http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/82/1/1

In this editiorial published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the author - a researcher at the Department of Human Nutrition, Centre for Advanced Food Studies, Royal Veterinary & Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark - makes the following statement:

"This institute concluded that there is no clear evidence that a high protein intake increases the risk of renal stones, osteoporosis, cancer, or cardiovascular disease. "

He was commenting on this article:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...=41&view=short

in which researchers from the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA and the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR found that increasing protein intake led to increased calorie intake and weight loss.

BTW, I found this interesting from the "background" -
"Ad libitum, low-carbohydrate diets decrease caloric intake and cause weight loss." In other words, this was a GIVEN.

Pretty funny, considering how "the low carb craze is over."

Thanks for a very readable editorial. I'm very interested in these continuing evaluations of various dietary percentages, as I continue to explore the things I've learned on Atkins into the maintenance phase.

What I owe to Atkins is true nutritional re-education. Simply knowing what I'm feeding my body every day is a big step towards figuring out what works to keep weight under control.

Here's what one day this week looks like:
Calories: 1416 (a bit low--I set my range at 1500-1800)
Fat: 55% (pretty typical--mostly salad dressings, a little butter)
Carbs: 12% (42 net, 26 fiber)
Protein: 33% (lean pork tenderloin, chicken, egg, whey protein)

This day included fruit (berries, an apple), dairy (kefir, half-n-half) and fiber (flaxseed, wheat bran), plus veggies. Doesn't that sound healthy?

I defy any researcher to tell me, by the numbers, that I'm not eating well.
The proof is in the way I look and feel. Atkins taught me how to get there.

__________________
Barb L.
Atkins since Jan 2003
Maintenance as of 4/05


My Fitday Journal

LCandrea--

Thanks for the heads up on both articles. It always helps to have valid research and scientific evidence to silence the naysayers.

Thank you.
GeeGee

__________________

Apparently the low carb craze being over (ha ha) has left room for the actual facts to emerge!

Aderyn

My proof is 105 lbs off, no more insulin or any other diabetic med, 3 blood pressure meds gone and perfect labs and a happy doctor

__________________




http://www.livejournal.com/users/junee/

Junie, that's an impressive testimonial. Good for you!!!

__________________
Barb L.
Atkins since Jan 2003
Maintenance as of 4/05


My Fitday Journal

Actually - that comment of Aderyn's about reduction in opposition now that the 'low carb craze is over' is probably very apt indeed - those manufacters and professionals who felt threatened by it are probably relaxing a bit?

__________________
The fox is wild!



5'3" Maintaining 121-125
Original weight 198 +

This is not low carb. Nor is it high protein. My breakdown is usually F/P/C 45/45/10.

Sounds like low fat to me.

That said, there is no evidence that increasing protein intake causes any kind of kidney damage or stress. Since higher fat usually means better calium absorption that would mean we would be less likely to get kidney stones, not more. Same with osteoporosis. As for cancer? well only the anti meat/PETA people really believe meat causes cancer, right?

That's a might big range for adults! 10-35%???? OK...if fat is "fixed" at 30% and carb is supposed to be 40-50%....that would be 20-30% protein, right? So why do they drop down to 10%?

Interesting article tho. Now if we could get them to drop that idea of carbs being "required" in such high percentages.....well then we might get some really interesting results.

__________________
Cheers!
Cindy
"She who laughs......lasts"

yes, you are correct, the %'s are not really low carb.
I was more interested in the ASSUMPTIONS.
not because they're based on the science of the study, but because i thought it interesting that these two people were making the assumptions in the first place!