[Closed] What do we think of the Atkins Diet ?

Same as any fad diet: Lose wait on the diet, put it back on after. That's how they work isn't it?

(I have heard things about bad breath and headaches associated with the Atkins one)

I found it quite easy to stick to before, as carb cravings vanished after a few days - but I also attempted a sportive whilst in full ketosis and bonked so badly around mile 40 that I feared I was about to die.

4 pages.

6 if Solo and Molgrips participate.

I have my doubts although the idea of quick loss equals quick return only applies if you return to an excessive intake of food afterwards.
That aside I would regard it as a pure privilege rather than a chore. I might miss icecream and beer but other wise what a great diet. No more nasty veg or carbs.

I'd consider just going towards your planned paleo style diet. Can I recommend the Fitter Food books, tasty recipes, not full Paleo. I've used it but as always the amount of prep sees me drifting away.But I did lose weight and felt a good bit healthier too.

It's 'atkins' what they called paleo before it was paleo?

>>I found it quite easy to stick to before

Doesn't sound like it. You don't need a fad diet. Just eat less and do more exercise, it needn't be complicated.

I'd say no, I've tried Atkins and felt quite lousy and lethargic. Going towards a Paleoish type diet none of the above. Felt good actually.

Doesn't sound like it. You don't need a fad diet. Just eat less [b]crap[/b] and do more exercise, it needn't be complicated.

It got bad press because, when it became really popular around 15 years ago, everyone assumed you just ate red meat and cheese forever.

In fact, it's a pretty standard LCHF (low carb high fat) approach, [url= http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diet/low-carb-high-fat-diet.html ]as used by some in managing diabetes[/url].

I considered tis approach when I;d finally got sick of being such a buffer around Christmas, but have instead opted for a balanced, calorie controlled diet.

Good luck with the weight loss OP..!

the idea of quick loss equals quick return only applies if you return to an excessive intake of food afterwards.

Molgrips will tell you otherwise 🙂

Seen plenty people do "diets" then pile it all back on. Lifestyle change is what's needed.

Get rid of the crap carbs and eat decent carbs then, and cut down the quantity of carbs too. Cut down on calorie intake too.

Part of my desire to switch to Atkins for a while is simply that it works. I don't see it as a 'fad', Atkins affects your metabolics - it isn't metabolox.

My current situation leaves me in a place where a fast reuslt will not only hugely improve my confidence, but is also likely to have a huge impact on my physical well being. I've been on and off calorie controlled/decent carb plans for the last year or so and I swear to God that if I step off the wagon by so much as thinking about an Oreo, I put on 5lbs in weight.
My metabolism is depressingly slow.

Coyote - Member
Seen plenty people do "diets" then pile it all back on.

I wish I'd said that.

6 if Solo and Molgrips participate.

iTake your 6 and raise you 4.

I realise is a contentious subject - but keen to see if there's any love for it here is all.

I lost 6 stone around 5 years ago, i've done the healthy lifestyle thing and it worked really well. I've since dabbled again with the same methods, but my resolve isn't what it was back then, and my life has changed massively in that time too. I won't get by on 1 or 2 lbs lost per week. I need a bigger kick start.

I know it sounds clichéd, as it is, but the weight didn't come on quickly so how can you expect it to **** off quickly?

In my eyes, Atkins is just calorie restriction by another name. Whichever way you slice it, removing/reducing food groups from your diet will lead to you eating less.

But all that aside, there is nothing stopping you giving it a go and seeing how you get on with it. When people start evangelizing about diets, then we're all screwed.

A balanced one is better - just reduce the quantity

If you are overweight it is really very simple.......
Eat less and move more until you reach your target weight and then maintain a healthy lifestyle. Getting hung up on not eating certain food groups is not going to change you long term.
People that lose weight on a fad diet mainly seem to put it back on just in time for the latest fad diet.
OP it sounds like you have done really well but then started to slip back into bad habits. Take a good look at your portion sizes and the things you see as a special treat.

ourmaninthenorth - Member 
It got bad press because, when it became really popular around 15 years ago, everyone assumed you just ate red meat and cheese forever.

