Atkins Diet Has Long-Term Dangers, Researchers Warn

CVX · Post by **CVX** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:36 pm

By Jeremy Laurance

Health Editor

The Independent - UK

9-2-4

The pounds may fall off in the first few months but the Atkins diet does not help people lose weight in the long term and it may be dangerous, according to a scientific review of research.

More than 45 million copies of the Atkins diet books have been sold which recommend unlimited consumption of butter, fatty meat and high-fat dairy products while carbohydrate intake is restricted to under 30g (1oz) a day, equivalent to a small potato.

People who follow the diet do lose weight more quickly than on standard diets, but the weight loss is not sustained. Studies of the diet in obese men and women showed that they lost up to 4.6kg (10.1lb) more over six months than those who followed conventional low-calorie, low-fat diets. But by 12 months there was no significant difference between the two groups.

Danish researchers who conducted the review, published in The Lancet, say the diet may be safe to use in the short term - up to six months - but that side-effects were more worrying in the long term.

Arne Astrup, of the Centre of Advanced Food Research in Copenhagen, who led the study, said: "Our conclusion is a little more liberal than the conventional medical view that the Atkins diet is bad for you. In the short term the diet is producing a weight loss and it is not just fluid loss - there is a loss of fat. At the same time it is producing a beneficial effect on the blood in terms of blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels.

"All the complications of being overweight look better on the Atkins diet and we have no real reason to say that it should not be used in the short term for a couple of months."

The likely reason for its success in promoting weight loss was that the diet restricted food choices, in common with many other diets, and that protein was better at satisfying hunger than fat.

Professor Astrup stressed that there was little scientifically robust evidence on the effects of the diet and new research could reveal hidden risks. Few studies have looked at long-term risks. Those that had been conducted showed people tended to regain their lost weight after one year and were more likely to complain of side-effects.

Professor Astrup said: "They start to suffer headaches, muscle cramps and diarrhoea. This is consistent with a carbohydrate deficiency. They simply do not get enough carbohydrate to supply the tissues with blood sugar. That is why the organs start to malfunction." The minimum daily requirement of carbohydrate for an adult is 150g a day. On the Atkins diet, carbohydrate intake is restricted to one fifth of that level.

The researchers conclude that the lack of long-term studies means the diet cannot be recommended. They say restricting the intake of whole grain bread and cereals, fruit and vegetables does not equal a healthy diet and the absence of these food groups may increase the risk of heart disease and cancer. "There is no clear evidence that Atkins-style diets are better than any others for helping people stay slim. Although the diet appears to promote weight loss without hunger, at least in the short term, the long-term effects on health and disease prevention are unknown."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health ... ory=557740

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:47 pm

blah blah blah. the same old tired arguments, without any actual data to back it up. just 'it seems to suggest'. or 'in the long term it might'. blah blah blah.

what's particularly galling is the mention of a 'minimum daily requirement of carbohydrate for an adult is 150g a day'. exsqueeze me? there is no such requirement, at all. there is *no dietary requirement for carbohydrates*. you can completely eliminate carbohydrates from your diet, and you won't die, and you won't suffer from a deficiency for it. it is quite fantastical that they suggest that there is such a dietary requirement.

classic scare mongering. "new research could reveal hidden risks". well duh! just as new research could reveal hidden benefits! adding that sentence provides no scientific evidence, and is purely pandering to fear.

junk science. discard. next!

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:34 am

I call these Fads,all these diets. Some guy's are rakeing in the dollars thinking up new idea's I for one do not go for all of these Junk adds,fads,call them what you like.

We have alway's eat well here and then took long walks afterwards. What did our Grandparents do without these fad diets. They worked off the fat and there was no high tech gyms in those days.

Get off your backsides and work or walk it off. Cheeper too.

Serenity · Post by **Serenity** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:54 am

I was told that the atkins guy , died of a heart attack :-3

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:06 am

Serenity wrote: I was told that the atkins guy , died of a heart attack :-3

His death was nothing to do with his diet, though. No. No way, never, his diet

was not linked to his death. No way. Listen to me, it wasn't. Never. Linked? No.

Excuse me a minute, I've got to go and recommend this diet to some people

I know. Like them? Not really, no. Anyway, the Atkins diet is completely free

of any risk whatsoever, and more natural than eating a balanced diet. Really.

