debunking diet myths

[skinnyman]

Hi guys.

I want to make paper (for school) about debunking the myth that eating carbs isn't the main reason why people get fat. (we all know it's all with the calories). Like for example, Atkin's diet, southbeach diet, all eliminate carb intake. All the fad diets blame carbs for the fat.

For example:
I've read Dr. Atkin's diet book and since i've already read a lot of articles and opinions here on HST, i realized a lot of the things said on Dr. Atkin's diet book is bull. correct me if i'm wrong though. an example is:
Excess calories won't let you gain weight except when you're eating a lot of carbohydrates and fat.
wow...

i get pissed off when people are on a "diet" and avoid rice, potato and bread but eat CAKES!

my problem now is... i want to prove that this myth is false. I just don't know if there are any written works about this. I'm about to scan our library for diet books and see if they share the same ideas Haycock and Lyle Mcdonald have. (They don't have their books at our library .. haha) and.. I want to use some articles from here and thinkmuscle.com.

and my question is.... my stand is correct right? is it really possible to prove Dr. Atkins wrong?

I wanna bust this myth's ass!!

 

[mostlyallan]

"Excess calories won't let you gain weight except when you're eating a lot of carbohydrates and fat"

Thats like saying driving really fast wont kill you unless you're speeding.

Basically carbs, fats, proteins and alcohol (macro nutrients) contain energy measured in kilo joules. 1 calories = about 4.2 Kj.

So, if you use that to work out how much energy is in a macro nutrient:

Alcohol - 29 kilojoules per gram
Fats - 37 kilojoules per gram
Carbohydrates - 16 kilojoules per gram
Proteins - 17 kilojoules per gram

Your body needs energy to function. If you dont supply it with enough energy then you must burn fat stores to make up the difference (hence you lose weight) and if you supply it with too much energy you end up storing it as fat (hence you get fat).

So, by making up the energy levels from varing amounts of macronutrients, you can determine whether your body will gain or lose weight.

So its the EXCESS energy that causes weight gain not just a particular macronutrient. These diets just try to use gimmicks to get people to use them. Telling someone they can eat anything but carbs sounds really cool. What, as many sausages a day as I want? Cool! But thats not the whole story. You could eat whatever you want anyway...without having to sacrifice carbs as long as its in moderation. Its like saying fast food is junk.

You know those froi gras (I think its called) they sell in the expensive restaurants that supposedly sell excellent food....well its something like 80% fat! I've never bought anything in McD's that contained 80% fat. But expensive food costs too much to consume in large quantities so its considered good. Yet fast food is cheap and as such means that people can gorge on it and over eat - thus leading it to be considered bad.

I'm in a bad mood now...

 

[skinnyman]

that's exactly what i thought haha. the title of the book is even Dr. Atkins diet revolution :the high calorie way to stay thin forever
now all i need are sources to back me up in debunking this book.
i sound crazy though.. going against a Dr.!

 

[mostlyallan]

See, even the title is misleading.

the high calorie way to stay thin forever

Most people would think that means eat as many calories you want. What it really means is still get a calorie deficit, but like 90% of those calories will be from protein. So its really a high protein calories diet rather than a true high calorie diet.

Not exactly what I'd call balanced either.

 

[Falco]

<div>
(skinnyman @ Jun. 27 2006,07:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">that's exactly what i thought haha. the title of the book is even Dr. Atkins diet revolution :the high calorie way to stay thin forever
now all i need are sources to back me up in debunking this book.
i sound crazy though.. going against a Dr.!</div>
That is his first book, correct? The one written in like the 70s or 80s? To be fair you really should review the newer one, since his ideas have changed.

But to stay on topic, you are correct. You cannot lose weight on a diet that is hypercaloric. Lowering your carbs, reducing sugar intake, etc doesn't make a bit if difference unless you eat fewer calories than you burn.

Keep something else in mind - a low carb diet is a low calorie diet. If you consume less than 20g carbs/day, they you are consuming less than 80kcals/day from carbohydrates. You are restricting your calories. Unless you manage to completely gorge yourself on butter and steak, you will likey hit a caloric limit.

 

[skinnyman]

i have an e-book Dr. Atkin's NEW Diet revolution and still it proposes carbohydrates are the evil ones. lol
i just want to point out in my paper in school that these low-carb diets have created a myth that carbohydrates are to blame for fat gain (oh man almost everyone believes this!!). and i'm going to prove (with respectable sources) that it all boils down to caloric intake.

anyway.. does anyone know where this article came from? i can't find it in lyle's webpage. i need to quote it from his webpage. i don't think i can quote from a message board...

thanks guys

 

[jwbond]

what about insulin spikes? won't a diet be more effective if insulin does not get raised from simple sugars?