To be fair, once you get bowel cancer from that lot then you'll lose weight.

Eat less and move more until you reach your target weight and then maintain a healthy lifestyle.

I can hear them coming...

#PrayForMatt

Colleague in my last job lost loads on the Atkins, I reckon 3-4 stone. Had to buy new trousers. Good job he didn't throw the old ones away though...

And a boss woman, did one of those subscription lifestyle things, you have counselling and everyfing. She lost loads, brought in before/after pics... then, well you know.

The only person I've seen lose loads and keep it off is my ex. She was never big though - she just cut out any sweets/crisps and took up some dancing class.
Fancy tap slimjim?

Mate at work did it and has carried on with the very few carbs and sugar ever since, he went from pushing 20 stone to 13 with no exercise. He went on the diet after reading a good few books on the subject and the fact he was very close to becoming diabetic. Now his cholesterol and blood/sugar are really good which is surprising with the amount of fat and butter he consumes but thats the way it works apparently.

fancy tap slimjim?

@daviek - Thank you. Someone who laughs in the name of Fad. My old boss (who originally lead me to Atkins) has recently lost around 7 stone on it, and I believe has maintained well since. There was once something like a 5 stone difference in weight between us (in my favour) and now its completely gone the other way.
I [u]have[/u] to lose more than him, or die trying.

I have to lose more than him, or die trying.

Cut a limb off?

There is absolutely no scientific reason that quickly lost weight will come back quicker than slowly lost. It's purely that if you go back to eating what you used to, that got you to 5st overweight, you'll obviously put it back on.

I completely understand the mental boost of losing a chunk quickly. The hard part is transitioning onto your long term sustainable lifestyle. Going from an extreme diet like Atkins, you can't just add in some carbs, because you are then combining a carb diet with a high fat diet.

Good luck with whatever plan you have.

IMHO, it "works" because dropping carbs and eating more fat/protein means you feel fuller longer and therefore are less likely to want more food as soon as you would otherwise.

And, like any "diet", it's good as it means you're thinking about what you're eating instead of piling it all in. If you can keep that mindset then you'll maintain the weight loss.

You will lose weight, you will put it on very quickly if/when you come off of it. My ex- wife did it and I joined for a bit.

My approach. More excersize, less bread, spuds, rice and pasta. Less booze too.

Dabtsw13

Read this

[url= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27136388 ]A scientific reason#[/url]

I think it works because by eating no carbs you get no insulin response and there are no excess Carbs to lay down as fat.

If you look at the current trend like Joe Wicks etc they are all based on limited carb diets with resistance training and little or no cardio. I've seen some pretty impressive results with friends doing similar things. I was the thinest I've been in the autumn when I cut back the cardio and did 5x5 instead. That was after a month cycling in the Pyrenees.

But since my hobbies are Fell running, MTBing and Triathalon I'm not yet prepared to give up cardio yet. Might give it a shot later in the year.

It's certainly more than just "cals in, cals out" though. My wife has said that for years, and has finally decided to try a different approach. She has always had "food issues" with a lot of vegetables - I've never really understood it, but the mental side of food is so hard to grasp if you don't feel the same. She was constantly "dieting" using mfp, but still eating crap as part of her allowance. Cravings and hunger pangs were a constant problem. She viewed "treats" as an answer to feeling down.

This year, I got her to look into low carb eating. As is her personality, she read everything on the topic, and decided to give it a go. We've both dropped 1.5 st in Jan, and whilst boredom eating is still an issue, we haven't felt hungry even on an 800Kcal/day limit.

I've also done some research into low carb endurance cycling, and have tried it. So far I've managed a 90km hilly ride without carbs, and managed the whole ride with only zero cal fluids, still feeling good on the last climb.

In 50 years, I think we will look back on current dietary advice, and the availabliity in shops of processed carb heavy food, with horror.

Stainy - that's quite heavy reading, but as above, I'd hypotheseise that anybody who got to 20st in the first place is pre-disposed to put on weight whether for physical, mental or environmental reasons. I don't see speed of loss as a problem.

