|
Dec. 10, 2003 (Boston) — Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center in Baltimore, Maryland, are experimenting with the Atkins diet as a possible regimen to prevent epileptic seizures in patients refractory to other therapeutic regimens. Pediatric neurologist Eric H. Kossoff, MD, told Medscape he got the idea from parents who would say, "Like the Atkins diet?" when he told them he wanted to put their children on the ketogenic diet, a more rigorous high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet used as anticonvulsant therapy for intractable patients. Both diets mimic starvation, tricking the body into burning fat and producing ketones. "Ketone bodies do something to help reduce epilepsy. Beyond that, we don't know," Dr. Kossoff said here at the 57th annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, where he presented a poster on a pilot study of six patients, ages 7 to 52 years. Two children achieved 100% seizure control, and in an 18-year-old, seizure activity was reduced by 90%. Two middle-aged adults did not improve, and a 12-year-old patient experienced only a 20% reduction in seizure activity. Both seizure-free patients are still on the Atkins diet -- one for 20 months, according to Dr. Kossoff. He said he has since tested the diet in a dozen patients, and is recruiting 20 children for a larger study. A big advantage of the Atkins diet is that it is more lenient than the ketogenic diet, which children start in a hospital on a two-day fast, according to Dr. Kossoff. "It is much easier to start," he said. "We can tell them to go to CVS and buy a book." The researchers began the children on 10 grams of carbohydrates a day, which is less than the 20 grams usually recommended in the Atkins diet, but more than is recommended in the ketogenic diet. "If they are doing well, we give them more carbs," he said. "If they are not doing well, we take away carbs." Some of the children lost weight initially, but later stabilized, according to the Baltimore researcher. One concern is that the high-protein, high-fat combination in the Atkins diet might be more than the kidneys can handle, according to Dr. Kossoff. The only side effect in the pilot study was a slight cholesterol increase in a 42-year-old patient. Despite the ubiquity of the Atkins diet, Dr. Kossoff warned against epileptic patients trying it ad hoc. "This is something that should be done under medical supervision," he said. "It is not something that families, parents should be doing on their own." This study received no commercial funding. AES 57th Annual Meeting: Abstract 2.310. Presented Dec. 9, 2003. Reviewed by Gary D. Vogin, MD |
) but muscle gains have been favorable.
|
Research has shown consuming high levels of saturated fat, as many Atkins dieters do, may have adverse health consequences. Adds Anderson, who discourages his patients from the Atkins diet, "Using the Atkins guidelines long-term will raise cholesterol by 28 percent, whereas a low-fat diet will lower cholesterol by 20 percent." |
|
The new research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, compares the weight loss of severely obese individuals eating according to Atkins with those eating according to a conventional low-fat, low-calorie nutrition plan. The results? While the Atkins dieters slimmed down significantly more than the traditional dieters, there was no weight difference between the groups after one year |
|
In a head-to-head comparison between two popular and distinctly different eating plans, the Atkins diet trimmed significantly more pounds and body fat in obese but otherwise healthy women than a traditional low-fat diet, according to a report released last week at the annual meeting of the American Dietetics Association. The study enrolled 53 women, aged 31 to 59, for six months. Half followed a low-fat approach, eating 30 percent of calories from fat. The other half ate according to the very-low-carbohydrate diet popularized by physican Robert Atkins. Those in the Atkins group shed on average 18.5 pounds -- about 10 of it from body fat. (The rest was due to loss of water and lean muscle.) By comparison, the low-fat group lost about nine pounds, about five of them from body fat. Despite the results, the study's lead author cautioned against drawing too many conclusions or abandoning a low-fat approach to weight loss. "I'm not sure that there is a take-home message from this study, except that there is more research needed," said registered dietitian Bonnie Brehm, assistant professor in the College of Nursing at the University of Cincinnati. "This is one, relatively short-term study. Our conclusions are that in the short term, a low-carbohydrate diet produces loss of weight and body fat. . . . We by no means are recommending the Atkins diet from this one study." |
|
Originally posted by derekisdman Don't try to argue with bandaid woman, you won't win. |
and Brodus brings up great points that make most in the medical community skeptical of the Atkins, including myself.
