Atkins Horror!

[jopar]

Steph, it's not whether you care a stuff and like to make an assumption as saying that Statins are only consumed by those that eat high carb diets, is actually wrong they can also be taken by those following a low carb diet! So their inclusion and considerations is very important..

I would agree, that their is a variation to what is termed 'low carb' diet so I generally check what this is, when reading a piece of research, check the conclusion for the paper, then take a look at the drop out rate, then length of time, the results etc... Before I decide what my opinion is about the paper/trail..

The latest Swedish T1 low carb study that just been released, was 75g> carbs, had a drop out rate over 2 years of 52% 3 turned up for the first meeting and didn't return! but even those who did stay the distance the results they got, wasn't quite I would expected from claims I hear should be achievable!

But here's some research I've been looking at the weekend..

The Swedish study for T1's link can be found in the T1 forum, and hopefully Xyzzy, will link to the Swedish T2 trial but here's a couple I looked at; at the weekend

Here's another interesting one http://www.springerlink.com/content/b56 ... t.html#CR6
Another one I was looking at, more to do with protein though http://www.springerlink.com/content/n42 ... lltext.pdf
http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/1/114.long and this a Canadian one http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/1/114.long

As I said in my first post that most trials look at a very short period of time, 3, 6 months even when these are put through a Mata-analyse it's still dealing with a short period of time.. And this is the problem as you need to see what happens over a lot longer period of time.. As it's reasonably easy to ask people to adhered to a specific diet regime for a short period of time not so easy when you start extending the period of time to years adhesion becomes a bit more problematic so it gets more and more difficult to quantify the data to build the true picture!

 

[NewdestinyX]

Though, as many of you remember, I'm VERY sympathetic to the cause of 'LCHF' for the treatment of Diabetes - sometimes we get too myopic and focus our whole lives on controlling our D - when there are other health factors that have to be balanced. TO be sure - NO one can make an intellectually honest argument against LCHF diets being able to control blood sugar levels. They can and do - in every case -in every human that sticks to them. But that's not the 'entirety' of the issue. It's those da*mn genes that can make the the whole HF thing pretty risky.

Hey Grant! Welcome back buddy!

I can hear the timer on those torpedos ticking. As confident as I am about the whole LCHF thing, I've been scaring myself looking at horror stories on Paelo Hcaks. You're right, by tomorrow night I might be chewing statins, and down on my knees begging you all for forgiveness.

Good to see you too, Borofoge! It's not that you'll have to apologize for anything. There's simply a profile you haven't had access to yet. And now you will. You'll know how 'ready' your heart is to deal with the lifestyle you're 'eating'. Hey - there's even a lot of research out there - that suggests that the 'fat' in our blood doesn't come from the fat/chol we ingest. But that data is a little scant. I agree - after tomorrow you may just need to moderate your diet a smidge back to 50%-60% fat - a smidge more protein and a smidge more carbs in the form of veggies and complex carbs (beans, etc) and take a VEEEERY small dose of the statin. The majority of the newer research focusses on eliminating as much inflammation in the body as possible which makes the particles stick to the arteries. The doc will try and start you on a dose of 20-40mg of a stain - ask him/her for '10mg' or '5mg' which gives LOADS of inflammation reduction (in addition to lowering cholesterol). THe da*mn stains also lower HDL cholesterol too - so you'll need to up the fish oil and Omega 3's and all the rest to force back against that. But you'll reach a balance.. It'll just not be so 'purist' a position you'll be able to take anymore. LOL!!!!!! I think some of us just like to be at the bleeding edge of a 'cause' - like the American hippies of the '60's. When many get Diabetes, they often turn it into a 'cause' to FIGHT FOR!!! It's all the DA*MN diet they're feeding us!!!! LOL!!!. I get it -- really I do..

Hang in there, chap.. And report back what they find. We're all waiting "with baited breath". :crazy:

 

[borofergie]

Steph, it's not whether you care a stuff and like to make an assumption as saying that Statins are only consumed by those that eat high carb diets, is actually wrong they can also be taken by those following a low carb diet! So their inclusion and considerations is very important..

