I've been on Atkins 2 months now and lost the 20 lbs I wanted to lose. So I know it works but at the same time I don't understand how to reconcile this belief with an argument I see people bring up all the time that never seems to get answered.

Why does a 'traditional' Asian diet (and I'm speaking mainly Japanese to be specific) with lots of rice, relatively low fat content produce a slim, low cancer rate, low heart disease population. There are some exceptions like high rate of lung cancer from all the smoking but in large japanese just seem very healthy to me (althought again that is changing as the diet changes).

I've also done the 'Japanese' (macrobiotics) diet and it indeed did work. Much in the same way Atkins worked - quick painless weight loss and an improvement in energy levels. I've checked the glycemic indexes for brown rice (which I ate vs. white) and they are 'atrocious' under an Atkins diet. What gives?

Has anyone addressed this? One answer is they both work - Atkins and Ornish/Kushi (for lack of a better figurehead/s) both have approaches that are effective. Would like to hear people's opinions.

Hi Blue!

You might be interested in reading through this link: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...threadid=52993. Losing weight isn't all that low carb is about and as you can see, while Asians in general may be slim while eating a lot of rice, are they really healthier than Americans? I don't honestly believe so. They may have a lower incidence of heart attacks, but they have a higher incidence of stokes and many cancers that are particularly nasty.
For more information on the biochemistry behind all this, you might want to pick up a copy of Protein Power. The Eades do an excellent job of explaining how low carbing can not only help you get slim and stay that way, but also how it works at keeping you in the best health possible.

Good points. I checked and you are right, Japan does have a higher stroke rate than the US. I'll check that book out like you suggested.

I guess I'm still not satisfied. I could probably come up with a list of ailments more prevalent in Japan. Certainly lung cancer is higher because they smoke more. But overall their life expectency is about 4 years greater than US (great list at this site http://www.census.gov/ipc/prod/ib98-2.pdf). You could argue that this 4 year delta is the improvement one gets eating a Japanese diet over a high carb American diet.

But on that link above Japan has the highest male life expectency and the highest female life expectency of any country shown. Not too shabby. I am still not convinced that Atkins is better per se. Perhaps as I suggested before they produce similar effects.

The one area I have a certain amount of interest is osteoporosis (sp?). My girlfriend is now on the diet and I have heard (but have not done any research) which suggests calcium deficient bones exist in high protein & milk (ironically) consuming nations (US/Sweden vs. Japan/S. Africa). The story goes something like calcium is used in the process to flush extra protein out of your system and therefore can drain out calcium in your diet. Potentially an issue with Atkins.

I guess what I'm thinking about long term here is if these approaches are equivalent what separates them. Certainly they must have different side effects and perhaps one is more acceptable. I'm just trying to make an informed choice here while not trying to knee jerk into thinking one approach is right and one isn't. Maybe both are okay.

Hi Blue,

You'll be interested to read some research that proves High protein Diet Won't Weaken Your Bones.

And here's another study, showing that Calcium plus protein equals strong bones.

It is a good idea for all low carbers to take calcium and magnesium supplements. The best way is in a 2cal:1mag formulation, usually to a total of 1000:500mg.

HTH!

Rosebud

The book "Life Without Bread" by Allan & Lutz actually talk about the Japanese diet. Check this book out- it has the best research of any book I've read about LC.

Here's some of what it says:

"In the introduction section for the Japan results, the authors state that in 1958...the Japanese groups had the lowest saturated fat intake and lowest blood levels of cholesterol, and were among the lowest incidence of coronary heart disease. Notice that they used the words "among the lowest." The authors carefully chose their words, because, as we have said, low levels of heart disease were also observed in countries with much higher fat intake.
The trends in Japan from 1958 to 1989 showed that carbohydrate consumption decreased from 78% of total calories to 61%. Fat consumption increase from 5% to 22%. Protein consumption increased from 11% to 16%. Most of these changes were attributed to more meat, fish, and dairy products, and less rice.
In the same time period, deaths from stroke declined from 4.6 per 1000 people to .8 per 1000 people. Cancers rates also dropped slightly, from 4.7 per 1000 to 3.4 per 1000. Myocardial infarction [heart attacks] remained about the same. " (pgs 81-82)

They say more, but I'm feeling guilty for copying this. This book is wonderful!