I know I know
|
Originally posted by brodus An overwheliming amount of research shows that consuming high levels of red meats, sat. fat, and cholesterol has adverse health effects: Their methodology is flawed... Also, Atkins doesn't work in the long-term. This is very recent: They dropped weight, therefore it WAS effective, maybe not more so than the other ideters, but it was effective. Also, this never looked at HDL and other indices of health, just weight. It also did not look at the difference between LBM and total mass. Is giving people hardened arteries and health problems "okay" in the name of "raising carb consicousness?" That's the worst line of reasoning I've ever heard. That's like saying RJ Reynolds should be thanked for raising "celan air consicousness." See above regarding Research methodology, these claims are baseless. You cannot argue one minute that there is a lack of evidence supporting Atkins' methods and then say there are long-term effects from the diet. Bandaid woman hit it right on the head, there is no long-term studies on the Atkins diet to state for a certain fact that it will cause any of the afforementioned problems just as there is no way to say it helps out these issues. I'm only upset b/c people want an easy, no-sweat way to look like fitness models, and there is no other way to do it and be healthy than to push your metabolism through the roof with exercise. Just look at Atkins himself. Couldn't agree with you more about b=people wanting an easy way out, but who cares about Atkins personal health. Even if he was unhealthy, we are all making the assumption that Atkins ate according to his diet. I have never seen a single article stating that he followed this diet. If Atkins is so wonderful, why don't competitive athletes use it? I ate everything in sight and as many carbs as I could, and through TRAINING, not some cook diet, ran a 1:45 half mile in college. I was sub 5% bodyfat for years. Anyone else could do the same thing, and here's the simple perscription--workout two hours a day. Hard work produces results--Atkins produces revenue for health food companies and heart attacks. This diet is not geared toward professional athletes, it is geared to overweight people trying to lose weight. These are 2 different populations and, thus, cannot be compared. I also worked with nutrionists on the President's Council of Fitness, including Dr. Charles Kuntzlman who designed the health curriculum for the State of Michigan, and the overwhelming consensus was that Atkins diet is bad news. Is this the same President's council on fitness that pushed the old food pyramid for years? Do they have any clinical evidence to support this "finding"? I propose an alternatie explanation--there are more people standing to gain $ by promoting/not slamming Atkins now (including DOCTORS, food , grocery stores, media outlets, etc.), and hence they shy away from critical analysis. |
|
Originally posted by brodus And I don't have the time to do dissect Dale's response to my arguments--but I do appreciate the time he took to formulate semi-cogent rebuttals. I'll just say three things: 1. The President's Council on Fitness, led for a time by Arnold Shw., did a lot more to raise exercise consciousness and long-term healthy living for the public at no cost than the for-profit Atkins empire has done. But that's not the rub for me--people who truly want to help humanity don't charge assloads of money for their "secrets"--be they religious leaders, whatever--those not driven by profit generally seek to work in the public arena, as their desire is to enlighten humanity vs. make $. I know all the particulars of the Atkins diet and have not spent one penny on anything related to the Atkins people. I also agree that the President's council on fitness greatly raised the awareness to the general public, but their ideas on diet are lacking. 2. You are plain wrong to assert that every study that links increased dietary intake of high sat-fat/high cholesterol with increased health risks utilized flawed methodology. I honestly can't believe you'd think that. If you had access to a University computer system, you'd quickly realize just how wrong you are. I have been in clinical research for 3 years and am now a clinical research coordinator at the University of Pennsylvania. I have full access to anything you could imagine and then some, as well as full credibility when it comes to picking apart this research. My initial point was poorly phrased so I will rephrase it. The research that is used to condemn Atkins' philosophies is not valid as it pertains to the Atkins diet. You cannot take people who have been eating carbs for their whole life, switch them to a keto diet for 4 weeks, and then measure indices of CV health, you would need a longer term study to assess this. Plus, you cannot perform a study on one thing and change the focus of it 25 years later. Those studies were done on Saturated fat as it pertains to someone eating a carb rich diet and thus, cannot be used for people utilizing the Atkins diet. 3. This is a bodybuuilding website and forum, not an obesity forum. My analysis of the Atkins diet, then, was well within the threshold of topical reference, and since most all posters here aspire to some higher level of athleticism, my view--that Atkins probably isn't the best choice--is a perfectly valid statement. Couldn't agree with you more here. I never said it should be used by athletes, I believe it is contraindicated to athletes. I was merely stating that the diet has it's merits to a greater populatiojn, the obese people of this obese country. Let's do a deal--I'll keep "backstepping" on my "decades old research" that has built countless world-class athletes, and you try pure Atkins for six months and watch what happens to your lean body mass and blood levels. We both take photos before and after, and get independent third-party verification. I'm so confident that "old school" training is far superior, that I'd bet just about everything I own on it. If you're not a strength athlete, then the first person to run a sub 5-minute mile wins. (I would assert that a six-month pure Atkins diet would prevent virualy anyone from reaching that speed/endurance level). I would never do this diet since I am not obese, which is the target population. |
| My initial point was poorly phrased so I will rephrase it. |
| Couldn't agree with you more here. I never said it should be used by athletes, I believe it is contraindicated to athletes. I was merely stating that the diet has it's merits to a greater populatiojn, the obese people of this obese country. |
| I would never do this diet since I am not obese, which is the target population |
|
Originally posted by Corri Atkins went into hospital at 180-190 pounds (he was over 6 feet tall) but ballooned to the 258 while in a coma before he died. |
| The importance of complex carbohydrates in the nutrition schedule of a bodybuilder cannot be emphasized often enough. |
|
Originally posted by Dale Mabry IMO, bodybuilders are far from athetes. Do you think Ronnie Coleman could run a sub 5 minute mile? I would love to see him play a pro sport, I bet he couldn't. Also, I will prolly catch hell for this, but the percentage of people on this board who I would term BBers is prolly no more than 2%. |
|
Originally posted by Twin Peak I think you are flawed and/or highly limited in your definitions here. 1) Define "athlete". 2) Define "bodybuilder." Personally, based on my own definitions, I consider myself both. However, I am not a professional at either. What does running a sub 5 minute mile have to do with being an athlete? Hardly appropriate for a definition of the same. |
|
Originally posted by brodus Dale, Yeah, I agree that there isn't a large enough population size to do a real, honest-to-goodness valid study. By your own rationale, though, you must understand that the "study" you sited, involving SIX runners, all male, is pretty weak. I was citing this as evidence further research needed to be done, not as a standalone prove all. If it was, why do, as you say, probably zero elite trainers use it? Years of being told by a misinformed coach what they should eat. You have to admit that very few coachesknow anything about diet other than what their coach told them. My reason for posting, and why I am still coming back to this thread, (and questions you haven't answered) is that if, as you say, Atkins is targeted toward obese people, why is it all over a bodybuilding board? I think the Atins diet is fine for a short period of time for someone worried about form over function, but bad the other way around. I also agree with your contiuum as it relates to the end goals of training. And come on, anyone here knows that someone as huge as Ronnie Coleman isn't your first pick for a soccer match or the swim team. That's not a slam--that's just reality. I bet I could outrun a BBer 30 lbs lighter than me, but that's cuz I work on that aspect, BBers generally do not. Have a good day everyone! |
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.