I think that is up to the person. Any "diet" will not work if you go off of it.
If the main premise of a diet is that you lose weight and then you can "go back to eating normal", then no diet will ever work. I think that the word diet is a misnomer. Substitute, "way of eating for life" and see what happens. I know that I have been following Atkins for over 2 years now, I lost 40 pounds in the first 9 months and have maintained that weight loss successfully. I also know that if I go off the diet, my weight will return, plain and simple. So to keep it off, I stay on it (I am a bit less restrictive with it now, but still stay on it). This is the way I eat. Plaiin and simple. >From now until I die. Sandy. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 4:43 PM Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? > What if it isn't black or white? > What if it's grey? > > What if "no no, don't eat fat" and > "no no, don't eat carbohydrates" > are too polarized? > > What we've learned also includes the fact that some fats > not only don't contribute to coronary artery disease, > but may actually fight cholesterol and plaque - > monounsaturated fats like olive oil, canola oil, foods > like avocado and nuts. > > And not all carbos are alike. > > And none of these "diet warriors" seem to be addressing > the quantity of food, the role of exercise on > metabolism, etc. > > Plus, they are gauging their diet's "success" by how > much people lose - not whether they keep it off. > > Sounds like kids arguing "did so", "did not", "oh yeah?" > > <sigh> > > -Ben > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/07FAT.html?ex=1027152773&ei=1&en= > > 26e1f71eb4478e2a > > > > What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? > > > > July 7, 2002 > > By GARY TAUBES > > > > If the members of the American medical establishment were > > to have a collective > > find-yourself-standing-naked-in-Times-Square-type > > nightmare, this might be it. They spend 30 years ridiculing > > Robert Atkins, author of the phenomenally-best-selling > > ''Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution'' and ''Dr. Atkins' New Diet > > Revolution,'' accusing the Manhattan doctor of quackery and > > fraud, only to discover that the unrepentant Atkins was > > right all along. Or maybe it's this: they find that their > > very own dietary recommendations -- eat less fat and more > > carbohydrates -- are the cause of the rampaging epidemic of > > obesity in America. Or, just possibly this: they find out > > both of the above are true. > > > > When Atkins first published his ''Diet Revolution'' in > > 1972, Americans were just coming to terms with the > > proposition that fat -- particularly the saturated fat of > > meat and dairy products -- was the primary nutritional evil > > in the American diet. Atkins managed to sell millions of > > copies of a book promising that we would lose weight eating > > steak, eggs and butter to our heart's desire, because it > > was the carbohydrates, the pasta, rice, bagels and sugar, > > that caused obesity and even heart disease. Fat, he said, > > was harmless. > > > > Atkins allowed his readers to eat ''truly luxurious foods > > without limit,'' as he put it, ''lobster with butter sauce, > > steak with bearnaise sauce . . . bacon cheeseburgers,'' but > > allowed no starches or refined carbohydrates, which means > > no sugars or anything made from flour. Atkins banned even > > fruit juices, and permitted only a modicum of vegetables, > > although the latter were negotiable as the diet progressed. > > > > > > Atkins was by no means the first to get rich pushing a > > high-fat diet that restricted carbohydrates, but he > > popularized it to an extent that the American Medical > > Association considered it a potential threat to our health. > > The A.M.A. attacked Atkins's diet as a ''bizarre regimen'' > > that advocated ''an unlimited intake of saturated fats and > > cholesterol-rich foods,'' and Atkins even had to defend his > > diet in Congressional hearings. > > > > Thirty years later, America has become weirdly polarized on > > the subject of weight. On the one hand, we've been told > > with almost religious certainty by everyone from the > > surgeon general on down, and we have come to believe with > > almost religious certainty, that obesity is caused by the > > excessive consumption of fat, and that if we eat less fat > > we will lose weight and live longer. On the other, we have > > the ever-resilient message of Atkins and decades' worth of > > best-selling diet books, including ''The Zone,'' ''Sugar > > Busters'' and ''Protein Power'' to name a few. All push > > some variation of what scientists would call the > > alternative hypothesis: it's not the fat that makes us fat, > > but the