Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL @ very high glycemic index shredded wheat being healthy.
Shredded wheat have a moderate glycemic index and the consumption of whole grains is associated with lower rates of type 2 diabetes and improved insulin control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saigafreak
Christopher Gardner does a large scale well controlled study pitting Atkins vs. ZONE vs. Ornish/McDougall vs. LEARN (standard recommended one) diet.
What this study primarily showed is that people have trouble committing to these diets. For example, the average fat intake on those in the Ornish group was more than double what it should have been. Adherence to all the diets was poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saigafreak
Anyone who is on an Ornish type diet will most certainly have higher triglycerides and lower HDLs, meaning they statistically will be at higher risk of heart disease than someone who eats steak, eggs, and cheese but eats low-carb.
We know what happens when people adhere to the Ornish diet because he has done studies. Both triglycerides and HDL are good on his diet but the main thing is that LDL is dramatically reduced so usually the LDL/HDL ratio improves. Ornish demonstrated that his diet not only lowers your risk for heart disease but can reserve existing heart disease. Nobody has demonstrated that with Atkins diet, instead you see the opposite.
You need to look at actual heart disease not heart disease risk factors.
Ornish demonstrated that his diet not only lowers your risk for heart disease but can reserve existing heart disease. Nobody has demonstrated that with Atkins diet, instead you see the opposite.
Taubes demolished that "study" because the Ornish diet was coupled with cessation, exercise, meditation and other unrelated lifestyle changes. Because of that, the study lacks legitimacy because it fields way too many independent variables to be useful.
Quote:
But let us assume that the improvement of the treated individuals was true and a result of the intervention—and this may well be possible—which of the intervention measures had a beneficial effect? Was it a weight reduction of more than 25 pounds? Was it a difference in smoking habits? (One in the experimental group smoked and stopped; nothing was mentioned about the number of smokers in the control group.) Was it the exercise? Was it the inner sense of peace and well-being produced by the stress-management education? Or was it a combination of these factors?
Quote:
A new angiogram was performed after one year, but one of the angiograms disappeared; in three patients the second angiogram could not be evaluated; one patient was not studied because of unpaid bills; one died during heavy exercise; and one dropped out because of alcohol misuse. Thus, only 22 patients in the experimental group and nineteen in the control group were available for analysis.
Quote:
And there were more flaws. Not only was it an unblinded study (although in the latest publication it was called blinded!), the low number of participants also resulted in a most uneven distribution of the risk factors. For instance, at the start the mean age was four years higher, mean total cholesterol 8 percent higher and mean LDL-cholesterol 10 percent higher in the control group; but mean body weight was almost 25 pounds higher in the treatment group. Such large differences between risk factors obviously complicate the evaluation of the treatment effect.
Quote:
You need to look at actual heart disease not heart disease risk factors.
Ah, so now cholesterol numbers don't matter anymore when Atkins beats Ornish in this regard? I believe this opinion is shared by types who don't believe it's fair that someone can indulge in lobster tail, butter, steak, and pork and actually be more heart healthy than someone who must suffer hunger pains from a heavily calorie restrictive diet of lima beans and whole wheat penne which as the studies show is nearly intractable to sustain and whose failure must always be excused by: "Well, they didn't eat less than 10% of fat in their diet in fat and that's a strict rule!". These people seek to rationalize things by saying that life is only fair if the person suffering is healthier than the person indulging. Well, life ain't fair, friend.
Then again, a picture is worth a thousand words:
Last edited by saigafreak; 06-16-2014 at 10:50 AM..
Taubes demolished that "study" because the Ornish diet was coupled with cessation, exercise, meditation and other unrelated lifestyle changes.
Noting that Ornish program includes more than diet doesn't demolish anything and Caldwell Esselsytn produced the same results solely with dietary intervention. The fact that low-fat whole food plant-based diets can reverse heart disease has been demonstrated in a number of studies and no other diet has been shown to achieve the same results. Reversal of atherosclerosis from diet alone is an amazing thing, no drugs can currently achieve that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saigafreak
Ah, so now cholesterol numbers don't matter anymore when Atkins beats Ornish in this regard?
Its not that cholesterol numbers don't matter, its that cholesterol numbers are just markers for heart disease and its much better to track the actual disease. For example drug companies have produced drugs that raise HDL cholesterol, but guess what? Despite the increase in HDL the people taking the drugs didn't have lower rates of actual heart disease. You see similar things with dietary practices that alter HDL cholesterol as well, it seems only your genetically determined HDL levels, which you can't control much, have an effect on your risk for developing heart disease.
Atkins diet has not been shown to be protective of heart disease and Atkins himself suffered from heart disease.
Not really, when people do this they pick bad photos of one person and good photos of another. But Mark Sisson is more muscular than Ornish, but Ornish is a doctor and researcher and Sisson is a former athlete so that is to be expected. And, well, Dean Ornish isn't that attractive but that has nothing to do with diet.