Anyway, I've been following it for 5 years, and I've never felt better, it's never

done me any harm at..... [Whurp!!! ]

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:11 am

capt_buzzard wrote: I call these Fads,all these diets. Some guy's are rakeing in the dollars thinking up new idea's I for one do not go for all of these Junk adds,fads,call them what you like.

They are fads, yes - for people who can't handle any effort or lifestyle change,

IMO... miracle cures, snake oil....

capt_buzzard wrote:

We have alway's eat well here and then took long walks afterwards. What did our Grandparents do without these fad diets. They worked off the fat and there was no high tech gyms in those days.

Get off your backsides and work or walk it off. Cheeper too.

Erm, running is better... for a while. Then it shags your joints and you're fsck'd. :/

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:22 am

You don't have to run. A good brisk walk for 30 minutes a day will do for starters.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:30 am

capt_buzzard wrote: You don't have to run. A good brisk walk for 30 minutes a day will do for starters.

I was making an unfortunately snide reference reference to someone else's

insistence that walking is not a good form of exercise, apologies. I used to

walk about 9 miles a day, to the pub. and back. I went from nearly 15 stone

to 12 in less than 3 months (a very low fat diet at the same time - unlimited

beer, though!). Wore out a couple of pairs of boots, but no bad side-effects

apart from a slight case of shin splints early on. I know a chap who has been

doing quite a lot of running, or rather used to... he's knackered now

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:33 am

:wah: :wah: :wah:

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:53 am

Africanique wrote: I say forget the low-carb craze, go low-glycemic. If people would focus on consuming the right kind of carbohydrates instead of cutting them out of their diet maybe they would be alright.
actually, that's exactly what the atkins diet does. there is an initial 'induction' phase of two weeks to jump start the weight loss process, but after that, one eats a diet *restricted* in carbs, not that eliminates them. the atkins diet definitely acknowledges and recognizes that there are good carbs in addition to bad carbs. low-glycemic carbs are specifically considered in the diet.

in my opinion, the epidemic of both obesity and diabetes in the US among children is due to one thing, and the solution is as simple as eliminating that one thing: the sale of sugared and caffeinated sodas in public schools. when i was a kid in public school - from 1965 to 1977 - i never once saw a vending machine on campus selling soda pop. but since then, there's been an explosion of them - now you can't find a school that *doesn't* have them.

oh, and by the way - i missed the mention below previously - mr. atkins did not die of a heart attack. he died of head injuries suffered in a fall.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:17 am

anastrophe wrote: mr. atkins did not die of a heart attack. he died of head injuries suffered in a fall.

But he *had* already had a heart attack, hadn't he?

No autopsy was performed on him due to family objections. I wonder whether

those objections have anything to do with financial concerns.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:25 am

Bill Sikes wrote: But he *had* already had a heart attack, hadn't he?

No autopsy was performed on him due to family objections. I wonder whether

those objections have anything to do with financial concerns.
an autopsy was performed. much speculation ensued. please see the following for a somewhat less conspiratorial review of the information.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 am

anastrophe wrote: an autopsy was performed. much speculation ensued. please see the following for a somewhat less conspiratorial review of the information.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp
correction, no autopsy was performed. considering that the man - 72 years old - slipped on ice, hit his head, and went into a coma, the cause of death was obvious.

even if he had heart disease - he was 72. and as most sane people understand, the single greatest risk factor in heart disease is one's genes, not how much fat one eats.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:57 am

anastrophe wrote: correction, no autopsy was performed. considering that the man - 72 years old - slipped on ice, hit his head, and went into a coma, the cause of death was obvious.

Is it really? He had a second heart attack, and went down bashing his head in

the process, perhaps?

anastrophe wrote: even if he had heart disease - he was 72. and as most sane people understand, the single greatest risk factor in heart disease is one's genes, not how much fat one eats.

Sorry? Are you saying that diet, and specifically consumption of fat, is of

less importance to heart attacks than one's "genes"? If so, you're labelling

the vast majority of medical advice "insane".

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:15 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Is it really? He had a second heart attack, and went down bashing his head in

the process, perhaps?
people will go to incredible lengths to try to justify their preconceived conclusions, it seems to me.

he was walking with his assistant into his clinic, first thing in the morning, as he always did. he took a step on the ice, and his feet came out from under him. his six foot four frame came crashing down in an instant, and he whacked his head on the curb, causing a massive head wound. his assistant was a couple of feet away and saw the whole thing.

but no, of course, he *must* have died of a heart attack!

lets assume he *did* die of a heart attack. so what? why would that implicitly indict his diet? millions of people die from heart disease every year. no small number of them while existing on a low-fat, low calorie diet. so if one of them has a heart attack, does that mean their diet killed them?