Yes but:

Dietary carbohydrate restriction is the single most effective method (except for total starvation) of reducing triglycerides, and is as effective as any intervention, including most drugs, at increasing HDL and reducing the number of small-dense LDL particles. Beyond lipid markers, carbohydrate restriction improves all of the features of metabolic syndrome.

The latest Swedish T1 low carb study that just been released, was 75g> carbs, had a drop out rate over 2 years of 52% 3 turned up for the first meeting and didn't return! but even those who did stay the distance the results they got, wasn't quite I would expected from claims I hear should be achievable!

Adherence is a red-herring. If you can demonstrate that eating a LCHF diet will absolutely minimise your chances of diabetics complications, without introducing non-diabetic complications, and people still choose not to follow it, then it's a choice. If you choose Toblerones over toes, or Rollos over retinopathy, or Alpen over amputation, (with the correct information) then I have very little sympathy.

Anyway:

Adherence to low-carbohydrate diets is at least as good as to other dietary interventions and frequently substantially better. Adherence is frequently comparable to that for drug recommendations. In practice, diabetes clinics and internet sites recommend carbohydrate counting and “eating to the meter.”

The Swedish study for T1's link can be found in the T1 forum, and hopefully Xyzzy, will link to the Swedish T2 trial but here's a couple I looked at; at the weekend

Here's another interesting one http://www.springerlink.com/content/b56 ... t.html#CR6
Another one I was looking at, more to do with protein though http://www.springerlink.com/content/n42 ... lltext.pdf
http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/1/114.long and this a Canadian one http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/1/114.long

I'll have a look tomorrow, but I'll warn you, I'm not that interested in T1 diabetes or insulin use.

And this is the problem as you need to see what happens over a lot longer period of time.. As it's reasonably easy to ask people to adhered to a specific diet regime for a short period of time not so easy when you start extending the period of time to years adhesion becomes a bit more problematic so it gets more and more difficult to quantify the data to build the true picture!

I know what the long term effects of eating the recommended high carbohydrate diet are: amputation, blindess and neuropathy.

I'm trying to follow the diet that we eat for 99% of our evolutionary past, how could that honestly be bad for me? I know it's not bad for my diabetes.

 

[xyzzy]

The latest Swedish T1 low carb study that just been released, was 75g> carbs, had a drop out rate over 2 years of 52% 3 turned up for the first meeting and didn't return! but even those who did stay the distance the results they got, wasn't quite I would expected from claims I hear should be achievable!

That's a bit harsh Jopar. Call it half the patients achieved good results (cup half full rather than half empty and all of that)

Anyway that would appear to be a good result when you note two thirds of T1's don't even meet the 7.5% HbA1c recommended level so you could legitimately say two thirds of current T1 patients "dropped out" of whatever regime they were recommended to do at present which is an even higher rate of non adherence.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

To be honest, I don't give a monkeys if people want to eat a high-carb diet and eat statins, that's their problem.

So people that dont follow your diet have a 'problem' now Stephen?

Why can you not accept that many of us manage to cut our carbs whilst at the same time exercising caution over eating more saturated fat in our diets. I know you don't and thats your choice, but please dont infer that others have a 'problem' because they dont share your views. Why feel the need to assume that anyone who doesnt share your dietary views has to eat a high carb diet? And surely statins are a personal choice made by the individual.

In fact this study seems to confirm my cautionary view on eating more sat fats or have I misinterpreted the study?

 

[borofergie]

In context:

But aren't we forgetting that they noted the increase of cholesterol lower medication, which has been included but cholesterol is still going up?

To be honest, I don't give a monkeys if people want to eat a high-carb diet and eat statins, that's their problem.

So people that dont follow your diet have a 'problem' now Stephen?

No I said "it's not my problem". Maybe I should have said "not my concern". If people want to take more antidote so that they can drink more poison, then it is a legitimate and personal decision.

Why can you not accept that many of us manage to cut our carbs whilst at the same time exercising caution over eating more saturated fat in our diets. I know you don't and thats your choice, but please dont infer that others have a 'problem' because they dont share your views.

I didn't infer that. See above.

Follow whatever diet works for you. I've always advocated that. I was simply defending the position that "low-carb diets" are bad for your health.

In fact this study seems to confirm my cautionary view on eating more sat fats or have I misinterpreted the study?