carbohydrates, and if we eat less carbohydrates we > > will lose weight and live longer. > > > > The perversity of this alternative hypothesis is that it > > identifies the cause of obesity as precisely those refined > > carbohydrates at the base of the famous Food Guide Pyramid > > -- the pasta, rice and bread -- that we are told should be > > the staple of our healthy low-fat diet, and then on the > > sugar or corn syrup in the soft drinks, fruit juices and > > sports drinks that we have taken to consuming in quantity > > if for no other reason than that they are fat free and so > > appear intrinsically healthy. While the > > low-fat-is-good-health dogma represents reality as we have > > come to know it, and the government has spent hundreds of > > millions of dollars in research trying to prove its worth, > > the low-carbohydrate message has been relegated to the > > realm of unscientific fantasy. > > > > Over the past five years, however, there has been a subtle > > shift in the scientific consensus. It used to be that even > > considering the possibility of the alternative hypothesis, > > let alone researching it, was tantamount to quackery by > > association. Now a small but growing minority of > > establishment researchers have come to take seriously what > > the low-carb-diet doctors have been saying all along. > > Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at > > the Harvard School of Public Health, may be the most > > visible proponent of testing this heretic hypothesis. > > Willett is the de facto spokesman of the longest-running, > > most comprehensive diet and health studies ever performed, > > which have already cost upward of $100 million and include > > data on nearly 300,000 individuals. Those data, says > > Willett, clearly contradict the low-fat-is-good-health > > message ''and the idea that all fat is bad for you; the > > exclusive focus on adverse effects of fat may have > > contributed to the obesity epidemic.'' > > > > These researchers point out that there are plenty of > > reasons to suggest that the low-fat-is-good-health > > hypothesis has now effectively failed the test of time. In > > particular, that we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic > > that started around the early 1980's, and that this was > > coincident with the rise of the low-fat dogma. (Type 2 > > diabetes, the most common form of the disease, also rose > > significantly through this period.) They say that low-fat > > weight-loss diets have proved in clinical trials and real > > life to be dismal failures, and that on top of it all, the > > percentage of fat in the American diet has been decreasing > > for two decades. Our cholesterol levels have been > > declining, and we have been smoking less, and yet the > > incidence of heart disease has not declined as would be > > expected. ''That is very disconcerting,'' Willett says. > > ''It suggests that something else bad is happening.'' > > > > The science behind the alternative hypothesis can be called > > Endocrinology 101, which is how it's referred to by David > > Ludwig, a researcher at Harvard Medical School who runs the > > pediatric obesity clinic at Children's Hospital Boston, and > > who prescribes his own version of a carbohydrate-restricted > > diet to his patients. Endocrinology 101 requires an > > understanding of how carbohydrates affect insulin and blood > > sugar and in turn fat metabolism and appetite. This is > > basic endocrinology, Ludwig says, which is the study of > > hormones, and it is still considered radical because the > > low-fat dietary wisdom emerged in the 1960's from > > researchers almost exclusively concerned with the effect of > > fat on cholesterol and heart disease. At the time, > > Endocrinology 101 was still underdeveloped, and so it was > > ignored. Now that this science is becoming clear, it has to > > fight a quarter century of anti-fat prejudice. > > > > The alternative hypothesis also comes with an implication > > that is worth considering for a moment, because it's a > > whopper, and it may indeed be an obstacle to its > > acceptance. If the alternative hypothesis is right -- still > > a big ''if'' -- then it strongly suggests that the ongoing > > epidemic of obesity in America and elsewhere is not, as we > > are constantly told, due simply to a collective lack of > > will power and a failure to exercise. Rather it occurred, > > as Atkins has been saying (along with Barry Sears, author > > of ''The Zone''), because the public health authorities > > told us unwittingly, but with the best of intentions, to > > eat precisely those foods that would make us fat, and we > > did. We ate more fat-free carbohydrates, which, in turn, > > made us hungrier and then heavier. Put simply, if the > > alternative