Atkins and other low-carbohydrate diets: hoax or an effective tool for weight loss?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673604169869

Summary

Context

The Atkins diet books have sold more than 45 million copies over 40 years, and in the obesity epidemic this diet and accompanying Atkins food products are popular. The diet claims to be effective at producing weight loss despite ad-libitum consumption of fatty meat, butter, and other high-fat dairy products, restricting only the intake of carbohydrates to under 30 g a day. Low-carbohydrate diets have been regarded as fad diets, but recent research questions this view.

Starting point

A systematic review of low-carbohydrate diets found that the weight loss achieved is associated with the duration of the diet and restriction of energy intake, but not with restriction of carbohydrates. Two groups have reported longer-term randomised studies that compared instruction in the low-carbohydrate diet with a low-fat calorie-reduced diet in obese patients (N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2082–90; Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: 778–85). Both trials showed better weight loss on the low-carbohydrate diet after 6 months, but no difference after 12 months.

Where next?

The apparent paradox that ad-libitum intake of high-fat foods produces weight loss might be due to severe restriction of carbohydrate depleting glycogen stores, leading to excretion of bound water, the ketogenic nature of the diet being appetite suppressing, the high protein-content being highly satiating and reducing spontaneous food intake, or limited food choices leading to decreased energy intake. Long-term studies are needed to measure changes in nutritional status and body composition during the low-carbohydrate diet, and to assess fasting and postprandial cardiovascular risk factors and adverse effects. Without that information, low-carbohydrate diets cannot be recommended.

The global rise in overweight and obesity has intensified the search for an effective weight-loss diet. The obesity epidemic persists despite a substantial decrease in fat intake, and a compensatory increase in the intake of carbohydrate, particularly as processed starchy foods and sugar, has been blamed.1 Low-carbohydrate diets have been popular since the 1860s,2 when William Banting claimed he lost 21 kg without feeling hunger. Many low-carbohydrate-diet books have followed, the most successful to date being Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, 3 in which the eating plan describes not simply a diet but rather a “lifetime nutritional philosophy”, with vitamin and mineral supplementation and regular exercise. The Atkins diet appealed immediately to many because, with the recommended restricted intake of carbohydrate to initially less than 20 g a day, mainly as salad greens and other non-starchy vegetables,4 the unlimited intake of protein and accompanying fat paradoxically seems to promote weight loss. Whereas the Atkins diet permits no more than 5–10% of calorie intake from carbohydrate, Willett's new food-pyramid (with which the Atkins diet is often confused) allows 40–45 % of calorie intake from whole-grain foods, fruit, and vegetables (). 5, 6 and 7 The benefits of the Atkins diet, which has been embraced by an estimated 20 million people worldwide, are claimed to be weight loss, maintenance of weight loss without hunger, good health, and disease prevention. It sounds ideal, but what is the scientific evidence to support these claims?

Dietary composition of Atkins diet compared with other popular diets and ...
Figure.
Dietary composition of Atkins diet compared with other popular diets and recommended diet from American Heart Association

*Atkins diet induction phase is followed by ongoing and maintenance phases which allow up to 19% of energy from carbohydrate. Circles show proportion of total energy intake from each macronutrient. Non-saturated=total fat (ie, triglycerides) minus saturated fatty acids. In zone diet, F=fats, C=carbohydrate, P=protein. MUFA=mono-unsaturated fatty acids.

