Did you read any of the articles?
ECA stacks are recommended, but are in no way a key part of a Keto or ANY other type of diet.
Yes. I read the articles.
I read the first one where’s he’s selling GZ45 and powerbars and then the second one, parts I & II where he’s selling ECA stack.
No offense but this is like one of those “You too can have a monster penis” ad websites.
There’s no science in there. It’s just pretending .
Your cite is the unsupported ramblings of a bodybuilder gone to seed trying to sell supplements, and in order to do so, he throws together a bunch of pseudoscience.
Gimme a break.
Personally if I’m going to go for pseudoscientific claptrap, I prefer a supplement with guarranteed instant results and much better looking models.
I prefere Thermadrol with quadraburn 100 capsules!
I don’t have the intelligence or patience to debate this, but coming from my experience and feeble understanding of nutrition:
All you have to do to lose fat is be in a caloric deficit.
Simple carbs spike glycogen, and in turn store fat.
Atkins makes it look like you can just eat farking t-bone steaks all day long and lose weight.
When I cut weight for wrestling, I eat only chicken breasts, fish, and complex carbs (oatmeal, wheat bread, etc.)
Keto looks interesting, but I’ve never personally tried it.
slap Scylla
You did that because it has a pop up didn’t you? 
The problem is that carefully studied diets don’t work more than a couple years. Atkins could be different because, as far as I can tell, no one has ever done any long-term (5 year plus) studies. Obesity is a long-term chronic condition that last for decades. Any meaningful studies need to run that long. Instead, research is short-term, luring people into adopting diets associated with a pattern of losing and gaining lots of weight every few years.
See:
http://www.turner-white.com/pdf/jcom_may00_obesity.pdf
By the way, even weight loss surgery does not have positive weight loss at 10 or 15 year follow-up.
My wife is on the Atkins and I hope it will work long-term. The quackery tone of Atkins writings does not give much confidence. On the other hand, unlike the AHA type of diet, at least there seems to be no proof that it doesn’t work.
During this same 30 years that hospital based nutritionists have been purveying low-fat diets, have they ever shown that keeping to such diets is humanly possible for any substantial number of obese people, much less traced those people who do stick to it through the 30 years to see how long they live and what diseases they get? I agree that the mainstream nutritionists sound a lot more sane than Atkins, but you can talk a good game and yet be a quack who relies on meaningless short-term studies. The 1960’s studies by Albert Stunkard showing that diets do not work long-term have been criticized for their small sample size but still stand unrefuted.
I’m no physician, but I know a little history, and have read a fair number of books on Arctic exploration. Before the twentieth century, explorers from Europe would arrive in the Arctic with terrible health problems due to bad food and, often, lack of vitimins, on the voyage. Then they would go onto the all-meat diet of the native Americans of the Arctic. And guess what? Their teeth would stop falling out, and they would start feeling 100% better.
There are lots of reasons why people from times past lived short lives, but diet, other than starvation, was rarely one of them.
Someone might want to compare and contrast the diets of Japanese today with those of the people of Toulouse France. The former has very little fat in the diet, the latter lots. And both have a similar long life expectency. Actually, the human body is adopted to thriving on a wide variety of diets, even if an eighteenth century shipboard diet was not one of them. However, the human mind, unlike the body, seems to run along the track that diet is destiny.
Yes. I cover this back in the OP on page 1. There have been numerous studies showing the long term health effects of a high fat diet.
Second, I doubt whether anybody has studied whether it’s humanly possible.
Of course it’s possible to not eat shitty food. You just don’t put it in your mouth.
The problem is that people almost never follow the guidelines. They want short-term results. Quick weight loss. They put themselves on crash diets that are untenable for the long term. Few people are willing to accept the fact that exercise is the other half of the equation.
Diet is a misnomer. You have to do both.
It’s really not that tough. Eat a balanced diet of basic foods, reducing your caloric intake a small but reasonable amount, and exercise.
Like I said. I run 50 miles a week. For my wieght that means I’m burning an extra 6,500-7500 calories than I normally would. My metabolism runs in a high output mode and I burn more calories when not running than someone who doesn’t exercise. I have more muscle mass to maintain.
I eat a LOT of food.
The cost of this is that in the winter I get up an hour early and run. During the summer when I get home after work I run for an hour.
That’s it.
I eat a lot more than when I weighed 250 pounds.
If I cut back on my food intake I lose weight pretty fast.
If you just diet, you lose muscle as well as fat. Your metabolism slows down and your body conserves. It becomes very difficult to lose weight, and when you stop dieting, your body is still in conservation mode and you have less muscle to feed. The weight comes back very quickly.
Congratulations for living up to this. Or not, since Scylla says he eats more now that he is a long distance runner.
I’m just wondering about one thing. Suppose someone was to post that the problem with gay people was just lack of self-control. Wouldn’t be a very popular view here, would it? I hope not. Yet similar blaming of obese people for not overcoming their biological set point seems socially accpetable.