 

[Totentanz]

No. In the long run, it won't matter.

 

[jvroig]

Yep, won't matter.

In the long run, the bottom line is caloric intake.

Not to say everything else has no effect. But their effects are less significant. So everything else like macronutrient ratio does matter, but your bottomline should always first be total calories.

Regards,
-JV

 

[jwbond]

I guess we can sum it up by...

Total calories decides how much weight you will lose. Macronutrient choices will make the difference for what your body uses for fuel (fat, glycogen, muscle).


Agree/disagree?

 

[mostlyallan]

I thought I'd post this article up:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Background:Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.

Objective:We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet.

Design:Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.4 ± 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.

Results:Mean (±SE) weight losses (6.3 ± 0.6 and 7.2 ± 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood ß-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood ß-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum -glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P &lt; 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet.

Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.</div>

Taken from here.

 

[Totentanz]

I'd believe it. Anyone who's done a keto diet knows how much it sucks when you are depleted. They should have done at least biweekly refeeds, it would have made a huge difference.
When I did a PSMF last year, I felt like crap and couldn't do much lifting for the first few days, but once I made it through those days, I had plenty of energy. I was doing cardio and lifting after that without much problem. Refeeds now and then really help.

 

[Hammer-Man]

I'm not convinced Atkins is wrong.
I simply don't know.

I guess it will not be very easy to prove he's wrong either.
It will be very expensive, that's for sure.

 

[Totentanz]

Actually, proving him wrong is easy. Proving him right is the thing that is hard. He has already been proven wrong.

 

[Fausto]

I just thought I'd pop in here for a second.

One thing about high protein diets is that their cause acidosis and this is proven in the fcat that for instance a meat diet (gets your stomach acid to a pH of about 1 - 1.5 - terribly acidic) as opposed to a vegetarian diet (gets your stomach to a pH of about 4), a big difference if you ask me.

Simply put many amino acids in meat contain Sulphate ions which convert to SO4 (which has an ionic value of -2), the body then has to neutralize this and where does it find a +2 ion? (Calcium of course) and where? The bones, fortunately you can see this easily as you excrete it in the urine.

In short a high protein diet such as Atkins (95 % of the time it will be meat), is bound to create some serious health problems.

Let us consider this extract:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Every cell of the body functions optimally within a certain pH range (pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of the body). In different cells, this optimal range is different, however, the net pH of the body has to remain tightly regulated. One common problem with most industrialized societies is that our diets produce what's called a &quot;low grade chronic metabolic acidosis.&quot; In other words, the PRAL of our diets is high and this means that we're chronically in a state of high acidity. While there are a number of disease states that induce severe metabolic acidosis, we're talking a sub-clinical rise in acidity here. Therefore, your doc probably won't notice the problem. But that doesn't mean that you're in the clear. Your cells will recognize the problem.
So what's wrong with this low-grade chronic metabolic acidosis? Well, since the body must, at all costs, operate at a stable pH, any dietary acid load has to be neutralized by one of a number of homeostatic base-producing mechanisms. So, although the pH of the body is maintained and your doctor visits turn out fine, many cells of the body will suffer. Here are some of the most severe consequences of your body's attempt to maintain a constant pH in the face of an acidic environment:
• Hypercalciuria (high concentrations of calcium in the urine). Since calcium is a strong base and bone contains the body's largest calcium store, metabolic acidosis causes a release in calcium from bone. As a result, osteoclastic (bone degrading) activity increases and osteoblastic (bone building) activity decreases. The net result of these changes is that bone is lost in order to neutralize the acidic environment of the body. The calcium that was stored in the bone is then lost in the urine along with the acid it was mobilized to neutralize. This creates a negative calcium balance (more calcium is lost from the body than is consumed) and bones get weak. (2,3,4,6)
• Negative nitrogen balance (high concentrations of nitrogen in urine). Glutamine is responsible for binding hydrogen ions to form ammonium. Since hydrogen ions are acidic, glutamine acts much like calcium to neutralize the body's acidosis. Since skeletal muscle contains the body's largest glutamine store, metabolic acidosis causes muscle breakdown to liberate glutamine from the muscle. The amino acids from this muscle breakdown are then excreted, causing a net loss of muscle protein. (2,7)
In addition to bone and muscle loss, other consequences of acidosis include:
• Decreased IGF1 activity (4)
• GH resistance (4)
• Mild hypothyroidism (4)
• Hypercortisolemia (4,5)
Interestingly, low-grade metabolic acidosis seems to worsen with age. Many have speculated that this is due to an age-related decline in kidney function (and acid excretion). Of course, osteoporosis and muscle wasting it's too early to tell, perhaps some of the bone and muscle loss evident as individuals get older is a result of diet-induced acidosis. This means that employing a few simple acid-base strategies may help slow osteoporosis and sarcopoenia.</div>

Real Deal - please do not try to analyize this as it is known to cause extreme headaches and loss of memory

 

[Hammer-Man]

That's funny, because I thought he was the one that actually proved the &quot;calorie is a calorie&quot; thing to be wrong.