Sorry? Are you saying that diet, and specifically consumption of fat, is of

less importance to heart attacks than one's "genes"? If so, you're labelling

the vast majority of medical advice "insane".
yes, i am. consumption of fat itself plays almost no role in heart disease. butter is *good* for you.

the whole cholesterol==heart disease theory is bunk, pure and simple. it is marketing by the vegetable fat industry, marketing against meat by the anti-meaters, and marketing for incredibly expensive drugs to control cholesterol, which isn't the problem.

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/oiling.html

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:18 am

well.. after working as a chef for over 15 years it looks like peeps are finally waking up to the fact that the Adkins diet is not good for you. I always said that any diet that doesn't supply the body with energy is not good for you. You need some kind of intake to provide your body with the necessary power to function. So... dump the Micky D's, Whoppers, and secret recipe chicken.... Put down the remote.. get off the couch.. and save yourself..

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:21 am

greydeadhead wrote: well.. after working as a chef for over 15 years it looks like peeps are finally waking up to the fact that the Adkins diet is not good for you. I always said that any diet that doesn't supply the body with energy is not good for you. You need some kind of intake to provide your body with the necessary power to function. So... dump the Micky D's, Whoppers, and secret recipe chicken.... Put down the remote.. get off the couch.. and save yourself..

Erm, the "Adkins" diet does supply the body with energy, unless of course

the calorific value of meat, eggs, fish etc. is a net 0.

Get off the couch - of course this is part of the answer.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:37 am

duhhhhh..... sometimes I surprize even myself..... :-5 Thanks for the correction....

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:13 am

greydeadhead wrote: duhhhhh..... sometimes I surprize even myself..... :-5 Thanks for the correction....

Ne'r mind, IKWYM (I think)!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:59 am

Sophie wrote: if you go to www.atkinsfacts.org there are many facts about this diet that prove it is unhealthy if used long term.
actually, no, there are not. there is no proof presented at that website. none. nada. zilch. zero.

the site is actually a very good example of the use of innuendo. curiously - or perhaps appropriately, the site is changing its name, perhaps because of this - it is changing to www.atkinsexposed.org . but then, my bringing that up is an example of exactly what i'm talking about - the use of innuendo rather than fact to try to influence opinion. The name of the website is ultimately irrelevant to the content. but i can make the less-than-subtle suggestion that - because they are changing the name of the site - that suggests that the content is suspect as well. That's the type of rhetoric the site itself uses quite effectively. for example, here's a wonderful section from the site, with my comments in red. this is their response to a letter sent to them by the Atkins people.

Thirty-four studies is your "overwhelming weight of evidence"? There are literally hundreds of published reports on low-carbohydrate diets,[545] and you can only find 34 that support your position? the absolute number of published reports is irrelevant to the absolute veracity or lack thereof of any given scientific argument or theory. if there were only one published article that empirically showed that water puts out fire, would the lack of more published reports suggest that the results were suspect?

There are also, for example, "no fewer than thirty-four studies demonstrating weight-loss and other health benefits" of cigarette smoking.[546-579] There are also 34 studies showing benefits from thalidomide.[580-613] a classic rhetorical turn! by the same [false] measure of validity, i can point out that there are no fewer than thirty-four studies that show that mosquitos are a disease vector, that there are no fewer than 34 studies showing the benefits of aspirin, and on and on. so the implication is that because some studies may be potentially flawed or biased, therefore the studies atkins cites are flawed or biased. but that's a meaningless implication, unless we take as a matter of faith that the studies they mention are flawed or biased. it should be noted that the studies showing benefits of thalidomide are very important, because thalidomide *does* have benefits, and it is coming back into use. the birth defects that occurred from giving thalidomide to pregnant women were terrible - but what they showed was that inadequate studies of those effects were performed before the drug was marketed. retin-a, the anti-acne drug, can also cause terrible problems for a fetus, which is why it is prescribed with very strong warnings against pregnant women taking it. there are many drugs and chemicals that are very dangerous to pregnant women and concomittantly fetuses - that doesn't mean they don't have value to others.

