South Beach Diet

This article was passed on to Dr. Gregory Ellis, who is a proponentof Low Carb, but with a focus on calories. I have put asterisksaround his responses to several statements. I’ve read his UDS Liteand frankly have to agree with his science and conclusions.

Bill

Jonny is clueless so that’s the first thing that you need to know.Here’s a riddle for you: Two groups of peoplefollow a weight-lossprogram. Group one eats high carb, low fat. Grouptwo eats low carb.Members of both groups eat the exact same numberof calories. Wholoses more weight?You’re never sure of this but let’s give them the benefit of thedoubt.If it’s true, as so many say, that “a calorie isa calorie,” then twogroups of people eating the same amount of foodshould lose the sameamount of weight. If it’s all about the calories,the results shouldbe the same. Right?This is so sophomoric. Weight loss alone can never be the solecriterion for evaluating the effects of diets. Water balance iscritical and that is also a component of weight loss not just fatalone. And also lean tissue, muscle etc.Maybe not. Ever since the publication of thefirst low-carb diet in1862 in William Banting’s Letter on Corpulence,people have beennoticing that the kind of food they eatnot justthe amountseems tohave a profound impact on whether or not theygain or lose weight1.Of course, this is one reason low-carbing was so effective.And now it looks like there may be some solidresearch to explain thephenomenon.Dr. Atkins encountered patients who werepractically starvingthemselves at 700 to 800 calories a day and stillfound it difficultto drop pounds,

Dr. Atkins was always wrong about this and he got himself trickedbecause he negated the calorie theory as these people are trying todo now. There are laws in nature and gravity and the laws ofthermodynamics have never been repudiated therefore the laws holdsway and that these fools don’t know these laws is what leads to allthe confusion. Metabolic studies since the early 1900’s show howmany calories people need to stay alive and then the additional tofunction daily. So, those studies would prove just how wrong Atkinswas to believe the self-reports of how many calories people wereeating. Relying on self-reports of food intake have ruined 75 yearsof studies into human nutrition.

while others following his muchmore generous eatingplan shed them with ease. Recently, severalresearch studies haveraised questions about the calorie-is-a-calorieorthodoxy. AtCincinnati Hospital, Dr. Bonnie Brehm put twogroups of obese womenon dietsone group followed the Induction phaseof Atkins, while theother adhered to a conventional low-fat,high-carb eating plan2. TheAtkins group lost more weight even though bothgroups consumed aboutthe same number of calories. Dr. Stephen Sondikeand his associatesat Schneider Children’s Hospital performed asimilar study using twogroups of obese teenage boys as subjectstheAtkins group consumed anaverage of 1,800 calories while the low-fat kidstook in 1,1003.Guess who lost more? You got itthose eating theAtkins way. Morerecently, Dr. Penelope Greene at HarvardUniversity tested threegroups of dieters using a 1,500-calorie low-fatprogram forwomen/1,800-calorie low-fat program for men, a1,500-calorie low-carbprogram for women/1,800-calorie low-carb programfor men, and an1,800-calorie low-carb program for women/2,100calorie low-carbprogram for men4. The 1,800/2,100-calorielow-carbers lost more thanthe 1,500/1,800-calorie low-fat group!All these studies do is prove that these people did not do theirhomework. All these studies were done quite meticulously in the1950’s and 1960’s and the outcome was always the same — thedifference in weight loss was accounted for by water loss in the low-carb group which is on the order of 6-7 pounds. Whenever the studyis extended beyond about six weeks the difference in weight lossremains at about that amount. Of course, if people were low-carbingon their own and calories were not controlled, low-carbers, for awhile, would still lose more weight than the others because theyautomatically eat less food.For years, scientists have been telling us thatresults like thesejust can’t be true. As Dr. Richard Feinman,professor of biochemistryat SUNY Downstate Medical Center, says, it”violates the laws ofthermodynamics.” Dr. Atkins once commented, “WhenI [say] that youcan lose more weight on a higher number ofcalories I seem to bebreaking the lawone of the hallowed laws ofthermodynamics.”The operative word here is “seem.” According to apaper recentlypublished by Dr. Feinman and Dr. Eugene Fine, itappears thenaysayers may not have understood thermodynamicsnearly as well asthey thought they did. In “Thermodynamic Edge forLow-CarbohydrateDiets,” they write, “There are numerous examplesof low-carbohydratediets being more effective than low-fat dietswith the same number ofcalories5.”Of course there are and there are numerous studies that show it isall water weight.But if a calorie is just a calorie, how can thisbe? Simple. Cynicsweren’t accounting for another part of the lawsof thermodynamics,which addresses waste and inefficiency. Turnsout, lots of caloriesare actually wasted during the processes ofmetabolism, and somesources of energy (or fuel) tend to waste morecalories than others.That’s because some forms of “energy” (calories)such as glucosemolecules, are very efficient; and tend to beused for energy rightaway.The glucose molecules from carbohydrates are likelocal currencyeasier and faster to use when making a purchasethan would be foreigncurrency. If you’re using mainly protein and fatfor fuel, it’s likebeing in the United States with only Euros inyour walletyou’d needto go to a bank to exchange them for dollarsbefore you could get avendor to process your purchase. Plus, to convertthose Euros todollars, you’d have to pay a surcharge. Think ofthe money asanalogous to energy and the surcharge as theextra effortandtherefore extra energy expendedto make apurchase. Those extracalories that people doing Atkins may consumedon’tactually “disappear;” instead, they are burnedoff in the processthat converts them to usable fuel for the body.This is total foolishness and even moreso because this notion ispostulated by a professor of biochemistry.Drs. Feinman and Fine explain that the same thingis true on low-carbdiets. Carbohydrate is an efficient fuel; it’slike having the localform of money. Protein and fat, on the otherhand, are like having touse foreign currency: They are inefficient formsof energy. First youneed to convert it to the local form of moneywhich incurs a cost(energy cost in this case) takes energy (therebyburning calories),and it may be this “wasted” energy that accountsfor what Dr. Atkinscalled “the metabolic advantage.” That extrawaste may be preciselywhat allows people on the ANA to consume morecalories than they didon low-fat high carb diets, and still loseweight.None of this is true and they take an already hopelessly confusedsituation and make it more confusing.I cover all of this in detail in my big UDS.

