A few years ago, I did the Atkins diet, lowered my cholesterol,
lowered my {*filter*} pressure, raised my good cholesterol, and
lost 50 lbs. My Dad did the same thing (except for the 50 lbs).

I did this based on my own research, looking at both sides of the
debate. When I told my doc what I was doing, he said "you're
crazy, none of that is proven". I basically told him to f*** off,
as I viewed it as a personal attack on my research skills.

I debated people, and all I heard was "it's not proven", "it's all
anecdotal", "double blind", "placebo controlled" blah blah blah.
My retort was the same as it was last week here at SMD:

Just because something is not proven, doesn't mean you can't
weigh all the best available info on both sides of the debate,
and make a decision. I did that with the Atkins diet, and it
looks like I was right, and my doc was wrong (kind of scary
actually - I admit).

LM

This is nothing like the case with "amalgam disease".  That has
been thoroughly studied, and the data shows that amalgams
are not the cause of the illnesses attributed to them.  There
are multiple causes for the symptoms blamed on amalgams.
In some people, there are actual physiological diseases
(unrelated to mercury exposure) which have not been
accurately diagnosed, which produce symptoms blamed
on amalgams.  In many other people, there is a
psychological history which is responsible for creating
psychosomatic symptoms which are blamed on amalgams.

You can read all about it at:

http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/intro.htm

And it appears that experimental studies to determine the degree to
which these electric batteries are able to dissipate electrical energy
through the nerves in people's heads have never been carried out.

Under these circumstances it is not possible to conclude that the
"psychological" histories of people are not the result of the
electrical behavior of the lumps of mercury amalgam in their teeth.

(But you have to be able to reason scientifically in order to
understand this.)

Keith P Walsh

Your research is getting you a leaner, lower-cholesterol-containing body and a nice set of plastic
choppers to go along with it!

Joel M. Eichen DDS

This is what the AHA have said about the study you quote.

Media Advisory
11/19/2002

American Heart Association Statement on High-Protein, Low-Carbohydrate Diet
Study Presented at Scientific Sessions

Chicago, Nov. 19 -- Media reports about a small study funded by the Robert
C. Atkins Foundation may have created the erroneous impression that the
American Heart Association has revised its dietary guidelines. This is not
the case.  This study was released as one of over 3,600 abstracts presented
at the American Heart Association's annual Scientific Sessions, a forum for
the presentation of research pertaining to heart disease and stroke for
scientists and physicians.  These scientific abstracts do not represent
official positions or statements of the American Heart Association.

Here are the American Heart Association's concerns with the study:

The study is very small, with only 120 total participants and just 60 on the
high-fat, low carbohydrate diet.
This is a short-term study, following participants for just 6 months.
There is no evidence provided by this study that the weight loss produced
could be maintained long term.
There is no evidence provided by the study that the diet is effective long
term in improving health.
A high intake of saturated fats over time raises great concern about
increased cardiovascular risk - the study did not follow participants long
enough to evaluate this.
This study did not actually compare the Atkins diet with the current AHA
dietary recommendations.
"The American Heart Association has dietary guidelines, rather than a rigid
diet.  These guidelines, revised in 2000, replaced the Step I and Step II
diet, which emphasized fat restriction.  The current guidelines, based on
the best available evidence, emphasize a healthy dietary pattern rich in
fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meats, fish and poultry, as well as
low-fat dairy products," says Robert O. Bonow, M.D., the president of the
American Heart Association. "It is important to note that there is no single
'American Heart Association Diet.'   Rather there is a set of guidelines
designed to be broad enough to accommodate many different cooking.net">food preferences,
as well as to provide specific guidance for individuals with specific
conditions."

By way of contrast with this small study, a 12-year Harvard study funded by
the National Heart, Lung and {*filter*} Institute was also reported at this
meeting.  This study of 74,000 women showed that those who consumed more
fruits and vegetables were 26 percent less likely to become obese than women
who ate fewer fruits and vegetables over the same time period.  "This is a
much more compelling study regarding weight control, because it involved
many more individuals over a much longer period," says Bonow.

