• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

The Daily Mail strikes again with Atkins Diet

noblehead said:
In general, plant proteins have no cholesterol and fat (saturated fats) as opposed to animal sources. That’s why if you are going to compare a person who is taking his proteins from plants to the one who consumes proteins from animal sources; you would expect the latter to easily have diseases related to the heart and blood pressure. Plant proteins also have more Beta-carotene, dietary fiber, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, folate, Iron, Magnesium and Calcium.''
Click to expand...

Of course you should eat both, but if you eat meat you don't have to worry about getting proteins from vegetables (and particularly grains).

The first point is wrong - since there is no demonstrable effect of dietary fat and cholesterol on cardio vascular mortality, you would not expect people eating meat to have CVD and blood pressure problems.
 
jopar said:
Problem Xyzzy, is your synopsis is that you’ll using data that doesn’t exist!
Data on fat consumption wasn’t considered, so no data concerning consumption was collected or it used in any of the calculations…
!
Click to expand...

Eh? Of course they had the data?

If you report carbohydrate and protein and total calorie intake, the using a simple subtraction.

In percentage terms F%=100-C%-P%

They had access to the food diary, so they could have easily have included fat in the results. The fact that they didn't is telling.
 
librarising said:
RoyG wrote
If 10,000 women followed the Atkins diet, an extra five would be likely to suffer a stroke or heart attack compared to another 10,000 women eating normally.
Click to expand...

In other words, for every 2,000 Atkins dieters one (i.e. you or me [although I'm NOT a woman, let's just make that clear]) would be likely to suffer a stroke or heart attack. If that's enough for you to stop or avoid, I've got more statistics like that :lol:
Conveniently, no one mentions the possible other consequences of a 'normal' diet.

Geoff (campaigning against medical lies, medical **** lies, and medical statistics.)
Click to expand...
I fully agree it is all utter tosh and the Daily mail must have sponsorship deals with certain food companies it's the second time they have done this.
 
jopar said:
Problem Xyzzy, is your synopsis is that you’ll using data that doesn’t exist! ....
Click to expand...

To me all of this is very simple. All styles of diets have an associated risk. You should simply pick the style that has the least risk for the situation you find yourself in. I am a diet only T2 therefore to keep my sub 5% HbA1c I will need to restrict my carbs, that's a given. My choice is then to pick the least risky balance between fat and protein based on the evidence as I interpret it. Currently I interpret a lchf diet safer than any other option including a lchp one by a wide margin.

If I had to really restrict my carbs down to vlc (Atkins style or otherwise) levels to keep safe I would still see that as less risky overall than allowing my levels to run too high. It really is that easy. When you do the same weighing up of risk as T1 you come to your own different conclusions based on the situation you find yourself in. Given that I need to restrict carbs low to inherently keep safe whereas the low carb argument for T1's is for subtly different reasons it isn't surprising we may come to different conclusions.

There are other debates to be had such as how safe a vlc diet is, if fat is bad, if low fat is bad, is grain bad etc, are processed carbohydrates bad, is sugar bad etc.? These debates may alter the balance of risks I or you have regarding the mix of our diets but in the end, to me, it does just boil down to what levels of physical data (BG level, BP level, CH levels) I am willing to accept.

Relating it back to the thread the problem is, as the introduction to the study states, that the average member of the public isn't as informed as they need to be and have chosen lchp because of the indoctrinated aversion to fat that is preached at them by many HCP's and the food and drink industry for no sane reason that I can tell. They haven't been given enough evidence to come to a correct and unbiased risk conclusion based on the situation they find themselves in.
 
I've just copied below my earlier post on the other version of this thread:

I would just remark that the "typical" Atkins diet plan as listed above (in the Daily Mail article) is for the Atkins Induction Stage, which he recommends for the first 2 weeks - though I have stayed on it much longer with no bad effects so far!

After completing Induction on the Weight Loss Programme, you start adding in 5g carb per week until you stop losing weight. Then you drop your carbs back a bit, either to keep losing weight, or to find the level that keeps your weight stable if you've reached your target.

As you increase the carbs so you gradually decrease the fat - this is stated quite clearly in the original book. I can find the page number if you want.

Remember, this is a weight loss diet - he too was surprised when he noted the effects on cholesterol and BGs.

If your Type 2 diabetes is caused by insulin resistance, lowering carbs = lowering weight = less insulin resistance = better controlled diabetes.

Once you've lost the weight, you can add healthy carbs back in to your diet if you want, keeping a careful eye on your blood glucose levels.

Raising my risk of stroke or heart attack by 5 in 10,000 doesn't particularly worry me.

Has anyone worked out the protein/fat/carb constituents of Dr Richard Bernstein's diet? He's stayed alive on it for quite a long time now.

Viv
 
There seem to be a lot of Atkins book on Amazon. Is there one anyone would recommend as a good one to start with please?
 
Have a look at Atkins Diabetes Revolution by Dr Mary Vernon & J Eberstein. It's written specifically for Type 2 diabetes, though a lot of what it says can be used by Type 1s as well.

Or go back to the source - Dr Atkin's Diet Revolution by Robert C Atkins. My edition was published in the early 2000s, though he first wrote it in the 70s. The later edition is easier!

You may be able to get either second-hand through Amazon.

Viv 8)
 
viviennem said:
Has anyone worked out the protein/fat/carb constituents of Dr Richard Bernstein's diet? He's stayed alive on it for quite a long time now.
Click to expand...


