Bernstein vs. Atkins [Archive]

karen

02-26-2007, 05:13 PM

I read Bernstein's book and he stays away from almost all carbs including fruit, tomatoes, etc.

I found it too strict and don't think I could follow it, but I truly believe in what he is promoting.

He can pretty much have constant bgs with eating and exercise, because his boluses are so low and the amount of background insulin he needs is way low as well.

He believes in constant bgs like a non-diabetic with no spikes after food or lows from exercise.

I truly believe in his methods and his philosophy but I could not be that strict.

I just recieved an email today inviting me to his live teleseminar tomorrow. If you want the phone number and pin number you can have it, as I will not be attending.

Let me know. Here is the email I recieved.

Thank you for registering for the teleseminar with Richard Bernstein, M.D. on Tuesday Feb. 27th at 7:00 Central Time. We look forward to an informationpacked hour answering your most pressing questions about diabetes.
The following are the details you will need to access the Teleseminar.
Simply call the dial in number below and punch in your pin code to jointhe call.

Karen

P.S.: He is not fond of pumping

BlueSky

02-26-2007, 07:51 PM

What are the main differences between the Bernstein "diet" and the Atkins diet? Do they both involve a constant state of ketosis?
Both the Atkins and Bernstein approaches are based on the same principle - switching from carbohydrate to fat as the main source of energy. And being in ketosis is evidence that this is happening. But I don't think testing positive for ketones is a neccessary condition.

A cornerstone of the Bernstein method is limiting carbohydrate to 30 grams a day. Achieving his ideal of "normal blood sugars" is just about impossible without doing that. The Atkins diet quickly puts the body into ketosis by limiting carbohydrate to 20 grams a day during the induction period. Carbs are then gradually increased to 40-60 grams a day.

An Atkins book about managing diabetee was brought out, The Atkins Diabetes Revolution. Here is a review of it
The Atkins Diet for Type 2 Diabetes (http://altmedicine.about.com/od/popularhealthdiets/a/AtkinsDiet.htm)

soso

02-26-2007, 10:02 PM

I did<30g carb for more than 2 yrs and never had more than trace ketones in the many times I tested..also never really lost weight on it, though I wasn't overweight to start and true enough, never gained any either, despite some serious fat eating. A lot of people on his forum do eat some of the no no veggies (such as toms) without too much trouble, it's not SUCH a bad diet in terms of variety providing you can eat nuts...there are some spanking good recipes on the forum too.... I find I have not changed my diet all that dramatically since having insulin and doubling my carbs..if I were to keep on his woe though I would be able to do it on 3 units of novorapid per day..gotta love that.
ss

DeusXM

02-27-2007, 01:57 AM

He believes in constant bgs like a non-diabetic with no spikes after food or lows from exercise.

And of course this is the major flaw in his logic. Non-diabetics have spikes after eating too. When he first set out his diet plan we didn't have insulins that mimic the action of the bolus insulin release from the pancreas and so having no spikes at all was the best option. Now that we can reduce the duration and severity of BG spikes (as non-diabetics can), there's scope to move away from such a restrictive lifestyle.

In fact (although I'm not going to bother trying to start an argument here), the Bernstein plan isn't a lifestyle plan, it's just an existence plan.

REDLAN

02-27-2007, 03:37 AM

I don't know about the difference between the 2 diets, however the atkins diet works because you eat less calories on it...

they did a study (I believe it was sweden/norway), where they set up a shop, where all the foods were carefully measured, so the exact calorie content of the food was recorded. The subjects then were required to buy all their food from the shop. The subjects were divided up into various groups -

the group that ate a restricted carb diet (it was not as extreme as the atkins), actually ate fewer calories than the other groups.

one anomalie came out of the study was the group that ate nuts - despite an apparently high calorie intake they actually lost weight...

...the reason they concluded was that nuts are an unprocessed food, so that it is very hard for your body to extract all the nutrients from it - ergo you may eat a load of nuts, but you aren't getting the calories. This also means that for those promoting the health benefits of the nutrients in nuts, is not as good as it would seem on paper.

moorejames

02-27-2007, 03:56 AM

I don't know about the difference between the 2 diets, however the atkins diet works because you eat less calories on it...

Anyone think the way we count calories is completely flawed?

The current definition of a calorie comes from burning food and seeing how much heat it gives off.

What's that got to do with the human metabolism?

Seems to me, the reason we count calories is to get an indication of a food's fuel source capacity.

Given that reason for calculating a food's "calories" wouldn't it make more sense to define a food's fuel source capability by it's ability to convert to glucose in the human body?

Looked at that way, carbs would have a much higher "calorie" content than fats and protein.

Cars burn fuel. Humans convert it through chemical processes using enzymes and hormones and insulin.

I think the whole concept of calories is flawed. People aren't cars.

(and yeah, I know that's what the glycemic index is all about, but we still focus on the heat generating capability of burning food: calories)

Doug

02-27-2007, 05:53 AM

Anyone think the way we count calories is completely flawed?

The current definition of a calorie comes from burning food and seeing how much heat it gives off.

What's that got to do with the human metabolism?

Seems to me, the reason we count calories is to get an indication of a food's fuel source capacity.

Given that reason for calculating a food's "calories" wouldn't it make more sense to define a food's fuel source capability by it's ability to convert to glucose in the human body?

Looked at that way, carbs would have a much higher "calorie" content than fats and protein.

Cars burn fuel. Humans convert it through chemical processes using enzymes and hormones and insulin.

I think the whole concept of calories is flawed. People aren't cars.

