Living Proof
Posted on 07/05/2002 5:34:43 PM PDT by Pokey78
Your overall approach in that entire reply was admirable and respectful. Regarding your statement above, I would like to address a few things.
Whenever this debate begins, too many people begin to assume that one particular way of eating is what makes sense for everybody - on both sides of the fence. It is rather silly really. I addressed this point with Senator Pardek. He kept challenging everybody to show him a Professional Athlete that was on the Atkins diet. While I assume there have been some who have used it, or a very similar low carb diet, to lose weight pre-season, my actual reply was that the challenge is silly because the book is not really intended for Pro Athletes or even for generally healthy individuals. It is best for people who are overweight and have failed to take pounds off.
I think the same thing applies with you as well. Your anecdotal example is based on healthy individuals that have the discipline and energy level to train. If you are in good shape and training hard, you most definitely can eat significantly more carbs than others. There may be some individuals that have let themselves go and can adopt your lifestyle and get back on the right track. If so, that is great.
However, I feel that there definitely is a subset of the population that has insulin resistance and your method of maintaining healthy weight and condition very well may not be enough for these folks. They may need a more aggressive corrective measure to swing the pendulum in the other direction before they can balance things appropriatley in the middle like you have achieved. For some, it may not simply be a matter of "will power." Will power is certainly stronger when incessant, concentration breaking hunger is not present. A state of ketosis can help achieve that.
The question then becomes, where did this insulin resistance come from? The original article does a good job in suggesting that it may very well be the result of an overemphasis on high carb / low fat diets (low Omega 3 even as many people tried to take their diets down to zero fats) over the past two decades. You did a nice job of acknowledging that there was too much extreme in this direction.
So where are we now? Perhaps at a point where more and more people are seizing the low carb lifestyle, one that I feel is healthy. When I refer to low carbs, I am not necessarily talking about ketosis. However, I will grant that ketosis may be a necessary corrective meausure in extreme states. Even Atkins advocates a return to eating a higher level of carbs once ideal weight is achieved.
What gets me about many of the experts you have cited is that they too often state opinions about Atkins, Sears, etc. which are based on false assumptions (intentional lies?) about what those Doctors advocate. They also repeat outright opinions that are based on nothing more than conjecture, when actual data that would refute their claims is available. Why would they do this? Academics and health professionals are human. In fact, this particular subset of humans tends to be quite arrogant and many of them cannot admit that they have been wrong. Many have an intellectual vested interest in maintaining the correctness of their thinking. This is why you see so much manipulated data to prove original hypotheses. You rightfully recognized this particular failure on the part of those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo.
The entire paragraph above can be demonstrated with something many here on this particular political forum will recognize: The Socialists' inability to admit that collectivist economic systems have been proven failures over and over.
My thought is that everybody needs to stop being "right" and start being more interested in figuring out what makes sense for each individual. This is much more difficult.
I have used ketosis myself and will continue to do so. However, I am hoping to achieve a diet more close to The Zone long-term. I don't believe there is anything magical or even healthful about ketosis. For me however, it is the only state in which powerful cravings for sugar disappear, serious swings in blood sugar are smoothed out (even compared to a diet with healthier complex carbs) and fat (not weight - I measure properly) is more easily lost. So it works for me and I understand the reason. If someone is grossly overweight and has failed on other "healthy" diets because of hunger or weakness, then something like Atkins may very well be the right prescription. This does not mean it makes sense for everybody, just as other medical prescriptions that are designed to correct a disease is not necessarily to be used by the population as a whole.
I think, for me, that's what's been most important about the high protein + fat + low carb dinner plan, is that it simply helps me "stay the course". So, you've got my vote.
Perhaps a shorter summary of my preceding post. My suspicion (and that is all it is) is that you have never met a healthy Atkins person because those who are in the worst possible shape are the most likely to try it. Lots of skinny people do Ornish in an effort to get healthier and they can stick to it b/c it is clear that they have never had an insulin problem to begin with. Even in Atkins' book, most of his anecdotes are based on people who are incredibly unhealthy to begin with. A significant improvement for an Atkins practitioner may still seem unhealthy to you, but consider that the same person may very well be better off than on any other diet.
