London Doctor: "I remain to be convinced it is any more dangerous..."
 

A doctor's verdict

By Dr Mark Porter, Evening Standard Health Columnist

1 March 2004

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...ning%20Standard

The Atkins diet isn't popular with doctors.

It goes against the conventional wisdom that starchy carbohydrates should be our main energy source. Experts predicted dire consequences for anyone following the diet long-term - but these have been largely theoretical.

Opponents claim it can cause kidney damage, thin bones, constipation, raise cholesterol levels and increase the risk of diabetes and an early heart attack.

Although the diet has been around for 40 years, there is little real-world evidence to back them up. But there is plenty of proof the diet works, although not in the way Dr Atkins thought. He predicted low carbohydrate intake would cause metabolic changes that speed up the burning up of fat. But the latest evidence indicates the truth is much simpler - Atkins dieters lose weight because they consume fewer calories.

However, people are more concerned with whether, not how, it works. Many of my patients have shifted pounds on the Atkins diet.

But his most remarkable success has been closer to home - my parents have lost five stone between them after 30 years of carrying too much weight, and say they have never felt better. I would not recommend the diet longterm but for short-term weight loss it seems at least as effective as anything else, and I remain to be convinced it is any more dangerous.

Its closer but why would anyone who is doing something that makes them feel good and isnt doing them any harm want to stop?

I would hope this doctor had read the book, given the "controversy" surrounding Atkins. If he read the entire book, why in the world would he "not recommend" this WOE for life? He should have been able to read for himself that by the time his parents get to maintenance (and, really, before that) they are able to eat most of the foods that are considered "healthy", including bread. The quantity is certainly more limited, but even potatoes, for those who would want them, are not totally eliminated forever.

Some people may be ingesting fewer calories.
But I'm actually eating more. And my mother, who was gaining weight on 600-700 a DAY, is certainly eating more.
I think this **** about "we lose weight because we eat fewer calories" smacks of that "You were overweight because you overate" thinking.

I feel good, I am looking better, and I am not starving all the time. I don't have to know exactly how it works, just that it does!! :yay:

once again didnt read it

Mark Porter is a fool with a PhD and a man who is ill, with i think MS. but still wants drugs

I remember Dr Mark Porter from when he was regularly on TV. He always had a friendly, common sense approach to things, although he certainly went down in my estimation last time I read something he wrote about low carb v "healthy diets"! :rolleyes: This piece at least shows that he may have food for thought and might even :idea: read the book!!

However, I hadn't read that he is ill - can you tell me where you saw that?

Chatting at badminton today and mentioned that I had started the Atkin's diet and the immediate reaction of one women was to say "It's dangerous and can cause heart trouble"

At least two other people felt the diet was risky.

I kept the discussion simple and stated that a recent BBC documentary had shown that the diet works and no serious adverse side effects were reported

Thought I needed to check further and finding this thread and post has shown that I have found the "search by posts" option in the advanced search panel!

I can't see why some posters are critical of Dr Porter's message - I reckon it is overall very re-assuring.

They may be been put off by his convoluted phrasing: "I remain to be convinced it is any more dangerous..."

This is the quote I don't understand. Unless his parents never moved past induction on to the other three phases.

I think he is concerned that there are little or no formal multi-year studies of the diet. (Some are underway now.) Such studies are enormously difficult to do.

Good point, Got Beer. But what about the long-term studies on low-fat? Just walk into a grocery store and take a look at the customers, I guess, and you can see how effective low-fat is.

The long-term indirect evidence against LF is still pretty damning, but again, those controlled studies are paltry as well.

I think low fat does not make people fatter, as low fat does in fact lower the calories that would have been in the fat....but what has happened is that people have felt free to eat as many sugary processed carbs a they want if it is low fat. People who stick to say the Pritikin diet certainly don't gain weight. The problem with low fat for me is that it is unhealthy to eliminate fat from the diet leading to an increase in LDL to HDL. So people who pigged out on huge plates of pasta or low fat muffins by the dozen got overweight, but people who ate lots of raw veggies and very lean meats would not have. I just think that Atkins and other low carb diets are in general more natural, and more satisfying so that overall we eat less and get all the nutrients needed. I also think that it is one thing to look at results of highly controlled research in which subjects eat a very specified and controlled diet, and those of us who are eating naturally and on the run while trying to follow a basic plan....this is part of the advantage of low carbing...it is easier to follow on a rule of thumb basis than low calorie, low fat diets.

Val

I think part of the reason (the biggest part in my opinion) for the "annecdotal" reports of complications, not being able to stick with the plan, etc are due to the people who are "doing low carb" and have no idea what they're doing!

They don't read labels. So....even tho they don't have the bread, they have the frozen veggies in "butter" sauce. Or they eat the LF dressings, or all meat and fat and no veggies, or they just plain don't eat enough!

A woman I work with said she tried LC and was "starving all the time" from it. Well....come ti find out, she was doing Atkins. and while she did read the book, she didn't follow the diet. She said she "just couldn't eat that much meat" so she'd substitute "whole grains" to fill her up and add ccalories. Turns out she's not a vegetarian, but almost. She "doesn't really like" meat or cheeses. And eggs turn her stomach! From what she told me, I don't know how she lasted a week!

It's not for everyone. We all know that. But for those of us that it does work for, it's great! It takes willpower and dedication to get started and stick with it. We're constantly being bombarded with ads for sugar products and "studies" that show we're killing ourselves. When the cravings do kick in, too many are going to give up because it's "too hard". Well, easier than LF for me!

As for the "high drop out rate" of people trying Atkins.....how does that compare against other diets?