hypothesis is right, then a low-fat diet is not > > by definition a healthy diet. In practice, such a diet > > cannot help being high in carbohydrates, and that can lead > > to obesity, and perhaps even heart disease. ''For a large > > percentage of the population, perhaps 30 to 40 percent, > > low-fat diets are counterproductive,'' says Eleftheria > > Maratos-Flier, director of obesity research at Harvard's > > prestigious Joslin Diabetes Center. ''They have the > > paradoxical effect of making people gain weight.'' > > > > Scientists are still arguing about fat, despite a century > > of research, because the regulation of appetite and weight > > in the human body happens to be almost inconceivably > > complex, and the experimental tools we have to study it are > > still remarkably inadequate. This combination leaves > > researchers in an awkward position. To study the entire > > physiological system involves feeding real food to real > > human subjects for months or years on end, which is > > prohibitively expensive, ethically questionable (if you're > > trying to measure the effects of foods that might cause > > heart disease) and virtually impossible to do in any kind > > of rigorously controlled scientific manner. But if > > researchers seek to study something less costly and more > > controllable, they end up studying experimental situations > > so oversimplified that their results may have nothing to do > > with reality. This then leads to a research literature so > > vast that it's possible to find at least some published > > research to support virtually any theory. The result is a > > balkanized community -- ''splintered, very opinionated and > > in many instances, intransigent,'' says Kurt Isselbacher, a > > former chairman of the Food and Nutrition Board of the > > National Academy of Science -- in which researchers seem > > easily convinced that their preconceived notions are > > correct and thoroughly uninterested in testing any other > > hypotheses but their own. > > > > What's more, the number of misconceptions propagated about > > the most basic research can be staggering. Researchers will > > be suitably scientific describing the limitations of their > > own experiments, and then will cite something as gospel > > truth because they read it in a magazine. The classic > > example is the statement heard repeatedly that 95 percent > > of all dieters never lose weight, and 95 percent of those > > who do will not keep it off. This will be correctly > > attributed to the University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist > > Albert Stunkard, but it will go unmentioned that this > > statement is based on 100 patients who passed through > > Stunkard's obesity clinic during the Eisenhower > > administration. > > > > With these caveats, one of the few reasonably reliable > > facts about the obesity epidemic is that it started around > > the early 1980's. According to Katherine Flegal, an > > epidemiologist at the National Center for Health > > Statistics, the percentage of obese Americans stayed > > relatively constant through the 1960's and 1970's at 13 > > percent to 14 percent and then shot up by 8 percentage > > points in the 1980's. By the end of that decade, nearly one > > in four Americans was obese. That steep rise, which is > > consistent through all segments of American society and > > which continued unabated through the 1990's, is the > > singular feature of the epidemic. Any theory that tries to > > explain obesity in America has to account for that. > > Meanwhile, overweight children nearly tripled in number. > > And for the first time, physicians began diagnosing Type 2 > > diabetes in adolescents. Type 2 diabetes often accompanies > > obesity. It used to be called adult-onset diabetes and now, > > for the obvious reason, is not. > > > > So how did this happen? The orthodox and ubiquitous > > explanation is that we live in what Kelly Brownell, a Yale > > psychologist, has called a ''toxic food environment'' of > > cheap fatty food, large portions, pervasive food > > advertising and sedentary lives. By this theory, we are at > > the Pavlovian mercy of the food industry, which spends > > nearly $10 billion a year advertising unwholesome junk food > > and fast food. And because these foods, especially fast > > food, are so filled with fat, they are both irresistible > > and uniquely fattening. On top of this, so the theory goes, > > our modern society has successfully eliminated physical > > activity from our daily lives. We no longer exercise or > > walk up stairs, nor do our children bike to school or play > > outside, because they would prefer to play video games and > > watch television. And because some of us are obviously > > predisposed to gain weight while others are