So many posts to answer... still haven't gotten time to search for the studies... Let me begin answering posts, though.
seyont:
> Is this site a demo for your web-design and PHP skills?
I appreciate the comments on my design skills. I like to learn about a wide variety of topics, so I'll pick a topic, and stick with it until I'm decent at it, and then go on with something else. I learned web design a few years back. However, this isn't the topic at hand, but thanks. (It's not a cybersquat - just another topic I've chosen because of the potential reselling of some ketogenic products)
> Dr Ornish might have some good material, but searching the web for "Anti-Atkins" would also be a good start.
I haven't heard of Dr. Ornish nor of Anti-Atkins, but those sound a bit biased against the topic, so they weren't in my search criteria. At this point, they may come in useful in this debate. Most of you have probably already debated the points, so it would be easy coverage. I'll look at them later.
> If it's a sincere attempt to discredit ultra-low-carb diet plans...
Again, it's not an attempt to discredit the diet plan. That's just how it came out.
> you will have trouble equating Ketogenic with Zero Carbs.
I quickly re-read my article and didn't see that equation anywhere. I didn't equate that because from what I read, it was about low-carbs, not about no-carbs.
> the mere presence of ketones leads to all these symptoms
This is something that I'm getting close to changing. From what I've gathered here, would it be factually correct to say that ketosis (aka lipolysis aka ketosis/lipolysis) happens at any time the body burns fat? If so, would the only thing that would trigger the burning of fat be the absence of glucose to use as fuel? And if so, wouldn't the state of ketosis only be extremely short/temporary, in which case the symptoms would not have a chance to appear unless ketosis was sustained?
Also, which of the symptoms would you consider to be factually incorrect when linked to ketosis? For sure, bad breath... which gives me another point to heckle with Atkins. I just finished reading one of their FAQs which stated that its not bad breath - just different breath. However, according to the numerous related posts that I've read on this forum, it's a bad different (which can be helped with those Listerine strips, which Atkins could sell on their site
). Either way, it's these little wording things that just detract credibility points from articles written by people trying to sell their products. Personally, I would've stated, "Yes, it gives you bad breath, but here are ways around it..." rather than trying to "spin" it. But that's just me and that's just Atkins.
> the body can only hold about 200 grams of glycogen
On the Atkins FAQ I just mentioned, it stated that it can hold two days' supply of glycogen ("glucose in the form of glycogen"). A two days' supply is 200 grams? That seems a little small. Is there another term that would be more appropriate in that context?
> "The Weight Loss Doesn't Stick", and "To Make Matters Worse" simply aren't serious writing.
Just because of the analogies?
------- On to the next person -------
Lisa N:
>as long as fat is being burned, ketones are being produced.
But again, things like exercise might burn fat, but those ketones are not constant. In a low-carb diet, the ketogenic state is sustained / continuous. A prolonged diet doesn't necessarily have to be a continuous action of dieting - a diet plan could simply include a schedule of activities that burn fat - slowly but surely. At least this is what I'm reading into here.
However, you did bring up an excellent point that I had not heard about - that is, that people are not in a ketogenic state at any point they are on the diet, and that after the weight loss has been achieved, they increase the carb counts slowly until loss stops. At that point, they maintain their current weight and level of carbohydrates. Did I read this correctly? So what is happening chemically at that point? Are transitions into ketogenic states just more frequent than your usual non-dieting person, so some balance is achieved?
> It stands to reason. If you live in a cold climate...
Heh - we're getting into evolution-istic area here, assuming cold climates and an old earth. Personally, I'm a Creationist (although you could technically have an old-earth-Creationist, but I think a young-earth-Creationist is more logical reasoning). So there's an obvious conflict there, but either way, there would still be no way of determining what the climates were like back then, nor would there be a way to positively say that certain crops were out of season at different points. If you want to get technical about it, you can look at it from an evolutionist's POV and ask yourself if man evolved so much over the millions or billions of years (depending on which evolutionist theory you subscribe to), why would climates and plants not have evolved, as well? This could get into a lot of areas that aren't really related to this topic, but for now, it would be safer to assume that we have no real knowledge of how things were thousands, millions, and/or billions of years ago. Someone sarcastically stated that there would be bugs in the fruit, but I would venture that the person has not grown up in a variety of settings including orchards and houses with a couple fruit trees, with and without pesticides. Trust me - I've lived the fruity life
and that isn't a very valid argument against eating fruit back then.
I don't know about the Inuit diets, though, but I would also venture that a lifestyle change would also be in order with a diet change, so I'm not sure if that was studied, as well. If you happen to find the study online anywhere, please let me know - I'll keep my eye out, too.
