Peking Best

This is the 3rd study that I've seen that implicates bad outcomes on endothelium on Atkin _style_ diets. I know the G. Taubes problems has a study from the 1890s that refutes this, but I'll post it anyway. Regards Randy http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229141756.htm Hypertension. 2008 Feb;51(2):376-82. Epub 2008 Jan 14. _link_s Benefit of low-fat over low-carbohydrate diet on endothelial health in obesity.Phillips SA, Jurva JW, Syed AQ, Syed AQ, Kulinski JP, Pleuss J, Hoffmann RG, Gutterman DD. Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Obesity is associated with impaired endothelial-dependent flow- mediated dilation, a precursor to hypertension and atherosclerosis. Although dieting generally improves cardiovascular risk factors, the direct effect of different dietary strategies on vascular endothelial function is not known. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that a low-fat (LF) diet improves endothelial function compared with an isocaloric low-carbohydrate (LC) diet. Obese (n=20; body mass index: 29 to 39; mean systolic blood pressure: 107 to 125 mm Hg) and otherwise healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to either the American Heart Association modeled LF (30% fat calories) diet or an isocaloric LC Atkins' _style_ diet (20 g of carbohydrates) for 6 weeks (4-week weight loss and 2-week maintenance phase). Brachial flow- mediated dilation and dilation to nitroglycerin were measured with ultrasound using automated edge detection technology (_base_line, week 2, and week 6). Blood pressure, weight loss, and cholesterol profiles were measured throughout the study. Weight loss was similar in LF (100+/-4 to 96.1+/-4 kg; P<0.001) and LC (95.4+/-4 to 89.7+/-4 kg; P<0.001) diets. Blood pressure decreased similarly in both groups (LF: 8/5 mm Hg; LC: 12/6 mm Hg) at 6 weeks. After 6 weeks, the percentage of flow-mediated dilation improved (1.9+/-0.8; P<0.05) in the LF diet but was reduced in the LC diet (-1.4+/-0.6; P<0.05) versus _base_line. Dilation to nitroglycerin and lipid panels was similar at 0, 2, and 6 weeks. Despite similar degrees of weight loss and changes blood pressure, LF diets improved brachial artery flow-mediated dilation over LC diets. LF diets may confer greater cardiovascular protection than LC diets. PMID: 18195164 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I know the G. Taubes problems has a study from the 1890s Boy, THAT study takes me back!!! Andy

Obese (n=20; body mass index: 29 to 39; mean systolic blood pressure: 107 to 125 mm Hg) and otherwise healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to either the American Heart Association modeled LF (30% fat calories) diet or an isocaloric LC Atkins' _style_ diet (20 g of carbohydrates) for 6 weeks (4-week weight loss and 2-week maintenance phase). Too few subjects, over too short a period with too extreme a contrast. 20 subjects over six weeks, none with diabetes and comparing 30% fat and presumably 55-60% carbs to extreme low-carb. So, when are we going to see the continuing  study when they come out of induction? And it was isocaloric.  One thing that seems to escape many of those comparing diets is that isocaloric may seem a fair test superficially - but it's not how it happens in the real world. Part of the differences I have found in the five years since I moved to low-spike and lower carb eating (but a lot more than 20gms daily) is the absence of hunger and absence of the desire to over-eat. So satiety and hunger are significant factors to be properly researched as part of any well-designed study into obesity and weight loss and an isocaloric diet cannot do that. Atkins has been around for thirty years. I'm not an Atkins devotee, but it occurs to me that despite all the passions the diet wars arouse there have been no long-term studies of those who have followed the diet. Nor, for that matter, can I recall any such studies specifically on those who followed the ADA or AHA diet over a similar period. One wonders why, considering that doctors and dieticians have been prescribing it to their patients for decades, no-one has thought to scientifically find out the good and bad long-term side effects. This one may interest you. It's another very small, very short study by the same lead researcher in 2004. Only the abstract seems to be available in English. http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/15807201 Effect of a high fat or high carbohydrate breakfast on postprandial lipid profile in healthy subjects with or without family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus <snip A single blind, controlled clinical trial with parallel groups was performed in 20 healthy subjects; 10 subjects with family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus and 10 individuals without that background. Each group was randomized to receive a high fat or high carbohidrate breakfast. A _meta_bolic profile that included fasting and postprandial lipids, as well as, the assessment of insulin sensitivity were performed. <snip In conclusion, healthy subjects with family history of type 2 diabetes showed some atherogenic characteristics in their _meta_bolic profile, and the high carbohydrate breakfast produced in them increments in apolipoprotein B and in triglycerides, meanwhile that, in those subjects without such background the high fast (fat?) breakfast produced unfavorable effects on their lipid concentrations. Apparently increments in apolipoprotein B and in triglycerides in those with possible diabetes genes weren't unfavourable? I mention it as one of the few studies I can find which specifically compared those breakfasts for a study group including diabetics. For some reason it never occurred to them to add BG's to those postprandial tests. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

I know the G. Taubes problems has a study from the 1890s Boy, THAT study takes me back!!! Hehehehe.  Oldie but goodie!

Very interesting but I don't do Atkins . I do the Ozgirl diet and my fats are those encouraged by heart authorities, fats that help promote and maintain endothelial health. Researchers would be better spending their $$$'s researching people who actually take a lot of trouble to eat what is optimally beneficial. 30% fat isn't a particularly low fat diet. A diet with 30% fat should come under a balanced diet rather than low fat. If someone truly was assessed that follows a low fat diet there would be significant changes to the endothelium (for the worse)and cardiovascular risk in general because of the lack of helpful fats in the diet.

Andy <q wrote in message This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it said... I know the G. Taubes problems has a study from the 1890s Boy, THAT study takes me back!!! Hehehehe.  Oldie but goodie! <VBG Andy