwards push.
LDL, ideally between 1 and 2, and if I maintain those targets, I tend to be happy if HDL keeps if as close to 5 as I can get, but I don't stress too much if it's only HDL that's raising it, so long as it's not above 4.
And to be honest, it's usually pushing it up slightly.

Saturated fat was definitely the key in controlling them for me though.

 

[AtkinsMo]

Interesting article, Dr Aseem Mulhotra is another very courageous man.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...edicated-trials-sponsored-drug-companies.html

 

[kesun]

I allow for the diversity of gender, so I don't apply the same rule for both.
Having said that, I'm sure it will still be interesting for the others, (women) on here who do try to avoid raised cholesterol.

On the contrary, I try to keep my cholesterol up, as I'm convinced by the research showing high cholesterol is protective as women get older.

Kate

 

[SunnyExpat]

On the contrary, I try to keep my cholesterol up, as I'm convinced by the research showing high cholesterol is protective as women get older.

Kate

Again, your choice.

For the rest, as I keep saying, and will continue to, I allow for the diversity of the sexes, so I won't be following advice for women, as they get older, and won't advise everyone else to either.
Again, for the record, I also don't believe in a global conspiracy, with nearly every HCP involved, but if some choose to, again, that is their choice to make. In this discussion, we seem to be following the predictable path, I can't really see how statins come into it, it's well off track, but then again, for some, it's part of the conspiracy I guess.

 

[Devonbear]

When I was diagnosed as T2 diabetic I had fatty liver disease. After 3 months on LCHF (and I mean HIGH fat - including lots of saturated animal fats - bacon, butter, Turkish yoghurt, cream cheese) my fatty liver disease had gone (after 9 years) and my cholesterol levels were slightly better (although they were OK to start with).

I think people get confused with the "you are what you eat" message. The cholesterol in your arteries and the fat on your body are not necessarily the same cholesterol and fat that was in your food. Your body can make it's own cholesterol and fat, if you give it the raw materials. It seems to do this more enthusiastically if you feed it carbs than if you feed it cholesterol and fat, for some reason. That was certainly true for me, at any rate.