Both Hana and Dillinger follow a Bernstein diet, perhaps they may know the answer to your question Viv.
 
jopar said:
Bit like me making an assumption that if somebody has increased their protein intake, and lowered their carb intake, they also increased their fat intake in compliance to the normal method of VLC diets! And coming to a conclusion that Atkins style diets are unhealthy long term!
Click to expand...

That's not an assumption, it's a mathematical fact (in percentage terms).

jopar said:
Atkins gives free reign on the actually amount of protein consumed… Again Bernstein actually restricts the amount of protein, in fact he restricts total consumption of all the main food sources…

A side note here, Atkins diet was revamped by it new company owners, and complex carbs after induction was increased and encouragement of eating this in grains source!

Slot these two diets into this study, could it be said that Bernstein does recognise a need to have balance between the food groups, and Atkins didn’t… Could it suggest that the combination of high Fat/High Proteins is as derogatory to our long term health as the combination of High Fats/High carbs foods!
Click to expand...

This is wrong. "A New Atkins for a New You" prescribes the amount of protein you should eat based on your weight and height.

High protein diets are deleterious to anyone's health. This is why your appetite is finely tuned to avoid protein toxicity.
 
lucylocket61 said:
There seem to be a lot of Atkins book on Amazon. Is there one anyone would recommend as a good one to start with please?
Click to expand...

"New Atkins for A New You", because it's updated by Phinney, Volek and Westman (who are the established experts in low-carb), to include the latest thinking on the topic.
 
Stephen - you said in an earlier post that "high protein diets are deleterious to anyone's health".

Isn't that particularly "high lean protein diets?

Which is why we die if we eat only rabbit (or is there something else involved there?) but the Eskimos who originally ate a protein diet based on fish and sea mammals and lots of fat, only varied in the short spring/summer, nevertheless were fit and healthy?

A genuine question . . .

Viv 8)
 
I can't see that the risk is anything to worry about either but when the report mentions vegetable protein as opposed to animal protein it was only saying that those who replaced the EXTRA protein some of those studied had eaten to replace the carbs they had reduced. not ALL the protein.

The very small increased risk is probaly absolutely minimal for diabetics anyhow.
 
viviennem said:
Stephen - you said in an earlier post that "high protein diets are deleterious to anyone's health".

Isn't that particularly "high lean protein diets?

Which is why we die if we eat only rabbit (or is there something else involved there?) but the Eskimos who originally ate a protein diet based on fish and sea mammals and lots of fat, only varied in the short spring/summer, nevertheless were fit and healthy?

A genuine question . . .

Viv 8)
Click to expand...

Yes, a high lean protein diet is bad for you (rabbit poisoning). But I'm sure the eskimos in question were eating a high-fat diet with adequate protein. Across the whole world the average protein intake is constant at about 15-16%

Fueling your body with excess gluconeogenesis is also potentially problematic. It results in raised cortisol levels, and can potentially damage kidneys. Protein is mainly for structural needs and an emergency back-up energy supply, you're not supposed to use it all of the time as a principal energy source.

Your appetite is finely tuned to make sure you get just enough protein and not too much:
borofergie said:
This article from Paul Jaminet is worth a read: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/10/pe ... rt-harris/
Under the "Food Reward and Obesity" section he discusses protein and satiety in terms of how, under experiemental conditions, a rats appetite (and total calorie intake) is finely tuned to make sure that (s)he gets exactly enough protein to meet structural needs and (if necessary) fuel gluconeogenesis. If you feed them a food that is low in protein but high in carbs, they will continue eating until they've met their protein requiement, even though that means taking on lots of extra carbohydrate calories.
Click to expand...
 
The new Atkins diet, was updated a couple of years ago to include an increased amount of carbs..

I can't see how the information be dismissed as with a "The very small increased risk is probaly absolutely minimal for diabetics anyhow." it's a risk that one needs to be aware of and put into their own risk factor..

Boro, suggest the body has a system to ensure that it doesn't get too much protein, with this study, seem that; that my not actually be the case out side the theoretical text book!

When looking at the research, looking in the 'Strength and weakness' of the study it says, that even though the combined carbs/protein energy level were equal, they hadn't correlated this to total energy, so there isn't any correlation to whether the energy from Fats played any part in the risk increase or not!

But it seems, that even though Boro says the body has a system to ensure it doesn't get too protein, it seems that it can have too much protein in this study, as that's when problems arise. So perhaps this means the 'Text book' theory concerning proteins is wrong...
 
catherinecherub said:
Worth reading what the NHS has to say about the Press Journalist's interpretation of the study.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/06june/Page ... -risk.aspx
Click to expand...

Thanks as ever catherinecherub. Very interesting and puts it all into the perspective which the press usually lacks.

The newspapers are very useful in publishing these sudies and naturally they use attention-grabbing headlines o sell more papers.
They can't be blamed for that but it is good to red a considered ,measured response, which answers a few questions , for me , at least.
 
I'm a women and I have never been on a 'fad' diet and I never will. A good balanced diet with exercise, does wonders :D

My mum died of Heart failure( even though it said pnuemonia on the death certificate) she wasn't diabetic, didn't smoke, alcohol in moderation, port or Cherry Brandy, but her Chloresteral was abit on the high side and she was a between a size 14 and 16 all her life. I think we women with constant diets etc, have enogh to put up with, so its a definate NO from me :thumbup:
 
Great link CatherineCherub.

Am I right in reading the link to say that they didnt differentiate between any types of carbs? For example, the cabs could have been taken as pure sugar for all we know?

And no cholesterol readings were taken prior to the study?
 
Back
Top