I am going to give my own thoughts based on some common sense mixed with a little education.
Honesly people, America is the laziest country. I believe that we are all more unhealthy and overweight overall than Japan for a couple of reasons.
First, if you're ever met anyone who is native Japanese, you'll find out quickly that they wake early and do not stop moving/working till bedtime. Its unheard of to just sit around as we do. They may eat a lot of rice, but they use it before its stored as fat. They also eat a LOT of veggies and little sweets, very unlike us Americans. We eat a combo of high fat and high carb diet and do pretty much nothing. Most of what Americans eat are "convience" foods. These foods are processed as well as contain lots grain sugars in addition to wheat sugars. We tend to also eat too much and they don't. We come from a society of more is better. Those of us who actually have a carb addiction, get into the craving/eat/low energy/craving/eat/low energy loop that is just so miserable and deadly. Then we remain unactive, sick, and any activity we do acutally do requires us to pack around all the extra weight, which is horrible on a heart used to doing nothing most of the time.
So that is what I tell people..... when I feel like grabbing that cat's tail they wag to start an argument.
Of course, this is just my opinion for what its worth.

Honeybeware...

That's a point that I was thinking about, but you beat me to it. Asian cultures in general are certainly a lot less sedentary than Americans in general. "Free time" is a concept that they are not too familiar with as is the idea of just sitting around doing nothing. It's long been known that physical activity is helpful in warding off cardiovascular disease.

Blue...

4 years greater life expectancy is not a great deal when you think of in in percentage terms. Say the average person lives to 80 years old. An additional 4 years is about a 1% greater life expectancy. Those extra 4 years could be due to many things besides diet, such as genetics and general level of activity as well as environment. It could even be due to the omega 3 oils that they get in their diets from the fish that they eat. It becomes an even more startling statistic when you consider that they are comparing a culture that is high carb/low fat/low processed sugar and gererally quite active physically to one that is the complete opposite. A 1% difference? Wow...that's not much.
Longevity may be important to some, but for me, how I feel while I'm living, the quality of my life however long that may be, is more important to me and I have to say that I feel far better eating this way than I did while eating high carb. After all, what good is living a long life if you feel miserable and hungry the whole time?

You knocked that one out of the ballpark Lisa.
I agree totally, how long I live in comparison to the quality of the time spent, matters none.
That brings me to speak about how I feel today. My goodness, I feel great. Only the 3rd day off carbs but the transformation in energy is splendid!
So many people think someone gets on a diet(wol for me) to meet a goal on scales. That is why my profile doesn't give numbers, because as pleasing as the numbers falling are, the feeling is what I was searching for this time. I want to feel more alive and active. That's what I am getting

You can't read much at all into a comparison of life expectancies for different countries for one simple (and a whole lot of more complicated) reason - the biggest factor in the differences is not when the old people die, it's how many young people die.

There is this oft-repeated claim that we are living SO much longer than in years past. That in the middle ages the average life expectancy was only 22 and even by the beginning of this century in the United States it was less than 50. Yet history is replete with people living into their 80's and 90's - more than two to four times their life expectancy. That would be like someone living to about 300 years old today. What gives?

The answer is that life expectancy is the average age of a person in a population when they die. If a baby dies at age 1 and another person dies at age 79, the average life expectancy is 40. But does saying that the life expectancy is 40 really tell us anything? If so, what? It's sort of like putting your head in an oven and your feet in a bucket of ice water - on average you should be quite comfortable, right?

Historically, infant mortality was enormous - 30% was not uncommon at all and fewer than half survived to become adults. This gives a life expectancy for this half of the population of something like five years old. In order for the other half of the population to bring that average up to the ripe old age of 22 they have to live, on average, to the age of 40. You then also have to take into account wars and accidents that tend to take a disproportionate share of young adults and hence has a significant impact on the average life expectancy figure. You therefore have to have a lot of people living into their 60's, 70's and 80's to keep the overall average even up to 22.