(and yeah, I know that's what the glycemic index is all about, but we still focus on the heat generating capability of burning food: calories)

James its just how they measure the energy in food by burning it
The body burns it as well just using a different means. - Its simply a unit of measure - dont get hung up on the how

And of course this is the major flaw in his logic. Non-diabetics have spikes after eating too. When he first set out his diet plan we didn't have insulins that mimic the action of the bolus insulin release from the pancreas and so having no spikes at all was the best option. Now that we can reduce the duration and severity of BG spikes (as non-diabetics can), there's scope to move away from such a restrictive lifestyle.

In fact (although I'm not going to bother trying to start an argument here), the Bernstein plan isn't a lifestyle plan, it's just an existence plan.

I agree - If you read some of the diabetes history books Bernstein's diet is very similar to the diet they used before insulin was invented - merely a sustenance diet - designed to keep you alive at all costs.

Its like the old joke .. A guy asks his Dr if he will live to be 80 - the Dr asks a bunch of questions like
"Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, sailing, hiking,"
"Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer or wine?"
"Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lot of sex?"
The answer to all the questions is "No, I don't do any of those things."
He looked at me and said, "Then why do you want to live to be 80?":D

Dewey

02-27-2007, 06:55 AM

Its like the old joke .. A guy asks his Dr if he will live to be 80 - the Dr asks a bunch of questions like
"Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, sailing, hiking,"
"Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer or wine?"
"Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lot of sex?"
The answer to all the questions is "No, I don't do any of those things."
He looked at me and said, "Then why do you want to live to be 80?":D
LOL! I love that! Good one, Doug! :rofl:

I've done 'low carb,' but not in the way that's advocated by B. I seemed to do quite well on sugar levels and weight loss, so was pleased with those results.

I've not done the Atkins diet, so cannot really comment on it. I had friends who were on it and seemed to do ok, but they didn't really seem to lose weight.

soso

02-27-2007, 07:44 AM

Yes, I've had a lot of gastro intestinal issues over the last few years AND been doing low carb at the same time, so for some periods of time I have eaten very small low carb meals of say meat and broccoli and I have NEVER been able to have a meal where there was NO spike.. Bernstien cearly states that bg should stay the same at all times, but asking th question on his forum, got the same answer from the responders...so I don't know where he gets that idea from..
One really good thing about his plan is that it trains one away from high carb foods very effectively.. I can eatsmall amounts of them now and not feel I must have more..in fact I have very good won't power as a result of that diet, but have to say, I am glad to be able to have more variety now. I do think that for people who have a problem with control (bg and self) it is an excellent thing to do on both counts...just maybe not forever....
ss

Cyborg

02-27-2007, 08:00 AM

I don't know about the difference between the 2 diets, however the atkins diet works because you eat less calories on it...

The permise behind the Atkins Diet is not reducing calorie intake, but rather restricting carb intake.

one anomalie came out of the study was the group that ate nuts - despite an apparently high calorie intake they actually lost weight...

...the reason they concluded was that nuts are an unprocessed food, so that it is very hard for your body to extract all the nutrients from it - ergo you may eat a load of nuts, but you aren't getting the calories. This also means that for those promoting the health benefits of the nutrients in nuts, is not as good as it would seem on paper.

This doesn't seem right to me. Nuts are loaded in calories.

JediSkipdogg

02-27-2007, 08:49 AM

The permise behind the Atkins Diet is not reducing calorie intake, but rather restricting carb intake.

I started thinking of this more....

Atkins says less carbs. THerefore you are eating less carb calories. Well, since you are eating less carbs your body has to burn fat for energy. You may be ingesting for fat products due to less carbs and you may be eating more calories, but you are burning your fat for energy. The body process of burning fat stored calories may be greater than the intake of fat calories. So in a sense, you are burning more calories on that Atkins diet than you take in.

soso

02-27-2007, 09:02 AM

It is true though, back when I could eat nuts I ate a ton of them ground up every day and never gained weight..My theory is that you can do high fat lower carb or high carb low fat...it's high carb high fat that make weight control hard IMHO..
ss

BriOnH

02-27-2007, 09:08 AM

I can't comment on Atkins because I don't know much about him or his diet.

What I do know about Bernstien is he belives in the "law of low numbers"; Where if you only eat 10g of carb for a meal and you under or over estimate insulin dose, it takes very little insulin or carb to get you to a normal range easily. In todays world of "Precision amongst bigger numbers" it's true that when you are off, it may be more difficult to correct a low or a high, but with the precision of grams of carbs to insulin units it is much easier to be almost just as precise as with the "Law of low numbers"

For those interested here are my notes on the Bernstien CD's
~ denotes my comment. Sorry if this seems unreadable. Many points are arguable, but you must remember, treating your diabetes is a personal choice. Bruce Lee founded a martial are call "Jeet Kun Do" the premise of this martial art is to take the fighting skills that can be used sucessfully by you against your opponent. Obvioulsy the moves used by a 6'4 250lb guy will usually be much different then a 5'6" 140 lb guy. Speed, muscle, mind, spirit also requires individualistic fighting techniques. In what I have dubbed "The Tao of Diabetes", I believe these same principals apply for treating your diabetes and Bernstiens teachings are a great arsonal to know.

