• 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 »

LCHF vs ATKINS

Galja said:
I once went to a new year's party hosted by an Atkin's couple. On a table in their dining room, they had piles of different kinds of meats with not a vegetable in sight. Salami, roast beef slices, boiled ham, smoked ham, peppered ham, leg of lamb chunks, chicharones instead of potato chips, bacon slices, head cheese, lamb testicles cut in half and mounded in a pile, veal , pork and lamb tongue and other things very hard to identify.. I craved a piece of decorative parsley, a batch of mustard greens, some lima beans, a bed of quinoa for the masses of meat. Maybe some peppers or quince paste or mint jelly or steak sauce or or or. None to be found. I was in some kind of re-education nightmare.. My arteries ached.

LCHF can be a universe of things but Atkins can be kind of monocromatic

The modern Atkins diet is not the diet of Robert Atkins, who lived only to the grand not so old age of 72 and resembles a modified LCHF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Atkins_(nutritionist)
Click to expand...
Meh. Plants are gross and over-rated with respect to healthiness. Meat never hurt anyone's arteries.
 
Galja said:
Wheras, I like to wild food forage and eat the stems and munch the leave, and pop those berries into the mouth, and smell the mushrooms and other fungi, and forage for bivalves with my toes, and forage also the seaweeds found nearby, and dry those seaweeks, and have those seaweeks as snacks, and roast those peppers, and slowcook that giant Peruvian hominey and pick up some of that portacula on my way out the door for an instant salad

8=[ grim determination
Click to expand...
That sounds disgusting.
 
Hi sunny, I believe you are right. I have been on lchf since sept 15 and my trigs have gone down to 1.0 and hdl is up to 1.6 but my ldl is up to 5.2. I can only account for it by saturated diary fat. Without a full lipid panel I cannot be certain of the particle size of the ldl. I suspect it is OK. hba1c now 42 bmi 22.5. Derek







SunnyExpat said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
lindisfel said:
Hi sunny, I believe you are right. I have been on lchf since sept 15 and my trigs have gone down to 1.0 and hdl is up to 1.6 but my ldl is up to 5.2. I can only account for it by saturated diary fat. Without a full lipid panel I cannot be certain of the particle size of the ldl. I suspect it is OK. hba1c now 42 bmi 22.5. Derek
Click to expand...

That's why I don't do saturated fat.
 
lindisfel said:
Hi sunny, I believe you are right. I have been on lchf since sept 15 and my trigs have gone down to 1.0 and hdl is up to 1.6 but my ldl is up to 5.2. I can only account for it by saturated diary fat. Without a full lipid panel I cannot be certain of the particle size of the ldl. I suspect it is OK. hba1c now 42 bmi 22.5. Derek
Click to expand...

Apparently you can gauge your particle size by your triglycerides level, and your trigylcerides and HDL ratio (by memory). (In the absence of being able to get a particle size reading - sigh.) If your trigs are under 1.0 it's those great big fluffy LDL particles ruling your arterial pathways - yay.
 
AloeSvea said:
Apparently you can gauge your particle size by your triglycerides level, and your trigylcerides and HDL ratio (by memory). (In the absence of being able to get a particle size reading - sigh.) If your trigs are under 1.0 it's those great big fluffy LDL particles ruling your arterial pathways - yay.
Click to expand...


That doesn't seem to actually have been proven in any tests, but seems to be a theory put forward by those who seem to support high LDL levels as being acceptable.
Unless anyone can provide any articles, with actual laboratory measurements in them?
Otherwise, it's simply a cause of 'moving the boundaries', so suddenly all the bad LDL, suddenly becomes all the good HDL on paper, and I'm not sure my LDL will know that.
 
I personally think the particle size theory makes way more sense than the suspiciously 'let's make it easy for the kids' good and bad LDL theory. Especially in relation to what actually happens with athereosclerosis (excuse spelling mistakes - it's way early in the morning for me, and I am sitting in bed with a cup of tea -C.B.A. doing a spell search). I pay attention to this, just like you do I understand @SunnyExpat - because our chances of getting strokes are, or have been (for those who are in remission/reversed etc), way way way too high. This is serious stuff for us.

It seems that many of the medical number boundaries we live with oh so intimately - have been arrived at - randomly! Like the cut off points of BMI, how much alcohol is safe - those kinds of boundaries. (Even, yes, even our sacred HBA1c and diabetes.) Not based on research and sound science at all. I know it sounds too awful to be true - but I have read some convincing evidence that it is. There is a wonderful writer/doctor/research analyst , a great Scot called Dr Malcolm Kendrick and his books are marvellous, https://drmalcolmkendrick.org. His book 'Doctoring Data' was pretty convincing to me. Read it and see what you think? And his website is full of fascinating stuff. He's really about analysing the science, and the way data is interpreted.
 
