We went to a picnic with my in-laws yesterday evening. Your typical stuff... hambergers, hot dogs, chips, cookies, pop.

As we were getting our food my son ordered two hotdogs no buns (he isn't a big bun eater). The cook said "you aren't on one of those low-carb diets are you?" We all laughed when he said no and I replied "he's not but I am." Typical humor.

Anyway, later on in the picnic, I went back to get a cheeseburger. I was putting veggies on my plate and couldn't help but over hear the conversation going on next to me. One of the thinner women was telling a whole group of skinny, petite women that Atkins is terrible. She went on to say that people consume more protein than they need and that it breaks down as ammonia in the blood causing it to poison the eater. She went on to say that it also shoots your cholesterol up to unhealthy levels.

Needless to say, my mother-in-law was there to make a good impression so I kept my mouth shut. Very hard to do as I am usually the first to correct someone (politely but whether I know them or not) if they are doling out wrong info on low-carb eating. I really wanted to saunter up to her and as sweetly as I could tell her that my cholesterol is 166 and I've been low-carbing (this time) since May.

I know it's best to just let a lot of naysayers go but last night it really bothered me. Maybe because the person saying it didn't look or act like she'd ever suffered with weight issues and maybe just because KNEW I couldn't say anything to her.

Shelley...

Wisdom is knowing when not to say the right thing at the wrong time even if it's killing you not to.
Congratulations....you showed wisdom.
However...if it were me and I ran into this woman again in the near future, I might be inclined to say something along the lines of, "I couldn't help but overhear you talking about low carb diets at the picnic last week. It seems that you've picked up some misinformation...." and go from there.
People are going to believe what they want to believe no matter how convincing the evidence to the contrary, but at least you would have a chance to set the record straight and get it off your chest whether she chooses to accept what you have to say or not. My 2 cents worth....

People are idiots. I'm sorry to sound cynical. :-) But really. Off and on for nine months, in very small doses I have talked with my father and stepmother about low-carb eating. My stepmother is walking PCOS -- textbook -- which no doctor has 'discovered', but she is unwilling to consider even a suggestion, read anything, from anybody else -- the doctor must be right, and it's merely that 32 different health problems, all unrelated, have fallen on her from out of the sky. Well anyway, not long ago, she and my father all but beat a path over to me at a family gathering, to tell me in the tone of voice normally reserved for things like, 'Did you hear? James Jones went nuts and burned his own house down!' or something, "We read an ARTICLE. It was about how too much protein can cause {xyz}." I said, (for the billionth time), "The eating plan is not about 'too much' protein. It is about adequate protein. Low-carb eating is not over-proteined, the ordinary diet is UNDER-proteined." My stepmother remarked, still in that drama-queen tone, "Well I think it's dangerous."

9 months of more verbal education than many colleges classes provide, my reference to tons of legit information, first-hand info seeing how well it worked for me on my 3-week trial, and seeing how well it works for my cousin who does it cyclicly (he's a body builder), and yet, one article in mass media -- which of course suggested that "those people on high protein diets are at risk" -- and it's like I've been talking to my foot for 9 months.

I finally realized that there really isn't a lot of point in boring anybody about low-carb. If they are interested and ask, I will respond. Otherwise, they are wasting both our time.

PJ

I just read a disturbing article in the Tufts University Health & Nutrition Newsletter, October 2002 issue.

"Ill Effects of High-Protein Diets: More than just Theory"

A study of people on Atkins was done and it showed that their urine was very acidic and had calcium in it which can lead to kidney disease and osteoporosis.

That's interesting Sandylee. I haven't seen that.

Atkins described in his book how various 'research' done on "his" diet often really skewed basics that he himself would not do -- essentially, to come out with an answer that made his approach look bad. For example, he says absolutely no more than 30 carbs on induction, and they'd do a study using 55 or something. Or, he'd insist you had to supplement with X and get some exercise, and they'd do a study without supplementing and totally sedentary and then talk about how it was 'eating' muscle and even brain tissue.

Considering the combination of food industries, medical industries, and diet industry, the money at stake if people were actually healthy is beyond just billions. It's made me cynical about believing anything I read unless I see the research paper that has the specifics about the study in it. There is so much enthusiastic effort to do anything to diss high-carb both in the medical and the general medias.

Not to mention the small detail that people remaining obese and with super high cholesterol (many people's alternative to low carb eating) has a vastly longer list of problems than what's proposed. But it'd be interesting to read the research paper and see if they've included the specifics of the protocol. Was there a reference to its publication?

PJ

PJ, there wasn't much detail on the study. I get very angry when my sister who is extremely overweight and recently diagnosed with diabetes, tell me how dangerous Atkins is. Meanwhile, she eats PopTarts!

