Is a Atkins Diet Dangerous?

TBH - I would say that echoes what I find and other Dietitians find in practice - problem is there is no way of reporting anecdoatal information.

I have been watching the thread on the "other" forum about reporting low carbers results - it would have no credibility as it is anecdoatal as well !!

I am keeping some records about low carbing as I am thinking about it as a masters project and I am definately finding that in the first few months yes low carbing works for wt loss - until people get fed up.

The BBC diet trials (published in BMJ) found the atkins plan was low in calories but at the end of a year boredome had set in!

the article ssems to echo everything we find in practice!

Allyx

The article was only reporting possibilities, not the results of scientific studies. I quote the professional comments:

* Sarah Stanner, of the British Nutrition Foundation, says: 'We have been worried for some time by the possible effects of highprotein, low-carbohydrate diets.

'Apart from the fact that they involve excluding a major food group, there has been debate about the risks to kidney health because of the effect of eating so much protein.

'The fact that it can be high in fat and is low in fibre means that it carries a risk of heart disease.'

Amanda Wynne, of the British Dietetic Association, adds: 'Drastic reduction in carbohydrate can result in constipation and digestive problems. Most of the initial weight loss comes from stored carbohydrate and water, not fat, while ketosis can result in nausea and tiredness.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... z0iTRSwAYf

Click to expand...

Notice all the "possibilities" in the comments. The only "facts" relate the the diets, not the observations.

Are they not worried about the effects of high carb diets also?

Are there no statistics related to diet gathered when people are diagnosed with heart disease, or suffer heart attacks?

I have a reduced carb diet without following Atkins. All the article seems to be doing is warning of possible but unproved dangers of Atkins. We know the proven dangers of a high carb diet. And many on this forum are able to sustain it. We know that our health depends on it. If we were just doing a diet experiment, of course we would get bored.

Digestive problems can be tackled as they arrise.

And don't forget, this is the Mail, I'm surprised if they didn't link the article to Atkin's being the cause of and/or cure for Cancer.... :roll:

'Apart from the fact that they involve excluding a major food group, there has been debate about the risks to kidney health because of the effect of eating so much protein

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... z0iTXniWqK

Click to expand...

So basically what we are being told is that those of us who has diabetes, our kidneys stand no chance and are going to fail one way or another?

I don't want to sound the grim reeper but when I read these reports I wonder what is the point in trying to fight to keep everything under control. :?: :roll:

One wonders what the participants were restricted to on the "Atkin's Diet" that resulted in pulling out due to boredom. I began LCing by using the basic bones of Atkins then adding in delicious options from recipes from many, many places that fitted the criteria. The article indicates that if one goes Atkins, fibre gets cut back and said that the general population already don't eat enough. That, I understand contradicts the Atkin's focus. My focus is on much more vegetables, nuts and seeds than ever for fibre and nutrients to counter balance cutting out cereals, rice, pasta and starchy vegetables.

I supplement because I wanted to kick start my entry into better health and fully intend to reduce many of them gradually now I am at my optimum BMI. There are many I will not cut out or back like Vitamin D, Calcium, Fish Oil and Evening Primrose oil. I also question the suggestion that as a person with diabetes my kidney function will progressively get worse and that having a high protein intake would exacerbate that. Might not that be connected to poorly controlled diabetes?

More important than weight loss is my control of my BG and it's flow on effects to my continued good health, HbA1c, kidney function, cholesterol levels and blood pressure. The most important point for me is researching what range of BG I wanted to achieve and test, test and test again and if the food doesn't work for me stay away from it.

I did the Atkins diet back in 2002 and stuck with it for 2 years. I lost approx 3.5 stone (49lbs)
I felt really good and had lots of energy.
I gave up the diet because of starting a new job that made it difficult to follow the food choices I used, i.e. a cooked dinner at lunchtime.

I ate more fruit & vegetables on the maintenance diet than I ever did before the diet.
I also drank only water, making sure I drank at least 8 large glasses a day. This helped to keep my kidneys flushed out.

I do regret not being able to continue with the diet, but the water at work tasted foul and they did not have water coolers. There was a small fridge for milk etc, but not big enough for everyone to keep a meal cool ready for dinner. Also we had no means of heating up our meals.
So I went back to sandwiches..... which became my downfall.

Regarding the possible kidney problems .... I posted this in February on another thread.

(edited)
For me, the benefits continue. Every blood test confirms my perception. My ONLY counter-indication is a mild kidney impairment - GFR=64 - & that predates low carbing & has not progressed.

