As I mention in http://atkinsandme.blogspot.com, a recent TV show
makes some interesting points which may be of relevance to us,
LC'ers.

Bearing in mind the following three pillars of Atkins' theory as to how his
diet works:

a. Increased burning of calories, since fat calories require more energy to
    "burn" than do carb calories
b. The ejection of fat calories as ketones in the breathe and urine
c. The increase in satiety through eating more fats

the program cites studies giving evidence for the following:

1. *All three* of the above points are FALSE.  Increased fat
intake does not increase calorie burning; it does not significantly
increase ketone ejection; and not only does it not increase satiety,
it actually makes you hungrier.

But, despite all that:

2. Atkins' does work.  People on low carb diets do lose weight,
and usually more effectively than people on low-cal-via-low-fat
diets

3. The reason Atkins' works is (since it's not any of the three
points above) simply that Atkins' dieters do eat fewer calories,
as a result of experiencing satiety quicker and for longer than
do people on low fat diets

However - and here's the clincher:

4. That satiety effect is not due to the high fat content of the Atkins'
diet.
It is the high *protein* content that is doing it.

So, a conclusion could be that Atkins has unknowingly stumbled
on a significant dietary effect - the appetite control effect of
high protein consumption - and mistakenly attributed that effect
to high fats.

For me, the program still left it unclear as to whether the experiments were
conclusive that it was high protein that was the beneficial factor.  They
didn't seem to show evidence that it was not *low* carbohydrate.
It seems to me that the evidence could still support the hypothesis
that too high a level of high GI carbs could have a pseudo-toxic
effect on the body, with one symptom being carb addiction.
Were the high protein eaters experiencing appetite moderation
because they ate protein, or because they *didn't* eat sugar/starch?

I dunno.

One final thought.  There appears to have been a noticeable change in the
nature of criticism levelled at Atkins.  Until recently, the medical
establisment
focused on two points:

a. It doesn't work
b. It contributes to arterio-sclerosis

But the evidence against both of those is mounting.  So now the criticisms
are:

c. It harms your kidneys
d. It can give you brittle bones
and others

I can't comment on the truth in those criticisms, but I think the
"establishment" has to
accept a bit of a dent in its credibility in getting the first criticisms
wrong.

(That said, apparently the Atkins' people also seem to be shifting a little
bit, and
are now conceding that you shouldn't let your low-carbing result in
a dramatic increase in your *saturated* fat intake.)

slr