Scylla is right about exercise being the key. Indeed , I would say that people should worry about fitness, not weight. However, most obese people would find it just as impossible to work up to the kind of lifetime exercise program Scylla has described as most gay people would find it to turn around and be a lifetime straight.
Terrible analogy: if someone posted that, lots of us would come right back with, “who says there’s a problem with gay people?”
I don’t, however, hear anyone denying that obese people have a problem.
What people are saying is that weight is something within your control; what you choose to eat is within your control. If you choose to eat a high-fat, low-fiber diet, that’s every bit as much a choice as if you choose to eat a high-fiber, low-fat diet.
There’s not necessarily any blame involved at all. But there is an underlying assumption of free will.
Daniel
It’s a bad analogy. There’s nothing wrong with gay people that they need to overcome. I would also suggest that if somebody’s body is not a priority to them, that is their own business and being overweight warrants no derision.
However, if an obese person does wish to change their body, it really doesn’t come down to willpower. it’s not like quitting smoking. You should eat. You shouldn’t go hungry. You should just make the effort to eat healthy and to exercise so that you consume more calories than you expend.
As for biological setpoints. I have seen no scientific evidence to suggest that there is such a thing.
The “biological setpoint” is really a combination of two things. First is habit. People get used to eating a certain amount and exercising a certain amount. It becomes a force of habit which is hard to change, because it is what ou’re used to.
Secondly is that your body also gets used to it. Eating less or exercising more changes what your body is used to. For example, if you eat a big breakfast everyday for a month, and then skip that breakfast and eat nothing you will likely experience extreme hunger, cravings, and you may even get weak.
If you are going to get yourself healthy in an intelligent way your have to recognize that their is going to be both psychological and physiological resistance. You need to plan on it, recognize it, and learn how to mitigate it.
The fact is that a lot of us are sedentary. An hour a day is not that much as far as your health is concerned. My hour a day is excessive though. I like to run marathons, and I enjoy running for its own sake.
A person is likely to receive a large percentage of the benefit of exercise by doing something cardiovascular for 25-30 minutes every other day. Someone who is obese is going to have to take the time to build up to it. It won’t come quickly and when they begin they are likely to actually gain weight.
Imagine putting in the effort for a couple of weeks to exercise and find that you’ve gained weight. It would be very discouraging.
No wonder people are vulnerable to fad diets. Everybody likes quick results.
Actually, I myself denied it, in my last post in this thread. To reinterate, obesity correlates with lack of physical fitness, but only the latter is a problem. The only problem for reasonably fit obese people is the prejudice against them.
Similarly, there is nothing wrong with being gay, even though it correlates with having aids.
Obese people are one of the few groups it is apparently OK to be predudiced against. The only other groups I can think of who get similar treatment from liberals are conservative Christians and, sometimes, gypsies.
I think the word does not mean what you think it means. From The American Obesity Association
Homosexuality is not a “serious, chronic disease.” It does not compare to obesity in prevalence, mortality, morbidity, or sickness – although it may compare in terms of prejudice and stigma.
Obesity correlates to health problems in much the same way that alcoholism correlates to health problems. You could even claim that it correlates in the same way that promiscuous unprotected sex correlates to health problems. But the idea of “reasonably fit obese people” simply demonstrates that you don’t know what the word means, because “reasonably fit obese people” is an oxymoron. If you’re reasonably fit, by definition, you’re not obese.
Daniel
If so, the word “obese” is pejorative rather than descriptive, and should not be used in the first place. Here is an article along the lines I am thinking:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/health/2001-07-17-fat-and-fit.htm
That’s a good article Steve.
Realize though that that article seems to consider obesity at roughly 30% body fat.
That’s generally not what I would consider obese, necessarily. You’ll find a lot of football players and construction workers at that level, and it’s possible to be pretty fit there.
Even this carries risk like cancer, though.
I wouldn’t really consider such people obese (which I think is a Dr.'s nice way of saying you’re a little bit more than slightly overweight.) We might call such a person big, heavy, or maybe fat. We might say he’s going to seed.
This is a different thing than morbidly obese, which is where you’re heavy enough that it’s become a serious and present health danger. I don’t think you can be fit at that level.
First, of course “obese” is not a perjorative, any more than “diabetic” is a perjorative. Describing someone as having a disease is not making a statement about their worth as a human being.
Second, interesting article indeed. However, it makes two errors that I can see:
- It defines some obese people as “fit” simply because they’re healthier than some nonobese people. That’s like saying a diabetic is fit because he’s healthier than this woman over here who’s had a stroke.
- It contradicts information I find elsewhere – namely, information that calls obesity a serious, chronic disease.
A sampling of obesity-related ailments from Obesity.org:
If you’re claiming that obesity is not itself a disease, you’re even farther from mainstream science than Atkins is.