I'll get hold of that. Thanks AloeSvea:)


Diagnosed 13 April 16: T2, no meds, HbA1c 53, FBG 12.6, Trigs 3.6, HDL .75, LDL 4.0, BP 169/95, weight 13st 8lbs, (2012 - 17st 7lbs, waist 42") waist 34".

2 June 16: FBG AV 4.6, Trigs 1.5, HDL 2.0, LDL 3.0, BP 120/72, weight 11st 11lbs, (2012 - 17st 7lbs, waist 42") waist 30".

Never give in, never give in, never never never given in...Winston Churchill.

Sent from my iPhone3 June16:

Sent from my iPhone
 
AloeSvea said:
I personally think the particle size theory makes way more sense than the suspiciously 'let's make it easy for the kids' good and bad LDL theory. Especially in relation to what actually happens with athereosclerosis (excuse spelling mistakes - it's way early in the morning for me, and I am sitting in bed with a cup of tea -C.B.A. doing a spell search). I pay attention to this, just like you do I understand @SunnyExpat - because our chances of getting strokes are, or have been (for those who are in remission/reversed etc), way way way too high. This is serious stuff for us.

It seems that many of the medical number boundaries we live with oh so intimately - have been arrived at - randomly! Like the cut off points of BMI, how much alcohol is safe - those kinds of boundaries. (Even, yes, even our sacred HBA1c and diabetes.) Not based on research and sound science at all. I know it sounds too awful to be true - but I have read some convincing evidence that it is. There is a wonderful writer/doctor/research analyst , a great Scot called Dr Malcolm Kendrick and his books are marvellous, https://drmalcolmkendrick.org. His book 'Doctoring Data' was pretty convincing to me. Read it and see what you think? And his website is full of fascinating stuff. He's really about analysing the science, and the way data is interpreted.
Click to expand...

I suspect the official numbers come from many people analysing the data.
The high cholesterol, good/bad LDL theories, all seems to land back at one man.
 
I am afraid when I read Kendrick I had a nagging feeling he was a little bit too confident of his own good. I've never been one for having an infallible guru. Of course he may the certitude mouthpiece of modern medicine.
 
There is loads of research that clearly demonstrates that it is high carbs in diet that elevates Trigs and reduces HDL. I am sorry, but I am not the sort of person who makes notes of references as I read every piece of research, but in recent years numerous studies that were originally set up to demonstrate that Low Carb diets are harmful have demonstrated the opposite, certainly in terms of Triglycerides and HDL. LDL usually stays the same, or reduces on LCHF - but for a minority of people it rises. In some, that rise will be temporary and drop back after weight loss ceases, but in some, the LDL stays 'worryingly high' if you believe the Cholesterol / Heart hypothesis. If, like me, you think the Cholesterol / Heart hypothesis is a load of rubbish (good job really or with an LDL over 7 I'd be running to the Statin shop and turning vegan!) it's irrelevant, because with high HDL and low Trigs my LDL particles will be of the 'large fluffy variety'.

The Framingham Study, well published, in peer reviewed journals, in further investigation by independent scientists has been found to misrepresent the conclusions and exclude data that seemed to indicate the opposite to what they had hoped to demonstrate, a clear example of cognitive dissonance. It would seem that the original researchers of this huge project had no conflicts of interest, they just couldn't accept their own findings, such was their conviction that the Cholesterol / Heart Hypothesis was correct.

With so many high powered medical journal editors (usually on their retirement) expressing grave concerns about industry bias in research and the total failure of the peer review system in medical research (it simply confirms the existing bias, reviewers virtually always have established their reputation on the existing theories, research that challenges those positions is much harder to get published).

If you have an open mind, I really recommend you read Nina Teicholz's 'Big Fat Surprise' and Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Pharma'. Both are well researched journalistic accounts of how science has been perverted over many decades, often putting profits (and egos) ahead of people.

I suspect you are wedded to the Cholesterol / Heart hypothesis, fair enough. Only time will tell who is right in the end, I suspect most of us won't be around to see the final, conclusive evidence, if there ever is such a thing. Correlation does not prove causation - and long term (over decades) interventional trials on diet and health can never be conducted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's possibly the problem, there aren't any studies, just claims by a very few individuals that the published studies must be flawed, so they must be right if they claim the opposite, just by denying the studies, rather than showing any reasons.

It seems to be the case of 'all government is bad, so anything I say against them must be true'
It leads to wild claims, that then get repeated as facts. Medicine by conspiracy theory.
If you want to be a rebel, fair enough, it just seems that some of us will be more cautious for the time being.
 