Just because the Philip Morris Corporation can wave around more than a hundred[614] studies showing health benefits from smoking, this doesn't mean that smoking is good for you. What it means is that one can cherry-pick data to argue almost any position. This is a classic tobacco corporation tactic.[615] another rhetorical turn rich in irony. while arguing that atkins cherry picks data, they cherry pick data! and of course, the 'guilt by association' tactic - keep mentioning the big bad evil tobacco companies. keep repeating it while saying 'atkins'. convince people there is a connection.

On your website one can indeed find a list of 34 studies downplaying the risks of the Atkins Diet. But if you go to the website of the Asbestos Institute you can find 34 studies downplaying the risks of asbestos.[616] [more] need i say more? none of this actually speaks to the risks or benefits of the atkins diet. but by bringing up tobacco companies, thalidomide, and asbestos, the implication is clear, without need for data: atkins is bad.

My boss was on this diet for awhile, his cholesterol jumped incredibly high from the onset of his diet to the end of the diet.
so? does he have heart disease? did he die? did he have a heart attack?

how long was 'awhile'? a week? a month? a year?

i've done the atkins diet for a year, and my cholesterol levels did not 'jump incredibly high'. my levels are normal, and some levels - such as triglycerides - are far better than normal, which is quite ironic, since a high fat diet is supposed to make them worse.

so, your boss's cholesterol jumped high, mine did not. what do we learn from this? that anecdotal evidence is not empirical evidence.

furthermore, cholesterol is not the problem. homocysteine levels are the better indicator of potential for heart disease.

I actually did a research paper last semester on the unhealthy complications from using this or any other *lo-carb* diet for the long term.
okay. by 'research paper', what do you mean? you performed long-term double-blind peer reviewed studies of control and experimental participants who were monitored during the course of the review? or you wrote a paper that quoted from www.atkinsexposed.org and called it research?

for that matter, are you in fifth grade? junior high? high school senior? college freshman? post-graduate student? if you're in college, are you studying for a medical degree, or a master of fine arts? [note to the perspicacious reader: see what i'm doing? i'm suggesting that the research may be either biased, inadequate, or flawed, by implication of the possible educational level of the author. however, those factors are completely meaningless to the raw content of empirical science. it's quite possible a fifth grader could author a rigorous empirical study, using double-blind techniques and proper monitoring. the fact the author is in fifth grade is meaningless to validity or lack thereof of the results obtained.]

would you care to post your research paper here, so that we may see the evidence you generated, or more likely cited?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:54 pm

Sophie wrote: I do appreciate your information, but that website is credible. It has articles in there from medical journals and from medical schools, from credible physicians and the like.
well, i looked around the site pretty thoroughly. there were no articles from medical journals or medical schools. there are many *references* and *citations* of articles from medical journals and medical schools. but the actual content is not on the site, nor are there links to it.

the site is a collection of opinions and quotations.

It was approved by my professor last semester as a credible reference and source.
yes, well. i find that pretty sad, considering the content is deeply biased.

I do realize that not EVERYONE on the atkins diet will reap bad effects from it....but enough people do to justify writings about the negative effects of it.

but see, that's the thing of it. there is very little real evidence of people being hurt by it. there is lots of verbiage published about how it *might* cause this, that, and the other, but last i checked, with literally millions of people on low-carb diets, where is the flood of people in hospital emergency rooms with kidney failure, with gout, with heart attacks? the site in question mentions one case of one teenaged girl who died of heart arrythmias - while practicing the diet *improperly*. i mean, really. you can drown by sticking your face in a bowl of soup. ergo, soup kills you?

No, I am not in 5th grade...I am taking college classes. My research paper was for my Nutrition Class.
okay. it sounds more like it was an essay rather than actual research.