I know my father used to eat like a horse when he lost 18 Kg on an Atkins diet.
I'm not sure how many calories, but I take his word that it was a lot of calories, man!!!!

Of course, he could be wrong.
Maybe he only thinks he was eating a lot, I can't say for sure.
What I can say, is that he is an extremely serious, reliable and honest man, so the chances he was actually on a calorie deficit are not that great.
(though that still could be the case)

So where is that proof? I would like to see it.
I'll show it to my father as well.

 

[skinnyman]

see Neebone's post. there's a link there

totenz - a lot have proven him wrong alreadY? that's good news for me. that means there are lots of sources out there i coud quote. This is a big time school project for me because honestly, from where i'm comming from, EVERYONE believes carbs prevent people from losing fat.

i was thinking of attacking low carb diets by proving
1)carbs doesn't prevent people from losing fat
2)health risks brought about my low carb diets such as Atkins
in the end convincing people they can lose fat even with carbs.

Oh, this paper will take a looong time to finish. My topic hasn't been approved yet.

 

[Fausto]

Skinny...

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">i was thinking of attacking low carb diets by proving
1)carbs doesn't prevent people from losing fat
2)health risks brought about my low carb diets such as Atkins
in the end convincing people they can lose fat even with carbs.</div>

1) No, carbs don't prevent people from loosing fat, inactivity however does, couch potatoes are in real trouble here, active people need carbs like crazy so that they can replenish the glycogen back into the muscle.

Another thing is the type of carbs we tend to eat, highly processed carbs (pies, doughnuts, yadayadayada) are bound to make you fat though, so here the answer lies in the type of carbohydrates one eats, I guess that is why people assume carbs are bad, because some really are, and these are often laden with trans fats + sugar just by the by to make things worst!

Loosing fat is not about having a magic diet but constantly keeping track of the quantity of food one ingests, the variety and the quality (good carbohydrates are good for you), so is good protein (in recommended quantities) and fats (a good mix of the right fats keeping animal fats to a minimum) such as split equally between saturates (e.g. animal fat), monounsaturates (e.g., olive oil), and polyunsaturates (e.g. flax oil, salmon oil).

2) The above should do to proove but a balanced diet is really the key, then the less active a person is the less they should eat thus keeping the balance (calories in = calories out), this equation is what makes the whole fat loss thing work if it is negative = fat loss if positive and no exercise then = fat gain.

Hope this helps.

 

[Totentanz]

<div>
(Hammer-Man @ Jun. 30 2006,04:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's funny, because I thought he was the one that actually proved the &quot;calorie is a calorie&quot; thing to be wrong.

I know my father used to eat like a horse when he lost 18 Kg on an Atkins diet.
I'm not sure how many calories, but I take his word that it was a lot of calories, man!!!!

Of course, he could be wrong.
Maybe he only thinks he was eating a lot, I can't say for sure.
What I can say, is that he is an extremely serious, reliable and honest man, so the chances he was actually on a calorie deficit are not that great.
(though that still could be the case)

So where is that proof? I would like to see it.
I'll show it to my father as well.</div>
&quot;Calorie is a calorie&quot; hasn't been proven wrong. The converse has been proven time an again.

It is impossible to lose weight when you are eating an excess of calories. The only reason Atkins works for some people is that it is more difficult to eat a calorie excess, so they end up being hypocaloric.
How much a person percieves their intake to be and how much it actually is varies a lot. Your father may have thought he was eating like a horse, but in reality he was hypocaloric. It is not possible to lose weight otherwise, unless he was creating a calorie deficit through exercise.

If he were to lose weight on a hypercaloric diet, then where does the excess energy go? It can't just disappear. That's a violation of physics.


skinny - have you ever looked on pubmed.com? You could probably find a lot of stuff on there. I'm just getting ready for work, so I don't have time to dig up anything for you. If Aaron sees your post, maybe he can actually post some studies or something for you.

 

[Fausto]

Pubmed rocks! Try it, but you need time...and search with care else you get quite a lot of stuff!