General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Study Explains Fast Low Carb Results ( NOT WATER )

Started by jbuch · · Last activity · 13 posts · 274 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
9 April 2005
Last activity
11 April 2005
Original author
jbuch
Posts
13
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
274
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–13 of 13
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Funding by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the
    American Diabetes Association.

    http://www.temple.edu/news_media/AtkinsDiabetes.html

    STUDY OF OBESE DIABETICS EXPLAINS WHY LOW-CARB DIETS PRODUCE FAST RESULTS
    (Philadelphia) - A new study by Temple University School of Medicine
    researchers has shown why the pounds melt so quickly on low-carbohydrate
    diets, and it's not related to water, metabolism or boredom. The
    research was conducted in a group of obese patients with type 2 diabetes
    who followed the Atkins diet.

    According to lead researcher, Guenther Boden, M.D., "When carbohydrates
    were restricted, study subjects spontaneously reduced their caloric
    intake to a level appropriate for their height, did not compensate by
    eating more protein or fat, and lost weight. We concluded that excessive
    overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."

    Almost 80 percent of diabetics are overweight or obese, compounding
    health risks such as heart disease and stroke. Boden wanted to examine
    how low-carbohydrate diets, which have been shown to produce rapid
    weight loss, affected weight, appetite and blood sugar in obese diabetics.

    He discovered that study subjects did not eat less because they were
    bored with the food selection, and their weight loss was not
    attributable to water loss, two common speculations about low-carb
    diets. Further, weight loss could not be explained by a change in
    metabolism, another popular misconception.

    The study, "Short-Term Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diet Compared with
    Usual Diet in Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes," is published in the
    March 15 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. It is the only study
    of the Atkins diet to have been conducted in the strictly controlled
    environment of a clinical research center where every calorie eaten and
    spent was measured.

    After a week of typical eating, ten obese patients with type 2 diabetes
    followed the Atkins diet for two weeks, with carbohydrates limited to 20
    grams per day and unlimited protein and fat.

    "When we took away the carbohydrates, the patients spontaneously reduced
    their daily energy consumption by 1,000 calories a day. Although they
    could have, they did not compensate by eating more proteins and fats and
    they weren't bored with the food choices. In fact, they loved the diet.
    The carbohydrates were clearly stimulating their excessive appetites,"
    said Boden.

    All patients stayed in the hospital for the length of the study to
    insure exact measurements of calorie intake and expenditure. In other
    studies of the Atkins diet, subjects were at home and reported their own
    diet and exercise, making it difficult to ensure accuracy.

    In addition to the calorie reduction and weight loss, subjects
    experienced markedly improved glucose levels and insulin sensitivity, as
    well as lower triglycerides and cholesterol.

    Treatment for diabetes centers on closely monitoring sugar levels, diet
    and medication. Weight loss can often reduce or eliminate the need for
    medication, including insulin.

    Boden warns that the long term effects of low-carbohydrate diets are not
    known. Whether other types of diets would have a similar impact also
    remains to be investigated.

    Other research projects of Boden's include a National Institutes of
    Health supported study of obesity-associated diabetes and cardiovascular
    disease.

    This study was funding by grants from the National Institutes of Health
    and the American Diabetes Association.

    ###

    Dr. Boden can be reached at 215-707-8984 or through Temple University
    Public Relations at 215-707-0730.

  2. "jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    eating more protein or fat, and lost weight. We concluded that excessive
    overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."

    All together, now:

    DUH!

    --
    No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

  3. None Given said:

    "jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    eating more protein or fat, and lost weight. We concluded that
    excessive overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."

    All together, now:

    DUH!

    It is not at all a "DuH" when the study is funded by the National Institutes
    of Health and the American Diabetes Association.

    That's significant even though the results are obvious to those of us here
    who have achieve some success with weight loss and maintenance on LC.

  4. "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    It is not at all a "DuH" when the study is funded by the National


    Institutes

    Quoted message said:

    of Health and the American Diabetes Association.

