Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On the one hand it is suggested that calories are calories, and that
low carb diets work simply because they result in less calorie intake.

Note the difference in terminology. "Calories are calories" is
actually used to mean "intake calores are intake calories."

It is commonly also alleged, though not clearly stated, that output
calories are NOT all equal. For example, it is often stated that
dieting without exercise will result in muscle loss while dieting with
exercise will result in fat loss, which is more desirable.

I am not sure that is proven either. But if true, then clearly output
calories are not all equal. Output through work is not equal to
output through excretion, e.g. And to the extent that input calorie
choice may affect output calories, the equality of input calories
begins to be questionable.

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:55:48 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
posted:

Are you equating a Zone diet, (40% carbs), with Atkins?

Just for your information, maintainance Atkins is hardly distinguishable
from Zone...

OK, it's apparently changed. I read the book back in 1970 or
thereabouts. So Atkins is 40% carb calories nowadays?
Not a low carb diet then. One wonders what all the fuss is.
Stick to the good old, tried and true, varied, wholefood, eucaloric
diet with regular exercise and you won't likely go wong, unless you
habitually wrestle with busses

Moosh

See there is your main problem. You do not even know what a low-carb
diet is. The mainstream recommends a 55 to 65% carb diet. Anything
less than this is a low-carb diet. 40% carbs is a low carb diet. Now
this is a major misconception on your part. Here you are arguing with
everybody and coming across as if you know more than everybody,
showing nothing but arrogance, making your high-handed assertations
and you do not even understand what ow-carb is and why it is low-carb.
Maybe you ought to get to understand the parameters and the context of
the discussion before you open your mouth and make nonsensical
arguments that end up embarassing you yet again.

TC

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
OK Moosh. There is your study that shows or at least indicates the
real possibility that calories are not a valid and practical approach
to weight management.

In your gullible little eyes, apparently. How sad!
That report shows to me much confusion and NO science.

I challenge you to find me *one* study that wasn't put out by industry
researchers that proves definitively that calories are directly
applicable to control weight in humans. I want any study that wasn't
paid for by industry that makes it crystal clear that weight can be
managed by restricting calories.

Restricting calories is the ONLY way to reduce fat storage loss.
No other way has ever been demonstrated.
And calorie restriction ALWAYS results in fat storage loss.
Of course the way you achieve this calorie restriction is of very
little interest to me here (smn). Try a dieting group for the most
effective schemes.

Better yet, find me the seminal study that first made this assertion.
Find me the one or the series of studies that *first* concluded that
calories are it. Such a ground breaking and historical document must
be easy to find. The researchers must be world reknown for their
brilliant discovery. Give me the study(s) and the names. This is the
study(s) that your whole world of nutritional science hangs its hat
on. Should be easy.

That's the whole body of science. Open your eyes.
You are contradicting this huge body of science, so the onus is on you
to show just one anomaly, and it will turn the whole scentific corpus
on its head Good luck!

Moosh


Well show the one piece of that whole body of science that
specifically concluded that calories are the only factor in weight
management in humans.

If someone were to ask what was the seminal work in nuclear science,
the instant response is Einstein, relativity and E=mc2. Ask about
rocket science and you get Von Braun. Ask about the planets and you
get Copernicus and Galileo. Ask about modern electricity and you get
Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla. Ask about gravity and you get Newton.
Ask about flight and you get the Wright Brothers.

Ask about nutrition and you get ?????????. Nothing. Vague references
to a large body of work.

Put your money where your mouth is. Who made and proved this concept?
What specific study or set of studies specifically showed that
calories could be applied directly in weight management in humans.

Put up or shut up.

TC

"Moosh" wrote in message
Diets which involve higher insulin output
will involve more fat storage than those that do not.

Surely it depends on how many calories are absorbed and how many are
needed. If you eat 2000 calories of glucose, and expend 3000 calories
running a marathon, you won't store any fat.
Doesn't matter what your insulin level is.

In addition,
insulin resistance differentiates individuals in terms of fat storage
rate.

Fat storage occurs when there are excess calories about.
Without these, no fat storage occurs.
To get fat, you have to eat too much. End of story.
Unless you want to get into why folks eat too much. I don't.


Here is an interesting question for you.

What is the precise mechanism that allows the body to know that there
is an overabundance of calories and to start storing it as fat? What
mechanism is there for the individual cells to register that it has
its maximum intake of calories? Are all nutrients broken down to their
basic energy values at all times in every circumstance? How does the
body gauge that it has consumed more energy than needed and how does
it then know to store the excess?

Conversely, when intake of calories is less than needed, how exactly
does the individual cells make it known to the system in general that
it is deficient of energy and that fat needs to be broken down into
calories for the cell to use?

There must be a feedback mechanism between the individual non-fat
cells and the fat cells for energy to be stored as fat or used as
energy. What is this mysterious mechanism that knows whether to store
fat or break down fat based on the number of calories consumed?

