Dear Carbookie.
I appriciate your missionary zeal for Ketonic diet. I can understand you have lost weight following this regimn but weight loss was never disputed.
Let me reiterate what I said , Ketonic diet is a therepy but with certain adverse effects.
I wonder if you have really analysed the links you posted I just looked at top 3 and they confirm my view point.
And link 3 you have provided is very good it is actually from a published scintific paper and it highlights risk of Kidney and Cardiovascular diseases in results tab.
I see no reason why someone should ignore these findings
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbookie
Lets see some actual studies done in medical field for reference.
- New Scientist "Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet" |
New Scientist is a magzine and not a scientific journal for publishing research papers but any way look at the last paragraph after eulogising ketonic diet.
Although broadly supportive of the Atkins regime, Yancy warns that the diet could pose risks including the higher "bad" cholesterol, bone loss and kidney stones. Because of this, he discourages first-time dieters from using the regime.
This is exactly what I wrote in my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbookie
- Stanford Study - "Atkins Fares Best in Study Of Four Weight-Loss Regimens" |
Again Washington post is a secondary source and not a scientific journal but
read the last two paragraphs quoted below they confirm my view.
"For all practical purposes, the programs all worked about the same," said Kelly D. Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity and creator of the Lifestyle, Exercise, Attitudes, Relationships and Nutrition (LEARN) program for weight management, one of the diets studied. The extra four pounds lost by the Atkins group are not very meaningful, Brownell said.
Others were more critical.
"This study is seriously flawed, and its conclusions misleading," said Ornish, clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco. A careful read of the study shows "no significant difference in weight loss between the Atkins and Ornish or LEARN diets after one year!" he noted in an e-mail. "There was significantly more weight loss on the Atkins diet after one year only when compared with the Zone diet. This directly contradicts their primary conclusion." Quote:
Originally Posted by carbookie |
Now this is actually a paper but have you actually read the results and analyzed what they mean ?
These results totally contradict what you have been saying
Look at this paragraph in the results tab , This actually highlights the danger of very low carbohydrate diet
"Although the very low-carbohydrate diet produced the greatest improvements in most metabolic syndrome components examined herein,
we identified 2 potentially deleterious effects of this diet. Twenty-four hour urinary cortisol excretion, a hormonal measure of stress, was highest with the very low-carbohydrate diet. Consistent with this finding, Stimson et al31 reported increased whole-body regeneration of cortisol by 11β-HSD1 and reduced inactivation of cortisol by 5α- and 5β-reductases over 4 weeks on a very low- vs moderate-carbohydrate diet. Higher cortisol levels may promote adiposity, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular disease, as observed in epidemiological studies.32- 34 In a 6-year prospective, population-based study of older adults in Italy,35"
With this finding over six years untill someone is morbidly obse I don't see why he/she should risk kidney and cardiovascular disease ?
Also Look at the results under the abstract tab , Reproduced below
Compared with the pre–weight-loss baseline, the decrease in REE was greatest with the low-fat diet (mean [95% CI], –205 [–265 to –144] kcal/d), intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet (–166 [–227 to –106] kcal/d), and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet (−138 [–198 to –77] kcal/d; overall P = .03; P for trend by glycemic load = .009). The decrease in TEE showed a similar pattern (mean [95% CI], −423 [–606 to –239] kcal/d; −297 [–479 to –115] kcal/d; and −97 [–281 to 86] kcal/d, respectively; overall P = .003; P for trend by glycemic load < .001). Hormone levels and metabolic syndrome components also varied during weight maintenance by diet (leptin, P < .001; 24-hour urinary cortisol, P = .005; indexes of peripheral [P = .02] and hepatic [P = .03] insulin sensitivity; high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, P < .001; non-HDL cholesterol, P < .001; triglycerides, P < .001; plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, P for trend = .04; and C-reactive protein, P for trend = .05),
but no consistent favorable pattern emerged.
Now lets look at the 4th link you have provided
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbookie |
Just look at the purpose of this study it looks at the long-term effects on psychological function and not physiological function of
very low carbohydrate diet. Psychological function study is important because low ketonic diet is used as therapy for epilepsy.
In the conclusion this study notes favourable effect on Mood state which is expected as psychological effect.
But look at the first sentence of result section quoted below.
Results By 1 year, the overall mean (SE) weight loss was 13.7 (1.8) kg, with no significant difference between groups (P = .26).
Now are you quoting this paper as supportive evidence in weightless thread or quoting this for psychological benefit of mood state ?
I am not going in to point wise analysis of rest of the links you have posted.
Important point is if you omit these portions the picture look rosy but for holistic view whole picture needs to be considered.