Bernstien Notes
Was put on low fat high carb diet it _ was an extreme ~ hypos were to be avoided and so was fat
Mathmatics of the disease
Protienura and mucular edema was reversed his neuropathy stayed and was not reversable
Why isnt neuropathy reversable?
Medical writer before MD
Diabetics to doctor themselvesBGL cecking was a threat to drs who treat compications
Cell therapy the same?
45 years old first year of medschool
The jeet kun do of diabetes
Normal BGL around the clock
most diabetics loose teeth by 40 ~ i dont believe this
1500 protien spillage down to 160 ~ 150 is normal
claims 100% of his pTients have soriescis
All records from every dr
Diabetic fatty liver
Protiens do not go through the kidneys due to charge? Kidney damage is reversible
83 is normal BGL in healthy people
4.4 and 4.8 normal A1C
Nerve cells dont require insulin most body cells do
The liver destroys insulin ~ does it destroy it in non diabetics?
This happens the most in the morning when you get up. Hence dawn phenomenon
Very detremental to the lantus study. He claims that the clinic trials gave more insulin then neccessary. He gave an example of a healthy man that was given 70u of R IM and
It lasted a week because of the lump of insulin. I personally find that hard to believe.
Amalyn made by beta cells also makes you less sensitive to glucagon – also made in saliva
Anything that extends the gut releases glucagon ~ the chinese resteraunt effect ~ called this because chinese resteraunts seem to give you much much more then you can eat and when you do eat it and lets say that it is cellulose rich it will raise BGL because of the stretch of the stomach which in turn releases glucagon
Need to test this theory on myself
Claim all are 1u:8g or 1g:5mg/dl but then claims that 1g raises may raise you only 4g. This guy is not always consistant. Also claims that you shouldnt give more then 7u is the max for any shot also you cant predict when the insulin is going to start or going to stop or its absorption rate especially when you give large doses of insulin ~ you have got to be kidding me.
IM shots to get you at your target in about 1hr. These shots do have problems you dont always know if you hit IM. These tails can be risky as well. Wait 5hrs after IM shots to avoid bad hypo ~ the tail is still there
Never seen a long term diabetic that doesnt have gastroparesis ~ wrong
Glutol great for hypos. Real fast i think this is the concentrate i got in med office in danville
Fat doesnt make you fat, wont cause heart disease and carbs dont make you higher ~ this guy is getting nuts
Olive oil with rum to gain weight _ didnt work ~ he didnt explain what did
low carb higher fat works to not get you fat because less insulin means more lipolysis - Insulin halts lupolysis.
Vegas nerve - biggest nerve ~ look it up - important to erections
Exaling should slow heart rate - if not low you probably have slow digestion or impaired - changes in heart rate variation between inhaling and exhaling should be 50-75%. If heart rate is under 30% there will be bad digestion problems. This also mean the branches of the vegas nerve which are required for many processes
RR study ~ investigate
Gastroperieses ~ wtf it is such a common theme is it true? I dont think it is
Dinner digestion for people in general is slow
Claims dinner time meat is bad

REDLAN

02-27-2007, 09:52 AM

The permise behind the Atkins Diet is not reducing calorie intake, but rather restricting carb intake.

it may not be the premise behind the diet, but independent studies have shown that people eating high protein diets in particular, actually eat fewer calories than those on high carb diets...

ergo atkins works because you eat FEWER calories.

Eating large quantities of protein is not good for you either - while protein can be converted to glucose and also to fat, the body has to deal with the nitrogen, which is toxic. the liver converts the excess nitrogen into urea, which is then excreted by the kidneys - if you leave urine lying around the urea will break down into ammonia , which has a very pungent smell (babies nappies often smell of it), and in the middle ages was used for dyeing.

Pushing lots of urea thru the kidneys can lead to kidney damage (cat's often suffer kidney problems due to their very high protein diets). Diabetes doesn't do good things to your kidneys, and it seems sensible to me to ensure that you don't go giving them a hard life by scoffing lots of protein as well.

the alternative is to eat a diet very high in fat, and before people start claiming that it was very close to an ancestral hunter gather diet - this is actually a myth, most hunter gatherers ate/eat diets high in carbs (actually proportions are not too dissimilar to modern dietary recommendations). I guess the only person who can claim an ancestral high fat diet is Bluesky with his inuit heritage - which may be why carb restriction has worked well in his case (apologies if I have made assumptions)

And I am still bemused by how anyone can think that pushing your body into producing ketones can be good for you. Isn't it in fact very bad for you?

our bodies are designed to burn glucose (it doesn't matter whether we get that from carbs, or it is created thru gluconeogenesis) - the glucose metabolic pathway is the most efficient way of utilising energy - the waste products are CO2 and water - burning fats does not yield anywhere near as much energy and it leaves a toxic byproduct behind (ketones), which can only be excreted relatively slowly (lungs/kidneys) - in a normal person ketones are only produced during starvation.

I still don't understand how adopting a diet that convinces your body that you are in fact starving is good for you?

(this what fuels the weight loss in uncontrolled diabetes - and I don't remember this as being a very healthy period of my life)

Doug

02-27-2007, 10:21 AM

BriOnH

02-27-2007, 11:07 AM

The approach and tone is still a big problem for me as is the overwhelming negative tone of the book.

I can't speak for the book yet, but must tell you that you would be wise to listen to what this veteran diabetic has to say. I can almost promise you, you will take away a better understanding of our disease.

princesslinda

02-27-2007, 11:18 AM

I am currently reading the revised "Diabetes Solution" and am amazed by what this man has managed to do. While I find it hard to wrap my mind around eating that way, he has certainly proven that this way of eating has worked for him and there are many others who can attest to the same thing. I think this book has plenty that any diabetic, T1 or T2, can learn and benefit from. I'm hoping to get the willpower to try this lifestyle, at least for a while, and check my own physiologic responses to it.

JediSkipdogg

02-27-2007, 11:49 AM

And I am still bemused by how anyone can think that pushing your body into producing ketones can be good for you. Isn't it in fact very bad for you?

Ketones ARE NOT harmful at all. Ketones are a byproduct of two processes happening in the body....

1) The process of the body losing weight. They are produced as the body burns fat for energy. With a lack of glucose for energy the cells tell the body to break down fat. This fat is then pushed into the cells via insulin for energy. This process is safe, although has a discrepancy as to how fast it can be done.