Weight loss on low-carbohydrate diets

Several studies claim that low-carbohydrate diets are effective for weight loss. A systematic review of low-carbohydrate diets reported that the weight loss is associated with only the duration of the diet and the restriction of energy intake, not with carbohydrate restriction itself.5 Only 107 articles out of the 2609 identified could be reviewed; only five studies evaluated participants for more than 90 days, but were not randomised and had no control group. There was insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against these types of diets.8

In 2003, three randomised trials reported the longer-term effect of low-carbohydrate diets. In the first study, 132 severely obese individuals (39% had type 2 diabetes, and 43% had metabolic syndrome) were randomised to either an ad-libitum low-carbohydrate diet or an energy-restricted low-fat diet for 6 months.9 Those on the low-carbohydrate diet had lost 3·9 kg more weight after 6 months (95% CI 1·6 to 6·3 kg), but at 12 months the difference was no longer significant (1·9 kg, ?1·0 to 4·9 kg).11 In another 6-month study, 53 obese women were again randomised to comparative diets,12 and the low-carbohydrate group again lost more weight (8·5 kg [SD 1·0] vs 3·9 [1·0] kg after 6 months, p<0·001).

The third study over 12 months randomised 63 non-diabetic participants to the Atkins diet or an energy-restricted diet with an energy content of 25% fat, 15% protein, and 60% carbohydrate.12 After 6 months the low-carbohydrate group did better, with a weight loss of 7·0% (SD 6·5) versus 3·2% (5·6, p=0·02), but after 12 months the difference between the groups was again no longer significant (4·4% [6·7] vs 2·5% [6·3]).

Although these studies provide evidence that a low-carbohydrate diet does produce increased weight loss over 3–6 months and might be superior to the recommended calorie-reduced low-fat diet, the 12-month studies also indicate that the low-carbohydrate diet may be no better in the longer term. The studies also had important limitations. Adherence to the diets was low, and dropout rates were high. Furthermore the low-fat diet used by Sahama et al9 provided 33% of total calorie intake as fat, which is more than the 20–30% energy intake normally indicative of a low-fat diet. In addition, dietary compliance was not assessed by Foster et al.12 The three studies are important, but are not evidence that low-carbohydrate diets in the long term are superior to the energy-restricted low-fat diet.

Putative mechanisms behind the weight loss

During severe carbohydrate restriction, glycogen stores and associated bound water are depleted, hence weight loss could predominantly be fluid rather than fat loss. Two studies that measured body composition by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry both failed, however, to find any indication of excessive reduction in lean body-mass.11 and 13 So, the greater weight loss over 6 months seems to be attributable to fat loss, which is supported by beneficial changes in cardiovascular risk factors.

The depletion of glycogen stores produces ketotic acidosis similar to that seen during fasting, but the loss of energy via urinary excretion of ketones cannot account for more than a few kJ a day. Circulating ketones might also be appetite-suppressing, mimicking the anorexia of starvation. However, no association between urinary ketones and weight loss was seen in one study,12 and the low-carbohydrate group in another trial continued to lose weight for up to 6 months after plasma levels of ?-hydroxybutyrate had returned to control values.11

According to Atkins' book, weight is lost on the ad-libitum diet because of increased energy expenditure.3 However, although no studies have measured daily energy expenditure with this diet, there is no evidence that the high-fat high-protein diet is particularly thermogenic. Fat has a low thermogenic effect, and although a high-protein diet might increase 24-h energy expenditure by 2–3 %,14 such an effect cannot account for more than a small fraction of the observed weight loss.

The success of the low-carbohydrate diet might be due to the restriction of the variety of food choices—the monotony and simplicity of the diet could inhibit appetite and food intake. Also, protein induces a stronger satiating effect than fat and carbohydrate,15 which would decrease ad-libitum food intake and bodyweight.16 Weight loss on the low-carbohydrate diet is probably caused by a combination of restriction of food choices and the enhanced satiety produced by the high protein-content. This hypothesis remains to be confirmed. Also, aigh-protein diet is not necessarily a high-fat diet.16

Safety of low-carbohydrate diets

Somewhat surprisingly, greater improvements in some cardiovascular risk factors were seen in people on the low-carbohydrate diet. Triglyceride concentrations were significantly more reduced,9 and 12 HDL-cholesterol improved more,11 and 12 and indices of fasting insulin-sensitivity were greater,8 and 11 although improvements in other blood lipids and blood pressure were the same for both diets. These findings agree with other studies, which have also shown improvements in LDL-cholesterol particle size and in postprandial blood-lipid profile.17 Because even minor weight loss markedly improves lipid profile and glucose tolerance, these improvements can be attributed to the greater weight loss on the low-carbohydrate-diets. What happens to the risk factors when weight loss has declined? No weight-loss studies have been of sufficient duration to study this, but studies in epileptic children on a low-carbohydrate diet for seizure control showed an adverse effect on blood lipids that persisted over 2 years,18 and ketosis might also pose a risk of cardiac arrhythmias.19