not, this > > explanation also has a genetic component -- the thrifty > > gene. It suggests that storing extra calories as fat was an > > evolutionary advantage to our Paleolithic ancestors, who > > had to survive frequent famine. We then inherited these > > ''thrifty'' genes, despite their liability in today's toxic > > environment. > > > > This theory makes perfect sense and plays to our > > puritanical prejudice that fat, fast food and television > > are innately damaging to our humanity. But there are two > > catches. First, to buy this logic is to accept that the > > copious negative reinforcement that accompanies obesity -- > > both socially and physically -- is easily overcome by the > > constant bombardment of food advertising and the lure of a > > supersize bargain meal. And second, as Flegal points out, > > little data exist to support any of this. Certainly none of > > it explains what changed so significantly to start the > > epidemic. Fast-food consumption, for example, continued to > > grow steadily through the 70's and 80's, but it did not > > take a sudden leap, as obesity did. > > > > As far as exercise and physical activity go, there are no > > reliable data before the mid-80's, according to William > > Dietz, who runs the division of nutrition and physical > > activity at the Centers for Disease Control; the 1990's > > data show obesity rates continuing to climb, while exercise > > activity remained unchanged. This suggests the two have > > little in common. Dietz also acknowledged that a culture of > > physical exercise began in the United States in the 70's -- > > the ''leisure exercise mania,'' as Robert Levy, director of > > the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, described it > > in 1981 -- and has continued through the present day. > > > > As for the thrifty gene, it provides the kind of > > evolutionary rationale for human behavior that scientists > > find comforting but that simply cannot be tested. In other > > words, if we were living through an anorexia epidemic, the > > experts would be discussing the equally untestable > > ''spendthrift gene'' theory, touting evolutionary > > advantages of losing weight effortlessly. An overweight > > homo erectus, they'd say, would have been easy prey for > > predators. > > > > It is also undeniable, note students of Endocrinology 101, > > that mankind never evolved to eat a diet high in starches > > or sugars. ''Grain products and concentrated sugars were > > essentially absent from human nutrition until the invention > > of agriculture,'' Ludwig says, ''which was only 10,000 > > years ago.'' This is discussed frequently in the > > anthropology texts but is mostly absent from the obesity > > literature, with the prominent exception of the > > low-carbohydrate-diet books. > > > > What's forgotten in the current controversy is that the > > low-fat dogma itself is only about 25 years old. Until the > > late 70's, the accepted wisdom was that fat and protein > > protected against overeating by making you sated, and that > > carbohydrates made you fat. In ''The Physiology of Taste,'' > > for instance, an 1825 discourse considered among the most > > famous books ever written about food, the French gastronome > > Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin says that he could easily > > identify the causes of obesity after 30 years of listening > > to one ''stout party'' after another proclaiming the joys > > of bread, rice and (from a ''particularly stout party'') > > potatoes. Brillat-Savarin described the roots of obesity as > > a natural predisposition conjuncted with the ''floury and > > feculent substances which man makes the prime ingredients > > of his daily nourishment.'' He added that the effects of > > this fecula -- i.e., ''potatoes, grain or any kind of > > flour'' -- were seen sooner when sugar was added to the > > diet. > > > > This is what my mother taught me 40 years ago, backed up by > > the vague observation that Italians tended toward > > corpulence because they ate so much pasta. This observation > > was actually documented by Ancel Keys, a University of > > Minnesota physician who noted that fats ''have good staying > > power,'' by which he meant they are slow to be digested and > > so lead to satiation, and that Italians were among the > > heaviest populations he had studied. According to Keys, the > > Neapolitans, for instance, ate only a little lean meat once > > or twice a week, but ate bread and pasta every day for > > lunch and dinner. ''There was no evidence of nutritional > > deficiency,'' he wrote, ''but the working-class women were > > fat.'' > > > > By the 70's, you could still find articles in the journals > > describing high rates of obesity in Africa and the > > Caribbean where diets