"Bottom line, the American Heart Association says that people who want to
lose weight and keep it off need to make lifestyle changes for the long
term - this means regular exercise and a balanced diet," he says.  "People
should not change their eating patterns based on one very small, short-term
study.  Instead, we hope that the public will continue to rely on the
guidance of organizations such as the American Heart Association which look
at all the very best evidence before formulating recommendations."

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
http://www.***.com/

My individual result *is* anecdotal, but as long as the placebo effect
continues to gives me low cholesterol and low BP, I'll take it, while
the AHA continues doing its studies.

It is statistically unlikely that my huge chol decrease after starting
this diet was due to random chance.

They could be right. Long term, my chol and BP could go up. It's
been 5 years, and it hasn't happened yet. If it does, I'll simply change
to a low fat diet.

You may be right, but that sure sounds a lot different than what my doc
said (and what most people have said). Everyone made it very clear to
me that I would die of a heart attack in 5 years.

The other thing these diet debates always fail to account for is that
high fat diets are easier to stick with.With low fat diets, you always
feel deprived, and are less likely to stick with it.

The people stuck in textbook/science world fail to account for this
real world factor.

So in the first few months of any diet program, people are likely to
experience benefits that are simply due to an increase in mindfulness about
their eating habits, and it's not easy to separate this effect from any
effect due to the specific nature of the diet they're following.  Those
benefits are, of course, very real; nobody's denying that.  But they
shouldn't be misattributed to the more arcane aspects of the diet.

     I don't want to turn this into a conversation about diets, but I live
"low fat".  I did not start "low fat" to lose weight, I started it to reduce
a horrible cholesterol count; but I lost some 50 pounds while my cholesterol
count went from 500 (honest) to below 200.  I have now been off of
cholesterol {*filter*} for years.  The nagging and ominous left-arm pains I had
occasionally since my {*filter*}s have also been gone for years.  There is much we
don't know about nutrition.  Why do different things work for different
people?  My daughter used the same diet as I with similar results (ended up
size 2) and my wife used the same diet with NO results.

     The Atkins study claims faster weight loss.  I do not think that fast
weight loss is important or even good.  If you ask me, (and nobody has) the
optimum diet would result in a loss of 1 oz. per week.  At that rate it
would take you some 11 years to lose 50 pounds.  That would be 11 years
without the usual {*filter*} upwards weight creep and 11 years to accomplish
lifelong good eating habits.  In other words, 11 years to solve your weight
problem forever.  Yes, I know it will never happen.

Vaughn

We'll have to agree to disagree on your points:

1. When on Atkins, it certainly didn't seem like I was eliminating any bad
habits. Atkins certainly seems like *more* wild indulgences, not less.

2. As I morphed into more of a "Zone" type diet (after further research),
I was able to (and did) eat as many calories as possible. I can say that
when in "Zone" phase, I ate more cooking.net">food than I ever have in my life.

3. When in "Zone" phase, I would drink a huge milkshake every night
before bed, and just add protein powder to enforce the 40/30/30 ratio
carb/fat/protein. (<gasp> - ask Dean Ornish what he thinks of that !)

4. I remember on the "Zone" eating pizza every day for lunch !

So according to my doctor (and most people), the above involves more
calories, more protein, more fat, and unlimited eating.

So I completely disagree with you that they "shouldn't be misattributed to
the more arcane aspects of the diet".

I *do* attribute my success to the arcane aspects of the diet.

1. Atkins/Zone teaches your body to burn fat for energy, not carbs.

2. Atkins/Zone is easier to stick with, since the "hi" protein/fat leaves
 you never feeling hungry.

3. These diets eliminate the {*filter*} sugar roller coasters that lead to
    cheating, snacking, and carb bingeing that cause most low fat dieters
    to fail (I think the stat is something like 90% of low fat dieters gain
    it all back)

One reason I didn't start the low fat route was that I read the stats on the
poor long term success rate of low fat diets. And I also disagreed that low
fat was healthy. So I did Atkins (and later Zone), and things turned out
pretty good.

BTW - I agree with you that fast weight loss may not be a good thing.