The most frequent complaints with low-carbohydrate diets are constipation and headache,20, 21 and 22 which is readily explained by the reduced intake of fruit, vegetables, and whole-grain bread and cereals. Restricted intake of these foods is not commensurable with long-term nutritional adequacy, and might pose a second-line increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Also, halitosis, muscle cramps, diarrhoea, general weakness, and rashes are more often reported on low-carbohydrate than on low-fat diets.22

Future research

The mechanisms responsible for producing weight loss with the low-carbohydrate diet require clarification. Is increased 24-h energy expenditure responsible for the weight loss as claimed by Atkins? If weight loss is rather due to reduction in spontaneous energy intake, can it be achieved by increasing the protein in a low-fat diet?

Although there is no solid evidence to support advising against the short-term use of low-carbohydrate diets, as long as the individual loses weight, future research that assesses a broader spectrum of risk factors of thromboatherosclerotic disease might eventually warn against such diets. The macronutrient composition is also only one dimension of the diet, and the diet might have different contents of fibre and micronutrients within the same fat, protein, and carbohydrate content. Future studies should focus more on the foods making up the diets, and report more markers of nutritional status.

There is an urgent need for longer and larger studies in obese and moderately overweight individuals to assess weight-loss efficacy, with careful assessment of energy balance and body composition, cardiovascular and diabetes risk factors, constipation, markers of kidney and bone health, nutritional adequacy, dietary compliance, and quality of life. We do not know if moderately overweight people will get the same improvements in triglyceride and HDL levels as the obese participants in studies, or if low or high levels of physical activity will modify the effects. The studies should be sufficiently long (up to 2 years) to enable careful monitoring of cardiovascular risk factors during the weight-stability phase, and should also include obese individuals with impaired glucose-tolerance to examine the potential of low-carbohydrate diets to prevent type 2 diabetes.

Recommendations to the public and patients

There is no clear evidence that Atkins-style diets are better than any others for helping people stay slim, and despite the popularity and apparent success of the Atkins diet, evidence in support of its use lags behind. Although the diet appears, as claimed, to promote weight loss without hunger, at least in the short term, the long-term effects on health and disease prevention are unknown.

Patients who want to try these diets should be told that, although safety cannot be guaranteed, they seem to be safe for short-term use (up to 6 months) as long as weight loss occurs. Scientifically, the most solid current recommendation for people who want to lose weight and keep weight off is a permanent switch to a diet reduced in calories and fat in combination with physical activity, which will also reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes and re-infarction among high risk individuals.23 and 24

A A is medical adviser for Weight Watchers, Denmark. The Department of Human Nutrition receives research funding from over 50 Danish and international food companies. Otherwise, we declare no conflict of interest.

Dr Zoe Harcombe has a good take on it, I reckon - check out her blog.

My approach. More excersize, less bread, spuds, rice and pasta. Less booze too.

Ah, so fewer carbs then! 😆

Fewer calories, no?

So, that article is by an adviser to Weigh****chers, a diet system that advocates low fat dieting, and is paid for by 50 food companies (guess what they make - cereal based carb, low fat) decides that low carb eating isn't the way ahead?

If we go down this route, it's easy to pick the holes in both sides, or produce papers backing up both arguements.

It doesn't have to be that binary.

People just want to do what they want. If it works, great. If not then you've not lost anything. Erm, literally.

Very true Jamie. Although to be fair, the OP did ask for opinions on Atkins, so discussion is reasonable.

My Summary would be:
Does it work - yes
Is it sustainable long term - possibly not
Can you keep the weight off - yes if you are careful, but you can't go back to your pre-diet eating habits.