2) The process of the CELLS having a lack of glucose. The cells sense they need energy. However, there is a lack of insulin in the bloodstream to push the glucose into the cells. The cells do not realize that there is a lack of insulin, therefore they think there's a lack of glucose. In this instance, they tell the body to start breaking down fat. This process then adds more glucose to the bloodstream, however, it's still not being pushed into the cells. Eventually the bloodstream becomes highly toxic. This toxicity is enough that as the blood passes through the organs it starts to break the organs down destroying them. This is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). This process is harmful and extremely deadly if not treated.

There is ONE test to distinguish which one is happening. The simple blood test. If ketones are present with a high BG, then most likley the body is going into DKA and insulin is needed ASAP. If ketones are present with a normal BG, there is no harm done to the body.

I'm curious on what Berstein's feelings are about Symlin. Since diabetes also do not produce amlyin back in his original days his idea would make sense. However, now, 20-30 years later we have a synthetic version of amylin that can help to eliminate the peaks that his diet basically encourages doing.

Also, what are his feelings on CGMS devices? We didn't have those then so people didn't know when they were rising. Now we do, although not perfect, but very beneficial to many.

slipperyelm

02-27-2007, 12:06 PM

"Anything that extends the gut releases glucagon ~ the chinese resteraunt effect ~ called this because chinese resteraunts seem to give you much much more then you can eat and when you do eat it and lets say that it is cellulose rich it will raise BGL because of the stretch of the stomach which in turn releases glucagon
Need to test this theory on myself"

This has always piqued my curiosity too--the Chinese restaurant effect-- blood glucose raised as a result of eating a large quantity of any food, even high cellulose, low carb food. I think the Bernstein example I read of this online (some of his book is available to read free) was in a young Type 1 who was a competitive swimmer. She had a habit of eating a whole head of lettuce before races and would find her BG elevated even after a swim. Supposedly, the stomach stretch due to the whole head of lettuce triggered that glucagon release. (Is that what it was? Glucagon? That makes sense, but I thought it involved one of the other pancreatic hormones that counters insulin. I forget).

Hey, just joking, but does this mean one could treat a hypo by wolfing down a bunch of celery or head of lettuce?!?

Anyway, I would be interested in hearing the results if you decide to test this on yourself. Maybe I'll do it, too. Yeah, I could eat a head of iceberg lettuce...I think. I'm Type 2 though. Don't know if his explantaion would be different for type 2s than 1s.

BTW, I am so suggestible about foods, that I got some pecans to eat as a result of reading about eating nuts in this thread!

Cyborg

02-27-2007, 12:30 PM

Ketones ARE NOT harmful at all. Ketones are a byproduct of two processes happening in the body...

I agree. As long as the bg stays under control...

I'm curious on what Berstein's feelings are about Symlin. Since diabetes also do not produce amlyin back in his original days his idea would make sense. However, now, 20-30 years later we have a synthetic version of amylin that can help to eliminate the peaks that his diet basically encourages doing.

Bernstein advocates that Amylin helps reduce the strength of insulin to help fine tune bg in a non-diabetic. Normally glucagon alone is too strong and Amylin helps reduce the effectiveness of glucagon according to Berstein.

"Anything that extends the gut releases glucagon!

Now that I've listened to Bernstein's explanation of the restaurant effect it makes sense the way it is explained. I also would like to verify this effect with my own body.

[QUOTE=REDLAN;198650]it may not be the premise behind the diet, but independent studies have shown that people eating high protein diets in particular, actually eat fewer calories than those on high carb diets...

ergo atkins works because you eat FEWER calories./QUOTE]

I don't agree with your statements whatsoever. I've read the Atkins books and his diet plan does depend on a lack of carbs, not calories. If you are low-carbing on an Atkins diet, what exactly are you replacing the carbs with? Lard???

As far as nuts go, they are full of fat. Perhaps eliminating carbs while introducing large amounts of fat in it's place can help to control bg, but in terms of weight loss, it's the calories that count, IMO...

soso

02-27-2007, 12:56 PM

As to the chinese restaurant effect...every new year I go to Vegas for 4 days and STUFF myself silly twice a day..low carb high carb...see food...eat it! I virtually never over eat the rest of the year. Funny thing is, I never have high blood sugar there (perhaps I should move there..lol) highest I have had is 9. I can see that it would take a long time for the food to leave my stomach under the circumstances..I absolutely distend my stomach...it's disgusting to watch....hahaha so maybe that's one physical failing I don't have... I was always a pretty big eater before diagnosis, in terms of volume.
ss

BriOnH

02-27-2007, 01:55 PM

FTW

02-27-2007, 02:43 PM

From the little I've read, I understand Bernstein advocates high fat, normal protein, very low carb. I'm fine with the concept. I've just started the book, The Diabetes Diet, and one thing he mentions is that it's harder for the body to process fat calories, so while each gram of fat has 9 calories, the body uses 3 of those calories just to metabolize the fat, (so net would be 6 calories.)

I doubt that I'll ever go to his extreme of 30 g of carb per day, but I do agree I can probably learn a lot from his ideas.

As far as the nuts go, that's really intriguing. I started 1200 calories a day in early Dec., (soon after diagnosis), and my weight loss has been going at a pretty good clip.

A lot of that time I was eating 1/4 cup of almonds a day.

In the last week I haven't been eating almonds and the loss seems slower. I may have to have almonds for my snack tonight!

FTW

karen

02-27-2007, 02:47 PM

Still time to register for his teleseminar tonight.

Please join Dr. Bernstein tonight, Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. CST on his 4th Free Live Teleconference. It's not too late to get in on the call.

Registration and the call are free, but you must register.

Please note, if you miss the call it will be available in the next couple of weeks at diabetes911.net.

