Vegetarians and the Single Man

[LightPhoenix]

These arguments are a bit spurious.

Yeah, they are. Dropped. No more fad crap.

That depends on what you define as starvation. The traditional meaning of starvation, meaning that the person isn't consuming enough calories and nutrients, and their body reduces its metabolism to compensate, is not at all what that "Caloric Advantage" involves. In the long run that's very harmful.

Um, that's exactly what the "Caloric Advantage" involves. That's exactly the theory behind why the Atkins diet works.

And the metabolic shift is exactly the shame as the one the body undergoes during starvation. The body depletes carbs, then depletes fats, and finally proteins. The Atkins diet cuts out the first step, and stresses the third.

Which is why many opponents of the Atkins diet stress the long-term health issues involved. The human body was never meant to operate in such a way for long periods of time. In the long-term it's highly likely the Atkins diet is quite harmful.

However, like I've said, I've yet to read a study that addresses the long-term effects of the Atkins diet, either for or against. If one exists, please point me to it, because I'd like to read it.

Before you severely criticize something, it's probably a good idea to read it so you don't base your argument on huge incorrect assumptions. I don't doubt that many people see the Atkins diet as a quick fix that doesn't require any exercise or moderation, but that's the exact opposite of what Dr. Atkins actually recommended in his book. *snip*

I apologize for the assumption, it was wrong, and I stand corrected.

However, it seems, to me at least, that Dr. Atkins' original message was completely lost along the way, and needs to be bolstered.

You explained it yourself: the body does what's most efficient. Besides, it can be explained evolutionarily. In a hunter gatherer lifestyle, sources of carbohydrates were much rarer than sources of protien and fat, so it makes sense that the body would use these more efficient rarer sources before more common sources. In addition, the body can store only a very limited amount of glycogen, while its ability to store fat is almost unlimited. If the body burned fats before carbohydrates, a person who suddenly came upon a great source of carbohydrates wouldn't be able to use most of that energy, since their glycogen stores would fill almost instantly and the rest would go to waste.

The argument makes little sense biologically. Organisms evolve to optimize benefits in their environment - if this were really an issue, humans would be digesting proteins and fats easier than carbs. Which is simply not the case.

Furthermore, excess dietary carbs are converted by the body into fats, so a person who came into contact with a large carbohydrate source would be able to store it - it's one of the primary functions of the liver.

I do believe that losing weight and dieting takes work. To be completely honest, I'm not averse to the idea of dieting - obviously if you're over-weight, you've got an abundance of fat that will only be lost if you use more calories than you're intaking. For most people that means you have to reduce your intake. And to be fair, I don't even think the Atkins diet is completely without merit - certainly it's not the worst of diets that have been out there. The psychological benefits of eating an equivalent amount of food, more or less by volume, but reducing calories is a strong one. And the theory behind the diet is strong, especially if applied to people obesely overweight, who have enough fat content that depriving yourself of that energy will not be too terribly harmful, compared to the benefits.

However, being a cynic, I firmly believe in the Laziness Factor of people - people take the easiest route possible to attain a goal. Our modern society has done nothing to reduce this tendancy, and I think it's done a lot to encourage it. With regards to losing weight, this translates to diets that work quick with a minimum of exercise involved. Exercise is, IMO, necessary to be healthy. I think it's far better to get into the habit of exercising daily or every other day than it is to get into the habit of cutting things out of your diet every time you feel you've put on too much weight.

One last point to make, I swear. I think that nutritionists and dieticians have been extremely irresponsible in getting this point across, as well as in supporting the idea of someone being "overweight" if they're five pounds over some magical number. Overweight is a term that carries with it extremely negative connotations, and I as well as everyone else in this discussion run into its effects daily, especially concerning women. Hell, that's exactly how this discussion started. I don't have proof, but I'm willing to bet that the numbers of people with eating disorders have increased greatly in the last fifty or so years, since these numbers were created.

 

[Skade]

Since I'm also currently involved in weight loss program (one that is actually necessary) I'll just say that I agree that physical activity is generally more important than diet, though often physical activity is not enough.

I've always struggled with my weight, since long before my back injury and subsequent year of limited activities. I've never been one to just go running or do a set routine of excercises, but I have usually had physically demanding jobs, generally played a few sports, and went dancing near every weekend. Nothing gets your heart rate up quite like a night of dancing (of course all the calories from the alchohol probably limited the benefits of this activity).