Read every study with a pinch of salt, as EVERYONE has an agenda.

True. I just mean it can be discussed without people resorting to absolutism.

The chub club shows how different approaches work for different people.

dantsw13 - Member 
In 50 years, I think we will look back on current dietary advice, and the availabliity in shops of processed carb heavy food, with horror.

That's happening now. In 50 years time we'll be shocked we turned our back on low fat after we realise being fat from sugar carbs isn't as big a killer as heart disease and cancer from the kind of foods in high fat diets. Basically what's been said for years and suddenly isn't a big deal because sugar/carbs are now bad m'kay.

dantsw13 - Member 
So, that article is by an adviser to Weigh****chers, a diet system that advocates low fat dieting, and is paid for by 50 food companies (guess what they make - cereal based carb, low fat) decides that low carb eating isn't the way ahead?

Weigh****chers can say anything. The way I see it, the success of a Weigh****cher diet is simply through eating way less.

Looking at weigh****cher meals in the supermarket and they would barely feed a sparrow! No wonder you lose weight 😉

DezB - Member
Same as any fad diet: Lose wait on the diet, put it back on after. That's how they work isn't it?

(I have heard things about bad breath and headaches associated with the Atkins one)

Oooooo. The positivity and encouragement from this one, is Strooooooong.

Jamie - Member
4 pages.

6 if Solo and Molgrips participate.

metabolics

Did 4 Hour Body for a while (very similar to iDave and other restricted-carbs stuff really) and lost quite a bit.

I think the exact content of these diets matters less than having a while where you restrict what you'll eat and thus think about and plan out what you'll eat properly. If your diet needs 30g of protein within 30 mins of waking, you make sure you've got that all ready for the morning and thus are massively more likely to have a breakfast rather than leaving the house hungry and eating a McMuffin on the way to work. If you have the same few "compliant" meals every week then it's easy to make sure you have those ingredients in stock, and don't get home to an empty fridge and reach for the takeaway menu.

[img] [/img]

Personally i don't know anyone thats done atkins and kept the weight off for more than a year.
Amongst the people i know the best results have come from 5:2 and plain old calorie control. None of the various fads have had any positive long term results.

Anyone who is on a diet has already failed at a balanced diet, for whatever reason - I include myself in this. They are therefore likely to fail once they come off their diet, back to real life. I would postulate that those more likely to try an extreme diet are those who need to lose the most. THAT is why they put weight back on, not because of the diet itself. IMHO – I am not a nutritionist, just a bloke who likes beer and food and has struggled with my weight.

"Calories in vs calories" out is about as insightful as explaining how a car works by saying "petrol goes in the petrol hole and vrooms come out the back".

dantsw13 - Member
So, that article is by an adviser to Weigh****chers, a diet system that advocates low fat dieting, and is paid for by 50 food companies (guess what they make - cereal based carb, low fat) decides that low carb eating isn't the way ahead?

It is also from The Lancet, underwent peer review, and has been cited a lot (although i haven't checked if the citations are positive or negative). The point is, don't dismiss it just because of a link to Weight Watchers.

I'm not dismissing it, just that as Jamie says, there are studies on both sides with wildly differing views & conclusions.

Diagnosed type 2 diabetic in April last year now got all clear. Blood checked every 3 months. Please do not try any fad diets. Change what you eat and how you exercise permanently. Reduce your carbs up your good quality proteins and fats. Plenty of veg salad etc. Lose weight first then up your exercise. Very hard to do both properly. No wonder you bonked. Your body has to re learn how to utilise your fat reserves for energy instead of using the carbs you have just eaten. I am now leaner than I was when I got married at 26 and also a stone lighter, now pushing 47! I don't eat white rice, bread or pasta. First eight weeks was hell though. A good old health scare is a great incentive to get things sorted out and a great motivator. Upside is I climb for fun now downside is it takes me a while to get going on the bike. All my mates running on carbs are quick out of the blocks and I'm kind of hanging on for the first 5 miles or so. After that I seem to get going and I can keep going when they hit the wall and bonk.