> You did wonder why one would want to "trick" their body into believing it was starving
However, burning calories wouldn't necessarily be controlled starvation. Since starvation is not considered something we are normally in, and since we burn calories just by typing on a keyboard or walking somewhere, it would stand to reason that starvation wouldn't result just from normal burning of calories. Thus, a diet including a plan of scheduled exercise to burn more calories wouldn't be considered controlled starvation, as long as you're eating correctly.
> Forcing your body to use an alternative energy source is not equivalent to starvation.
You're right. It isn't - you aren't really starving. That's why I didn't say that you were starving yourself - rather tricking your body into thinking that it's starving, when it really isn't. That was my point to make. Also, you just said that all negative caloric diets would be considered controlled starvation, and low-carb diets do seem to offer lower-calorie balances (even though you say you're -allowed- to eat more), so wouldn't they be considered controlled starvation?
> If you're going to research it, I'd suggest that you include Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution
I will take that into consideration. Thank you!
------- On to the next person -------
Omega:
Back to evolution again? Just out of curiousity, how many of you believe in evolution? Not to pick a fight - just curious... I'm not going to discredit it here - this isn't the proper forum for that debate.
------- On to the next person -------
suze_c: (1st post on 2nd page)
> are you going to include [epileptics] in your claim that this diet is unhealthy?
Ouch - this doesn't seem like a very good argument from you, suze_c. There's plenty of "medicine" out there that is unhealthy for you, but it can offer treatment at the same time.
------- On to the next person -------
Lisa_N:
> I'd also like to note [diabetes] is another condition that could not be considered "rare").
I never said epilepsy was rare - someone generated that somewhere along the line. If I recall correctly, it affects 1 out of every 200 people. Ebola's rare to me. Not epilepsy. Neither is diabetes - I concur. And again, note that I already had an article up there on epilepsy and the benefits epileptics can receive from ketogenic dieting. I would've put one up on diabetics, but I wanted to do a little research before posting anything on that.
------- On to the next person -------
suze_c: (2nd post)
> ...thousands, who have benefitted from this way of eating...
I wouldn't doubt that it might work for many people. However, this isn't my point. Look at history and you'll find plenty of "solutions" that worked for thousands, even millions of people until someone found out that there were unpleasant sides to the solutions, at which point solutions get revoked. At this time, I've heard a lot of negative comments against ketogenic dieting that seem to make sense, and so I am trying to do a personal study into whether or not the comments hold water. There are lots of small signs that bother me, as well.
For instance, when new medicine is introduced, even revolutionary and provocatory medicine, the medical community tends to shun it for a few years, while they study it in secret, and then about 20 years later, you'll see it in use, or it'll just disappear. However, it's very unusual to have a treatment that gets introduced, gets shunned, and after a long period of time, it still has not been accepted by the medical community. To make it look even worse, a lone figurehead stands at one of the most widely-known varieties of the treatment. Lone figureheads, especially lone doctors, tend to turn out to be scam artists. Again, I'm not saying Atkins is a scam artist (at least I'm not saying that yet - you never know what the future holds). However, I am trying to describe the painting set before me, and what it's likened to, and the unusual circumstances I see. Now I'm just trying to clear up the negative commentaries to understand why it's all painted this way.
> Whoever said that those of us who benefit from a ketogenic eating plan were normal in the first place?!?
Actually... a couple of people implied it in this thread, I believe. But I think they were meaning physically intact (no physical disorders, diseases, etc).
> think outside the box
Not to sound egotistical, but I would classify people who would write an article like mine and then try to critically disprove it with a horde of opposing viewpoints as people who are thinking well outside the box.
Whew. I've already lost pounds typing all this.
- Jonathan
That sure seems like what is happening here... we all seem to have valid arguments for the most part, to support the way that we are thinking, and isn't that what a healthy debate is all about? As far as using a ketogenic diet to control epileptic seizures in cases where they cannot be controlled by the usual antiseizure medications... that to me is very important information, as my son suffers from a seizure disorder... I thank God above, that a change in medications was able to bring it more under control... But being in the "parent of a disabled child" *community*, so to speak, I do know of those with seizure disorders who were helped with a ketogenic diet... I don't plan on my *restricted* way of eating of being something that is going to last forever.... but it does show me how much of a "hold" that carbs have on me, and how much they affect me overall... when I do introduce more carbs back into my way of eating, they will be more natural ones and less processed and "man-made" ones,so to speak.To those who are carb sensitive, it is like a drug or a drink,... it so affects the body's physiology... in my opinion, asking someone to go back to carbage, i.e., the carbs unhealthy for them is no better than giving "bad drugs" back to a drug addict who has recovered,or alcohol to someone with a drinking problem who no longer boozes.
Linear Mode