BriOnH

02-27-2007, 03:19 PM

I hope my question gets asked :).

I will be listening tonight.

REDLAN

02-27-2007, 05:50 PM

Cyborg, I'm confused...

I don't agree with your statements whatsoever. I've read the Atkins books and his diet plan does depend on a lack of carbs, not calories. If you are low-carbing on an Atkins diet, what exactly are you replacing the carbs with? Lard???

As far as nuts go, they are full of fat. Perhaps eliminating carbs while introducing large amounts of fat in it's place can help to control bg, but in terms of weight loss, it's the calories that count, IMO...

so which is it?

weight loss depends on removing carbs and is independent of calories consumed? Or as I was trying to say is dependent on calorie intake?

is it me or are these 2 statements contradictory?

Cyborg

02-27-2007, 06:18 PM

What I didn't agree with was the notion that the Atkin's Diet was based on lower calorie consumption. The diet is based on carb reduction and staying in a state of ketosis.

I'm trying to figure out the difference between the diet advocated by Dr. Bernstein and the Atkin's Diet.

As far as the nuts go, I suppose it's hard for me to accept that high calorie, low carb foods, such as nuts, can actually help one lose weight.

jen_slc

02-27-2007, 07:03 PM

In the CD's he says that if you put rocks in your stomach (What's funny is I could totally see people tha rag on Bernstein, take this comment literally) it will increase BG. The simple fact of

Stomach expansion --> Causes alpha cells to excrete glucugon --> raises BGL (via Glyogen -> Glucose)So what if you totally load up on water? I would think then, that regardless with what you distend your stomach (lettuce, water, meat, carbs), you are activating the nerve pathways that ultimately result in glucagon release and increased blood sugar. Except that when you have distended your stomach with nutrients and not water, the metabolism of those nutrients should inhibit the release of glucagon. Water wouldn't have that effect, so should we see a detectable rise in BG if we drown our stomachs in water? Has anyone noticed an effect such as this? Does anyone know the magnitude of this effect, does Bernstein or Atkins or anyone else address it? I wonder if we're just talking about a tiny increase here....

And in thinking about the person who ate a head of lettuce before swimming and ended up with higher BG levels afterward.... who says it was the lettuce and not the exercise that increased it?

jen_slc

02-27-2007, 07:24 PM

I'm trying to figure out the difference between the diet advocated by Dr. Bernstein and the Atkin's Diet.

As far as the nuts go, I suppose it's hard for me to accept that high calorie, low carb foods, such as nuts, can actually help one lose weight.I only have a limited knowledge of both diets, but from that, it appears to me that the Atkins Diet primarily focuses on reducing carb intake while encouraging high protein and high fat intake. It seems that the Bernstein Diet does not necessarily encourage the high/unlimited protein part, since certain amounts of protein will be converted to sugar and require more insulin. I don't know if that's the biggest difference that sets them apart, but it's something.

I think the concept behind the high calorie, low carb foods helping you to lose weight is that these foods are supposed to satisy you longer and reduce the need for snacking. Less food is required to fill you up. :dontknow:

BriOnH

02-27-2007, 09:17 PM

As usual I continue to be more and more informed on diabetes. I think Bernstein's work is a huge contribution to the field of diabetes. I enjoyed his teleconference. It ended unbruptly however, which I thought was rather rude.

So what if you totally load up on water? I would think then, that regardless with what you distend your stomach (lettuce, water, meat, carbs), you are activating the nerve pathways that ultimately result in glucagon release and increased blood sugar. Except that when you have distended your stomach with nutrients and not water, the metabolism of those nutrients should inhibit the release of glucagon. Water wouldn't have that effect, so should we see a detectable rise in BG if we drown our stomachs in water? Has anyone noticed an effect such as this? Does anyone know the magnitude of this effect, does Bernstein or Atkins or anyone else address it? I wonder if we're just talking about a tiny increase here....

And in thinking about the person who ate a head of lettuce before swimming and ended up with higher BG levels afterward.... who says it was the lettuce and not the exercise that increased it?

I don't think water or liquds count. The liquids diffuse pretty quickly due to osmotic pressures in the stomach and the duodenum<sp>. It seems that solids keep the stomach and lower gi 'filled' with material is what causes this effect. Or so it seems he infers, which I am likely to incline to believe.

From what I have gathered from him, a unit of Humulin R insulin is 25x more diluted then than a unit of human generated insulin from the pancrease. Thinking of this it makes me put the power of sugar into a new perspective.

I need to try this and I remember that salad example you are referring to.

I need to try it. If anyone tried it please post your numbers (http://www.diabuddies.com/DiabetesManagementSystem/View_DiaGrid.aspx?Diabuddy=Diagrid%20Sample).

BriOnH

02-27-2007, 10:10 PM

I goofed up editing above
** upper gi not lower
** osmotic pressure is more greatly influenced once past the stomach starting with the duedonum into the upper gi to the small intestine(via epithelial transport in to the paritenal cavity where the kidneys eventually filter)
http://www.rawaimuaythai.com/colon_cleanse/Intestines-1.gif

HelenM

02-28-2007, 03:27 AM

I have a copy of The Atkins Diabetes Revolution written after his death by his associates. I bought it when I thought I had type 2. It contains quite a lot of sense and some good explanations of metabolic processes. I'm just very wary of the very low carb phase of his diet.
It starts with the very low carb phase of 20gm carb daily and then 'when your metabolism is fairly well under control' (ie fasting BS, blood pressure and lipids lowered) carbs are gradually added, 20 gms at a time until an equlibibrium is reached. 'For some of you that number will be only 20gms a day, others may be able to go up as high as 40 or even 60 gms a day'
He emphasises the concept of the Glycaemic index(called the Atkins Glycaemic ranking) so therefore low GI fruits are not excluded.
He stresses eating the 'right foods' (veg high in antioxidants, oily fish, high calcium foods and high fibre whole grains, five portions of fruit and veg).
He advocates regular meals, counting calories 'if necessary' and exercise.
His concept of healthy fats includes eggs, cheese, meats, pouiltry , olive oil , advocados and oily fish.(but his restriction on calories means portion sizes of these foods has to be small).
He suggests eating enough protein 'to satisfy appetite'

Personally, apart from the initial very low carb phase I don't find what I read in this book as alarming as Bernsteins diet (from what i've read on the internet). Although he only includes equilibrium levels of up to 60gms carbs a day, presumably some people will have even higher equilibriums: the book is aimed at type 2 with insulin resistance.

