• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Atkins Horror!

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!
 
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:
 

Yes but:


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:


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


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.
 

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.
 
borofergie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
In context:

jopar said:
But aren't we forgetting that they noted the increase of cholesterol lower medication, which has been included but cholesterol is still going up?
Click to expand...

borofergie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sid Bonkers said:
So people that dont follow your diet have a 'problem' now Stephen?
Click to expand...

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.


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.

borofergie said:
In fact this study seems to confirm my cautionary view on eating more sat fats or have I misinterpreted the study?
Click to expand...

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?
 
NewdestinyX said:
Hang in there, chap.. And report back what they find. We're all waiting "with baited breath". :crazy:
Click to expand...
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:
Ref. 40:


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:
 
Sid Bonkers said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because a few days ago Sid you said this to me

Sid Bonkers said:
I started my aprox 60g a day diet three and a bit years ago
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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

borofergie said:
You do now understand that it's not a 25 year study of LCHF don't you?
Click to expand...

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:
 

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:

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

Bad science.
 
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?
 

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


Not here you weren't...

Sid Bonkers said:
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:
Click to expand...
 

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

xyzzy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

xyzzy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Sid Bonkers said:
Who is eating a high carb diet exactly, I know I'm not?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Here is what Atkins have to say (backing up my analysis):
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 ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…