My current practice is to limit my calories, which at the moment means no more than 1500. This is probably too low, but I'm doing all right so far even if I am sleeping a little more than I like. I've also removed as many sugars from my diet as possible, changed to whole wheat bread, and increased the number of vegetables I eat in relation to the meats. I have also begun to jog, do an increasing number basic excercises, and some very light aerobics. I'm also drinking a vitamin suppliment yogurt drink daily, which constitutes my breakfast, and has the most sugar that I east all day.

Is this a feasible plan?

Her diet is still up in the air, but she does run 5 miles daily, a feat that would cause my smokers lungs to go on strike should I attempt.

 

[Michael Tree]

Um, that's exactly what the "Caloric Advantage" involves. That's exactly the theory behind why the Atkins diet works.

I may be misunderstanding the process then, because the Atkins diet involves eating a lot more calories than most diets, precisely to avoid a lowering of the metabolic rate. It certainly does involve a shifting to a fat-burning metabolism, but the overall metabolic rate is essentially unaffected.

Which is why many opponents of the Atkins diet stress the long-term health issues involved. The human body was never meant to operate in such a way for long periods of time. In the long-term it's highly likely the Atkins diet is quite harmful.

What is a "long period of time" for this? The Atkins diet only puts the person into a fat-burning metabolism for a few weeks to a few months, during which the person gradually increases their intake of carbohydrates. The intake is never increased back to the level of the typical American diet, though, which is way too high in sugar and simple starches.

Though you're quite right that the long term effects are purely theoretical, since to my knowledge there aren't any long term studies.

However, it seems, to me at least, that Dr. Atkins' original message was completely lost along the way, and needs to be bolstered.

I wouldn't say that it's been lost, but a lot of people certainly do try to do it without being informing themselves about it. Every once in a while there's some story in the news about someone who came to harm because of the diet, and invariably it was because they were doing it drastically wrong (though the stories don't mention this). The diet is a lot more involved than just "don't eat any carbohydrates" and requires preparation and care.

The argument makes little sense biologically. Organisms evolve to optimize benefits in their environment - if this were really an issue, humans would be digesting proteins and fats easier than carbs. Which is simply not the case.

I was just making up some argument on the spot, and completely forgot about the conversion into fat. But is it possible for a protein and fat metabolism to be more efficient than a carbohydrate one?

As for the importance of exercise and the laziness factor, I completely agree. People place much too much emphasis on weight, and not nearly enough emphasis on health. Granted, since being overweight is a health risk, there is a fair bit of overlap, but it's not entire. Diet is a key part of health though, and until most recently the unhealthiness of refined carbohydrates and sugars has been downplayed in favor of an obsession with low-fat. If low-carb diets have no other lasting effect, hopefully they'll make people more conscious about the amount of carbohydrates they eat as well as the amount of fat.

As I see it, the Atkins diet's greatest strength is with extremely obese people, and people who have or are at risk of getting diabetes. Not coincidentally, these are the same group of people, especially for type 2 diabetes. Before the creation of insulin injections, a diet very similar to Atkins' was the most effective method of controlling diabetes.

I'm amazed when I hear about people who are at a healthy weight using a diet like Atkins. I certainly think it's reasonable for such people to reduce their consumption of sugars and simple starches for health reasons, but to reduce it to the point of entering ketosis seems to be overdoing it.

 

[ASH]

Thats crazy Skade. I am on a very similar diet. I was told that I should not eat quite so little calories because with the amount of exercise I was doing it was burning muscle and not fat.
So i upped that a little and found that I was not so sleepy. Before my diet started I would only exercise when we went out to the club every now and then and you are right about the dancing. I have a low tolerance to alcohol and it makes me really crazy anyway so I always ended up being the DD and not drinking anything.

I know one woman who lost over a hundred pounds on the Atkins diet. She was very obese, and needed to loose weight. She did it over a year and a half, and she feels great. I just dont have that disapline. I go to the gym a couple times a week and try to eat reasonably. But my main agenda is to feel better. Not to be thin. I was really thin in high school and its over rated. Are you happy? Do you have a secure self-image? Are you at a healthy weight? I think that these are the important questions.