Anyways, here is the article:

"Ill Effects of High-protein Diets: More Than Just Theory"

Developing kidney stones or osteoporosis as the result of a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet might sound like a remote possibility put forth by those who "believe in" a higher-carbohydrate regimen. But a meticulously controlled new study suggests that the possibility is more real than many have supposed. The diet triggers biochemical changes that set the body up for kidney stones, and bone loss--and the process starts after just 2 weeks.
Researchers recruited 10 people who wanted to lose weight, asking them to follow the popular high-protein Atkins diet. For 2 weeks, the volunteers followed what Dr. Atkins calls his "Induction" plan, eating an average of 19 grams of carbohydrate a day (about half of a 2 1/2 ounce bagel) and as much protein (and fat) as they wanted. They then switched to his more liberal, but still low-carbohydrate "maintenance" plan for 4 weeks. The volunteers were monitered in a high-tech metabolic ward, where the scientists carefully tracked their food intake and measured different substances in their urine and blood.
What was found was that their urine had become markedly more acidic, and there was a "striking increase" in the amount of acid their kidneys had to handle. The more acidic the urine (a result of both the high animal protein and very low carbohydrate content of the diets), the more likely kidney stones are to form.
An outflow of excess acid also promotes excretion of calcium, throwing the body into a defecit that could lead to bone loss. Indeed, the investigators found that not only did calcium levels in the volunteers' urine rise dramatically, but also that the losses weren't offset by increased absorption of calcium from food.
The study was a short one, but "acid excess will be sustained as long as carbohydrate restriction and high-protein intake are maintained," the authors note. WE note that the Atkins maintenance diet isn't meant to be temporary--which means that there's lots of time for any extra acid to exert its negative effects.

cre8tivgrl - I sympathize with your posting, but I think it's time for us successful low-carbers to start doing our part to change these misconceptions. Low carb just makes sense. You SHOULD have spoken out!!!

However, I think that low carb is not for everyone. I have been reading the Eat Right 4 Your Type book, and I think the theory has plausibility, although I think there's still work that needs to be done to flesh it out. I THINK I am a Type O (my mom's O negative), and if I am, it would explain why a low carb diet works, why I struggled with low-calorie diets and a low fat diet... well, I went on one once and GAINED 25 pounds in 6 weeks with heavy exercise (and that wasn't muscle gain). However, a lot of people don't do well on a low carb diet. A lot of Type A people don't do well on it, but do on Weight Watchers. Now, I also know that there are people with Type A blood that have been doing great on a low carb diet (Natrushka, for one, from the postings I've seen), and that's why I think the theory needs to be refined. The diet also suggests that Type O's don't do well with cauliflower, but I eat it often and I have noticed no metabolic problems. Still, it makes some sense, at least in a pseudo-science kind of way.

Sandylee - I feel for your sister. She has probably read too much propaganda. I hope she can later view things with a more open mind. She may see a big difference!

As far as the article is concerned, the study doesn't take into account supplementation, which I strongly believe in AND need. If I go without a supplement, like potassium, magnesium or calcium, I immediately feel very run down. There is also no mention to water consumption. Water helps reduce the buildup of toxins. What a load!

I have several thoughts about this study

1 It does not say who funded the study and why it was conducted. An example of how funding can cause problems like this occured in the book "The Glucose Revolution". This is one of the first books that was ever written on the concept of the glycemic index. It had some great info, but I was puzzled by their assertation that honey, potatoes etc. had high GI's but that we should all still eat them in a high carb, low fat diet. Then I recently discovered that thjeir research was sponsered by the sugar association! Also, I have a degree in psychology and we were taught to always rexamine why a study was conducted

2 There were not enough participants involved to extend this finding to the population as a whole. No matter what statistical analysis they used 10 people is not an adequate sample

3 Note that they used the term "striking increase" in the amount of acid their kidneys had to handle rather than "statistically significant". If their results were statistically sig. they would have stated this. I conducted a thesis last year and one of the first things you state in a research paper is whether your results are statistically sig. or not

4 Perhaps there was something different about these people that meant Atkins didn't suit them. I know many ppl who do better on other low carb plans for example. This flaw again goes back to the small sample design

5 The study was way too short to make these striking generalisations

In short, the study was not conducted as well as it should have been and the researchers set out to achieve the result they wanted it seems.

The writing of the text makes it obvious right off it is biased. "Believe in" -- as if there is no scientific evidence for low-carb eating and it's merely some cultish-thinking a few idiots might cling to.

If the study participants did not drink a good deal of water, they probably have more issues in their urine than the two mentioned.

Scarlet's point about funding of research is right on.

PJ

I agree, Scarlet and PJ, it seems relatively easy to skew results to benefit whoever funds the research. I also imagine that there are THOUSANDS of bias-funded test results that do not support the view of the funder that we never hear about...

I think the most obvious thing here that any decent unbiased researcher would immediately notice is the lack of statistical reference. All decent scientific studies always, always, state whether their results are statistically significant or not. These are clearly not unbiased researchers in this study.

You would think that Tufts University would have documented this information before putting it in its health and nutrition newsletter! I was very upset to see this going out to people who are concerned with health and nutrition.

A few weeks ago my doctor tested my blood and urine to see if I should remain on this diet. He told me everything came out perfect, including cholesterol. He never made any mention of acidity, although I don't know if he was testing for that. At first my doctor gave me permission to stay on Atkins for one month. After the tests, he says I can stay on it as long as I stay healthy.