Caldwell Esselstyn is in his 80's and advocates a similar type of diet:
I'd compare him to a low-carbohydrate guru, but I'm not aware of any that are 80+. Atkins would have been in this 80's now but he died over 10 years ago with heart disease. The two knew each other.
Yeah, I have wheat issues, BUT the issue with Shredded Wheat is that it tastes like eating sticks and straw. I only WANT to vomit when I eat it because it tastes horrible.
IOW, you might have taken my post too seriously. Lighten up. Maybe the cereal makes you cranky and you need some protein in the morning.
Whoa. You weren't addressing me but you were discussing my favorite cereal. There's nothing wrong with shredded wheat. I was taught to prepare it like this: Pour hot water over the bisquits in a strainer. Put them into a bowl with heated milk, butter and a little bit of sugar. YUM. They get soft and kind of sweet.
If you are allergic to wheat then definitely don't eat shredded wheat. If anybody's worried about sugar, you get far more sugar from those pre-sweetened cereals and all the other junk like soda that people consume. Leave my shredded wheat alone.
Shredded wheat have a moderate glycemic index and the consumption of whole grains is associated with lower rates of type 2 diabetes and improved insulin control.
What this study primarily showed is that people have trouble committing to these diets. For example, the average fat intake on those in the Ornish group was more than double what it should have been. Adherence to all the diets was poor.
We know what happens when people adhere to the Ornish diet because he has done studies. Both triglycerides and HDL are good on his diet but the main thing is that LDL is dramatically reduced so usually the LDL/HDL ratio improves. Ornish demonstrated that his diet not only lowers your risk for heart disease but can reserve existing heart disease. Nobody has demonstrated that with Atkins diet, instead you see the opposite.
You need to look at actual heart disease not heart disease risk factors.
Oh yeah, cereal's great for insulin control. There's no more reliable way to jack up your insulin and basically tell your body, "do not burn fat at any cost."
There's a reason my waist size has dropped 2-3 inches now (nearing age 30) from when I was a three-sport high school athlete. Haven't had cereal in a few years -- good riddance.
Atkins would have been in this 80's now but he died over 10 years ago with heart disease. The two knew each other.
From wikipedia:
On April 8, 2003, at age 72, a day after a major snowstorm in New York, Atkins slipped on an icy pavement, suffering severe head trauma. He spent nine days in intensive care before dying on April 17, 2003, from complications from his head injury.
Noting that Ornish program includes more than diet doesn't demolish anything
My dissertation committee would have failed me immediately for conducting research in the manner that Ornish did. There are simply too many independent variable to attribute "reversing" of heart disease on any one factor. That is why his study was destroyed by Taubes.
Quote:
Atkins diet has not been shown to be protective of heart disease and Atkins himself suffered from heart disease.
Correction: Head injury, not heart attack. But let's entertain a heart attack conspiracy theory for a second:
Atkins suffered a cardiac arrest in April 2002, leading many of his critics to point to this episode as proof of the inherent dangers in the consumption of high levels of saturated fat associated with the Atkins diet. In numerous interviews, however, Atkins stated that his heart attack was not the result of poor diet, but was rather caused by a chronic infection.[9] Atkins' personal physician and cardiologist, Dr. Patrick Fratellone, confirmed this assertion, saying, "We have been treating this condition, cardiomyopathy, for almost two years. Clearly, [Atkins'] own nutritional protocols have left him, at the age of 71, with an extraordinarily healthy cardiovascular system"
The reason for him saying this is obvious: this doctor was paid off by the vast low-carb industrial complex lol
Why do the low-fatters always lie when it comes to Atkins' cause of death? Don't they realize that unlike 2003 we live in a much more searchable world where anyone can find a reliable source to not only debunk the conspiracy theory of heart disease as a cause of Atkins' death, but also finding out that his own cardiologist observed that his diet had greatly improved his genetic heart condition? Is it that important to them to hold onto an outdated 50 year old lipid hypothesis, before HDL was discovered and withholding data from populations that did not fit the modeled heart disease trend?
On April 8, 2003, at age 72, a day after a major snowstorm in New York, Atkins slipped on an icy pavement, suffering severe head trauma. He spent nine days in intensive care before dying on April 17, 2003, from complications from his head injury.
UserID said Atkins died *with* heart disease, not *from* heart disease. In other words - regardless of the cause of death - Atkins most definitely DID have heart problems at the time. And - he did. He had what was believed to be a genetic heart disorder, and he did suffer symptoms of it during his life.
No one knows for sure why he slipped on an icy pavement; his footing might not have been sure, OR he might have had a palpitation and the distraction caused him to lose his footing at the wrong moment. The cause of death was head drama resulting from a fall. But yes, he DID have a heart condition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