I agree completely. Eating more fat on a high-carbohydrate diet is a very, very, bad idea.

You do now understand that it's not a 25 year study of LCHF don't you?

 

[IanD]

Hang in there, chap.. And report back what they find. We're all waiting "with baited breath". :crazy:

What bait do you use, & what do you hope to catch?

The DM article cites Atkins & Dahlquist. The Swedish study under discussion mentions neither. There's honest reporting for you.

As Fergie has pointed out, the Swedish diet under discussion is a high carb, high fat diet, with a slight change in ratio to increased sat fat. It has NOTHING to say about LCHF. We need to look at the specific studies discussed elsewhere on this forum for the very positive LCHF results.

I searched the article for the effects of diet on health, & found this paragraph:

Support for a link between diet, cholesterol levels and CVD There is strong support for protective effects of dietary foods/factors in relation to cholesterol levels and coronary heart disease; such positive foods are fish, vegetables, nuts and the “Mediterranean diet” [14,38,40,41]. Harmful dietary factors include trans fatty acids, foods with high glycaemic index, and “Western diet” patterns [14]. For example, the relative risk to develop coronary heart disease is 1.55 (95% CI 1.27–1.83) for subjects eating a “Western diet” [40].

Ref. 40:

RESULTS:

Strong evidence supports valid associations (4 criteria satisfied) of protective factors, including intake of vegetables, nuts, and "Mediterranean" and high-quality dietary patterns with CHD, and associations of harmful factors, including intake of trans-fatty acids and foods with a high glycemic index or load. Among studies of higher methodologic quality, there was also strong evidence for monounsaturated fatty acids and "prudent" and "western" dietary patterns. Moderate evidence (3 criteria) of associations exists for intake of fish, marine omega-3 fatty acids, folate, whole grains, dietary vitamins E and C, beta carotene, alcohol, fruit, and fiber. Insufficient evidence (< or =2 criteria) of association is present for intake of supplementary vitamin E and ascorbic acid (vitamin C); saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids; total fat; alpha-linolenic acid; meat; eggs; and milk. Among the dietary exposures with strong evidence of causation from cohort studies, only a Mediterranean dietary pattern is related to CHD in randomized trials.
CONCLUSIONS:

The evidence supports a valid association of a limited number of dietary factors and dietary patterns with CHD. Future evaluation of dietary patterns, including their nutrient and food components, in cohort studies and randomized trials is recommended.

Surely "foods with a high glycemic index or load" means the sort of high carb diet most people eat routinely.

I'm going out to choir - singing is a protective factor :lol:

 

[xyzzy]

Why can you not accept that many of us manage to cut our carbs whilst at the same time exercising caution over eating more saturated fat in our diets.

Because a few days ago Sid you said this to me

I started my aprox 60g a day diet three and a bit years ago

So if you're doing 60g a day as you told forum members then that equates to 240 calories per day from carbohydrates. Don't know how many calories you consume a day but if you are still doing a bit of weight loss lets assume 1800 as that's quite low. So only 13% of your daily calorie intake from carbohydrate. Where are you getting the difference? Where are you getting 87% of your daily calorific intake from? If as you suggest you are exercising caution over eating fat then lets call that 25% fat which is a pretty average recommended dietary amount. That leaves you eating 62% of your intake from protein.

Are you really telling forum members you are eating a diet that is nigh on two thirds protein or recommending forum members do the same thing? What fat and protein proportions are you consuming on that 13% carbohydrate regime?

Even if your regime has now risen to 100g that still only equates to 22%. So again with a 25% fat intake are you on a 53% protein based diet and again are you recommending that to forum members?

 

[borofergie]

The really worrying thing about this study is that they are drawing conclusions about the influence of "LCHF diets" without showing the data.

For sure they have:
1) Dietary records for everyone who participated
2) Total cholesterol records for everyone who participated

If they really believed that LCHF caused an increase in cholesterol (which is opposite to the findings of almost every other study), then they could have easily compared Cholesterol with Carbohydrate intake.

The fact that they chose not to show this, suggests that there is no relationship in the data.

Since they only report averages, they also seem to be hiding the number of people who are apparently consuming a lower-carbohydrate diet.

