 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / September 2005Lo-carb studies?
Have there been any relatively large-scale, long-term studies on the effects of LC diets? I have googled and found LOTS of smaller studies, but there are many, and some are contradictory while others are complex. If someone could point me toward published results of larger-scale, longer-term LC studies I would be appreciative. >Have there been any relatively large-scale, long-term studies on the effects >of LC diets? I have googled and found LOTS of smaller studies, but there >are many, and some are contradictory while others are complex. > >If someone could point me toward published results of larger-scale, >longer-term LC studies I would be appreciative. No. > Have there been any relatively large-scale, long-term studies on the effects > of LC diets? I have googled and found LOTS of smaller studies, but there > are many, and some are contradictory while others are complex. > > If someone could point me toward published results of larger-scale, > longer-term LC studies I would be appreciative. The longest that I'm aware of are by investigators at Duke University, so try googling up "Duke and Low carb studies." In addition, one can extrapolate a great deal from other related research on the mortality rates associated with the serum and bg profiles of low carbers. Look for information on diet and Hba1c, triglycerides, etc. The diet that keeps these the lowest, and HDL the highest are likely the healthiest in the long term. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Susan Thanks, Susan... I have seen that study and it is ok, but I'd like to see one done over five to ten years instead of six months. If I had the money, I'd fund one. > Have there been any relatively large-scale, long-term studies on the effects > of LC diets? I have googled and found LOTS of smaller studies, but there > are many, and some are contradictory while others are complex. > > If someone could point me toward published results of larger-scale, > longer-term LC studies I would be appreciative. An interesting question is "Who Would Pay for such studies, and why?" There is still the firm conviction by the AMA andAHA (American Medical/Heart Associations) that LOW FAT is absolutely necessary... which has been held for over 30 years now, and certainly has acquired some political clout. Meaning, probably no federal money available to disprove the AMA AHA basic claims.  Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) > > Have there been any relatively large-scale, long-term studies on the effects > > of LC diets? I have googled and found LOTS of smaller studies, but there [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > some political clout. Meaning, probably no federal money available to > disprove the AMA AHA basic claims. Additionally, on the Who would Pay Front: Since most of LC is eating regular foods, there is no natural constituency. The CPG industry (consumer packaged goods, IE Gen. Mills, Nestle or Unilever) like/hate LC because they can make LC versions or not make LC versions and still make $$'s, regardless of how public opinion goes. LC companies apparently have high start costs with low return due to a number of factors (lack of need and large niche placement being chief), so there's not a lot of spare cash around. Plus, Intuitively, I believe that the LC prepared foods market is probably pretty cut-throat competitive, due to the structure, emergence, hype, and likely future of dieting around LC/the LC Industry. Maybe the cattlemen, but you don't have to eat beef on LC. Ditto pork and chicken. OTOH, if I worked at IBP or ConAgra, I might be interested in running this study, since I'm diversified across proteins and veggies (though I might lose some grain business). -Hollywood > > Have there been any relatively large-scale, long-term studies on the effects > > of LC diets? I have googled and found LOTS of smaller studies, but there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > An interesting question is "Who Would Pay for such studies, and why?" For a while the Atkins Foundation was going to fund an assortment of such studies. Given how people react to studies by carb companies when thse studies conclude that carb are good, it remains to be seen the skeptical reaction to Atkins Foundation funded studies. The Dr A died and over time less and less has been heard from the Atkins Foundation. The profits from his vitamins and suh were supposed to go to the foundation but over time they ended up under Atkins Nutritionals who wnet broke. > Have there been any relatively large-scale, long-term studies on the effects > of LC diets? I have googled and found LOTS of smaller studies, but there > are many, and some are contradictory while others are complex. > > If someone could point me toward published results of larger-scale, > longer-term LC studies I would be appreciative. Here's a new one, applicable to all, though about diabetics. Not exactly what you asked for, but contains a discussion about comparisons between diets. Note, especially, the discussion on page 3. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/16 Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Susan Thanks! And this clearly shows that LC is not just for diabetes, obesity and metabolic syndrome as has been suggested by someone on this ng. on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:59:56 -0500, "Ernie Sty" <fake_email@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Here's a new one, applicable to all, though about diabetics. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Susan ----- Bev > And this clearly shows that LC is not just for diabetes, obesity and > metabolic syndrome as has been suggested by someone on this ng. Bev-Ann, I don't know if you're being deliberately antagonistic or if you just have a learning disability. I NEVER said that low carb is only for metabolic syndrome. YOU said that low carb is marketed to people for things other than metabolic syndrome and the obese, and when I asked you for examples, you gave me examples of metabolic syndrome. Diabetes, hypertension, obesity, CVD are all related to metabolic syndrome. Can you tell me all the *other* groups that low carbing is marketed to? If you can't follow the reasoning or get facts straight, then consider sitting on your hands til you do. Susan > syndrome. Can you tell me all the *other* groups that low carbing is > marketed to? Epilepsy? SignatureNo Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes >>syndrome. Can you tell me all the *other* groups that low carbing is >>marketed to? > > Epilepsy? No. You're thinking of the ketogenic diet that cuts all carbs and most protein. It's almost all fat, hardly a marketable plan. :-) Susan > >>syndrome. Can you tell me all the *other* groups that low carbing is > >>marketed to? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No. You're thinking of the ketogenic diet that cuts all carbs and most > protein. It's almost all fat, hardly a marketable plan. :-) In the news recently was a study that used approximately what Atkins actually is to treat epilepsy. The concept was that a severe ketogenic diet works therefore it is worth testing whether a moderate ketogenic diet would work. Since on what Atkins actually is you build up to the point of being just barely in ketosis, it is as moderate as you can get without expensive testing. So, what other groups can I think of ... I'll likely repeat ones mentioned earlier in the thread as I've been going through it in reverse chronological order. PCOS - Many report relieved symptoms. Crones disease and other forms of IBS - Grain is a common source of lower digestive problems. Migraines - I haven't seen any marketing about it but it is mentioned in a couple of the Atkins books that folks following the process tend to not get migraines (I've gone from 3-5 per year to 1 in 6 years since starting). With any self-immune or degenerative disease it could be worth trying the eliminate-and-challenge half of Atkins on the principle that diet at least contributes to the symptoms. "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote in message > In the news recently was a study that used approximately > what Atkins actually is to treat epilepsy. The concept [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the point of being just barely in ketosis, it is as > moderate as you can get without expensive testing. Good example, Doug. I think the concept was that using Atkins, which is pretty simple, doctors could kinda screen the kids. If they improved on Atkins, it might indicate that they would be a good candidate for the more stringent ketogenic diet successfully used for kids with epilepsy. > PCOS - Many report relieved symptoms. PCOS patients, I believe, are typically severely insulin resistant. As I understand it, a low-carb diet helps mitigate the insulin resistance, thereby reducing a lot of their symptoms and helping to normalize endocrine function. So it's kind of an unusual and not-very-well-understood variant on insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome that includes some other hormonal abnormalities. > Crones disease and > other forms of IBS - Grain is a common source of lower [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > on the principle that diet at least contributes to the > symptoms. Eliminating or cutting back on certain foods usually does benefit certain people, in that they find symptoms and disease conditions that were (unknowingly) caused or exacerbated by those foods decreasing or going away altogether. Grains are probably a big issue for many people. Auto-immune dieseases often respond to that kind of dietary manipulation. And low-carb diets often help, although the improvement may have more to do with what foods are eliminated or severely reduced. There are also many people who go on the opposite sort of diet who report the same kinds of relief from things like arthritis, migraines, crones disease, other autoimmune diseases. Which is why I think it has more to do with specific foods, and perhaps just eating more vegetables and whole foods and less junk, than any specific macronutrient ratio. HG > "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Atkins, it might indicate that they would be a good candidate for the more > stringent ketogenic diet successfully used for kids with epilepsy. I haven't seen this study, but it's a move in the right direction. >>PCOS - Many report relieved symptoms. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome that includes some other hormonal > abnormalities. PCOS is what brought me to low carb; I got sick of constant cysts, researched the causes on Medline and the only thing I could find was IR and diabetes. What a shock; I was on the Ornish plan and got sicker and sicker! I had my last cyst and my last bout of fibromyalgia the day I cut out starch and sugar. PCOS is caused by IR; the other abnormalities are caused by excess androgens produced by the ovaries in response to hyperinsulinemia. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > Diabetes, hypertension, obesity, CVD are all related to metabolic > syndrome. Can you tell me all the *other* groups that low carbing is > marketed to? The generally active, oddly enough. http://www.michelob.com/michelob_site.html Check out the TV ads for Mick Ultra. -Hollywood, who should have so much fun drinking beer. >>x-no-archive: yes >>Diabetes, hypertension, obesity, CVD are all related to metabolic [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Hollywood, who should have so much fun drinking beer. I meant low carb diets, not products. Susan > And this clearly shows that LC is not just for diabetes, obesity and > metabolic syndrome as has been suggested by someone on this ng. I don't get your point here, Bev. It seems like these things, and the symptoms they include pretty much make up most or all the reasons people low-carb. The list of diseases/symptoms associated with metabolic syndrome is a very large one. What other conditions for which LC is marketed, that do not fit into those categories, are you aware of? HG >>And this clearly shows that LC is not just for diabetes, obesity and >>metabolic syndrome as has been suggested by someone on this ng. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > HG I'm sure she has a long list of other population groups that low carb is marketed to. That's probably why it's taking her so long to answer. ;-) Susan > x-no-archive: yes >> What other conditions for which LC is marketed, that do not fit into >> those categories, are you aware of? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm sure she has a long list of other population groups that low carb is > marketed to. That's probably why it's taking her so long to answer. ;-) Actually, I think a lot of people don't realize how many disease conditions are actually associated with insulin resistance/hyperinsulimia. They may be aware that a lower carb diet will help mitigate or prevent those conditions, but not be aware of the underlying endocrine system mechanism. In my book that's ok. It's not necessary to get a PhD in biochem to be a successful lc'er. It's just a little annoying when people, uninterested in investing the time in understanding why/how lc works (and again, there's nothing wrong with that), get a bit arrogant and pushy with people who *have* taken the time to get into the science. Susan, I think that you are now pretty much the resident expert on asdl-c. 8-] Lee Rodgers manned that position for many years, with help from others. He seems to have more or less dropped away, as has Carmen, another source of reliable info. And Lyle or Elsie (?) don't seem to drop by any more either. It's all on your shoulders now, kiddo. (just kidding) But for some reason, there have always been people who seem to actively resent it when somebody clearly knows what they are talkin' about. Shrug. But thanks for all your educational posts. HG > Actually, I think a lot of people don't realize how many disease conditions > are actually associated with insulin resistance/hyperinsulimia. They may be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > nothing wrong with that), get a bit arrogant and pushy with people who > *have* taken the time to get into the science. Yes, that's my issue. Particularly after itemizing those conditions for her. I never took aim at her personally before, just at the information, which she never factually addressed. > Susan, I think that you are now pretty much the resident expert on asdl-c. > 8-] Lee Rodgers manned that position for many years, with help from others. > He seems to have more or less dropped away, as has Carmen, another source of > reliable info. And Lyle or Elsie (?) don't seem to drop by any more either. > It's all on your shoulders now, kiddo. (just kidding) I'm glad you're kidding, because I'm only an expert about my own experience. > But for some reason, there have always been people who seem to actively > resent it when somebody clearly knows what they are talkin' about. Shrug. > But thanks for all your educational posts. I don't know if Bev-Ann resents it or not. She clearly is confused by her own experience; she thinks it represents the sum total of knowledge about the metabolic effects of foods and diet. Susan "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message > I'm glad you're kidding, because I'm only an expert about my own > experience. Well, no, actually I wasn't kidding. You are the one who always seems to have an interesting paper or two to post, and who also seems to actually understand them. OK, be modest. lol! > I don't know if Bev-Ann resents it or not. She clearly is confused by her > own experience; she thinks it represents the sum total of knowledge about > the metabolic effects of foods and diet. Oh, I wasn't referring to Bev-Ann. She's a nice sort, as far as I've been able to tell, but somehow there has been some miscommunication between you two and it's likely kind of temporary. But there is always a tendency for folks to fail to understand that *their* experience is not necessarily applicable to everyone (or even anyone) else. Heck, I even do that sometimes and I *know* better. I was remembering some of the abuse people like Lee used to take from a few individuals who just seemed to want to knock him down a peg. And feisty as Lee is, it got a little ugly sometimes. He was such a great resource, though. HG > Well, no, actually I wasn't kidding. You are the one who always seems to > have an interesting paper or two to post, and who also seems to actually > understand them. OK, be modest. lol! I am an information junkie, but I just find the stuff, I don't have expertise independent of it, other than personal experience. Honest. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though. :-) > Oh, I wasn't referring to Bev-Ann. She's a nice sort, as far as I've been > able to tell, but somehow there has been some miscommunication between you > two and it's likely kind of temporary. But there is always a tendency for > folks to fail to understand that *their* experience is not necessarily > applicable to everyone (or even anyone) else. Heck, I even do that sometimes > and I *know* better. You're nicer than I am. I think she was baiting, though lamely. > I was remembering some of the abuse people like Lee used to take from a few > individuals who just seemed to want to knock him down a peg. And feisty as > Lee is, it got a little ugly sometimes. He was such a great resource, > though. He often had good information, true. But it seems he only posts here occasionally to take a nasty, profane cheap shot at someone and leave. I can't remember the last time he posted constructively, and I've been here since the late 90s, I think. Also, a lot of his information came straight from the highly unreliable LEF website. I honestly can't recall others taking issue with his information, but that may have been before my time? Susan "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message > He often had good information, true. But it seems he only posts here > occasionally to take a nasty, profane cheap shot at someone and leave. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > others taking issue with his information, but that may have been before my > time? Possibly. He was always kinda cantankerous, even when making a lot of useful contributions. That in itself tends to be kind of a lightening rod for personal attack. And as with Lyle, the attacks usually seemed to be motivated more by someone wanting to take the "expert" down a couple pegs, rather than a genuine controversy over the information. HG > Possibly. He was always kinda cantankerous, even when making a lot of useful > contributions. This I recall vividly. :-) That in itself tends to be kind of a lightening rod for > personal attack. And as with Lyle, the attacks usually seemed to be > motivated more by someone wanting to take the "expert" down a couple pegs, > rather than a genuine controversy over the information. Maybe, but each sure gave the opposition an attractive target, no? Perhaps the fact that each one cared too much about being acknowledged as expert? Susan "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message >> That in itself tends to be kind of a lightening rod for >> personal attack. And as with Lyle, the attacks usually seemed to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Maybe, but each sure gave the opposition an attractive target, no? Perhaps > the fact that each one cared too much about being acknowledged as expert? Yes, definitely both make good targets. Heh. And yes, I think both like being seen as an expert. Especially Lyle, but then he actually IS an expert. Lee... I'm not sure it was that so much as extreme irritation at people who clearly had never bothered to gain any understanding of the subject, but would have what seemed like the chutzpah to argue endless with him, someone who had worked very hard to understand it. I find that irritation understandable, actually, being the sometimes less-than-patient person that I am. HG >> And this clearly shows that LC is not just for diabetes, obesity and >> metabolic syndrome as has been suggested by someone on this ng. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > low-carb. The list of diseases/symptoms associated with metabolic syndrome > is a very large one. Yeah, but you know I've been casually watching this and a related thread for a while and I see one problem. There seems to be an assumption that everyone who has some of the factors that are correlated w/ metabolic syndrome necessarily *has* metabolic syndrome. I was fat all my life and at my heaviest I was definitely obese (220 on a 5'6" small boned frame), even now I'm not skinny (145, which puts my BMI at around 24.5, but the calipers say I'm a bit over 30%BF). I found losing weight very easy while doing low carb. So, it would seem that that would indicate that I'm metabolically resistant - except that by pretty much all the standards, I wasn't and am not. My fat distribution was always pear shaped, my HDL was always high, when I tested my BG levels for fun (including some tests off-plan) my levels were mostly quite stable and there were a couple of other factors that I've since forgotten which were markers of ms that didn't jibe w/ my profile. I think that, for me, the reason low carb works really well is that it's an adequate protein diet. Doing low fat, I ate much lower totals of protein during the day than I do now, and my perception is that that is one of the main reasons I was hungry all the time. So, my experience leads me to believe that not everyone who is fat and benefits from low carb necessarily has metabolic syndrome. I think, rather, that there are probably several mechanisms at work here that make this a good way of eating for many people (and, quite possibly, some which do make it less satisfactory for others). > What other conditions for which LC is marketed, that do not fit into those > categories, are you aware of? I can't say that LC is marketed for this, but it's one of the selling points that *I* make about the diet when I talk to people about it (well, if I know them well enough). When I was doing a high carb diet I had really bad gas much of the time. Since I started low carbing, that's pretty much taken care of itself. Even if I hadn't had all the other benefits that I have from low carb that in itself might have been enough to make me make the switch. Oh, and my rosacea cleared up. Martha SignatureThis is just to get around this newsreader's requirement that you have more lines of new text than quoted material. > Yeah, but you know I've been casually watching this and a related thread > for a while and I see one problem. There seems to be an assumption that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > resistant - except that by pretty much all the standards, I wasn't and > am not. Okay, but what does that have to do with metabolic syndrome? >My fat distribution was always pear shaped, my HDL was always > high, when I tested my BG levels for fun (including some tests off-plan) > my levels were mostly quite stable and there were a couple of other > factors that I've since forgotten which were markers of ms that didn't > jibe w/ my profile. I think the point I made was that the obese PLUS those with metabolic syndrome make up most of the U.S. population. Not that all obese folks have the syndrome, though I believe most do, or at least components of it. > I think that, for me, the reason low carb works really well is that it's > an adequate protein diet. Doing low fat, I ate much lower totals of > protein during the day than I do now, and my perception is that that is > one of the main reasons I was hungry all the time. This is very possible. > So, my experience leads me to believe that not everyone who is fat and > benefits from low carb necessarily has metabolic syndrome. Ok. But who said they did? I think, > rather, that there are probably several mechanisms at work here that > make this a good way of eating for many people (and, quite possibly, > some which do make it less satisfactory for others). Sure. Susan > Yeah, but you know I've been casually watching this and a related thread > for a while and I see one problem. There seems to be an assumption that > everyone who has some of the factors that are correlated w/ metabolic > syndrome necessarily *has* metabolic syndrome. Martha, it's my impression that there is a lot of uncertainty about exactly what metabolic syndrome entails, and how it begins and progresses. When it's well-developed, and many of the symptoms have become evident, it's fairly obvious. But it is apparently a "disease" that takes decades to develop. And accordingly, many of the "markers", such as blood lipid parameters or blood glucose abnormalities, may not show up for a long time. And yet the person may well be in the early stages of the syndrome. Or not, it's just not definitively diagnosable until the person reaches a relatively late stage. Even at the late stage, each person will have a different set of symptoms, not necessarily all of them, and they may show up in a different order in each person. Some people exhibit Type II diabetes (part of the syndrome) very early on, some never get to that point, or they will have a heart attack early on. Etc. For what it's worth, obesity/overweight is often considered to be one of the classic early symptoms of the syndrome, because the increase in insulin levels does tend to affect appetite in most people. HG |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.