Well, if that isn't a big "DUH!"

Wow, who would have thought that reducing sugars (and things reduced to sugars) would be good for diabetics?

I guess they were thinking that if the body can't make insulin at all, it won't be able to process any glucose, and a diet low in sugars wouldn't change that. But there are certainly severities of diabetes, so it makes sense to me. Also Metabolic Syndrome.

I think any resistance to Atkins comes from the fact that it is so extreme. At the same time that lowering intake of carbs (esp. simple, high-glycemic index ones) seems sane and ultimately achievable while maintaining a pleasurable experience with food, a diet that sanctions high intake of saturated fats tweaks people, as it should. I think Atkins is one of those "sometimes" diets, one that is really quite good for some people to practice for shorter periods of time, and perhaps not an everyday-for-the-rest-of-your-life diet.

I do know a gentleman who lost 60 pounds on Atkins. He's been on it for a year and while he looks great with the absence of his excess weight, lately he seems a bit wan, and I feel an overwhelming urge to stuff his face with a mouthful of brown rice, or some buckwheat, or a sweet potato. I'm not surprised at all to hear how the diet positively affects diabetics, but I'd be interested in seeing what the long-term effects of it are.

Well Atkins is just the popular model of the low(er)-carb diet. It's important to look at changes in context to what most people are eating (as in, even moderate reductions in carbs and sugars would be greatly beneficial).

For the record, I discussed some of the problems with Atkins here, though they've apparently revised and cut down on allowing the saturated fats.

It's also important to note that whole grains (I personally dig oatmeal) can be consumed in moderate quantities quite healthily, as they don't metabolize into sugar very quickly.

It's a good discussion. It'll take me a while to digest it (heeee!) but I can tell you right off the bat I agree wholeheartedly with your take on the role these sort of 'fad' diets play in people who are trying to figure out the complexities of eating healthfully (for some, for the first time in their lives) without sacrificing the undeniable sense of pleasure a good meal brings.

And as far as these diets go, I'd also recommend South Beach to beginners. It addresses the protein and blood sugar issues that Atkins takes to an extreme, and tempers it with an understanding of good carbs vs. bad carbs and how best to utilize the good ones to enhance your energy and overall well-being. Not to mention that if you follow the principles of SB you'll never really think "I'm on a diet!" It's just a sane way to live, and makes the act of socializing, which can be so difficult on other diets, a snap.

Thanks for these posts, Bill.

Much of the science of Atkins (from what I understand of it, which admittedly isn't all that much) is kinda iffy and "junk-y." (I.e., all the theories about how the body deals with fat, which run counter to conventional wisdom.)

That said, I think there's definitely something to a low(er) carb diet. I lost 40 pounds on a highly informal half-assed lower-carb diet, plus more exercise, program. Basically, my strategy was to cut down on calories in general, and make the cuts from the ridiculously high-carb elements of my previous diet.

The old story is that "eat less, exercise more" is the only "diet" that truly works. The trick, I think, is that it's much *easier* to do that when going low-carb. Mainly because high-carb foods tend to not satisfy one's *appetite* well (e.g. one can eat a whole bag of potato chips), but low-carb, high-protein foods do. So you can eat less and not feel as hungry.

That reminds me of a funny little quip my trainer zinged me with once: "There are only two possible ways to lose weight: take in less calories than you burn, or burn more calories than you take in. Preferably you do these together." i.e., diet, exercise. The interesting part comes in when you realize there are about as many ways to interpret how those two things happen as there are people who are making them happen. But yes, David C, you're right; it's the only "diet" that truly works.

Oh, yeah - congratulations on your weight loss! That's tremendous.

David C.,

Sorry, but you are oversimplifying; it is most definitely not just "eat less, exercise more," though that is not an insignificant part of how to lose weight. How your metabolism works is also heavily dependent on what you eat. Even "when."

And you kind of dismiss my comparatively detailed, 16-paragraph post (second link) with:

Much of the science of Atkins (from what I understand of it, which admittedly isn't all that much) is kinda iffy and "junk-y."

Actually, much of the science is pretty solid.

Bill, the biochemical processes that Atkins originally claimed for his diet have indeed been debunked repeatedly. And it was those original junk science claims that engendered the bulk of opposition to Atkins.

I'll need more detail on your point, Roberts. What biochemical processes? Who debunked them? Your point is a total mystery to me, because it's too vague.