A much better indicator is to look at the expected years remaining to a person after they have survived these high impact years. Unfortunately, these can be difficult to track down. For instance, in 1900 the average life expectancy for males in the U.S. was only 46.4 years old. But half of the people that were 65 at that time (and hence born well before the Civil War) lived to be 76.2. In 2000, the average life expectancy for males is 73.9 (a pretty staggering 59% increase) but the average expectancy for someone that is 65 today is only 80 - a quite modest increase of less than 5% in the age at which they will most likely die.

So what about Japan's four additional years? Using the data from:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html

They have an average life expectancy of 80.9 years and an infant mortality rate of 3.8 per 1000 live births. The U.S. has an average life expectancy of 77.4 years but an infant mortality rate of 6.7 per 1000 live births. So there is part of the difference right there. Then there is the simple fact that the U.S. has higher crime rates than Japan - with many of the resulting deaths being young people - and that the life expectancy figures for the U.S. still reflect losses - again of young people - in Vietnam and even Korea. World War II effects are largely fading out from the statistics though you can certainly see their role if you look at the increases in Japan's life expectancy over the last couple of decades.

But BlueToo, what truly intrigues me is did you go on a forum for high carb, low fat low protien and ask these same questions of them?
We are so indoctrinated with the idea that fat and protien are "bad" .. and that carbs are good, was that a thought that came into your mind?
For myself, having once been a nurse, I was appalled to realize that for the last several years we have been pushing a diet that breaks down into very little BUT SUGARS to diabetics! That was enough to make me go 'huh'??
I had a friend at work. diagnosed by accident for his diabetes. I knew something wasn't right when he would constantly bring a lunch of peanut butter sandwiches on white bread and tell us that this was within the guidelines. and checking it out.. he was technically right. Oh I know a nutritionist would have said.. whole wheat bread , yadda yadda..BUT IS THAT REALLY all that good for a diabetic?? Or that he could eat pasta for lunch because hey.. that is what we have been told is healthy
When I got into studying this. and I have been really working at it.. I wanted to ask.BUT what about the high triglycerides your high carb plans create?? what about the inbalance in that level to your LDL's??? FOLKS.. what about all those vegetarians out there..and I KNOW SEVERAL with cholesteral SKYROCKETING!
I am sorry.did you feel to ask these questions?
To go say" wow..and i know all these healhy low carbers".. What about the healthy (before white man's dietary inovations got to them!) eskimoes??? What about those greenlanders.
HELLO! what about the FRENCH?? Who by the way with their rich cheese, cream and wine diet are healthier than the pasta eating italians.
I just wonder if the RIGHT questions and to the right group gets asked?
I don't mean to come on like this. I am glad you lost weight. but it does seem that whatever your doing... it keeps being just a "diet"..and not a way of life in any event.
I did the high carb thing.. with lots of exercise I lost a lot of weight. I couldn't keep that up.. and it all came back..and now the few times I tried low carb, NOTHING happened but my belly seemed to get larger... scary.
Its just a thought WHy does atkins and other low carbers have to convince you. . and not the high carb folks?
My answer is not elegant..its too late I fear.. and I wish to make no one angry here.. I just.. felt this was a rather strange.. :-)
Well. back to my corner now!

Attached Images

wf738.jpg (10.0 KB, 30 views)

I agree

When I went on this wol 2 years ago and had great success, the place I worked, I was surrounded mostly other women and a large amount of them, and large in size as well. I can't count how many times I was told I was eating wrong as someone was shoveling down a lunch of high carb lunch. I am talking about the ones that weren't even on a low-fat diet! They were CERTAIN that eating a lunch of leftover pasta with turkey meat tomato sauce and bread was even better for you than my lunch of chef salad and regular dressing, with a nice steak. Never once did they wonder if the world could possibly be anything but flat, but always insist that *I* give the reasons for why its round.
I was constantly watched. It was like I was a freak show. They honestly could NOT believe that once I passed induction I wasn't even craving or struggling. They'd have sweets n such and say, sorry don't mean to eat this in front of you.
The one thing that always made me ill was the health and heart topics. I finally got tired of explaining how a low carb eating plan wasn't going to kill you and decided I'd let them think what they wanted.