Again, this is why I feel it is necessary to compare how people are doing on a particular plan relative to their baseline, rather than to others (espectially athletes or very healthy others). Somebody singing the praises of Atkins may have just successully lost 70 lbs for the first time ever after many failed attempts, and his cholesterol may be significantly lower and he may feel great. However, we might still be looking at a 5'9" 230 lb person that still seems obese.
I have found the opposite to be true. Look at Pardek, normally a sane level headed guy. His posts immediately went off the deep end. He obviously is proud of what he has achieved with his program and I laud that, but he immediately savaged Atkins.
I will say this, Atkins will be proved right. The nutrition world is moving toward a lower carb way of eating even emphasizing the proper fats. It is only a matter of time before they back off of the polyunsaturated fats band wagon and go entirely to recomending real fats that we naturally survived on. The myths of kidney failure, cannibalization of muscle, only water weight, inability to do long term, ketoacidosis etc. are coming out. The average person is getting the word. I run into people daily who are on Atkins/Protein Power/Sugar Busters and have seen life changing results. I myself have functioning kidneys, lost 30 pounds of "water" weight, have plenty of muscle (am still considered overweight by the charts but can't pinch an inch anywhere) and have not died of ketoacidosis like everyone a few years ago said I would. I have been in ketosis for literally months on end and feel better because of it.
I believe the salt thing is BS too. Unless you are totally hypertensive and hyperinsulemic salt is heathy and necessary. I eat tons of salt and my blood pressure is 110/70 to 105/65. Not bad for a sedentary 40 year old.
Unlike you, I have eaten cake - good Rum cake - about two or three times a year. It seems distastefully sweet now. I bought an ice cream maker to try to make decent sugar free high fat Ice Cream that isn't so sweet that it gives me a violent headache. (I can't stomach Nutrasweet or Sacharrin!) Decent Ice cream is about the only thing I really miss. There is very little decent ice cream available WITH OR WITHOUT sugar. Right now I am eating Peaches and heavy cream after a Steak and broccoli dinner. I don't feel like I am missing anything.
On a final note the Eades and Atkins are right about the epidemic of auto immune disorders. It is related to the onslaught of franken fats and insulin. I will bet the eicosanoid research of the next few years will further vindicate them.
I do wish that I had the drive to exercise like you! I admire it. I am just glad I can maintain relatively good health by staying away from sugars, starches, and franken fats. Have a good night, I enjoyed talking
Tim
Living Proof
One need not be a muscle-man or a marathon runner to be concerned about their health. At 34, I am not at all looking forward to contracting diabetes - screw appearances, I wish to be healthy so I don't have to deal with the obesity and diabetes that my grandfather had (he died of a heart attack).
I actually copied your Doctor bashing post and will try to use it in verbal spats, but probably won't do it as succinctly as you wrote it. I laughed aa I read the very first line (Count Chocula!).
I also agree that many autoimmune diseases could very well be related to high carb consumption. My own experience may prove it for myself. I was heading down a road that entailed memory loss, increasing allergies (never had them before), chronic fatigue, insomnia - you name it. I had several aborted attempts to exercise and diet myself back to health, but the exercise exacerbated the problems (adrenal fatigue set in). I knew this was all related to carbs and it was bread and pasta that did it as much or more than simple sugars. Fruit juice was the worst though. In fact, a carb binge at night would give me a literal hangover the next morning (worse than an alcohol hangover as best I can remember).
Only when I learned about the sugar connection did I get a grip on my problem. I first read The Zone and gave that a shot. It all made sense and I saw myself in Sears' book, but it wasn't enough. Sears had said ketosis was bad (using a factually incorrect explanation I believe) and because Sears originally opened my eyes to insulin resistance and the problem with carbs, I would have accepted this. However, if I ate a Zone bar, I had intense cravings for more of them! So I kept delving deeper.
I graduated to Atkins where I learned about ketosis and the possible benefits. It was the easiest and most successful "food experiment" I ever performed. I lost weight and most of the other problems began to clear up.
I was so enamored that I began to do even more research. I read "Potatos Not Prozac" for a different perspective, as well as Lyle McDonald's "The Ketogenic Diet: A Complete Guide for the Guide for the Dieter and Practitioner," a much more academic work than Atkins which was primarily focused on the body builder. This is what turned me on to the Target Ketogenic Diet idea. The carbs allow for retention of muscle glycogen to keep workout strength up, while your liver glycogen remains depleted enough to maintain a fat burning ketogenic state.
