"Low carbohydrate diets achieve weight loss because they are low in kilojoules, not because carbohydrate is fattening. Weight loss may be faster over six months on a low carbohydrate diet, but there is no weight loss advantage over a healthy eating, weight loss diet after 12 months.
Some extreme low carbohydrate diets, such as ???Dr Atkin???s Diet Revolution??? are ketogenic (i.e. <100g carbohydrate/day). These diets cause an accumulation of improperly used fats (known as ketones) in the blood and urine. This can produce the side-effects of bad breath, nausea and fatigue. As carbohydrate foods like wholegrain breads and breakfast cereals and fruit are a good source of fibre, avoiding these foods can cause constipation.
Many people are attracted to these diets by the lure of the ???all you can eat??? fatty food regimes. For some, despite the high protein and fat intake, weight loss is mainly due to:
o Restriction of carbohydrate causes a drop in glycogen, promoting water loss (the first 2-3 kg weight lost is mainly water); o Avoidance of high sugar foods that are also high in fat like biscuits, cakes, pastries and take-away; o Greatly reducing the variety of foods, therefore reducing the number of kilojoules you eat; o Increased production of ketones that act to reduce your natural appetite; o High protein foods tend to be more filling, making you less likely to over-eat.
A large study in the United States investigated over 2500 people who had successfully lost 14 kilograms or more and kept it off for at least one year. Only 1% of successful people had followed a low carbohydrate diet.
Analysis of one low carbohydrate, high protein meal plan revealed the diet was also very high in fat, and low in grains, vegetables and fruit. Although the diet produced short-term weight loss, long-term use was likely to increase the risk of both heart disease and cancer."
asked byAbaddon (110)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on January 20, 2012
at 03:21 PM
I'm not sure that this is a question, but it highlights many of the problems around at the moment. It's not as if it's completely wrong, but these arguments are being had by vested interests (and too often that includes scientists as well on this). It misses the point, insults people's intelligence, and is in essence 'negative campaigning' which rarely actually helps anyone.
It sets up a load of false dichotomies - it's not either low calorie or non-fattening. It's all part of the same system. How about listing some of the possible side-effects that correlate with non-ketogenic diets? And as we all know, if you desperately need fibre then eat vegetables not cardboard. This is just playing a long-established bit of propaganda on the virtues of fibre from people who had nothing else worth selling.
There's plenty of examples of people getting the wrong information (I wonder how that could possibly happen) and overeating 'fatty foods' but this is playing again on the negative stereotype of fatty foods. And they justify the weight lost in spite of this as being because people avoid high sugar products and baked goods, naturally eat less, reduce their appetite and feel more sated. And these are bad things? Sounds like a good approach to weight loss to me.
And then let's finish with analysis of ONE meal plan, identify that it is high in fat and so scare everyone with the risks of heart disease and cancer. Say what you like about the Inuit but that's a decent description of how they live and, erm, they aren't all dead yet.
How do people expect to have a sensible discussion of these things when they have such low standards in their own critical skills?