Research suggests Dr. Atkins was right

[Adam Campbell]

The asterisk was not a misprint--I know the author, and he has confirmed in many places that it is signficant. My point was that we don't really need you reworking the statistics on a peer-reviewed study because you don't believe the results. Nothing wrong with questioning the methodology, or even questioning the results. My problem is that you gave the impression that it must be wrong because you couldn't find signficance when calculating yourself. That's taking things too far to try to prove your point. However, if you want, I'll make sure to let Volek and Kraemer know that you're available to run their stats on their next study.

[Adam Campbell]

Bond, that's an interesting question. I'll talk to some experts and see what they say.

[russ]

Just a couple of observations:

My problem is that you gave the impression that it must be wrong because you couldn't find signficance when calculating yourself. That's taking things too far to try to prove your point.

I'd have to disagree. Bryan questioned the results and his attempts to determine statistical significance with his own calculations were entirely appropriate.
Perhaps one of the authors of the study could pay us a visit and explain how they arrived at their conclusions and explain what mistake Bryan may have made, although I've known Bryan's statistical analyses on this site to be very thorough.

But I think you're starting to let your own beliefs get in the way of looking at this as part of growing body of research. There will be more studies, and we'll see what the results show.

Adam, this statement could just as easily be turned around and directed your way. My impression is that Bryan is attempting an impartial analysis. I get the feeling that your own beliefs strongly favor low-carb diets.

I agree that the issue of the effectiveness of the low carb approach needs more study as the results to this point would seem to be inconclusive.

[Jean-Paul]

Jeez, both of you guys have forgotten more about nutrtion than I will ever know!

I guess my own arguments have been similar to Bryan's, albeit not nearly so technical. Simply being this, obviously they work. I have seen the results of this in people in the gym and I even tried it myself once. And guess what? It worked like gangbusters. For me the results were temporary though, because it was sheer torture for me to avoid carbs. I was really strict, even going so far as to test my urine with keto-sticks to make sure that I was going into ketosis. It took me 3-4 days after my weekend "re-feed" to get back into ketosis. It was too stressful to maintain and I eventually dropped it. Only problem is that I had become accustomed to eating fatty foods that I had previously avoided and didn't want to give them up either. End result, I have struggled with my diet ever since, and that was years ago.

I think that the South Beach version looks more maintainable since it seems to focus more on fresh veggies and unsaturated fats. For me it is enough of a challenge just to make sure that I eat enough fresh veggies though. Last night, for example, I was really craving beer, and then later I was craving cookies. Instead I had a diet Mug Rootbeer, and later I had celery with natural peanut butter. So if I am eating more veggies that is good, but I don't want to give up my carbs. It would be too hard to prepare family meals for one thing. We are really working hard to instill good eating habits with our kids, and I am not about to put them on a ketogenic diet.

Adam, do you know about children on diets like this? Do you have suggestions for how I would do this in my circumstances? I guess that my current diet would be more based on the Mediterrenean Food Pyramid. It is a little lower in carbs, but certainly not enough to get into ketosis.

BTW, Adam, I don't think that Bryan is intentionally being nit-picky based on what I know of him. He is an academic (obviously) who has had a lot of background analyzing studies and their methodologies, so he is like a heat seeking missle for strengths and weakenesses in any study. As he put in another post, he doesn't even look at who wrote it so as not to bias himself and his analysis. It does make for some lively debates from time to time though!

Sorry to barrage you with so many questions. I know you won't read this till next Monday and you will probably hit the ground running when you get back, but if you have a chance I would really like to know about some of those things. If you have a better method for maintaining that diet that doesn't over-stress me I am game to try it, because I am on a mission to melt this blubber off my once-lean-and-mean body of mine! Hope you have a great weekend in NYC.

[Tracey Fackler]

As far as the gout issue, I've certainly heard about people attempting Atkins or other keto diet and coming down with Gout.

It may have something to do with maintaining proper suplementation during a keto diet.

Of course, of the folks who have followed these diets strickly (aka bodybuilders), I've never seen or heard of the gout issue. A friend of mine did bodyopus for nearly 3 months. Not a problem but he was suplementing his diet (he also won Mr. Pennsylvania in his weight class).

So, it may just happen to the "I'm gonna do atkins and drink vodka and not excercise" group.

But, I'd be interested in expert opinions.