I also smoke. Its nuts but I always get a craving after my workout.

 

[Skade]

I'm not happy with my looks, but I don't feel that it is a problem with "bad self image". I am honestly overweight, by around 25 pounds. I carry the weight fairly well since I'm pretty broad shouldered, and stout naturally. Even so, the extra flesh on my cheeks has got to go, and since the weight is mostly on my belly and chest... No, defintly not happy with my looks.

I'll probably change my calories to 1800 for the time being.

I have lost 10 pounds and 2 inches in the last week, which is nice because I actually began this regimine 4 weeks ago with no results. Seeing something after all this time is nice.

Oh, and yeah, I do my excercises take and jog and go for a swim to cool off, and the moment I stop that cig is right in my mouth, scarring my well worked lungs.

I've actually cut back on those significantly, and hope to quit by New Year. I doubt I will, but here is to hope.

 

[MerakSpielman]

...People place much too much emphasis on weight, and not nearly enough emphasis on health...

This is part of what really disturbs me about a lot of people I know. It's almost like they're "keeping score" with their weight. The lower, the better. I've even seen people go on diets to reach their "healthy weight" in such a way to make themselves really really unhealthy in the process. I'd rather be chubby and healthy (which I am) than skinny and sickly.

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

First off, I think that I need to apologize for my overzealous opinions with regards to the Atkins diet. I was an overweight, borderline diabetic (type II) with a wheat gluten allergy, so starting the Atkins diet helped me out threefold. Since starting the diet made me feel so much better, I have a sub-conscious belief that everyone that tries it will feel just as much better.

LightPhoenix, getting back to the food allergies, if you will recall from your bio classes, cells use membrane embedded sugars for cell recognition. If an immune cell encounters another cell that lacks the correct sugars, it will trigger an immune response and start attacking. Effectively, it causes an allergic reaction to the "invading" cell.

When a person eats a low-carb meal, the body has a chance to uptake and metabolize all of the sugars from the meal before a significant immune reaction can manifest; assuming of course that the sugars from the meal were of a type that the body considers foreign.

With a high carb meal, these sugars are in the bloodstream for a much longer time, allowing the body to actually begin mounting a defense.

The preceding is, of course, supposition. I've never seen any research about it, it is simply the understanding that I've gotten from piecing together tidbits from various sources (textbooks, journals and such). It may or may not be correct, and with your deeper background in BioChem, I would greatly value your opinion.

***
Long Term Studies
To date, there haven't been any very long term studies published about a low carb lifestyle. The longest that I've heard or was conducted for one year, and concluded that there were no significant health risks, with the exception of a loss of some skeletal muscle mass.

Of course, losing skeletal muscle mass is pretty logical when you're losing a lot of other mass as well. If you don't have to carry your obese rear around all day, it makes sense that you don't need as much muscle to carry it with.

***
Misunderstanding the diet
In Dr. Atkins' book, he lists out 4 phases of the diet: Induction, OWL, Pre-Maintenance, and Lifetime Maintenance.

Induction is the part that everyone has heard of, reducing the total caloric carbs to 20 grams a day in an effort to jump start the body's Lipolysis system. Induction only lasts for two weeks. Induction also doesn't really allow for any excercise to be done either, due to the fact that your body is confused because the only source of energy that it's had for years is suddenly deprived. Almost always, a person will feel terrible for the first week because the body is burning through the last of it glycogen reserves and hasn't figured out how to convert fat into sugar.

Ongoing Weight Loss lasts for a variable amount of time, as the person approaches their target weight. This is also the part of the diet where Dr. Atkins strongly encourages excercise begin. As a person progresses through their weight loss, they start to increase the amount of carbs they eat in a day. At this step, a person will normally find their Critical Carb Level for Loss (CCLL) which is effectively how many grams of carbs they burn through in a normal day's activity. As long as they stay below that CCLL, they will continue to lose weight; how far below it they stay determines how fast they lose weight.

Pre-maintenance and Maintenance are where the person simply keeps their average daily carb intake near their CCLL and live a healthy lifestyle. They also end up looking out for any changes in their metabolism due to age, illness, or other lifestyle changes and make changes to their CCLL accordingly.