The SABRE project tests - comprehensive heart/diabetes/cognitive function - were all satisfactory, so I have a tremendous incentive to continue doing it MY WAY* and recommending it to other T2s.

I specifically asked my Dr if he thought there were any problems (particularly kidney) from my diet. He said 'No.'

Click to expand...

IanD said:

This is from two PMs I wrote in November 2008.

IanD said:

How many on the forum can report long term benefits? Fergus & who else? Lots have reported short term benefits.

The short term benefits for me are so great I am committed.

In one sense, I am not very interested in the long term down-side of carb restriction, as I have already suffered the long term down side of the NHS-DUK diet, & corrected it by reduced carb.
======== =
What that study [South-West study on restricted carbs - we are still awaiting publication - the comment was on preliminary results] shows is that carb reduction benefits T2s at least for the duration of the study. Most of us who have reduced carb would agree with that conclusion, & Ally has repeatedly advised carb control.

Presumably NONE of the subjects suffered adversely, or that would have been stated.

It is well known that higher BGs are the cause of all the health hazards for diabetics.

The report caveat is simply that they do have have data for long term carb reduction.

If short term data indicates benefits, surely they should pursue long term data.

Rather than therefore put the report in the back of the filing cabinet, "they" should set about gathering long term data to see if there are any long term negatives.

An alternative diabetic diet should be drawn up based around restricted carbs, taking into account the possible restriction of vitamins & minerals, & excess protein & fat, so that diabetics have a professionally guided option for BS control.

Such a diet should indicate side effects & counter indications that should be reported to the HPs.

If vitamin/mineral deficits are expected, there are enough diabetics for the manufacturers to justify a diabetic multi v/m supplement. I take the standard supplement anyway.

For me, the short term effect has been restoration of my active life. That has wonderfully corrected the long term effect of the NHS diabetes diet that was leading to neuropathy & disablement. i.e. the end of my active life.

Click to expand...

*MY WAY according to Paul Robeson, NOT Frank Sinatra.

My way leads to green, green pastures ....

Click to expand...

I agree, there are potential problems for long term health for people with and without diabetes, I don't think that Atkins or any such diets are magic bullets.

One problem with too much protein is that it can cause deterioration of kidney function in people who already have the early stages of kidney problems. This has been shown in long term studies. In the Nurses health study, this was defined as a GFR of less than 80. In these subjects , over a period of 11 years, a high intake of nondairy animal protein was associated with a significantly greater change in estimated GFR. For each per 10-g increase in nondairy animal protein intake the decline was greater.
Unfortunately many people are already at this stage when diabetes is diagnosed.

Too much saturated and transfat fat is implicated in CVD, breast cancer and also the development of insulin resistance in the first place .

High intakes of protein from red and processed meats are likewise implicated in the development of bowel and stomach cancers (see the Cancer research UK website)

Very low intakes of carbs, may also reduce the intake of fruit, vegetables (both contain carbs) and whole grains, all of which have been found protective against cancers and other conditions like diverticular disease The minimum requirement of fruit and veg is 400g, and should as the sticky thread on here says come from a wide variety of sources... Difficult to do on an extremely low carb intake.

For people with type 1, osteoporosis is a real issue. It is certainly not the joking matter that some posters have made it. One study found women with Type 1 were 12 times more likely to have had a fracture compared to women without diabetes. People need to have adequate diets for bone growth and replacement throughout life but especially during those years when the development of peak bone mass takes place.

Focusing on one food group and demonising it (the 'evil carbs') can also lead to eating disorders. Yoyo dieting is hugely common with all 'diets' anyway ... 'I''ve fallen off the bandwagon', 'I tried Atkins and stopped and gained back more weight'. How often do we read comments like this?

However, for some people with type one (and not just young people) diets like Atkins are an unnecessary addition to the unnatural focus on food already present in type 1 management. Associating any food with being bad, naughty, forbidden etc can and often is a trigger implicated in diabulimia. This is an eating disorder that can result in the development of early complications and premature death
( read the research by Ann E. Goebel-Fabbri of the Joslin institute or blogs such as The Buttercompartment and Diabulimia SOS, writers of which are survivors and warn against adopting Atkins type diets )

You couldn’t take anecdotal evidence from sites such as this, as there isn’t a system in place to check the integrity of the evidence put forward...

