Scientific Battlegrounds in Diets

There's an interesting article currently carried by the NYTimes (free reg. yada yada) that talks about the world of dieting, National Institutes of Health, Atkins as well as low-carb vs low-fat. The interesting thing, from a scientific perspective, is the sheer lack of study - and the reticence from the scientific community to question the party line.

Comments

Direct link to article

[Hatter]

Here is the direct link to the article via the NYTimes.com Registration Generator.

Don't believe the hype

[Otter]

Most of the spin on the article is like the writeup here -- Hah! Atkins and Sears were right and the scientific world was wrong! CNN has an article where they talked to the reearchers were quoted in the article and found them to be a lot less supportive of the full "Zone" line than the Times presents them as being.

In general, these "scientific battleground" stories are more hype than reality.

Re:Don't believe the hype

[jc42]

NPR just had an interview with them, too. Their main point seems to be that there is a serious lack of scientific research on the subject. The US government guidelines historically were based on little scientific evidence, and more on the political power of various agricultural organizations. People voice opinions loudly, but they don't fund the research.

So, yes, it's true that they weren't particularly supportive of Atkins' theories. They weren't supportive of anybody's theories. They were calling for actual scientific studies of the question.

I suspect that one of the things that triggered this sudden debate was the recent Consumers Report article on weight-loss diets. They actually described some controlled studies that they did, comparing several kinds of diets. Their results? The ones that followed the Atkins diet were the only ones who lost weight and didn't regain it after stopping the diet. And they commented on the lack of real scientific studies of the issue.

Of course, few research agencies are likely to lower themselves by paying attention to a commercial consumer-oriented publication. So maybe we should ask them why they aren't doing the research themselves.

From a scientific viewpoint, it's kinda embarrassing to listen to a debate among people who can't be bothered to do a proper study ...

Factor Analysis

[Somnus]

How does one get ripped? Look at all the shredded people, and see what they do and what they have going for them in the environment and genetically. My subjective observations, based on the research I've done to formulate my own diet/training program:

• Eat a diet low in saturated fats (generally, animal fats) and simple/refined carbs, high in protein, vegetables and fiber, with just the right amount of complex carbs and essential fatty acids (generally, canola and fish).
• Hit the weights. The extra lean muscle mass increases your base metabolism.
• Cardio is good, but overrated. It compels your body to raid sugar stores instead of burn fat because the rate in energy expenditure is too high to burn fat efficiently. Having a higher base metabolism is the best strategy since it burns all day.
• Eat all day, in small amounts -- increases utilization since your body expects food to be coming in short order. The flip side is if you miss a meal (e.g., if you're traveling), you feel like you want to go into "standby."
• It helps to be a good athlete who can pack on muscle easily.
• Sleep and relax like you don't have a care in the world -- stress (read: cortisol) is the enemy of looking and feeling healthy.

My own results have been mixed. I got pretty lean late last year when I had time to do things right, and my strength and endurance were quite good, but I didn't gain as much muscle mass as I wanted. I was probably overtraining, lifting four days a week an hour at a time, all out.

This dude is hardcore -- he's probably the top male fitness model out there right now. The only modification I've made is that I lift more and play basketball and do less cardio, and try to eat big after a workout to replenish my muscles.

What's worked for Slashdotters?

Re:99% of stuff in the supermarket is 'Low Fat'

[mangu]

You didn't read the article, did you?

Never mind, neither did I. But the point is that in the last few decades there has been a great increase in "low fat" food being offered in the USA. At the same time, the country is going into a huge obesity epidemy.

OK, let's do a totally unscientific and empirical study. Can you eat just a few "low fat" potato chips? Can you eat two club crackers and put the package away? That's the problem with "low fat" food: you never get enough of it.

With fatty food, you just don't want to eat more after a normal serving. Try to eat a juicy steak, and a serving of potato chips afterwards. You will find that about 150 grams of fatty meat are enough to satisfy a "normal human being", if such thing exists, but you cannot ever get enough "low fat" potato chips. Food manufacturers count on this simple fact.

I've read The Zone, and Body For Life

[puppetman]

Both are healthier (I think) varients on Atkin's diet.

