Quote from FasterPussycat:
...you'd think in 30 yrs Atkins could have produced something in the way of a study to back up his outrageous claims.
Quote from max401:
You'd think in 30 years the medical community would have something in the way of a study to back up their outrageous claims that Atkins is bad for you, but they haven't.
It's an interesting issue which can be pretty easily explained in one word everyone here can understand: Money. Like I mentioned before, where exactly do you think all these long term studies get funded from?
The only reason substantial Atkins studies are happening now is because
A) The Atkins Foundation is only just now consistently coming up with enough funding to better research their findings on their own
B) So many people are successfully using Atkins that low carb foods are rapidly becoming their own substantial industry, causing investors to take serious notice
C) When the AMA slapped Atkins down in '72 when he first introduced this dietary concept, everyone in the medical community jumped on the bandwagon to reinforce the credibility of their industry. Substantial third-party studies are taking place now because they hope to prove they haven't been stupid for the past 30 years (= more research funding)
I do want to return to one valid point here though:
Quote from FasterPussycat:
Much of the initial weight loss on a low-carbohydrate diet is due to a loss of liver glycogen, a storage form of carbohydrate. The glycogen is lost because the low-carbohydrate diets do not provide enough glucose to maintain blood sugar and the liver glycogen is used to maintain normal blood sugar. Glycogen is heavy because it includes a large numbers of water molecules. When the liver converts the glycogen to glucose, this water is lost from the body. Therefore, much of the initial weight is due to water loss, not loss of body fat.
This is very much true, yet what it forgets to mention is this also tends to be the case at the initial stages of
any weight reduction diet, which is why it is so important to increase your water intake to at least a gallon a day. Why do you think that whenever women start new diets, the first place they lose weight is in their breasts? It isn't due to losing fat there.
Basically, anytime you start dieting you can chalk up the first ten pounds you lose to water loss. If you aren't eating enough protein, you can chalk up the next 10 to muscle loss (your body will eat its own protein before it will use fat for fuel).
I basically started this diet because, 1) The basic principle is sound to me, 2) My wife wanted to do it and dieting alone is always at least twice as hard - at least for women, and 3) Nothing else was working.
I have been rightly suspicious of any dietary trend or system out there my whole life, always promoting the eat/work/exercise rule. This all worked fine until I was medically unable to exercise. Once I started really checking into this thing I found a whole lot to indicate it's not as claptrap a system as the people who want to slap it down would have you believe.
For instance, my biggest initial objection was that rapid weight loss is a sure formula for gaining more back later. However, once you leave the induction phase all you do is add 5g of carbs a day to your diet until you begin gaining weight again, thus being able to establish the balance for your ideal carbs intake. Naturally, if you exercise more you'll need more carbs to fuel you.
There are some interesting research articles on the Atkins site. Nothing outright definitive there except short term results. We should all remain suspicious of anyone preaching their own research, and Atkins is no exception. The collection there is eclectic enough to provide an informed starting point, if nothing else.
. Just having trouble conjuring the compulsion or reason to.