    That's significant even though the results are obvious to those of us here
    who have achieve some success with weight loss and maintenance on LC.

    I didn't say it wasn't significant. It is still a DUH.

    --
    No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

  5. Yes, definitely a step in the right direction! We need more unbiased
    research like this to prove that LC works and exactly why it works.

  6. None Given said:

    "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    It is not at all a "DuH" when the study is funded by the National


    Institutes

    Quoted message said:

    of Health and the American Diabetes Association.

    That's significant even though the results are obvious to those of
    us here who have achieve some success with weight loss and
    maintenance on LC.

    I didn't say it wasn't significant. It is still a DUH.

    A DUH is not significant.

  7. On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:33:21 -0500, jbuch <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    So evidently, the National Diabetes Association did some good research,
    questioning the validity of their traditional dietary recommendations.

    Of course, the study didn't have a control group, but with these
    seemingly strong results, one might not have been needed.

    POWERFUL........

    "When we took away the carbohydrates, the patients spontaneously reduced
    their daily energy consumption by 1,000 calories a day."

    Actually, I think a control group would be a very good idea.
    Sometimes just the effect of being watched can affect how people
    behave. Patients who had access to a full range of foods but still
    knew that the food they ate was being weighed, measured and counted
    might well drop their consumption a noticeable amount compared to "not
    being watched". I don't think it would be 1000 calories/day, but even
    if it was only, say, 200 calories/day it would make better science if
    that aspect was measured and allowed for.

    Of course, it's possible that there are already studies on this effect
    and so no new work was needed.

  8. On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:33:21 -0500, jbuch <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    So evidently, the National Diabetes Association did some good research,
    questioning the validity of their traditional dietary recommendations.

    Of course, the study didn't have a control group, but with these
    seemingly strong results, one might not have been needed.

    POWERFUL........

    "When we took away the carbohydrates, the patients spontaneously reduced
    their daily energy consumption by 1,000 calories a day."

    Actually, I think a control group would be a very good idea.
    Sometimes just the effect of being watched can affect how people
    behave. Patients who had access to a full range of foods but still
    knew that the food they ate was being weighed, measured and counted
    might well drop their consumption a noticeable amount compared to "not
    being watched". I don't think it would be 1000 calories/day, but even
    if it was only, say, 200 calories/day it would make better science if
    that aspect was measured and allowed for.

    Of course, it's possible that there are already studies on this effect
    and so no new work was needed.

  9. "jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:

    The traditional diabetic treatment diet has allegedly been low fat and
    high carbohydrates.

    Not always. That's what frustrates me so badly. I had a nutritionist give me
    an old version of a diabetic exchange diet that monitored/limited carbs
    (about 1976). It was the only diet I was ever successful on. I lost 90
    pounds and exercised regularly. I remember at the time thinking "why is
    she/this limiting carbs" they're good for you. I eventually (over about 5
    years) wavered from the diet and began gaining weight again. I kept hearing
    all of the "carbs are good" and went back to my carb addictions, life
    interfered with maintaining my exercise routines and I ended up eventually
    putting the weight back on. I never tied the carbs to the weight gain. How
    could I, everything said that carbs were the solution to weight loss. I even
    tried to follow McDougal, the total vegetarian, no fat, high carb diet. I
    couldn't even manage 24 hours. I'd get so ravenous, my appetite was
    uncontrollable. The carb craving cycle had me totally out of control. I
    would eat until I was stuffed, but my appetite was still going. I NEVER felt
    full, I NEVER was not hungry, even after tons of food. I couldn't stop.