contained almost exclusively > > carbohydrates. The common thinking, wrote a former director > > of the Nutrition Division of the United Nations, was that > > the ideal diet, one that prevented obesity, snacking and > > excessive sugar consumption, was a diet ''with plenty of > > eggs, beef, mutton, chicken, butter and well-cooked > > vegetables.'' This was the identical prescription > > Brillat-Savarin put forth in 1825. > > > > It was Ancel Keys, paradoxically, who introduced the > > low-fat-is-good-health dogma in the 50's with his theory > > that dietary fat raises cholesterol levels and gives you > > heart disease. Over the next two decades, however, the > > scientific evidence supporting this theory remained > > stubbornly ambiguous. The case was eventually settled not > > by new science but by politics. It began in January 1977, > > when a Senate committee led by George McGovern published > > its ''Dietary Goals for the United States,'' advising that > > Americans significantly curb their fat intake to abate an > > epidemic of ''killer diseases'' supposedly sweeping the > > country. It peaked in late 1984, when the National > > Institutes of Health officially recommended that all > > Americans over the age of 2 eat less fat. By that time, fat > > had become ''this greasy killer'' in the memorable words of > > the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the > > model American breakfast of eggs and bacon was well on its > > way to becoming a bowl of Special K with low-fat milk, a > > glass of orange juice and toast, hold the butter -- a > > dubious feast of refined carbohydrates. > > > > In the intervening years, the N.I.H. spent several hundred > > million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between > > eating fat and getting heart disease and, despite what we > > might think, it failed. Five major studies revealed no such > > link. A sixth, however, costing well over $100 million > > alone, concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy > > could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then > > made a leap of faith. Basil Rifkind, who oversaw the > > relevant trials for the N.I.H., described their logic this > > way: they had failed to demonstrate at great expense that > > eating less fat had any health benefits. But if a > > cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then > > a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same. > > ''It's an imperfect world,'' Rifkind told me. ''The data > > that would be definitive is ungettable, so you do your best > > with what is available.'' > > > > Some of the best scientists disagreed with this low-fat > > logic, suggesting that good science was incompatible with > > such leaps of faith, but they were effectively ignored. > > Pete Ahrens, whose Rockefeller University laboratory had > > done the seminal research on cholesterol metabolism, > > testified to McGovern's committee that everyone responds > > differently to low-fat diets. It was not a scientific > > matter who might benefit and who might be harmed, he said, > > but ''a betting matter.'' Phil Handler, then president of > > the National Academy of Sciences, testified in Congress to > > the same effect in 1980. ''What right,'' Handler asked, > > ''has the federal government to propose that the American > > people conduct a vast nutritional experiment, with > > themselves as subjects, on the strength of so very little > > evidence that it will do them any good?'' > > > > Nonetheless, once the N.I.H. signed off on the low-fat > > doctrine, societal forces took over. The food industry > > quickly began producing thousands of reduced-fat food > > products to meet the new recommendations. Fat was removed > > from foods like cookies, chips and yogurt. The problem was, > > it had to be replaced with something as tasty and > > pleasurable to the palate, which meant some form of sugar, > > often high-fructose corn syrup. Meanwhile, an entire > > industry emerged to create fat substitutes, of which > > Procter & Gamble's olestra was first. And because these > > reduced-fat meats, cheeses, snacks and cookies had to > > compete with a few hundred thousand other food products > > marketed in America, the industry dedicated considerable > > advertising effort to reinforcing the > > less-fat-is-good-health message. Helping the cause was what > > Walter Willett calls the ''huge forces'' of dietitians, > > health organizations, consumer groups, health reporters and > > even cookbook writers, all well-intended missionaries of > > healthful eating. > > > > Few experts now deny that the low-fat message is radically > > oversimplified. If nothing else, it effectively ignores the > > fact that unsaturated fats, like olive oil, are relatively > > good for you: they tend to elevate your good cholesterol, > > high-density lipoprotein (H.D.L.), and lower your bad > > cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (L.D.L.), at least in > > comparison to the effect of carbohydrates. While higher > > L.D.L. raises your heart-disease risk, higher H.D.L. > > reduces it. > > > > What this means is that even saturated fats -- a k a, the > > bad fats -- are not nearly as deleterious as you would > > think. True, they will elevate your bad cholesterol, but > > they will also elevate your good cholesterol. In other > > words, it's a virtual wash. As Willett explained to me, you > > will gain little to no health benefit by giving up milk, > > butter and cheese and eating bagels instead. > > > > But it gets even weirder than that. Foods considered more > > or less deadly under the low-fat dogma turn out to be > > comparatively benign if you actually look at their fat > > content. More than two-thirds of the fat in a porterhouse > > steak, for instance, will definitively improve your > > cholesterol profile (at least in comparison with the baked > > potato next to it); it's true that the remainder will raise > > your L.D.L., the bad stuff, but it will also boost your > > H.D.L. The same is true for lard. If you work out the > > numbers, you come to the surreal conclusion that you can > > eat lard straight from the can and conceivably reduce your > > risk of heart disease. > > > > The crucial example of how the low-fat recommendations were > > oversimplified is shown by the impact -- potentially > > lethal, in fact -- of low-fat diets on triglycerides, which > > are the component molecules of fat. By the late 60's, > > researchers had shown that high triglyceride levels were at > > least as common in heart-disease patients as high L.D.L. > > cholesterol, and that eating a low-fat, high-carbohydrate > > diet would, for many people, raise their triglyceride > > levels, lower their H.D.L. levels and accentuate what Gerry > > Reaven, an endocrinologist at Stanford University, called > > Syndrome X. This is a cluster of conditions that can lead > > to heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. > > > > It took Reaven a decade to convince his peers that Syndrome > > X was a legitimate health concern, in part because to > > accept its reality is to accept that low-fat diets will > > increase the risk of heart disease in a third of the > > population. ''Sometimes we wish it would go away because > > nobody knows how to deal with it,'' said Robert Silverman, > > an N.I.H. researcher, at a 1987 N.I.H. conference. ''High > > protein levels can be bad for the kidneys. High fat is bad > > for your heart. Now Reaven is saying not to eat high > > carbohydrates. We have to eat something.'' > > > > Surely, everyone involved in drafting the various dietary > > guidelines wanted Americans simply to eat less junk food, > > however you define it, and eat more the way they do in > > Berkeley, Calif. But we didn't go along. Instead we ate > > more starches and refined carbohydrates, because calorie > > for calorie, these are the cheapest nutrients for the food > > industry to produce, and they can be sold at the highest > > profit. It's also what we like to eat. Rare is the person > > under the age of 50 who doesn't prefer a cookie or heavily > > sweetened yogurt to a head of broccoli. > > > > ''All reformers would do well to be conscious of the law of > > unintended consequences,'' says Alan Stone, who was staff > > director for McGovern's Senate committee. Stone told me he > > had an inkling about how the food industry would respond to > > the new dietary goals back when the hearings were first > > held. An economist pulled him aside, he said, and gave him > > a lesson on market disincentives to healthy eating: ''He > > said if you create a new market with a brand-new > > manufactured food, give it a brand-new fancy name, put a > > big advertising budget behind it, you can have a market all > > to yourself and force your competitors to catch up. You > > can't do that with fruits and vegetables. It's harder to > > differentiate an apple from an apple.'' > > > > Nutrition researchers also played a role by trying to feed > > science into the idea that carbohydrates are the ideal > > nutrient. It had been known, for almost a century, and > > considered mostly irrelevant to the etiology of obesity, > > that fat has nine calories per gram compared with four for > > carbohydrates and protein. Now it became the fail-safe > > position of the low-fat recommendations: reduce the densest > > source of calories in the diet and you will lose weight. > > Then in 1982, J.P. Flatt, a University of Massachusetts > > biochemist, published his research demonstrating that, in > > any normal diet, it is