I had been concerned about the advocacy of commercial products (for me ersatz and unavailable here anyway) He does suggest the use of 'low carb' products (including his own) but warns against trans fats and prioritises fresh, whole foods.
I did a quick calorie count of a couple of his suggested days menus on the initial phase (using his recipe quantities and 'normal portion sizes for protein) and came to between 1200 and 1300. Low but not as low as some fad diets.

REDLAN

02-28-2007, 04:33 AM

hmmm found this about atkins, which may be of interest...

BBC NEWS | Health | Uncovering the Atkins diet secret (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3416637.stm)

essentially there is no difference between a calorie restricted diet, and atkins - you lose weight because you eat fewer calories. One result from an identical twin study - showed that there was no significant difference in calorie's burned between an atkins diet and a normal calorie restricted one.

the second danish study showed that people on high protein diets (i.e. atkins) eat fewer calories because they feel fuller, and therefore less hungry, and therefore eat less food.

the other point of note that there have been no long term studies looking at the effectiveness of the atkins diet - the longest has been 1 year, most are 6 months or less.

BlueSky

02-28-2007, 11:21 AM

.... there have been no long term studies looking at the effectiveness of the atkins diet - the longest has been 1 year, most are 6 months or less.
Actually quite a big study has been done on this - evolution. And it has been going on for millions of years. ;)

It is an interesting article. It highlights the fact that people don't eat to satisfy a calorific requirement. We eat because we get hungry. The problem arises when we still feel hungry after consuming all the calories we need to maintain normal body weight. That is when people put on weight. The Atkins approach works because people feel satisfied sooner and and don't feel the need to consume calories they don't require.

There is another effect that that article doesn't mention. The consumption of carbohydrate is thought to slow down the metabolism because of the thrifty gene effect. A slower metabolism burns up less energy, which could help explain why people on a high-carb diet have more difficulty losing weight.

DeusXM

02-28-2007, 11:46 AM

The consumption of carbohydrate is thought to slow down the metabolism because of the thrifty gene effect. A slower metabolism burns up less energy, which could help explain why people on a high-carb diet have more difficulty losing weight.

Not forgetting that a high-carb diet tends to be high in calories too.

Incidentally, I'm not buying your evolution argument. It's already been demonstrated that in just a few thousand years, human beings evolved from being lactose intolerant to generally able to drink cows' milk. Therefore just because something may have genetically been the case 10,000 years ago doesn't mean it is now.

BriOnH

02-28-2007, 11:57 AM

Does anyone know definitivly how Atkins died?

REDLAN

02-28-2007, 12:17 PM

well contrary to popular belief Dr. Atkins didn't die of a heart attack, nor was he obese at the time of his death, as was widely circulated.

I found a link

USATODAY.com - Statements on Atkins' death (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-02-10-atkins-statements_x.htm)

it appears that he suffered a serious head injury and went into a coma, from which he didn't recover.

the report of obesity was based on a the fact that he had gained 60 or so pounds in weight due to water retention caused by organ failure.

he did apparently suffer from cardiomyopathy - which was caused by a viral infection, which may have complicated the head injury (although it does not explicitly say so in the article)

karen

02-28-2007, 03:36 PM

Brian,

Was there one thing during the teleconference that we would find interesting or that really stood out that you could share with us after listening in on the teleconference?

Karen

BriOnH

02-28-2007, 04:25 PM

Brian,

Was there one thing during the teleconference that we would find interesting or that really stood out that you could share with us after listening in on the teleconference?

Karen

Some stuff he went over was on his audio cd's, and it was good to listen to them again. Topics like: 1)human non D generated insulin vs the insulin type 1s take, chinese reteraunt effect. While he is plugging his new book he didn't over plug it, and was kind of like listening to an AM talk show host. I wish he had his own radio show. As his CD's are kind of out dated now, he went over newer therapies:
1) Pfizers<sp> Exubra inhaler - he didn't mention anything new that hasn't been mentioned here. 1mg and 3mg "puffs". He gave a very unbiased view of it. He noted it's limitations but did it very professional. After listening to his review I felt it was "neautral".
2) Symilyin - Referred to it as a miracle drug. I was shocked by that. At this poing a pharmacist jumped in on the call and started talking about byetta and totally lost me as he tried to compare symilin and byetta. In the end it was ultra appearant the pharmacist just wanted to talk about byetta and symilin was the worst segway to it. Bernstien said when byetta is used in type 2's usually it will max out thier beta cells and end up destroying them. So people on byetta should take breaks off it. He didn't say it for certain, but I interpreted a 2 month on 1 month off cycle.
3) He prefers Lantus to levimir because of something about potency and dilution. I don't remember the specifics so I won't speculate. He was asked if their is any benefit to giving lantus 3 or more times a day. His response was 2 is max.

His phone call was cut short. He rather inferred it was the telco provider trying to jip him which it seems they did. Either way the phone conference was ended ubruptly and without a close inwhich I was kind of mad about. They said at the beggining of the call they would open it up for questions at the end. I was looking forward to that and it didn't take place.