 

[phoenix]

This was not a 25 year trial of any sort of diet. It was an observational study following a group this period.

What they are saying is in 1986 fat intake was 39% for men and 35% for women , Carbs 46% and 49.2%
The amount of fat reduced with a fall between 1986 and 1992 a fat reduction of 2.9% for men and 4.4% for women.
Fat levels rose slightly in 1992, were relatively stable
These levels then started to rise more steeply between 2002 and 2004 so by 2010 men were eating 39.9% fat and women 37.7%
(both therefore are eating slightly more than at the start)

Until 2003 cholesterol levels were falling, this fall then reversed with a very distinct upward trend in the last 3 years of the study

They note that

Up to 2004, our hypothesis of a stable low level of dietary intake of fats, concurrent with low serum cholesterol levels, compared to initial levels in 1986, was indeed proven correct.

They note that the this change occurred at the time when the LCHF diet was beginning to become popular in Sweden.(no mention of Atkins!)

What is missing from the report is some sort of analysis of patterns of eating patterns ie the groups that ate the most and the least fat and the outcomes for these groups. ( edit here I agree with Borofergie; I just read his post as I was about to post)

Heres a couple of suggestions as to what might have happened.
A proportion of the group chose to change to HFLC so for these there was a very distinct change which influenced the results as a whole
The rest continued with their previous eating pattern.

or (and I think more likely)
A small number adopted the LCHF diet
The others in varying degrees increased their fat.(and hence reduced carbs) There was a general increase in the amount of fat eaten (and hence a lower proportion of carbs). Such a change, which was a a relatively abrupt reversal could I suggest have been influenced by the messages received from the HFLC movement/media suggesting that fat was 'good' and that all the old guidelines were wrong.

What is clear though is overall cholesterol levels fell during the period that the group as a whole ate a reduced fat, higher carb diet.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

In fact this study seems to confirm my cautionary view on eating more sat fats or have I misinterpreted the study?

I agree completely. Eating more fat on a high-carbohydrate diet is a very, very, bad idea.

Who is eating a high carb diet exactly, I know I'm not?

You do now understand that it's not a 25 year study of LCHF don't you?

Sorry not sure why that was addressed to me, I think you will find I have been talking about saturated fat, you do now understand that dont you :lol:

 

[borofergie]

or (and I think more likely)
A small number adopted the LCHF diet
The others in varying degrees increased their fat.(and hence reduced carbs) There was a general increase in the amount of fat eaten (and hence a lower proportion of carbs). Such a change, which was a a relatively abrupt reversal could I suggest have been influenced by the messages received from the HFLC movement/media suggesting that fat was 'good' and that all the old guidelines were wrong.

I agree. I did some quick calcs based on the observation (in the DM I think) that 25% of Swedes have adopted Low Carb to some extent, with 5% strictly adhering to LCHF. Those numbers would, in principal, lead to about the level of carbohydrate reduction that they observed.

However, this is pure speculation. It's rather foolish (or probably dishonest) of the lead researcher to be saying things like:

While low carbohydrate/high fat diets may help short-term weight loss, these results of this Swedish study demonstrate that long-term weight loss is not maintained and that this diet increases blood cholesterol, which has a major impact on risk of cardiovascular disease.

None of which is supported by the published data, and all of which is exposing a huge agenda.

Bad science.

 

[sterling]

The critical factors that will cause death from diabetes are high cholesterol, high blood pressure, high blood glucose, and smoking.

The same factors will probably affect the life expectancy of nondiabetics.

Provided that the risk factors are addressed, why is there so much argument about how the result is achieved?

If I decide to reduce my carbohydrate intake and eat a staggering amount of cheese, why should a medic argue against that if in fact my objectives (and their objectives) are being met?

 

[borofergie]

In fact this study seems to confirm my cautionary view on eating more sat fats or have I misinterpreted the study?

I agree completely. Eating more fat on a high-carbohydrate diet is a very, very, bad idea.

Who is eating a high carb diet exactly, I know I'm not?

The people in the study Sid. The ones eating a 44% carbohydrate diet.

You do now understand that it's not a 25 year study of LCHF don't you?

Sorry not sure why that was addressed to me, I think you will find I have been talking about saturated fat, you do now understand that dont you :lol:

Not here you weren't...