As you can see, there is a lot more to the diet than just not eating carbs and losing weight.


***
Back to the Long Term Issue
IMO, there shouldn't be any mojor issues with continuing the diet indefintely. Since the diet is just helping you to determine how much food energy your body will burn in a day, then keeping yourself at that level of energy, there shouldn't be any problems.

I will admit, though, that there is a very real possibility of people abusing the diet. Because it keeps your metabolism up while still in the same state of biochemical behavior as starvation, it would be quite possible for a person to "accidentally" starve themselves into an unhealthy state much faster than simple starvation would allow for.


***
The Evolutionary Argument

For 10 million years, the critters that would become us were adjusting themselves to become a hunter/gatherer tool using primate. At the end of that 10 million years, approximately 50k years ago (that was the last number I hear in an Anthro class as to the emergence of H. s. s.) the transformation was pretty much complete. Since that time, effectively no changes were made to the actual biology of humans.

I wasn't trying to make any parallels between modern man and critters from 10 million years ago. I was just pointing out that 10 million years were spent making a critter that could survive on a hunter/gatherer diet. (And which then spent 40k years living like that until it discovered beer. )



As to why we don't digest fats and proteins more effectively than sugars, you need to understand a little bit more about evolutionary pressures.

Just because an animal stops evolving at a point doesn't mean that it's the most efficient point for it to stop at. All it really means is that the creature has found a (to borrow a math term for a little while) LOCALIZED maxima. Most likely not an absolute maxima.

As an example of this, the eyes of all mammals are wired up backwards. If you follow the path of the light through the eye, it reaches the surface of the retina (the layer of cells that detect the light) and must pass through the entire cell in order to reach the part of the cell that actually detects the light.

here is a really bad ascii illustration of this

---Light----> [cell junk|| detector]

As you might expect, this causes some problems, most notably that there is a spot on the retina where there can't be any light detecting cells. Instead, there is a bundle of nerves that passes back through the retina to communicate with the brain. This is what causes the "blind spot" that everyone has.

Before you assume that there must be some good reason for the body to be set up this way, you should be aware of the fact that Octopi and their relatives got it right. Their eyes are wired the correct way, with the light detector closest to the light, and the nerve connection in the back.

So, in short the (likely) reason for the body to digest sugars more efficiently than fats is that it's good enough as it is, and it couldn't get it any better without a major design overhaul.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I may be misunderstanding the process then, because the Atkins diet involves eating a lot more calories than most diets, precisely to avoid a lowering of the metabolic rate. It certainly does involve a shifting to a fat-burning metabolism, but the overall metabolic rate is essentially unaffected.

Sorry, I haven't done the best job explaining it. Let me try again, and if I'm over-simplistic, forgive me.

As I stated in my post above, there are molecules in the body that act as fuels basically, for reactions. ATP, GTP, and NADH are the most common of these, but there are numerous others (CTP, ITP, FADH2). When these are used, only a specific part of the molecule is lost, and these can be regenerated. The process this is done by is called glycolysis.

The actual regeneration step of glycolysis requires two molecules named glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate and dihydroxyacetone phosphate. A series of reactions between these two molecules are what regenerate the fuels I listed above. These molecules don't occur naturally occur in our diets, and they probably don't exist anywhere naturally, because they react easily. Our body has to make them.

Our body can make these a number of ways - through dietary carbs, through fats, and through proteins. But, in order to make these, the body needs to spend energy. The easiest of these to convert is glucose, which only takes two ATPs, if I recall correctly. After that come other carbohydrates. Then comes the fats, which require a little more energy, and finally the proteins, which require the most energy to convert. This is mirrored in the way our body processes foods - it first uses carbs to make blood sugar (glucose), and if there isn't enough, uses fats. Rarely does it need to use proteins, but these can be used if there isn't enough fat to provide blood sugar.

As I pointed out, this is exactly what happens when someone is starving (deprived of food ). You use up your store of carbs (very little, relatively), then your store of fat, and finally your store of proteins, usually the muscles first. As an interesting side effect, this also makes your breath smell like acetone, since that's one of the byproducts of converting most of the amino acids in the proteins.