Inbred - well done turning a negative into a positive. Do you take on food on longer rides, and if so, what non-carb option should do you go for?

I use grenade carbkilla high protein bars for longer rides. Obviously I can't risk anything with a high sugar content. Once your body learns to use your fat reserves for energy you won't bonk anymore but it takes time. The only sugar I have now is lactose in milk and fruit sugars when I add fruit to my porridge in the morning. Blueberries prunes banana etc. I'll eat an apple or pear with my lunch. Nuts are a great snack for riding. I'll take a small packet with me for shorter rides.

I would definitely watch some of the Sky Team Nutrition videos on YouTube. There is some great advice for anybody who is interested in nutrition for cycling. Surprising how little carbs are consumed and how much good quality protein and fat is eaten and also protein during a race to protect muscle development. It was a real eye opener for me.

Surprising how little carbs are consumed and how much good quality protein and fat is eaten and also protein during a race to protect muscle development. It was a real eye opener for me.

Gary Taubes is certainly a believer, reckons that stats and the papers add up.

Read proteinaholic by Garth Davis M.D. It goes through every fad diet and is all backed up by proper long term peer approved studies.

Atkins died relatively young of heart disease weighing around 270 pounds...

Atkins died relatively young of heart disease weighing around 270 pounds...

Er, he died aged 72 from a head injury from falling on ice, His heart disease was as a result of viral cardiomyopathy and his weight at death was as a result of fluid retention while in a coma.

His diet may be many things (and certainly not balanced) but it wasn't the cause of his death..!

Gary Taubes is certainly a believer, reckons that stats and the papers add up.

The problem with Taubes is that he has a lot to gain from his argument being right, as well as a hell of a lot lose if wrong.

He makes some good points, but there are things he says that don't apply to UK. For example, saying anything low fat is pumped full of sugar to improve taste. That might be the case in the States, but not here.

Keep a food diary to highlight any unhealthy snacking and try and cut that out/down, gradually reduce portion size at meals and up the veg and protein content of your meals. As others have said making a radical diet change for short term rapid weight loss isn't something that's sustainable for most people. If your goal is long term weight loss not trying to fit into a wedding dress in a month's time then avoid any famous/fad diets and focus on getting the basics right.

His autopsy was accidently released, you are correct about the head injury, but he did have severe heart disease and the fluid retention was minimal. Your version of events is the official Atkins line, reeled out to protect the Atkins brand.

[i]Atkins died relatively young of heart disease weighing around 270 pounds...[/i]

[[b]source:[/b] Daily Mail] 😆

DezB, I remembered incorrectly about actual cause of death, but the information came from Atkins autopsy, he really wasn't a well man.

Works for me.

Once I stopped eating heavy, starchy carbs, I found it hard to go back to them.

I eat a lot of meat, fish and eggs, along with a lot of veg.

I really believe you don't need the carbs, they are just filler, however they are a massive "healthy" industry. Just look at the number of breakfast cereals in the supermarket.

and the fluid retention was minimal.

according to wikipedia

[i]It also noted that he weighed 258 pounds (117 kilograms) at death, but Dr. Atkins weighed 195 pounds (88 kilograms) the day after he entered the hospital following his fall; he gained 63 pounds (29 kilograms) from fluid retention during the nine days he was in a coma before he died...[/i]

30% weight gain's not exactly minimal.

Everyone looking at Atkins etc should read the book Proteinaholic.

Every argument is countered, you only have to look at the longest living populations with the lowest rates of heart disease, cancers, diabetes etc and look at what they eat.

gobuchul- you mention the cereal companies, what about the meat,dairy and egg industries... bottom line is the more of these things you eat the worse your health.

Surprising how little carbs are consumed and how much good quality protein and fat is eaten and also protein during a race

They're consuming between 60 and 90g of carbs / hour during the race, as well as whatever else they have. About 6000 calories a day. Nothing "little" about it!

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/tour-de-france/this-is-what-you-have-to-eat-to-compete-in-the-tour-de-france-182775

[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pollan ]Michael Pollan[/url] has it right I think.