Funny how you all supported Swedons stance on LCHF up till today now there a bunch of ignoramuses :lol: :lol:

Who would have thought that a 25 year study of LCHF would be rubbished by those eating it, I didnt see that coming :lol:

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Because a few days ago Sid you said this to me

I started my aprox 60g a day diet three and a bit years ago

So what has my diet from three years ago got to do with my exercising caution over the saturated fats I eat???

Are you really telling forum members you are eating a diet that is nigh on two thirds protein or recommending forum members do the same thing?

No, when did I say this exactly? I'm not going to defend things Ive never said and certainly never recommended to anyone else, please dont put words into my mouth, it just looks like you have run out of constructive argument when you do that.

Even if your regime has now risen to 100g that still only equates to 22%. So again with a 25% fat intake are you on a 53% protein based diet and again are you recommending that to forum members?

There you go assuming again, read my post again, I said and I'll type this slowly so it sinks in "I am cautious about increasing my SATURATED fats" or words to that effect, if you want to work out percentages of what I do and dont eat then knock yourself out but please dont speak on my behalf and quote me as saying things I have did.

 

[borofergie]

I see that "operation get the thread locked" has started again.

Can we please stick to the topic of the Swedish study referred to by the OP?

 

[xyzzy]

Who is eating a high carb diet exactly, I know I'm not?

Yes you tell us you eat 100g a day 22% LOW carbohydrate diet but NEVER tell the gentle forum readers what the other 78% of your diet consists of. As the saying goes "I think we should be told."

To me there is only one conclusion .... that you yourself are following a LCHF diet like the Swedes recommend .... so why are you so opposed to a diet that you yourself would seem to follow?

 

[borofergie]

Look at how this has been reported in the Press:
http://tinyurl.com/d3l337s

 

[borofergie]

Here is what Atkins have to say (backing up my analysis):

Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. today announced that a recently released epidemiology study published in Nutrition Journal has come to the mistaken conclusion that a low-carbohydrate diet, like the Atkins Diet(TM), is to blame for rising cholesterol levels between 1986 and 2010 in a Swedish population. However, based on the study abstract, this population actually consumed a high-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, which is very different from the Atkins Diet.

Based on the Swedish study of food frequency questionnaires, during 2010 the population consumed a diet with carbohydrates making up 45.9 percent of calories and 39.9 percent of calories from fat. In contrast, with Atkins, in the early weight loss phases, only 10 percent of calories come from healthy carbohydrates, and the remaining calories come from a variety of protein choices, as well as healthy fats such as olive oil and avocado. Foods associated with the high fat intake in this Swedish study were "fats used for spreading on bread and cooking, dairy products, oil for salad dressing or cooking, various types of meats, and sausages, as main dishes or on sandwiches, pizza, deep fried potato chips, French fries, including corn chips and popcorn."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/swedis ... 2012-06-12

This really is the most dishonest type of bad-science.

 

[xyzzy]

Here is what Atkins have to say (backing up my analysis):

Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. today announced that a recently released epidemiology study published in Nutrition Journal has come to the mistaken conclusion that a low-carbohydrate diet, like the Atkins Diet(TM), is to blame for rising cholesterol levels between 1986 and 2010 in a Swedish population. However, based on the study abstract, this population actually consumed a high-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, which is very different from the Atkins Diet.

Based on the Swedish study of food frequency questionnaires, during 2010 the population consumed a diet with carbohydrates making up 45.9 percent of calories and 39.9 percent of calories from fat. In contrast, with Atkins, in the early weight loss phases, only 10 percent of calories come from healthy carbohydrates, and the remaining calories come from a variety of protein choices, as well as healthy fats such as olive oil and avocado. Foods associated with the high fat intake in this Swedish study were "fats used for spreading on bread and cooking, dairy products, oil for salad dressing or cooking, various types of meats, and sausages, as main dishes or on sandwiches, pizza, deep fried potato chips, French fries, including corn chips and popcorn."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/swedis ... 2012-06-12

This really is the most dishonest type of bad-science.

Waiting for the first post that says "Well Atkins would say that as they're an evil multi-national" .... Won't be long I reckon ....