Also note that Atkins (synonomous with high protein, low carb), has a mountain of evidence behind it tying it to favorable insulin resistance, lower cholesterol and enhanced growth hormone production, to name a few things.

And enhanced high protein diets that use plant and fish based fats and lean proteins are tied to about a zillion more positive metabolic processes.

Now you've piqued my curiosity about what Atkins may have originally claimed were the mechanisms of his diet, vs. what they are. Find me a cite, if you get a chance.

You hit the nail on the head Bill. This is so obvious I'm surprised it's even newsworthy. It's like being told the sun is hot.

I thought this was well-accepted, but apparently there are still skeptics.

Which kind of surprises me. I mean, it's a pretty straight line -- carbs = glucose = more acidic blood = diabetes. When you overload the body's ability to de-acidify your blood with insulin the effects should not be a surprise.

I haven't read Atkins' book, but it's pretty old now I think, so it might just be dated. Medical knowledge has advanced fairly rapidly during the past few decades. Or hell, he could have been totally wrong about the reasons but right about it working. Wouldn't be the first time. Hell, we didn't know how aspirin worked till the 1970s. The more recent Protein Power book seems quite solid though.

They actually do go so far as to imply carbs are totally unnecessary with a neat 1930s study of a guy who volunteered to eat nothing but caribou meat for a year, as he claimed he had seen Eskimos do. The doctors assigned to monitor his health thought it would kill him in weeks or months. But the man not only finished the year, he was actually a few pounds lighter and generally healthier.

But it really makes sense when you think about it. There are 3 kinds of macronutrients: proteins, fats and carbs. There are numerous essential fats and proteins that your body uses for innumerable specialized tasks. There are no essential carbs: carbs all become glucose, which is used for fuel.

Bingo on the carbs. They are fundamentally uneccessary, but they can also be very helpful when you're physically active, as everyone should try to be.

Bill,
A lot of my Atkins-skepticism comes from reading the cover article in this issue of SKEPTIC magazine:

http://www.skeptic.de/index.php3?action=skeptic&articleno=0195

Unfortunately, SKEPTIC only seems to put a smattering of articles from the magazine online, and this isn't one of them.

I'm also somewhat skeptical of my own skepticism, as the article was a bit beyond my basic chemistry knowledge and comprehension.

I'm definitely sold on a low(er) carb diet from personal experience (incidentally, the proximate cause of my diet was a doctor's recommendation based on too-high levels of triglycerides on my blood test), but still unsold on the "extreme" low-carb approaches.

[Carbs] are fundamentally uneccessary...

Bwahha! They're unnecessary right up to the point when your sadistic spin class instructor has you crank up the resistance to 8 for the third time...

Sorry, I know I am taking that totally out of context, but the your turn of phrase made me chuckle, remembering the time I totally bonked - and nearly fell right off my bike - when I did a spin class four days into Phase One of South Beach a few years ago. Since I didn't want to sit on my ass for the remainder of the two week ordeal, I went directly to Phase Two, eating some complex carbs before my WO's. Was soooo much happier that way. But on my rest days I do try to eat less carbs of all stripes since I don't need as much glucose for energy.

With all due respect, skip Atkins and just follow a diet specifically recommended for diabetics, even if you aren't diabetic, which is my plan - like the simple GI diet - which just follows the standard food guidelines with special focus on reducing or eliminating sugars and simple carbohydrates - much easier to follow especially since it does not eliminate so much fruit as Atkins does. If you are consuming that much more protein, in my opinion, you need fruit even more to keep things moving.

I picked up a copy of the orginal Atkins diet last year, perhaps it has changed since, but any diet where I need to take urine tests to make sure I am not going into "ketosis" has me frankly quite concerned.....

willow you remind of a funny doctor who does these healthy eating lectures on PBS.....

he said the only way to lose the fat already on your body is to burn it off by exercise

the only to keep from putting more fat in your body is to stopping eating fat

(not totally of course, good fat bad fat etc)

not rocket science eh?

littlelilac -

With all due respect, skip Atkins and just follow a diet specifically recommended for diabetics, even if you aren't diabetic, which is my plan - like the simple GI diet - which just follows the standard food guidelines with special focus on reducing or eliminating sugars and simple carbohydrates

Agreed, totally. I don't endorse Atkins (as my last link displays), I'm just referencing that he popularized the concept.