For what it's worth, Lyle has stated since he wrote his book that there really isn't a magical "metabolic advantage" to ketosis like Atkins claims. He also feels that over the long haul, weight loss truly is a calories in / calories out proposition. However, he HAS shown that ketosis is muscle sparing and HAS suggested that the best weight loss diet is the one that is most easily adhered to.
In your last post, you listed the litany of myths regarding Atkins. This is what always bothers me the most. I am more intrigued than bothered by the people that cite them. What causes people to either lie, exaggerate or vehemently denounce Atkins if their basis for doing so is logically or factually incorrect? We know Atkins/Ketosis blunts hunger while other diets promote hunger. Atkins says to stay away from bacon and other meats with heavy nitrates. Atkins tells you to eat vegetables. He readily admits that a lot of water is lost in the beginning on his diet, but the fat loss still takes place as well. No studies have shown there to be kidney problems with a ketogenic diet. Etc. etc. The naysayers will continue to repeat the lie as fact with zero substantiation and we will continue to counter the lies. The truth is getting out though, as the orginal article here truly shows us.
Those who are threatened by a new concept that counters their long-held beliefs will continue to repeat the lies to protect their egos, but over time they will be viewed like the folks who continued to insist the earth was flat or the sun revolved around the earth because that is what all the former, dying "experts" said. Atkins may very well be like Columbus or Galileo (or whoever showed the old myths to be false). He may not have invented the concept, but he popularized it so he will bear the brunt of the early ridicule.
Those who aren't protecting their vested academic or professional interest (like some on this thread) will use the "experts" cited above, but only to continue validating for themselves that their chosen path made the most sense. What they can't see is that it very well may have for them, but doesn't for somebody with insulin resistance or extreme metabolic resistance to lipolysis. They need to recognize that telling an obese person to merely "suck it up and eat less" may be like telling someone with a severed spinal cord to quit their belly-aching and "get up and walk." Luckily, for the obese person, there may be a cure in cutting carbs. Some who are already fit will try to deny that cure, because it threatens their own level of success.
Keep in mind that Coke and other non-diet soft drinks are filled with corn sweetners, or sometimes sugar. AND, one factor he did not discuss in this article is the effect of commonly available caffiene. I have found that in friends and my own life, caffiene is a huge dietary stimulent. What this means is that with caffiene in your diet, you'll desire food much more, or at least we have.
I think that in the end, a modified Atkins will surface as the best eating plan for most people. Heres why...Atkins diet is very high in fat, and as the author stated, some people end up with higher LDL cholesterol levels, however, eating lean meats, foul, fish, and lots of low carb veggies most likely will be shown to lower all cholesterols, and tryglycerides.
With this diet, you have it all: Lots of protien, a fair amount of fat, and vitally important green and colored veggies that offer many unknown, but very beneficial chemicals to your diet. BUT, you do not have the sugars which cause insulin to be elevated.
One quick note...Some eskimos eat nothing but pure fat and yet they do not have heart disease issues. Why? Because the ir insulin levels are very low. Conversely, diabetics have high levels of heart disease. Why? Well, in most cases, they are unable to handle the sugars in their blood as well, and rather than burn off those starches as energy calories, they are converted to fat, thus rasing the level of fat in their blood which then damages the heart and vascular system.
Must be Fudge Graham! Mmmmmm...
If this article seems long to you, and you complain about it taking an hour of your life, know that it took some of us years to figure this stuff out. An article like this 10 years would have been a like a thunderbolt from God, and saved me years of reading, sifting, researching, trial, error, pain, anguish and buying clothes (the last 3 are closely related)
That's not quite true. In the newer edition of his book, he has a chapter for people who fail to lose any weight on induction. For those people he prescribes IIRC one week of a 1,000-calorie diet with 90% of calories from fat and 10% from protein, to be followed by a week of 1,200 daily calories (same makeup), followed by induction. He warns that short-term diet is dangerous for people whose metabolism isn't so out-of-whack as to require it, but states that it will help jump-start weight loss in the few people for whom induction by itself does not work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.