Higher fat, healty protien, and carbs from non-refined sources makes sense. It more closely follows the diet that we've evolved to do well on.

I don't believe in saturated fat. And I don't believe in most animal protien.

I've never seen a study that says vegetables cause cancer, and meat prevents it. It's always been the reverse. Most meat is stuffed with antibiotics (which most experts believe is helping create antibiotic-resistent super bugs) and pesticides (the higher up the food chain you go, the more pesticides you will see, as it is stored in body fat; dead whales in the St Laurence are have toxicity levels high enough to get them classified as toxic waste). The meat industry also creates alot of pollution (mostly due to the size of sed industry); manure poisons ground water, etc. In Canada, we had a case in Walkerton were a bunch of people died after cow shit got into the drinking water during a flood.

And, especially for Slashdotters, don't use vitamin suppliments. Two studies just came out that said vitamin E (and, to a lesser extent, vitamin C) reduce the chances of getting Alzheimers; lesions relating to free radicals are found on most Alzheimer patients, and thus anti-oxidants are being viewed as a potential salvation. But only if you get it from natural sources. Pills had no effect.

And then there was the study on smokers who took beta carotene in pill form. They had a higher incidence of lung cancer than those who didn't take the vitamin pills.

Soy has been shown to have many benefits - lowering cancer risks in both men and women. There are alot of great soy analogues out there for hot dogs, hamburgers, ground beef, etc. Try a few - some are pretty good.

Corn: The Culprit?

[tlambert]

"With these caveats, one of the few reasonably reliable facts about the obesity epidemic is that it started around the early 1980's."

Gee.

That's the same time we went from granulated sugar as a sweetener to High Fructose Corn Syrup, because it was easier for the food industry to deal with liquid rather than powdered supplies; welcome to "Old Coke"/"New Coke"/"Old Coke But Not Really".

At the same time, we went from peanut and palm kernel oil to... corn oil ("and/or corn oil" on a label means "whatever's cheapest, and it's always corn").

Try and find a food product in the grocery store today without corn oil/corn meal/corn starch/corn syrup/corn syrup solids/corn/corn/corn.

And just what is it that we feed to cows and pigs to fatten them up? ...corn?

Try an experiment: weigh yourself. Then, for one month, read the labels on everything you buy; and if it has corn products in it... don't buy it. Then weigh yourself again after the one month is up. If you lose weight, please send me the money you would have sent to Dr. Atkins... 8-).

-- Terry

Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part

[gfxguy]

I have to agree with the other person who replied - this is really short sighted and plain wrong in some parts.

First of all, you obviously didn't have the staying power to read the article. The government has given us guidelines to being healthy - the food pyramid, for example.

20 years later obesity is at an all time high BECAUSE people have been more aware of health issues and thought that by eating low-fat foods they could lose weight or stay slim. The government guidelines simply do not work.

You can blame McDonalds all you want - the fact is that the majority of the population does not eat there. The studies showed most of peoples calories were coming from carbs, NOT fat - which makes sense, since the food pyramid, which is a sham, has high carb foods as it's base.

Atkins, and most low-carb diets DON'T advocate eating fats willy-nilly. There is a clear distinction between good and bad fats, and the good fats can actually help you metabolize store fat - that's why the basic "low-fat" diet doesn't work. People trying low-fat often see an increase in bad cholesterol and triglycerides, while amazingly people on low-carb diets (beyond 3 or 4 months) see a decrease in triglycerides and an increase in HDL - the good cholesterol.

But I do not have to just quote studies and hand waving dieticians - I have lived it. I did not lose weight - even when exersizing, by following the government guidelines. I have lost 50 pounds in less than five months following low-carb (but not Atkins - but they are all similar). My blood pressure went down to normal. My acid-reflux virtually disappeared. I know a diabetic that no longer has to take medication.

Until you understand that low-carb is not just for losing weight, and the implications of what a high carb diet can do (like CAUSING diabetes - the rate of type 2 diabetes has gone up along with obesity - ever since the government said that low fat was the key to health).

The scientific principles behind low carb just make a lot of sense - the blood sugar levels, the insulin production... I didn't believe it until I learned all the principles. Not only do I believe now, but it's worked wonders for me.