[Adam Campbell]

Russ: Probably a good point about me having some biases. But it's mainly to balance out the reverse bias. People are often quick to attack very low-carb diets without being properly educated on the research that's available. And then if you introduce the research to them, they say it doesn't necessarily mean anything. That could be true--but you could turn the table on any research, so it's a moot point. If we're going to cite research let's cite research. Start showing me research that refutes the research I presented. That would be a fair and good debate. But trying to recalculate the statistics because you don't agree with the results and then literally saying they're wrong because you didn't come to the same conclusions--that's ridiculous. THAT's the mentality that's kept the Food Pyramid the same all these years despite the fact that it sucks.

I mean, when it comes down to it,why would I trust Bryan's statistical analysis? Because you say it's been good in the past. How do you know? Because he said so? How do you or I even know he knows what he's doing? I'm really just making a point and I'm not trying to offend anyone.

Bryan's a very smart guy and I'm not implying otherwise. I'm sure he could run circles around me in statistical analysis (yes, I did stats for an NIH study in grad school). But I'm not going to take what he says at face value when it comes to running stats and allow him to make a point because of it.

I don't know, maybe my logic is screwed up.

[russ]

If we're going to cite research let's cite research. Start showing me research that refutes the research I presented.

Well, I don't think that anyone has tried to imply that there is a body of research disproving the low carb approach. In addition, we're all aware of the perils of trying to prove a negative.....It's more important to look at the data supporting this approach, IMHO.

But trying to recalculate the statistics because you don't agree with the results and then literally saying they're wrong because you didn't come to the same conclusions--that's ridiculous.

I still disagree with you on this point. I think that it's perfectly valid for someone with the appropriate level of training to attempt to verify the statistical analysis for himself.

I mean, when it comes down to it,why would I trust Bryan's statistical analysis? Because you say it's been good in the past. How do you know? Because he said so? How do you or I even know he knows what he's doing? I'm really just making a point and I'm not trying to offend anyone.

This is a valid point. My trust in Bryan's analysis is an educated guess. I know that his background is strong, but I'm not a statistician or a clinical researcher, so I can't verify the accuracy of all of his analyses. However, my feeling is that this guy knows his stuff.

I don't know, maybe my logic is screwed up

Your points are well-taken [img]smile.gif[/img]
But Bryan makes some very good points as well. I think that you need to accept that the data are not sufficiently conclusive for one to endorse low carb diets without reservation. That isn't to say that you won't be proven correct in the future.


I'll mention once again that it would be very nice if one of the authors could take a moment to explain to us how the statistical conclusions were arrived at, although I realise that it's a lot to ask and that they are probably very busy guys.

[Adam Campbell]

"For me the results were temporary though, because it was sheer torture for me to avoid carbs."
**Probably not for everyone, especially because of an accustomed way of eating and training. You don't need to go low-carb to get great results, though, as we know from moderate carb diets such as the Zone, TAP, and Body Rx.

I was really strict, even going so far as to test my urine with keto-sticks to make sure that I was going into ketosis. It took me 3-4 days after my weekend "re-feed" to get back into ketosis.
**I wouldn't worry about being that exact. Too much work. One of the main benefits is the lowering of insulin levels, which even at relatively low levels start to inhibit lypolis (the release of stored fat for energy).

It was too stressful to maintain and I eventually dropped it. Only problem is that I had become accustomed to eating fatty foods that I had previously avoided and didn't want to give them up either. End result, I have struggled with my diet ever since, and that was years ago.
**That sucks. Fat's good, though, as you know. So is the problem with fatty foods the total calories or that it's "fat"? I'm guessing the first which does create an issue. A Med type diet with high-quality protein might be the best choice for you then.

I think that the South Beach version looks more maintainable since it seems to focus more on fresh veggies and unsaturated fats.
**Truth is, it's basically the same, it just emphasizes no saturated fat. But certainly, you SHOULD not avoid vegetables, even on a low-carb diet. I think that's a mistake many people make.

For me it is enough of a challenge just to make sure that I eat enough fresh veggies though. Last night, for example, I was really craving beer, and then later I was craving cookies. Instead I had a diet Mug Rootbeer, and later I had celery with natural peanut butter. So if I am eating more veggies that is good, but I don't want to give up my carbs.
**The thing is, a low-carb diet done right won't give you those cravings--although you probably have mental triggers that are an issue. I wouldn't beat yourself up about it. If I were you, I'd look to keep my insulin levels low during the day and if you want a "goodie" later on,then have it.

It would be too hard to prepare family meals for one thing. We are really working hard to instill good eating habits with our kids, and I am not about to put them on a ketogenic diet.
**There's no reason, too. I think mainly avoiding building meals around bread, potatoes, pasta, and rice is where most people go wrong. Can you eat those foods--certainly. But they should be small side dishes, not the main part of your diet. And you shouldn't eat high-glycemic carbs all day long or your insulin levels will stay elevated all day, making it difficult for you to burn fat.