That’s the good news. Since the majority of thecalories taken in onthe early stages of Atkins come from protein andfat, you willbe “burning” a lot of those calories justconverting them into ausable form of fuel,Fat does not need to be converted to anything to burn. I cover thisis Net Carb Scam.

allowing you to eat somewhatmore calories thanyou otherwise would, and still lose weight. Andthat explains why, inso many studies, those doing the Induction phaseof Atkins lost morethan a matched group of people eating the samenumber of calories ona low-fat diet.As Drs. Feinman and Fine put it, “The human bodyis not a storagelocker. It is a machine, and the efficiency ofthe machine iscontrolled by hormones and enzymes. Carbohydratesincrease insulinand other hormones that regulate enzymes, leadingto storage ratherthan burning of fat.”OK, good point, now what should we do with it and what does it haveto do with any of the above nonsense.One caveat: While the studies have shown thatAtkins followers havemore “wiggle room” when it comes to calories,

No, they don’t show this at all because the study design is soflawed that the true outcome of the study is never realized. Goodscientists call the outcome of these studies extrapolation: applyingthe results of a very limited study too broadly.don’t assume it is likea free lunch. It’s been shown that people canlose weight on Atkinswhile eating anywhere from 300 to as much as 700additional calories;however, the wiggle room isn’t unlimited, and isgoing to depend onyour own individual metabolism. It is true thatcalories are not thewhole story, but you can get in trouble if youassume that they don’tcount at all.Remember the Dr. Greene study from Harvard inwhich those followingthe 1,800-calorie Atkins protocol lost more thanthose eating the1,500-calorie, low-fat protocol? Well here’s apostscript: The peoplewho lost the most weight of all were followingthe 1,800/2,100-calorie Atkins protocol!The bottom line? Eat until you feel satisfied,but not stuffed,concentrate on the foods that boost yourmetabolism (proteins)Metabolism cannot be changed. andmake you feel full (fiber from vegetables andfat), all of whichdon’t disrupt your blood-sugar and insulinlevels.Any carb will disrupt insulin and glucose enough to cause theshutdown of fat burning and the turning on of the conversion ofglucose into fat. This is determined by the quantity of carbconsumed and not the type. I detail this in Net Carb Scam.

Dr. Gregory Ellis, PhDwww.ultimatedietsecrets.com

Don’t stress aboutcalories but be aware that they do matter.The best part of doing Atkins is that if you eatthis way, yourappetite will be controlled naturally andeffortlessly. You willactually be eating fewer caloriesbut there’s agood chance you’ll beso satisfied you won’t even notice!Jonny Bowden, M.A., C.N., C.N.S., an expert onweight loss, nutritionand low-carbohydrate living, is a consultant toAtkins Nutritionals,Inc. Bowden hosts his own radio show and is afrequent guest onnetwork television The author of Living theLow-Carb Life: FromAtkins to the Zone Choosing the Diet That’s RightFor You, he is alsoan associate editor of Total Health Magazine andon the editorialadvisory board of LowCarb Living.