Over all it was a great call. I love listening to Bernstien. I wish I could get Him, Dr. Faustman, and a couple of people here for a week somewhere to just talk about the next steps in better therapies (cellular therapy), control via an exercise extreme instead of a carb extreme, and cures.

Probably a little more then you asked for Karen :)

karen

02-28-2007, 04:33 PM

Thank you that was a great recap. Don't know if I could add Symlin to the mix and when I was on Lantus I did it twice a day and it worked well for me.

I would love to find out what his menu is for a day as I am such a carbaholic

Thanks again,

Karen

BriOnH

02-28-2007, 04:37 PM

If you know of any more events of his coming up please share them. I appreciate you pointing me to that last call.

Cyborg

02-28-2007, 07:04 PM

After listening to more of the Bernstein CDs, I've finally heard something from him that I absolutely do not agree with. He states that protein only gets converted to glucose at about 36%. He then went on to state that he has to take double the amount of insulin based on that conversion. His explanation is the Chinese Restaurant Effect. Mind you, he was referring to a 3 oz. hamburger patty...

My personal experience shows that the conversion rate is closer to 75% for me. IMO, he is putting too much emphasis on the Chinese Restaurant Effect. :vroam:

Tyler

02-28-2007, 07:22 PM

What kind of protein rec's does Berstein tout? I've only seen a sample of Mark TN's diet who is a Berstein follower IIRC and his protein was at something like 80g/day although he's a fair bit smaller than I.

I know nothing of Bernstein's plan other than low carbs, super controlled BS, and moderate fat.

Atkins = high protein, high fat, low carb.

Optimal for me is somewhere in the middle. High protein, low to moderate carbs (100-200g/day), and moderate fat. I'd whither away with a low protein intake.

karen

02-28-2007, 08:15 PM

I am just on a email list of Bernsteins, don't even remember how I got signed up, and I just copied and pasted it here to help you guys out as you seemed interested and no I did not ask for permission to post the links, did not realize I had to. I am not one to read all about rules and regulations when trying to help others. Sorry if I offended anyone. If the link did not work, I am not sure why and I would not want to try to repost if I left part of it off via copying if I am only going to be told that I should not be doing it, geesh.

BriOnH

02-28-2007, 08:21 PM

karen

02-28-2007, 08:25 PM

Thanks for saying that and of course I am over emotional and sensitive, because my bgs is a bit low.

Sweet dreams all.

BlueSky

02-28-2007, 08:55 PM

What kind of protein rec's does Berstein tout? .... I know nothing of Bernstein's plan other than low carbs, super controlled BS, and moderate fat.....
The Bernstein approach is less than 30grams carb and adequate protein based on your weight & activity level. Depending on activity level, it is 0.8 - 1.4 grams of protein per KG of body weight per day. You make up the balance of your calorie requirements with fat. You don't want to consume more protein than you need because much of it just gets turned into glucose, to be used or stored as fat. Excess protein is a very expensive source of energy, and you have to cover it with insulin. Fat, OTOH, doesn't affect BG at all. Essentially, the Bernstein plan is a low-carb, high-fat way of eating.

BriOnH

02-28-2007, 09:40 PM

Essentially, the Bernstein plan is a low-carb, high-fat way of eating.

Can someone that knows bernsteins program please verify this?

soso

02-28-2007, 10:20 PM

I would agree with that, when I got my nutritional scale I plugged it all in for a week and it broke down more or less to 9% carbs 60ish % fat and 30ish% protein.. This was before I went on insulin and I would say I was doing about 25-28g carb per day. Want to add my cholesterol was(is) stellar and in fact all my labs were good, only one ever out of range was urea and only very slightly (range 2.5-7, mine 7.4) and that was only in the first year and went down into 6's second year.. explainable by higher protein in diet.
ss
edited to add
just looked back and it was approx 60-80g protein per day and 100-120g fat

BlueSky

02-28-2007, 11:25 PM

Can someone that knows bernsteins program please verify this?
He doesn't label his food plan. But here is passage from his book in which Bernstein refers to the macronutrient makeup (my bolding).

Dare your physician. Ask him or her if his or her lipid profile on a low-fat diet can remotely compare to mine, on a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet:
• LDL—the “bad” cholesterol—63 (below 130 is considered normal)
• HDL—the “good” cholesterol—116 (above 30 is considered normal)
• Triglycerides—45 (below 150 is considered normal)
• Lipoprotein(a)—undetectable (below 30 is considered normal)

Contrary to popular myth, fat is not a demon. It’s the body’s way of storing energy and maintaining essential organs such as the brain. Without essential fatty acids, your body would cease to function.

For most people, doing what he suggests results in a macronutrient profile something like 10:20:70 (CHO:PRO:FAT). My ratio is a bit different, as I have settled for a variation that works well for me (about 15:25:60, including post workout protein shakes). You can read the relevant chapter here : Read It Online! (http://www.diabetes-book.com/book/chapter9.shtml)

Cyborg

03-01-2007, 10:02 AM

How does one eat a 10:20:70 diet? I'm very interested in finding out what kind of meal plans are used to eat at those ratios.

Oradev

03-01-2007, 10:36 AM

How does one eat a 10:20:70 diet? I'm very interested in finding out what kind of meal plans are used to eat at those ratios.