Take a look at some of the postings put forward from some of our low carbers who heavily promote, Bernstein and Atkins and you will find postings from them, concerning eating croissants, nibbling on their grand-daughters meal, the time where they’ve treated themselves to some normal carbs and even admittance of falling off the wagon, and worst of all some actually say the only eat 20-30g of carbs per day on the assumption that they avoid bread, pasta and potatoes etc, but forget that the likes of Bernstein actually bans some of the foods that they are eating, such as tomatoes, carrots and the humble onion all contain carbs in them that they eat and/or eat portions that would take them above the small amounts quite easily...

One interesting bit in the article, is that of Atkins theory of the insulin hormone, can’t argue that part of insulin’s duties is to enable the body to lay down excess glucose as a fat reserve.. But insulin can only carry out this job if one has an excess of glucose to turn into fat, in general this is at a time when the calorie intake exceeds the body’s energy requirements... So if one is matching their intake to their energy needs, insulin won’t kick its other duty of storing excess into fat simples...

Strange though, that on one hand Atkins promotes his diet as being healthier than the ‘standard healthy’ eating diet, but then on the other hand he earned more money selling supplements to support his diet theory!! Now this to me makes me ponder, did he know that fundamentally that his diet wasn’t as healthy as he proclaimed?? Or did he create his diet to promote and create a need for his supplements which seems to be a more lucrative business venture??? After all a healthy diet shouldn’t need supplementing...

And can some actually explain why on one hand they are so determined to reduce their prescribed medication, as they deem this as being harmful... But they are happy to munch on various different pills, capsules and potions, that aren’t manufactured or clinically tested with the same stringency as pharmaceutical products???

noblehead said:

...people who follow such diet plans are putting themselves in danger of long term damage through kidney disease and osteoporosis. Having read this article, I did a little research on the atkins diet on the web, and it would seem there is a strong link to this developing in people who follow these diets in the long-term.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

This site may help some of you understand the risks,

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/1/Atkins.htm

Here are some other links that address these 'dangers' - and although this is an Atkins post, we are really talking about low-carb aren't we?

20-Year Study Finds No Association Between Low-Carb Diets And Risk Of Coronary Heart Disease

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 095850.htm

A Low-Iron-Available, Polyphenol-Enriched, Carbohydrate-Restricted Diet to Slow Progression of Diabetic Nephropathy

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/co ... /1204.full

And coming at it from the other end:

Low Serum Cholesterol Hazardous to Health?

http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/con ... /92/9/2365

Is dietary carbohydrate essential for human nutrition?

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/75/5/951-a

There's more of course, but time being what it is...

And of course there are apparently hundreds and hundreds or "bazillions" of studies as the former poster Useless Pretty Boy would have it showing that a balanced diet high in fibre and fruit and low in fat is the way to go; but I've never seen them, not even one of them. Odd eh?

All the best

Dillinger

Have a look at this website and follow the links on the left including personal stories,

http://www.atkinsdietalert.org/advisory.html

Of course its dangerous!. just think if you accidently throw your frying pan full of bacon on the floor and slipped on it...you could do yourself a mischief :shock: :wink:

Also - steak is heavy. Lugging a back of sirloins up the stairs to my flat has put my back out many a time...

This debate has been running for ages and gets side tracked into anecdotes and rubbish, because although a goodly number of attempts have been made to prove the diet is dangerous, no-one has ever succeeded in doing so. Several of the anti-Atkins attempts, simply prove its safety and efficacy. As to people getting bored with it. Name a diet they don't get bored with. Low fat diets are the quickest for drop-outs. the food is often tasteless. No-one sicks to low cal for long. In fact Atkins has one of the
LOWEST rates of attrition of any diet regime. People keep it up for years. I'd like to ask the dieticians, how long their patients keep up their medically advised weight loss diets on average. Very few go on for years, without cheating I suspect. that's why most people put back all the weight thy lose plus more and why it's called "Yoyo dieting".
What is often forgotten too, is that Dr. Atkins was a respected cardiologist, who devised the diet to help his patients cope with declining hearts. And they improved.
There is NO dietary requirement for carbs. Remember carbs are chemical molecules,such as sugar or starch, NOT potatoes and bread etc. There may be valuable nutrients in these along with the starch. However those nutrients are all available elsewhere.
No-one has ever shown starch or sugar to be essential. That's one reason why food labelling doesn't give a recommended daily amount for starch It's not essential, so how can they? They do for sugars, but they just plucked a number out of the air. No-one NEEDS sugar. It's just nice
Hana