    It took me quite a while to be able to hear the "low carb" value.
    Traditional medicine had me sold for years, even when I had personal
    experience that it didn't work. I assumed the problem was me, no will power,
    no ability to focus. It really messed up my self esteem (along with the
    weight issues). But, now I remember the old diet that worked, the "diet
    plates" that restaurants used to offer in the 50's. A plain hamburger patty
    (no bun!) with cottage cheese and either 2 peach slices or a half a pear.
    Protein with fat and limited fruit (carbs). I remember the (50's again)
    wisdom that to loose weight you had to stop eating bread and potatoes.
    Amazing how this used to be the traditional diet treatment and now things
    are finally coming full circle.

    Gayle

  10. X-No-Archive: yes

    jbuch said:


    The cost per subject was probably five hundred dollars per day x 10
    subjects x 20 days = %1,000,000 USD for the information. More or less.

    whatever the costs, it's still better than spending more money on yet
    another "low carb evil, high carb fine" project...

  11. "jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Roger Zoul said:
    None Given said:

    "jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    >eating more protein or fat, and lost weight. We concluded that
    >excessive overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."

    All together, now:

    DUH!

    It is not at all a "DuH" when the study is funded by the National
    Institutes
    of Health and the American Diabetes Association.

    That's significant even though the results are obvious to those of us
    here
    who have achieve some success with weight loss and maintenance on LC.


    Yeah. It looks like one of the few honest (but short term) assesments of
    Atkins for diabetes.

    Imagine the cost.....

    The subjects were kept isolated in a hospital or research center for
    accurate controlled food intake measurements. Probably for the full 3
    weeks or about 20 days.

    The cost per subject was probably five hundred dollars per day x 10
    subjects x 20 days = %1,000,000 USD for the information. More or less.

    The traditional diabetic treatment diet has allegedly been low fat and
    high carbohydrates.

    So evidently, the National Diabetes Association did some good research,
    questioning the validity of their traditional dietary recommendations.

    Of course, the study didn't have a control group, but with these seemingly
    strong results, one might not have been needed.

    POWERFUL........

    "When we took away the carbohydrates, the patients spontaneously reduced
    their daily energy consumption by 1,000 calories a day."

    Not nearly the expense you estimate. I've been there. One of the cheapest
    sources of research subjects at a university is undergrad students looking
    for a few free points. Having been a grad student doing original research
    (not related to diet), I can tell you that the department head approves the
    project for the grad student, who calls for volunteers with the promise of a
    grade boost in that department, and grad assistanships don't exactly pay
    that much. If the research is noteworthy, the department head assigns his
    name to it with a byline (maybe) for the actual researcher.

    Reported results from Universities are actually pretty cheap.

  12. "Gayle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Protein with fat and limited fruit (carbs). I remember the (50's again)
    wisdom that to loose weight you had to stop eating bread and potatoes.

    My Grandpa used to tell us to limit our bread and potatoes, as they would
    make us fat. We all thought he didn't know what he was talking about (50's
    as well). He was always slim.

    Quoted message said:

    Amazing how this used to be the traditional diet treatment and now things
    are finally coming full circle.

    Gayle

  13. Tom G said:

    "Gayle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Protein with fat and limited fruit (carbs). I remember the (50's again)
    wisdom that to loose weight you had to stop eating bread and potatoes.

    My Grandpa used to tell us to limit our bread and potatoes, as they would
    make us fat. We all thought he didn't know what he was talking about (50's
    as well). He was always slim.


    When I left home for the University in 1958, it wasn;t long till I had
    gained a few pounds. In talking with my Mom about it, sheasked what
    they served us (she was a school meal cook). After I told her, she said
    they were filling us up with cheap starches, and that would add weight.

    SO, yes, we do go in circles ....

    I can never really believe that in the 1980's the recommended diets were
    "High Carbohydrate", which is partly "High Starch".

    We have the finest government that money can buy.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Amazing how this used to be the traditional diet treatment and now things
    are finally coming full circle.

    Gayle

    --
    ................................

    Keepsake gift for young girls.
    Unique and personal one-of-a-kind.
    Builds strong minds 12 ways.
    Guaranteed satisfaction
    - courteous money back
    - keep bonus gifts

    http://www.alicebook.com

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.