--- The Fool wrote: > http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=healthnews&StoryID=1608044 > > Low-Carb Diet Deemed Safe over Short Term > October 21, 2002 01:42 PM ET > > By Alison McCook > PHILADELPHIA (Reuters Health) - People who follow a > low-carbohydrate, > high-protein diet for 6 months may lose more weight > than those on a > standard low-fat diet, and they appear to experience > no cardiovascular problems as a result. > However, study author Dr. Bonnie J. Brehm of the > University of Cincinnati > in Ohio told Reuters Health that despite the > apparent short-term benefits > of the low-carbohydrate, high-protein (LCHP) diet, > this option may not be healthy in the long run...
> The current study is based on results from 53 obese > women, half of whom > were asked to follow the LCHP diet, in which less > than 10% of their > calories came from carbohydrates. The rest of the > women followed a > standard low-fat diet, in which fat made up only 30% > of their total calories. Please note that number: 53. Which means 26 or 27 were on the Atkins-type diet. This *is*not* a sufficient number of subjects on which to base a conclusion that should apply to the population at large (although it would be useful in the case of a rapidly fatal or extremely rare disorder, such as carnitase deficiency). There are millions of people in the US alone who are obese, have diabetes, hypertension and/or heart disease; any trial which I am going to base treatment upon had better have _thousands_ in the final stage studies, and should follow long-term outcomes as well. Quite a few drugs, treatments or other interventions have been found over the years to have significant impact on a population of patients in the short-term, only to have the benefits shrivel at the 1 or 2 or 3 year mark (frex, use of the Swan-Ganz catheter). <snip> > In an interview with Reuters Health, Dr. Meir > Stampfer of Harvard > University said that the current study was well > conducted, but he agreed > that 6 months is not long enough to determine if the > LCHP diet is safe over the long term. > However, he added that low-fat diets are often > unsatisfying for dieters, > because many carbohydrates--a common source of > low-fat foods--cause a > rapid rise and fall of blood sugar, leaving eaters > hungrier sooner than > after eating protein and other foods with the same > number of calories. > But the alternative does not have to be diets that > are high in protein > and fats, he added. Rather, Stampfer said that he > recommends that people > follow a reasonable diet, consisting of moderate > levels of protein and fat. Well, there's a brand-new concept! Moderation in diet instead of jumping on the lastest gee-whiz guru's plan?! Gosh...isn't that what our mothers and grandmothers said? <OK, had to vent a little sarcasm there. :P ) 1] Low-carb diets do work for many people in the short run; burning proteins and fats for fuel takes more energy for the body (ie it's more difficult) than burning simple (or nearly-simple) carbs like sugar (or refined-flour pasta), so the body does burn more calories to digest (and eliminate) these foods. 2] Burning protein as fuel creates 'dirtier' by-products containing nitrogen and sulfur compounds, which makes the kidneys (and liver) work harder to eliminate, whereas pure carbs 'burn' to carbon dioxide and water. (Compare burning coal to natural gas.) Persons with significant kidney or liver problems should not go on such a diet. We don't know the long-term effects of such a diet on the average person. [I think I pointed out in an earlier post that the Inuit, adapted for centuries to their meat/blubber diet, should not be seen as representative of the average American. :) ) 3] Another diet guru (the name escapes me at the moment) advises no meat, little fat (primarily from nuts and olive oil - possibly some fish too?), and quantities of vegetables, with complex whole-grains; if you can stick to such a restrictive regimen, weight loss also occurs. (And possibly favorable alterations in cholesterol and heart disease, but again, more research is needed.) 4] It may well be that there are different populations who will respond more favorably to one or the other types of diet, thus individuals for whom weight loss _and maintenance_ is better accomplished by that diet. Right now it's trial-and-error. 5] Diet without exercise is, in the long haul, of limited benefit (unless one was eating a Big Mac Extra-Size Meal 7 days a week and changed that to tuna-and-yogurt! :D ). (There are conditions, such as gluten-sensitivity, for which the proper diet can be truly life-altering for the afflicted person; I am not belittling the impact and benefit of such a change for these people. Often they have not been properly diagnosed; medicine has a long way to go before arriving at Voyager's Sickbay.) My personal take on weight loss and then maintenance is portion control, at least 5 hours/week of moderate exercise that you enjoy (frex, I count my horse activities as well as mowing the lawn - I *hate* working out at a gym!), and a varied diet with occasional splurges. It's slow but do-able. Debbi who envies her friend that has a metabolism permitting the consumption of ~ 2 entire cakes/pies per week - but this person also does ~ 15 hrs/week of *heavy* exercise (mountain-biking, tennis, skiing etc. etc.) I'm too lazy for that! ;) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