Something like this:

Breakfast:

3 Eggs
Bacon Bits
3 Sausage Links
1 tbsp Olive Oil
1 Wasa 7-Grain Crispbread (4 Carbs)
1 tbsp Cream Cheese

Breakfast Totals:
Calories: 700, Carbs: 8, Protein: 26, Fat: 56
----------------------------------------
Lunch:

1 Can Tuna in Oil
1 tbsp Mayo
1/4 tbsp Red-hot
2 slices Kraft American singles
1 Wasa 7-Grain Crispbread (4 carbs)
1 oz Walnuts
2/3 cup Green Beans
1 tbsp Butter

Lunch Totals:
Calories: 810, Carbs: 13, Protein: 47, Fat: 52
--------------------------------------
Dinner:

1 Large Chicken Breast (or steak, or pork)
1 cup Mixed Greens or Mixed veggies
1/2 Avocado
2 oz Shredded Cheese
2 tbsp Ranch Dressing
1 scoop Designer Whey Protein (sometimes I drink this. 2 Carbs per serving)

Dinner Totals:
Calories: 850, Carbs: 13, Protein: 36, Fat: 59

That's a typical day for me.

Adam

Cyborg

03-01-2007, 11:11 AM

Which equates to: 11:35:54

This seems higher on protein and lower on fat than Bernstein suggests.

I still don't see how one could eat 10:20:70 and 1) be satisfied and 2) find a tasty combination of food to meet those requirements.

I guess I need to learn more...

BlueSky

03-01-2007, 11:29 AM

Which equates to: 11:35:54 ...
Not sure how you worked that out. It actually works out to 7:21:72. The ratio expresses the macronutrient contribution to total calories. There are 9 calories in a gram of fat and only 4 calories per gram of CHO and PRO.

Cyborg

03-01-2007, 11:46 AM

Not sure how you worked that out. It actually works out to 7:21:72. The ratio expresses the macronutrient contribution to total calories. There are 9 calories in a gram of fat and only 4 calories per gram of CHO and PRO.

Could you please explain how you came up with those ratios. I was under the impression the ratios were between the number of grams of each food type.

Oradev

03-01-2007, 11:51 AM

Could you please explain how you came up with those ratios. I was under the impression the ratios were between the number of grams of each food type.

I think this is how you do it:
9 cal = 1 grm fat
4 cal = 1 grm crb
4 cal = 1 grm pro

Take total carb grams for the day and multiply by 4.
Take total protein grams for the day and multiply by 4.
Take total fat grams for the day and multiply by 9 (It might be closer to 8.5 or something).

If you add all of those totals together, you should get your total calories. Just divide total calories by carb, pro, and fat to get percentages.

Doug

03-01-2007, 12:13 PM

his list of no no foods includes

diet foods and sugar free foods
candy
honey
dessert
pastries
bread
crackers
rice
pasta
cereal
snack foods
milk
cottage cheese
fruit
fruit juice
protein bars
vegetables including
beets
corn
potatoes
tomatoes
beans
onions
squash
soup
health foods
balsamic vinegar

Doesnt leave much

BlueSky

03-01-2007, 12:26 PM

Could you please explain how you came up with those ratios. I was under the impression the ratios were between the number of grams of each food type.

Grams and calories for CHO, protein and fat are:

Carb : 34, 136
Protein : 109, 436
Fat : 167, 1503

Total calories = 2,075

You work out the ratio as follows :

Carb : (136/2075)*100 = 6.55
Protein : (436/2075)*100 = 21.01
Fat : (1503/2075)*100 = 72.43

or 7:21:72

soso

03-01-2007, 12:37 PM

on that list...while I did bernstein, I ate
sugar free Jello
tons of great homemade sugar free desserts (more than my prev life)
homemade nut bread (tastes like heavy wholemeal...will post recipe if you like)
amazing almond crackers sweet or savory (ditto on recipe)
Delish 'porridge' made with flax or nuts
Lots of heavy cream and some milk for tea
cottage cheese
berries in moderation
odd slice of other fruits
onions
tomatoes
made my own soup
don't know what health foods means...
balsamic vinegar...
Cauliflower mashed with cream cheese is a great swap for mashed spuds, and I once made a cauli "rice' pudding that fooled 2 men! lol

Honestly, I am sure a lot of his followers do not follow to the letter his lists.. we pretty much all 'eat to our meter' and I am not here to defend him or not, but to speak from my own experience—it's NOT awful. If I found myself in a situation with my control that was not being addressed by other means, I wouldn't hesitate to dial it all back to his recommendations to get that control back.
I will concede I missed a lot of foods, but reiterate it was WAY more fun than the years I spent on low fat.
ss

DeusXM

03-02-2007, 02:06 AM

Thanks for saying that and of course I am over emotional and sensitive, because my bgs is a bit low.

And there was me thinking that the Bernstein plan was supposed to be much better at preventing extremes of blood sugar....

karen

03-02-2007, 02:56 PM

No, no, no I don't follow Bernstein. I have read his book and receive emails when his teleconferences are. I wish I could follow his plan and avoid all my highs and lows. He has reversed many of his diabetic complications on his plan. **** the moderators deleted the website I posted of some of his meal plans. I don't understand why. It has some great recipes and ideas. I thought we were here to offer ideas and suggestions to better our diabetes. (shaking my head)

Dewey

03-02-2007, 08:36 PM

**** the moderators deleted the website I posted of some of his meal plans. I don't understand why. It has some great recipes and ideas. I thought we were here to offer ideas and suggestions to better our diabetes. (shaking my head)
I removed the post because in the site link provided, there's an advertisement of his book on the left hand side. Advertising for or linking to outside sales sites is Not allowed on this forum unless otherwise cleared by Tony first. Here's the FAQ (http://www.diabetesforums.com/forum/faq/) page & our Rules (http://www.diabetesforums.com/forum/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_site_rules) page.
Don't get me wrong.....I'm all about helping others and sharing good info. That said, the link/site can be shared privately with those interested (via PMs). If we allow one member to post links to sites that sell or promote items, then we'd have to allow Everyone (and that is Not going to happen).