I am glad that Atkins is working out well for you, I was just trying to point out that it is not for everyone.
well, that's not quite what you said. you said "there are many facts about this diet that prove it is unhealthy if used long term."

that's an emphatic statement. no room in that for variation. 'it is proven unhealthy if used long term'. if it is proven unhealthy, then why would you suggest by counterpoint that it may be right for some people?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:40 am

Sophie wrote: My opinion is if you are not aware of the things you may be more prone to, ex. high cholesterol, decreased kidney funcion....etc....then it may not be a good idea to mess around with your nutritional intake, totally ignoring the need for carbs.
this is a point that needs to be addressed, as the atkinsexposed.org site totally glosses it over: there is no dietary or nutritional requirement for carbohydrates. unless the contention is that eskimos are another species unrelated to homo sapiens, one absolutely must concede that carbohydrates are unnecessary for health. The aboriginal eskimo peoples live off meat and fish. period. no carbohydrates whatsoever (no plant matter of any kind in their diet for that matter). they've lived on that diet for tens of thousands of years. some suggest that they have 'evolved' to adapt to this diet - sorry, evolution doesn't work on time scales that short. The intestinal tract of the eskimo is no different from yours or mine. so it is quite clear that any contention that there is a 'need for carbs' is false, pure and simple.

it should also be noted that aboriginal eskimos have very low incidence of heart disease, and very low cholesterol - while eating whale meat and blubber, seal meat, and fish.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:18 pm

Sophie wrote: Actually, carbs are needed in the body to help breakdown fat.as i pointed out, no, they are not.

If there is no carb content, fat is broken down without it, and produces keytones....keytones help to knock off your electolyte balance and put your body into ketosis....

which is not the best condition for you body, in my own opinion.
you are assuming that ketosis is an 'on/off' condition. that you're either in ketosis and experiencing electrolyte imbalance, or you are not. that's a false dichotomy. Atkins goes on at great length and great detail about the various *levels* of ketosis that occur. In a seriously diabetic individual, ketosis is a real and present danger, because the body can be knocked out of kilter so quickly, and the patient goes into severe ketosis which can kill you.

the ketosis state one is in on the atkins diet is what he labels 'benign ketosis'. it is a low level of ketosis, which indicates that one is burning one's own excess fat. if one gets a *lot* of fat in the diet, one will only experience minimal ketosis, as the ketones are *only a function of burning your own fat*. if you eat sufficient fat, your body won't go into ketosis - thus, the eskimos who eat *only meat* and consume *no carbohydrates*, yet do not experience ketoacidosis.

mild or benign ketosis means you are burning your own fat - which is desireable if one is trying to lose weight.

I suppose I should not have said "need for carbs" ....sorry.

Let me be clear...I am NOT saying that you MUST have carbs in your body....what I am saying is that carbs help the breakdown of fat....and IF there is no fat, the breakdown of fat alone without carbs produces keytones.that is correct. but you're again confusing two types of breakdowns of fat. carbs in the diet assist in the burning of fats that you eat, not fats that you are trying to lose from your body mass.

Having my body in ketosis is not what I want..some people strive for it, they think it is healthy...I disagree....because it causes upset in your electrolyte balance.
not if you follow the atkins diet properly. this is a critical point. some people don't follow the diet carefully. they may experience electrolyte imbalance. does that mean the diet is faulty? no, of course not. for example: let's say you own a car that requires premium grade fuel. the manual for the car is very clear about that. but you don't read the manual - you just know that cars need gas. so you fill up with regular. after a few weeks, the car starts having real problems, sputtering, hard to start, smoke from the tailpipe, things like that. you ignore the warning signs and keep driving. suddenly while on the freeway the motor siezes up, because the detonation caused by using the improper fuel finally caused the piston rings to burn up. The car goes into an uncontrolled skid, it rolls, and you die. was the car ultimately at fault, or were you?

obviously, it's an imperfect example. but blaming the diet because people don't follow the instructions is not rational.

There are carbs in just about everything you eat...even if it is a miniscule amount.
there is zero carbohydrate content in beef, pork, chicken, lamb, halibut, scallops, shrimp, butter, eggs, turkey, duck, cheddar cheese, camembert cheese, salmon, trout, tuna, crab, lobster, muenster cheese, parmesan cheese, veal, sole....

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:42 pm

I tried Atkins at one point and liked it okay, but my body is so resistant

to change that I didn't lose any weight after the first week, like pretty much

everything else I've tried.

But I must brag a little here and point out the genetics factor, I eat red meat,

butter eggs the whole shot... had my cholesterol level checked a few months

back... the tester wrote the number (167) down on a piece of paper, handed

it to me and said "Congratulations, your medication is working" AND I'M NOT

TAKING ANY!! Yes, I do exercise pretty much every day, and do make sure

to keep my fiber intake up, but I think the genetic inheritance is key.

Also, I think Atkins is a pain to cook, can't just grab a cranberry bagel and

go in the mornings, for one thing.

But that's just me.