Your so right about the craving thing.
I will admit to a few very fleeting passing moments during my period last week, but I just did a wide walk around the donuts and cookies in the vending machines at work.
But other than that.. people can eat their pizza, pasta, and sweets in front of me. .and I DON'T care.
In fact where I work we have several people from luxury hotels come in to train us for taking reservations. They of course have the funds to provide lovely spreads of food. most of which of course I want to leave alone as being lethal for my insulin resistant body to take. ( they occassionally have cheese and veggies!.. )
There were several other people doing some fad died of the week. They WERE DYING with the sweets and other goodies on the table. They said "isn't it bother you?"... I honestly could say.. "Well.. truthfully. No!"
I know until I show results none of them will believe in what I am doing or how I am feeling. But that is okay. My body believes. My digestive system believes. I feel good. .and what else matters?

Attached Images

wf738.jpg (10.0 KB, 15 views)

Rosebud - Nice articles on the calcium/protein debate. I need to go back and dig up the stuff I was reading about how this was an issue to compare.

Kindle - That book sounds great and very topical to what I'm interested in researching.

PoolieD - You seem to be trying to make an impassioned plea for me to ask the opposite questions. I am asking all questions. I'm trying to find data that I feel was captured in a valid manner and use that to make some general dietary principles I can believe in. Having a doctorate in science, I require data. I see a lot of people on here couching non-statistical data points (I know vegetarians with cholesterol skyrocketing) as bastions of truth. I'd rather not begin with an attachment to an idea because I know that stance leads to just looking at data points that support your idea and taking things personally (as you seem to do) and discounting that data when the data don't go your way. Statements like the French are healthier than Italians mean nothing. Support your statements. Healthier by what measurement/s? Longevity looks the same to me. If Italians eat more pasta/carbos than French, show me.

No. you failed and missed the point I was trying to make.
I never ever see anyone go to the high carb( ie high sugar) boards and way of life and ask them to "PROVE" themselves.
They aren't faced with the truths about bad blood chemistry's their way of life are creating, and they are certainly blissfully unaware of the many tribal peoples with better heath including bones teeth and blood work eating things like cows blood and whale blubber as their main diet.
I don't care what WOE you choose to eat.
What I am asking is why anyone here has a "prove' a thing to you. or convince you
The way you feel should be enough.
If you don't like how you feel. change it.
But what I notice is that because THIS WOE goes against the political forums of the US nutrtional councils and agricultural businesses and THIER agenda's it has to convince you. .or others.
I think that is my point.
There are evidences all ways. But the only one that SHOULD matter to you, IS you.

I guess I don't understand your point. I don't care how I feel on a diet. I do to some extent but there are a number of circumstances and extenal influences that could affect how I feel. I felt great on macrobiotics, slept 4 hours a day, and had the best workouts I've ever had. Does that mean it's good for my long-term health? What about placebo affects? Ever wonder why every vegetarian and Atkin's person is totally happy and feels great on the diet they're on. I would rather just see data support/desupporting diet ideas and go with that.

No one here has to prove anything to me but I thought that was one of the primary purposes of this board. If it isn't then I will find another resource. I don't see a lot of debate on this board so maybe that is the case. Maybe this is supposed to be more inspirational. But that's what I desire. That's why I post pro-vegetarian or pro-Japanese questions here and pro-Atkins questions on a vegetarian & macrobiotic board. What good is the choir preaching back and forth. To me that's boring and simply an exercise meant to make you feel good about your choice. Has nothing to do with learning and strengthing ones ideas. Wasn't it Fitzgerald who said that genius is holding two opposing ideas in your head at the same time.