extremely rare for the human body to > > convert carbohydrates into body fat. This was then > > misinterpreted by the media and quite a few scientists to > > mean that eating carbohydrates, even to excess, could not > > make you fat -- which is not the case, Flatt says. But the > > misinterpretation developed a vigorous life of its own > > because it resonated with the notion that fat makes you fat > > and carbohydrates are harmless. > > > > As a result, the major trends in American diets since the > > late 70's, according to the U.S.D.A. agricultural economist > > Judith Putnam, have been a decrease in the percentage of > > fat calories and a ''greatly increased consumption of > > carbohydrates.'' To be precise, annual grain consumption > > has increased almost 60 pounds per person, and caloric > > sweeteners (primarily high-fructose corn syrup) by 30 > > pounds. At the same time, we suddenly began consuming more > > total calories: now up to 400 more each day since the > > government started recommending low-fat diets. > > > > If these trends are correct, then the obesity epidemic can > > certainly be explained by Americans' eating more calories > > than ever -- excess calories, after all, are what causes us > > to gain weight -- and, specifically, more carbohydrates. > > The question is why? > > > > The answer provided by Endocrinology 101 is that we are > > simply hungrier than we were in the 70's, and the reason is > > physiological more than psychological. In this case, the > > salient factor -- ignored in the pursuit of fat and its > > effect on cholesterol -- is how carbohydrates affect blood > > sugar and insulin. In fact, these were obvious culprits all > > along, which is why Atkins and the low-carb-diet doctors > > pounced on them early. > > > > The primary role of insulin is to regulate blood-sugar > > levels. After you eat carbohydrates, they will be broken > > down into their component sugar molecules and transported > > into the bloodstream. Your pancreas then secretes insulin, > > which shunts the blood sugar into muscles and the liver as > > fuel for the next few hours. This is why carbohydrates have > > a significant impact on insulin and fat does not. And > > because juvenile diabetes is caused by a lack of insulin, > > physicians believed since the 20's that the only evil with > > insulin is not having enough. > > > > But insulin also regulates fat metabolism. We cannot store > > body fat without it. Think of insulin as a switch. When > > it's on, in the few hours after eating, you burn > > carbohydrates for energy and store excess calories as fat. > > When it's off, after the insulin has been depleted, you > > burn fat as fuel. So when insulin levels are low, you will > > burn your own fat, but not when they're high. > > > > This is where it gets unavoidably complicated. The fatter > > you are, the more insulin your pancreas will pump out per > > meal, and the more likely you'll develop what's called > > ''insulin resistance,'' which is the underlying cause of > > Syndrome X. In effect, your cells become insensitive to the > > action of insulin, and so you need ever greater amounts to > > keep your blood sugar in check. So as you gain weight, > > insulin makes it easier to store fat and harder to lose it. > > But the insulin resistance in turn may make it harder to > > store fat -- your weight is being kept in check, as it > > should be. But now the insulin resistance might prompt your > > pancreas to produce even more insulin, potentially starting > > a vicious cycle. Which comes first -- the obesity, the > > elevated insulin, known as hyperinsulinemia, or the insulin > > resistance -- is a chicken-and-egg problem that hasn't been > > resolved. One endocrinologist described this to me as ''the > > Nobel-prize winning question.'' > > > > Insulin also profoundly affects hunger, although to what > > end is another point of controversy. On the one hand, > > insulin can indirectly cause hunger by lowering your blood > > sugar, but how low does blood sugar have to drop before > > hunger kicks in? That's unresolved. Meanwhile, insulin > > works in the brain to suppress hunger. The theory, as > > explained to me by Michael Schwartz, an endocrinologist at > > the University of Washington, is that insulin's ability to > > inhibit appetite would normally counteract its propensity > > to generate body fat. In other words, as you gained weight, > > your body would generate more insulin after every meal, and > > that in turn would suppress your appetite; you'd eat less > > and lose the weight. > > > > Schwartz, however, can imagine a simple mechanism that > > would throw this ''homeostatic'' system off balance: if <<<Additional text truncated.>>> ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