And before you get on my case, I get an analysis every other week - my fat free mass (lean body tissue - i.e. muscle) is UP, my total body water is UP, my FAT is the only thing that is down - 50 pounds worth.

The Hackers' Diet

[splorf]

John Walker, founder of Autodesk, wrote a book (now online in entirety in HTML and PDF form) called "The Hackers' Diet. It says the only thing that matters is calorie count, but it says this in interesting ways. According to its blurb, it's Walker's attempt to treat the problem of weight loss as an engineering problem. It comes with Windows and Palm PDA software to keep track of your calorie intake, and has useful advice about what to do about hunger attacks. But basically, it says any successful diet is a program of deliberate malnutrition to make your body consume its fat reserve, so don't expect a fun time. Also, don't exect to lose weight too fast. It's set up to take off about 1 pound per week, so you may have to stay at it for a year or longer.

A friend of mine had some success with it. I don't have much dieting experience so I wonder what others here think of this book.

Re:Get your facts straight

[AJWM]

Food is not poisonous.

Well, that's a tautology. If it's poisonous, it isn't food.

OTOH, there are plenty of things that can get mistaken for food that will do really nasty things to you.

Rhubarb leaves, for example. High in oxalic acid. Oxalic acid, in the presence of calcium ions (such as within the cells of your body), forms needle-like insoluble crystals of calcium oxalate. Ouch.

Or Amanita mushrooms. Pretty. Might even taste good sauteed in a little butter. But you'll feel really sick for a day or so, then seem to get better. And totally collapse a day or two after that because the toxin has destroyed your liver.

Then there's natural contaminants of things that really are foods. The aflatoxin in those slightly moldy peanuts is a really potent carcinogen...

Re:Common sense would do as well...

[bourne]

It would appear you didn't read the article.

I read it; I just don't believe everything I read. Nor should you - 40 years ago doctors thought that pregnant mothers should drink alcohol to help relax.

For example, that stuff about "agriculture being a relatively new change to humanity's diet" - crap. The shift towards sedentary lifestyles is much more recent, drastic, and relevant than that sort of psuedo-scientific crockery. The changes in food preparation, additives, processing, etc. etc. are also enormous.

The problem is that a "balanced diet" as described in just about every piece of nutritional literature written in the last thirty years just might be not so balanced after all.

First, you would have to believe that a significant portion of the population eats the recommended "balanced diet" - almost none do. There was a funny article in Runner's World recently following the travails of someone trying to actually eat the recommended servings of everything in a day, and generally failing. Miserably. And it emphasized how unlike his 'normal' diet the food pyramid was.

Second, you'd have to confuse the food that is easily available today with the food that is good for you. First of all, simple sugars. Soda is obvious. Things like applesauce are less obvious. Breakfast cereal. Snacks in the snack machine. Let's also consider how refined everything is. White bread is extremely refined, but how many people eat wheat? What do you get when you eat in the cafeteria, the fast food restaurant, or the mall? You get what tastes good, and not what's good for you.

In my opinion, everyone should go through the exercise of trying to figure out what they're eating for a week or so. It's difficult to impossible, but a learning experience. You probably aren't eating anything like what you think you are.

What we may come to discover is that a balanced diet really consists of much more fat and far fewer carbs than has been previously thought.

Well, that depends on what you previously thought. If you thought that low-fat and Snackwells were the true path, then yes.

I repeat, if you want to look at your 'diet' find a good sports nutrition book. That's the area where the practical implications of how and what the body uses for fuel are applied on a regular basis, and I trust them a lot more than I trust 'diet plans' or 'diet gurus.' With a diet, you just need to lose weight; with sports nutrition, you have to keep the right weight and still be able to perform - that's what I call a real test.

I hate to say it, but...

[ralian]

...the only way to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn. I've read that the ideal way is actually to calculate the average amount of calories you use per day and intake about 50-100 less than this. I never did anything so complicated as counting calories, just ate less, but I lost like 60 pounds and kept them off. What worked for me was none of this carb/protein/fat bullshit, but just eating less (specifically, skipping lunch)... I've found that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, and the less the better... I know this flies in the face of conventional dieting "wisdom", but I've known too many people that use more conventional diets like low-fat or Atkins and they just don't work as well as mine.