Adam, do you know about children on diets like this? Do you have suggestions for how I would do this in my circumstances? I guess that my current diet would be more based on the Mediterrenean Food Pyramid. It is a little lower in carbs, but certainly not enough to get into ketosis.
**Sounds like a good diet. So is your problem cravings? The one thing about a very low-carb diet is that it seems most effective for people with a high-risk of metabolic syndrome (a propensity for abdominal fat is one sign). As far as low-carb for kids--I don't know. Like I said, I don' think there's any reason for it. Plus, if they're active, which I'm sure they are, they're burning plenty of calories anyway. Diet is the least of their worries--you're right to make sure it's balanced.

Hope you have a great weekend in NYC.
**Not weekend, work week. Uhhgg.

**I really hope I didn't offend anyone. My goal was to present research and an opposing view--not for the sake of it, but because it's counterintuitive to what we've all been taught. Right after grad school (a little over three years ago), I would have told you that low-carb diets were horrible in every way. So I've shifted my thoughts on it based on research as well as anecdotal evidence. It's just important that everyone have an open mind.

[Adam Campbell]

I think that you need to accept that the data are not sufficiently conclusive for one to endorse low carb diets without reservation. That isn't to say that you won't be proven correct in the future.
**I certainly accept it. My main point in the post is that there are misconceptions. And I wasn't endorsing it for everyone, just trying to show that there's evidence that it may have a unique effect on body composition.


I'll mention once again that it would be very nice if one of the authors could take a moment to explain to us how the statistical conclusions were arrived at, although I realise that it's a lot to ask and that they are probably very busy guys.
**Yeah, that'll be a tough sell. It's one thing to question an author's methodology at an open conference--it's another to get him to explain how he did it on a message board. It's available in the study, which is what Bryan used to try to replicate it. But Volek and Kraemer are two of the most respected researchers in the field and the study was read by a committee of their peers (researchers at other universities), so I suspect they would have detected a glaring error of signficance had it been made.

[Adam Campbell]

But trying to recalculate the statistics because you don't agree with the results and then literally saying they're wrong because you didn't come to the same conclusions--that's ridiculous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still disagree with you on this point. I think that it's perfectly valid for someone with the appropriate level of training to attempt to verify the statistical analysis for himself.
**You're right I should qualify this. I do agree that's a perfectly valid approach--and should be done. I was trying to say that because I'm not sure of the source's skill in replicating an analysis, that it's not appropriate for him to come to the conclusion that the researchers printed incorrect information. PERHAPS, he was the one that made the errors. And perhaps he wasn't--but I'm not going to concede my point just because he said he did it right. We're talking about a researcher (Volek) who has published 95 peer-reviewed studies--so I'll put my confidence in him first.

[russ]

**I certainly accept it. My main point in the post is that there are misconceptions. And I wasn't endorsing it for everyone, just trying to show that there's evidence that it may have a unique effect on body composition.

Understood [img]smile.gif[/img]

**Yeah, that'll be a tough sell. It's one thing to question an author's methodology at an open conference--it's another to get him to explain how he did it on a message board. It's available in the study, which is what Bryan used to try to replicate it. But Volek and Kraemer are two of the most respected researchers in the field and the study was read by a committee of their peers (researchers at other universities), so I suspect they would have detected a glaring error of signficance had it been made.

I'm certainly not naive enough to expect them to come here and explain their results. They're under no obligation to do so. It would be interesting to hear what they have to say, though

I was trying to say that because I'm not sure of the source's skill in replicating an analysis, that it's not appropriate for him to come to the conclusion that the researchers printed incorrect information.

I understand your point. But I think that he was simply presenting his interpretation. Anyone is free to agree or disagree with him (I'm guessing that you disagree [img]tongue.gif[/img] ).

PERHAPS, he was the one that made the errors. And perhaps he wasn't--but I'm not going to concede my point just because he said he did it right. We're talking about a researcher (Volek) who has published 95 peer-reviewed studies--so I'll put my confidence in him first.

Again, I understand your point. However, the last sentence is an 'argument from authority', so to speak. Volek's strong credentials don't negate the fact that Bryan could be correct.

[Adam Campbell]

Right on all counts! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Bond007]

...the study was read by a committee of their peers (researchers at other universities), so I suspect they would have detected a glaring error of signficance had it been made.