Daniel
Everyone in this thread has left out an important factor for those of us with diabetes. A low or (in my case none whatsoever) carb diet will prevent the horrendous up-and-down blood sugar levels associated with carbohydrate intake. This is especially important for those of us with high insulin resistance and who are faced with the unappealing possibility of having to resort to injected insulin.
The Atkins diet has been a godsend to me - even though I’ve only been on it for a week, my blood sugar levels have gone from being essentially uncontrolled (2 week avg. >220 mg/l prior to diet) to thoroughly controlled (1 week avg. <120 mg/l since diet). That isn’t anecdotal and that isn’t just water loss.
The Atkins diet has induced a significant metabolic shift in my system and as a result my blood sugar is under a very high level of control for the first time in a VERY long time. My blood sugar levels dropped dramatically within 48 hours of beginning the Atkins diet. Most importantly, they do not cycle up and down. My typical fasting blood sugar level is about 100 mg/l, as is my typical postprandial blood sugar level. My levels move very, very little as the day proceeds and I don’t just imagine, but I KNOW that my body is responding very well to this diet.
I have lost 10 pounds in the week I’ve been on the induction phase of the diet. Since I have quite a lot of weight I could lose, I will carry the induction phase much longer than the standard two weeks.
The low-fat diet, NOT the Atkins diet, is the fraud. Sure, on a low-fat diet, you can lose weight, because you are essentially starving yourself of nutrients your body NEEDS. Your body doesn’t need carbohydrates for energy, since your liver synthesizes all the glucogen your body needs on its own.
For all diabetics who do not have liver or kidney damage (have your doctor run a full blood chemistry including lipids), I highly recommend you take a closer look at the Atkins diet - you may be able to dramatically reduce or even eliminate your need for oral medications which boost your insulin production (sulfonylureas like glyburide, glucotrol, glucovance, etc.).
I have read this thread with great care. I am also a diabetic. I am on Atkins ‘way of living’ for the rest of my life. I am not on a diet. I am on a specified way of eating. My doctor put me on this plan. Several doctors in his office (a joint medical practice) that I’ve seen have told me not to stop it. I’m not on it to lose weight although that would be great and it’s my mindframe, they want me on it to keep my blood sugar level. Average fasting figure was around 267, three weeks on this way of living it’s down to 117. There is a new book out that Dr. Atkins has just published that is specifically for those that have reached their weight loss goal and it deals with how to add back carbs, which ones are best, and how to live this way. It’s a way of life, not a ‘fad’ diet. Although with anything I’m sure that there are lots of people are are using it as a fad diet.
I take all the suggested vitamins/mineral supplements. I exercise, and I limit my carb intake. The exercise I have always done, so no, just exercise and cutting down on calories does not work for me. I’ve tried every single thing you can suggest, every ‘fad’ diet, every type of eating including Weight Watchers. They do not work for me. I would not suggest that this way of life is for everyone. Just as all the previous efforts I’ve made are not for me. But to just flat out declare that this way of living is a total load of crap is certainly not true.
There are many doctors that are now putting their patients on this way of living. I’m not talking about quacks either. I am talking about well-respected doctors. Don’t have cites, just personal experience with interrelations with other people.
This subject is like any other, pros and cons and you can find cites all day that declare it bad, and cites that declare there is a change of attitude coming about it.
My friend’s doctor suggested that she try it. He was slightly overweight himself and when she asked him why he didn’t try it his reply was that he was too much of a meat lover. That as your appetite decreases and you start to cut down on your portions of meat, he didn’t because he just loved it so much. So that’s why it didn’t work for him.
It doesn’t make people stupid or idiots to look for that plan that works for them, as long as it’s under the direction of a physician, because every plan DOES NOT work for every person. And you can tell me that I"m stupid for doing this, but according to my doctor, whose word I take seriously, I’m not stupid at all.
I am not a diabetic, and I know very little about the requirements and restrictions of diabetes. My nutritional expertise, if any, comes from studying the mainstream literature and science concerning healthy athletic people with no special ailments or conditions.
That being said, it sounds reasonable to me that the risks and dangers of the Atkins diet might be mitigated by the benefits that would occur to somebody with diabetes. Carbohydrates are processed quickly and provide ready, fast energy, and therefore might have more of an effect on blood sugar levels for people with diabetes.
I certainly wouldn’t dare contradict anything somebody’s general practitioner familiar would advise a specific patient and especially not one with diabetes.
In fact, IIRC (and I may not, it’s more like a nudge in the back of my mind then a fact) wasn’t the Atkins diet specifically designed originally for people with diabetic or related problems?
Dietary needs and restrictions tend to be very different for a diabetic than one without the disease.
I am not debunking Atkins as a way of controlling diabetes. I have no knowledge and hence no contentions one way or the other. I’m debunking it as a fad diet for weight loss in normal healthy people.