TC

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia
wrote:

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.
Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.

Answer the question, Matti.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031122.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:33:42 -0600, "Stephen S" wrote:

High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the
ground.

Humbly,

Andrew

So why isn't there a dialysis center next door to every Gold's Gym?
--

Oooh, let me think about that.

rolling eyes

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031122.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

I checked a few of the "scientists" mentioned in this study and found
a couple of interesting things. Read on.


Here is one study that shows that calories are not the last word on
weight mangement in humans.

*********************
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than
folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the
contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that
people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without
paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts'
surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least
in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American
Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as
many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating
less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get
so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that
low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that
maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually
can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories.
That should have added up to about seven pounds.

But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that
says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight,"
Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A
calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they
come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in
just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting
found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to
be open-minded."


Schwartz appears open minded. I found no conflicts of interest or
connections with industry. I also found no industry connections or
conflicts of interests for the author of the study Penelope Greene.

Keep reading.


Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."


A sceptic, Barbara Rolls. Aheres to the calorie-is-all concept. Who is
Barbara Rolls:

Barbara J. Rolls, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
(1992); Professor of Nutrition, Penn State University. Consultant for
Knoll Pharmaceuticals and has received research support from, among
others, Knoll, P&G, and ILSI. Coauthored (with James O. Hill) a 1998
report for ILSI on "Carbohydrates and Weight Management." (phone
conversation w/ R. Collins, CSPI, December 6, 2000) (Newark
Star-Ledger, 2/17/97)Research on lipid and lipoprotein responses to
different diets partially supported by Abbott Laboratories. (Am. J.
Clin. Nurt. 2000;70:839-46) Research on age related impairments in the
regulation of food intake supported in part by the Campbell Soup
Company. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995;62:923-31)

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, owned by none other than
Mayor Bloomberg of New York who was recently lambasted publicly for
criticizing Dr Atkins personally. Hummmm... interesting connection.

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three
categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or
low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a
third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale
Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly
what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet
plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a
bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots
of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins
diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to
pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design,
conduct or analysis.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes.
The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and
65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent
protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb
regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories on
the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that
volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost
20 pounds.

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers,"
said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of
data to suggest this shouldn't be true."


Another sceptic. Raises more questions eh? Who is Gary Foster?

Gary D. Foster, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania
School of Medicine, Philadelphia. Consultant for Abbott Laboratories
and HealtheTech. Receives speakers fees from Abbott Laboratories and
Roche Laboratories. (N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;348:2082-90)

An industry shill.


Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.


Another sceptic. Making up possible scenarios to minimize and explain
away the fidings. Who is Dr. Samuel Klein?

Samuel Klein, M.D., Washington University School of Medicine.
Participated in a 9/96 meeting of gastroenterologists sponsored by
Procter & Gamble that resulted in a paper, Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
26:210-218 (1997). Research support from ILSI (1988-89; $30,000); Ross
Laboratories (1991-94; $86,000); Sandias (1992-93; $12,000);
Alimentarics, Inc. (1996-97; $100,000) (from 1997 resumé)

Another industry shill.

It seems that the only ones criticizing low-carb are industry shills
and the only ones who are open minded about low-carb are independent
scientists interested in the truth.

TC

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:31:33 -0500 in article
Sun & Mun_
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia
wrote:

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.
Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.

Answer the question, Matti.

Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease,
but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys
was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of
general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts
to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic
religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise
challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr.
Chung FAQ, Issue 1"
(URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net):

"o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious
mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other
such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics.

See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-)


--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia wrote:

25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote in message . ..
25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:


High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Not true for people with healthy kidneys.

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread.

Correct.

In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.


Correct.

Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.


My comment remains accurate.


would suggest you be careful in your answer

LOL.

Looks like you took care not to answer the question.

See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers
it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent
answers claimed? :-):-).

Yes.

Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).


Yes.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

"Moosh" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia
posted:

25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article
m (Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote in message . ..
25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:


High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Not true for people with healthy kidneys.

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.
Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.

would suggest you be careful in your answer

LOL. See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers
it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent
answers claimed? :-):-). Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).

Hey, Andy, you blew it there mate

You meant 2# of *powdered* spud, didn't you? Easy arithmetic error in
my book. Geez, Matti is an anal retentive from way back
Hey, I've just had 2# of white wine. That OK?

Doesn't BMI depend on your racial height?

Height is not racial.

You're a short ass, No?


No.


Hey, a fit fatty is much better off than an unfit anything.

Yours in admiration, Moosh

Not sure if I should thank you for your comments.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to
which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset
about reading this message, a few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Moosh
(2) Report Moosh to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in
this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His
motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus
freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet
approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost
the argument soundly at every point:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s).

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected
their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not
discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak
of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's
credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness
of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily
dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were
bought are easily and summarily debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss
(ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the
peanut gallery.


Sincerely,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com