I believe that statement is probably the most significant in this entire argument. Yeah, Volek and Kraemer are two of the most respected researchers in their field, but their study was independantly reviewed by their peers. If any of them came up with the same contradictory statistical info that Bryan has come up with, it would be my guess that at least one of them would have spoken up and their comments would have been documented somewhere. My money's on the study, the researchers and the peer review. No offense, Bryan.

Also, Adam thanks for taking the time to look into an answer to my question above.

Thanks for your input, too, Tracey.

[habeascoffee]

Okay folks, I'm a complete Newbie here but I do know a little something about Gout.

"I was talking with this woman last night who had started the Atkins diet several months back. After a couple of months on the diet, her left foot began to get painful and swell. She went to her doctor and was diagnosed with gout. During the examination and according to her, the doctor told her that he's seen more young people coming down with gout and they've all been doing the Atkins diet. In essence, he told her that the Atkins approach directly lead to her gout, which is what she's telling people."

I know very little about ketosis and even less about keto-acidosis but I do know that Gout is genetic and it sucks. I have it. Gout is caused by and excess of Uric Acid in the blood. Uric Acid is created by the breakdown of Purines from animal based protein (most common) and some vegetable. For those who have Gout, Uric Acid is not eliminated by the kidneys very easily and builds up. Gravity is not your friend in this case because the acid flows to the low points of the body (toe joints, ankles, between the bones of the feet, knees and sometimes hips) and crystalizes into needle like shards. The pain and swelling happen because the soft tissue of the "Gouted" area is literally being torn apart from the inside out. The pain of an attack is unbearable. It will pulverize bone and cripple a person if left untreated.
Yes Adkins will lead to Gout if the person is genetically disposed to having it, not taking medication to treat it and not drinking enough water to prevent it. I carry and try to drink a gallon of water a day.

My story: 10 months ago I was in a period of self-hatred that drove me to join a gym and hire a trainer. At that point I weighed in at 292 with a 32.4% body fat[BF] (I'm 6' tall).

Stepping into the "Way Back" machine, in 1998 I'd tried to get back in shape when I was weighing in at only 265 [BF unknown] but had recurring Gout attacks that kept me from the gym and bed-ridden. I would get in 10 to 14 good workout days then have an attack and spend the next 2 weeks limping and in agony.
I had no meal-plan at all to speak of and basically ate whatever was most handy. I didn't get very far as my formerly mentioned weight will attest.
Sometime in 2000 I got tired of the Gout cycle and was prescribed medication to treat it, (500mg of Probenecid twice daily).
There's a current myth going around about Black Cherry juice being a healing agent for Gout. I tried it but have since learned that Gout attacks are heavily dependent on hydration. Drink enough Cherry juice and it will hydrate you but it will also raise your carb intake pretty drastically.

Stepping out of the WAY past to 10 months ago, my trainer and I formed a meal-plan. 5 meals a day, 2421 total calories a day, 20% protein, 57% Carb, 23% fat. This was based on my fear of a Gout attack and my sedentary lifestyle.
I didn't follow the meal-plan very well at all (due to a lack of deep desire and my own lazyness) and again didn't get very far. I lost 10 pounds but my BF didn't change. Much sadness.

In October of 2003 my original trainer left the gym and a new one took over my "account." Coincidentally, at the same time, I met a woman at work (it's always about a woman) who REALLY inspired me to improve myself. My focus and drive to succeed shot up and off the charts. Same meal-plan but adhered to like ugly on an ape. I stopped drinking soda/pop, eating junk food and haven't eaten anything processed in months. I try to cook all my meals and work out in the gym almost daily. I go in to at least do cardio if nothing else.
Since October I've dropped 35-40 pounds (weighing in this week), my BF is 24.??%, and I've made moderate strength gains. All this without a Gout attack and I've been adding more animal based protein to my food intake.
Actually I've had one serious attack but that was because I turned my ankle playing basketball and Gout usually follows an injury to the lower extremities.

A couple of days ago my trainer and I had to create a new meal-plan because I was getting hungry too soon after eating a meal balanced with protein, carbs and fat. I don't have accurate percentages of my intake but will add them if anyone wants them.

Long story even longer, I workout like a horse, have had no noninjury Gout attacks and eat more protein than I ever thought I would.

The more I learn about Nutrition the more I want to really dig into it and reading this discussion about lo-carb vs. lo-fat diets is facinating.

I hope that my longwinded story didn't mud the waters too much, my intent was to talk about Gout.

Cheers to all of you.

[Bond007]

Thanks a ton for your input, habeuscoffee! I can see how the occurrence of Gout can be related to a low-carb, high-protein diet.

Keep up the great work in the gym and with your eating plan. It sounds like you've made some enormous strides! Congrats, bro! And, welcome to the forum.