SunnyExpat said:
If you want to be a rebel, fair enough, it just seems that some of us will be more cautious for the time being.
Click to expand...

Cautious? When many of us as T2 diabetics are living breathing, blood glucose dysfunctioning proof of the High Carb Low Fat food regime being a disaster! Me and my rooted liver and beta cells salute you in your caution!

There are places, and I am in one of those places, where 25% of an ethnic population have livers and pancreases on the out and out because their body types do not sustain high carb low fat to that enormous extent. There are countries have that appallingly high instances of amputations - because so much of the population cannot take the high carb low fat diet that ALL our governments have been promoting as healthful (maybe not a conspiracy - but wrong at least! My liver is cheering me as I key this;):). Not to mention my gallbladder and bile production but that's another story ) that business feeds, that pharmaceutical companies medicate for - but, as we know here, I think, doesn't help for actually preventing CVDs - which are the strokes that we spend a lot of time in here making sure we avoid! It is perhaps, ultimately why we are in this thread to discuss the nuances of this in relation to our own healthy heart functioning? We don't want to die too early! We don't want to be lying in a bed unable to speak, or move.

Once I started eating eggs again with abandon, coconut oil likewise, nuts, cheese, chicken skin, pork crackling, slather butter on everything - my blood lipids/blood test results have never been better. And I had 'metabolic syndrome', off and on for 30 years previously, on a high carb grain dominating diet promoted by my own health professionals and as promoted by all our governments. I am not alone in this story. My liver and pancreas are not alone in this story. Dietary fat was never my enemy, and yes I can get mighty mad when I think about it, as the official line in my home-country (NZ) at least - is still that those things are bad for you. And sugar is everywhere. It is hard not to get a tad strident!

And yes, my own body is its own test site, as all of our bodies are - for the heart/cholesterol theory. As we were, sadly, if T2, for the high carb low fat theory. It sure as hell didn't work out well, that last one, for me! I'm letting my present comparative good health (discounting the rather looming blood glucose dysfunction! ahem) lead me on this one.
 
SunnyExpat said:
I just ate too much.

And the establishment kept telling me not to, so I can't really lay all my problems at their door.
Click to expand...

Have you read 'Good calories, Bad calories' and 'Why we get fat?' by Gary Taubes - a leading health commentator on how we get fat, and the fact that no, a calorie is NOT just a calorie! (due to our path storage pathways -ie how our body deals with the macronutrients differently - very important info for us). I strongly recommend them.

And, Jason Fung's 'The Obesity Code' - particularly fab for T2 diabetics, or people who are prone to blood glucose dysfunction (thinking of those who have had T2D but no longer do). Or as Dr Fung says - have a high insulin response to glucose, and to excess glucose. (That's us, fellas!)

Again, using one's own body as a test site, these analyses of fat storage, and how we got fat in the modern food environment are easily tested! Since I went Paleo/LCHF I am no longer fat but normal bordering on lean, and I sure eat the same amount of calories as I used to. I get full a lot easier. And my health is vastly improved - don't get infections and breakdowns like I used to - especially when I was on that upward slope to T2 (and didn't know it). I can't believe that THAT was only two years ago! What a difference a ghastly disease makes.

In a phrase - it's all about our fat storage pathways. Simply - if you're storing fat on your body, you're eating too many carbs for your constitution. Want to know if you are eating too many carbs? Look in the mirror. (I've tried this way of looking at fat storage and carb consumption on several people, and I am sorry to say, it did not go down too well! Hmmm.)

BTW, if thinking about the name of this thread - a wonderful T2 health professional who is also on the blood glucose dysfunction train with us, is the Canadian doctor Dr Jay Wortman, who cut out basically all fructose-food, and his wife told him, when he finally came clean to her what had happened to his health and what he was doing about it, was an Atkins diet, the induction phase. He is on it for life, no longer has the T2D or IGT HBA1c. He is a very compelling example of how the Atkins diet can work for us.

http://www.drjaywortman.com/blog/wordpress/about/

I think me, @NoCrbs4Me and Dr Jay would have a great yack about eating dead birds, fish and animals! (And probably - why we should be eating organ meat? Very compelling HF good-for-the-gut-biome argument for that.)

The Atkins induction phase material I found hugely helpful when I finally, FINALLY understood about the need to go low-carb. Great graphics to put on the pantry and fridge.
 
Yes, and I do have to laugh at the way the make a very simple one size fits all solution.
They really need to face the fact that not every one is the same.

Calories make me fat, maybe some need to realise that?
If it doesn't for you, I'll swap.
 
Back
Top