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants

you only have to look at the longest living populations with the lowest rates of heart disease, cancers, diabetes etc and look at what they eat.

as someone else pointed out up there, that the "Carbs in Carbs Out" thing is misleading, as is comparing groups of folk, their diets and concluding that longevity is solely down to that...there could be any numbers of factors including genetics, lifestyles, culture, weather etc etc.

nickc, I don't have time for debate, all I will say is that absolutely every variable is discussed, explained and backed up with the best scientific research available.

I have never been overweight, but have been primal for almost a year, which is very close to Atkins. Since reading the above book I am convinced enough to give up all animal products, this coming from a protein drink guzzling gym monkey.

The book is written by a bariatric surgeon in America who previously advised his patients to use a low carb diet, except they kept putting weight back on.

I have reduced my carb intake to a quarter of what it was and changed the type i.e slow release higher fibre carbs. I have no desire now to go back or feel short changed in anyway. Turnip or swede, sweet potato, celeriac etc instead of potato. Obviously no added sugar, this is a biggy. Low fat foods now are packed with bloody sugar because it's a cheap filler.

If you are overweight it is really very simple.......

If really was simple wouldn't we all be the perfect weight?

As a slight hijack I'm following a (lifestyle I guess, it's aim is to combat MS) diet which is basically plant based whole foods plus seafood/fish avoiding saturated/trans/hydrogenated oils/fats (obviously not entirely or I'd die). So no dairy or animal produce (although lean meat like turkey is probably ok). The idea is high polyunsaturated fat and low saturated fat. To someone who isn't a biologist at all but isn't afraid of reaching papers it all adds up, however as I say I lack the knowledge to understand this stuff fully...

My question is, is this diet actually healthy? (and my question which I'd guess not many can actually answer is, is it possible it could help with MS?)

And as a slight aside, I was ~71kg when I started the diet about and I'm now 66kg (lost the weight over ~2 months but has levelled off) and I certainly wasn't trying to lose weight (wasn't trying not to either, I've just been existing) so there's that.

Fresh ingredients, cook from scratch, exceed minimum exercise recommendations.

That's as complicated as anyone needs to make it.

Bagstard, looks an interesting read. I'll look it up. I will say that reading 'a' book (regardless of the credentials of the author) and evangelising it, isn't necessarily a great starting point though.

If really was simple wouldn't we all be the perfect weight?

Simple to understand does not mean easy to do.

My very basic thinking is we as a race survived for thousands of years eating plant based foods and meat. We didn't eat a lot of carbs or sugar and seemed to get on alright. This move to low fat carb based diets together with more sedentary lifestyles really didn't do me any favours. Eat properly and keep active is the crux of it.

Agree with TSY. Also get onto My Fitness Pal and record what you [b][u]actually[/b][/u] eat and how much you exercise. It can be a real eye opener.

My question is, is this diet actually healthy? (and my question which I'd guess not many can actually answer is, is it possible it could help with MS?)

My Mum has MS, and she switched to being vegetarian back in the late 70s as a result. Still eats dairy, but she feels that her diet has played a large part in helping live with the condition.

Anecdote is anecdotal, tho.

I think a lot of these studies with diet don't take into account hunger/satiety. There are studies out that that show eating high carbohyrdate foods increase hunger and you feel less satisfied.

carbohydrate doesn’t tend to feed back on appetite, but fat does

It could be very easy to eat over 10,000 calories in a day with carbs but very hard with fat.

[url= https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/how-do-we-gain-weight-calories-part-1/ ]Calories and how we gain weight[/url]

[quote=Jamie ]My question is, is this diet actually healthy? (and my question which I'd guess not many can actually answer is, is it possible it could help with MS?)
My Mum has MS, and she switched to being vegetarian back in the late 70s as a result. Still eats dairy, but she feels that her diet has played a large part in helping live with the condition.
Anecdote is anecdotal, tho.

Thanks Jamie, as you say anecdote but a lot of people report the same anecdote... Population studies seem to roughly back it too.