Alright, so we can get calories, really energy, from any of the three groups. However, because of the effort involved in converting fats and proteins into usable forms, you actually get less net energy from them. So you have to eat more. Thus, if you eat 2000 calories of fats and proteins, you're really only getting the equivalent of 1200 calories of carbs, as whatisitgoodfor stated above. Or, to put it in a better way, a diet of only fats and proteins produces about 60% of the energy of a calorie equivalent carbohydrate diet.

This is the psychological deception of the Atkins diet - you're eating just as much, but you're getting less energy, and thus you have to burn more (using fats first, since there are no carbs), and thus you lose weight. And it's sound, especially for people who have eating disorders that result in over-eating.

It really boils down to the definition of a calorie, and how deceptive it really is. A calorie isn't measured by any biological method, but a chemical one. 2000 calories of protein is the same as 2000 of carbs chemically, in vitro. However, they're most definitely not equal in humans, in vivo.

Now, how does this affect metabolic rate? Relying on fats and proteins actually puts stress on the body by making it have to work faster. After all, there are more steps involved to getting them to a usable form for energy production. Chances are you're not being any less active either - in fact, if you're exercising you're being more active. So your body has to work at full blast to get enough energy for the body to use.

Again, I haven't heard of any long-term studies, but chances are this increased level of metabolic stress on the body isn't good for it.

What is a "long period of time" for this? The Atkins diet only puts the person into a fat-burning metabolism for a few weeks to a few months, during which the person gradually increases their intake of carbohydrates. The intake is never increased back to the level of the typical American diet, though, which is way too high in sugar and simple starches.

Though you're quite right that the long term effects are purely theoretical, since to my knowledge there aren't any long term studies.

This is why there need to be long-term studies. I don't know the point at which is crosses for okay to dangerous, and can only speculate that it is in part affected by the weight of the person.

I wouldn't say that it's been lost, but a lot of people certainly do try to do it without being informing themselves about it. Every once in a while there's some story in the news about someone who came to harm because of the diet, and invariably it was because they were doing it drastically wrong (though the stories don't mention this). The diet is a lot more involved than just "don't eat any carbohydrates" and requires preparation and care.

Mmm, media bias. I will concede to this point though, since it does make sense. Damn you and your sense!

I was just making up some argument on the spot, and completely forgot about the conversion into fat. But is it possible for a protein and fat metabolism to be more efficient than a carbohydrate one?

It depends on your definition of efficient.

However, based on net energy gain, no. You need to eat more calories to get an equivalent amount of energy from fats and proteins.

As for the importance of exercise and the laziness factor, I completely agree. People place much too much emphasis on weight, and not nearly enough emphasis on health. Granted, since being overweight is a health risk, there is a fair bit of overlap, but it's not entire. Diet is a key part of health though, and until most recently the unhealthiness of refined carbohydrates and sugars has been downplayed in favor of an obsession with low-fat. If low-carb diets have no other lasting effect, hopefully they'll make people more conscious about the amount of carbohydrates they eat as well as the amount of fat.

As I see it, the Atkins diet's greatest strength is with extremely obese people, and people who have or are at risk of getting diabetes. Not coincidentally, these are the same group of people, especially for type 2 diabetes. Before the creation of insulin injections, a diet very similar to Atkins' was the most effective method of controlling diabetes.

I'm amazed when I hear about people who are at a healthy weight using a diet like Atkins. I certainly think it's reasonable for such people to reduce their consumption of sugars and simple starches for health reasons, but to reduce it to the point of entering ketosis seems to be overdoing it.

I agree with everything you've said, completely.

And yes, I do think white bread sucks.

 

[Conaill]

cells use membrane embedded sugars for cell recognition. If an immune cell encounters another cell that lacks the correct sugars, it will trigger an immune response and start attacking. Effectively, it causes an allergic reaction to the "invading" cell.

When a person eats a low-carb meal, the body has a chance to uptake and metabolize all of the sugars from the meal before a significant immune reaction can manifest; assuming of course that the sugars from the meal were of a type that the body considers foreign.

With a high carb meal, these sugars are in the bloodstream for a much longer time, allowing the body to actually begin mounting a defense.

Interesting hypothesis. However, AFAIK (and I don't have my immunology textbook handy right now), this immune reaction to sugar molecules on the surface of a cell is is specifically in the context of a response against foreign *cells*, not against loose sugar molecules floating around in the blood stream.