As far as metabolic processing goes, carbohydrates are carbohydrates. “Nutritionless” refers to other dietary concerns, but has no bearing on their value as plain old carbohydrates. Eventually, even the nutrional carbs will get stripped down to the basic forms; at the point where carbohydrates are metabolized, they’re all pretty much the same.
If this is the case, then it seems little different from a temporary starvation diet. You trick (or rather, force) your body into using one of the alternate metabolic pathways for the “quick fix”, then gradually restore it to “normal”. By the fourth phase, then, it sounds like one is eating a normal, balanced diet - which one could probably have done from the beginning. The only real difference, it appears, is the “instant gratification” aspect of weight loss.
And per the article I linked to back on page 4, during the “maintenance phase”, one is effectively eating a high-fat diet (the numbers given as “typical” were 25% protein, 22% carbs, 45% fat), rather than a low-carb diet (as opposed to the high-fat and low-carb diet of the induction and weight loss phases).
Sure, that is why there is a glucose index. Sugar is the same as a sweet potatoe or broccoli. Yeah.
Fat, not carbs are the preferred source of energy from the body, it is what the body stores, in comparison to the insignifigant amount of sugar that the body stores. The body burns glucose so quickly only because it is poisonious and the quickest way to get rid of it is to burn it.
Debunk it if you feel it is wrong, otherwise, please point out why your opinion is controdictory.
What does the body break fatty acids into to burn them? glucose? Some other form of energy? (don’t know this one)
Just to point out that the body has ways to get glucose that the blood cells, etc need without carbos. This makes carbos NOT necessary for survival or health. Granted, protien synthesis is not the most efficient source of glucose, but it is there.
Fat is ONLY the bad guy because with fat, having 9 calories per gram, it is easier to eat an abundance of calories without feeling sated. No other reason whatsoever.
Libertarian, are you saying that people let themselves become overweight due to a lack of information, rather than a lack of logic?
So, it’s neither common sense nor common knolwedge, that overeating and lack of exercise lead to obesity? Only “informed” individuals are privy to this?
When, then, does logic come into play? Isn’t it illogical to not inform oneself about something as basic and important as nutrition?
Not necessarily true. Fat is a bad guy for a few other reasons. Fat is where most of an organism’s toxins are stored. Cows (et al) acquire toxins from the animal fat they eat. You eat the cow. You inherit that cow’s toxins, as well as the toxins it acquired from the food it ate. There’s a name for this “chain”, but I can’t remember what it is. The higher up on the food chain, the more toxins in your diet.
Also, there is probably at least a passing correlation, at least in animal foods, between fat content and (bad) cholesterol.
And also, to reply to one of your earlier posts. Nope, no fiber in meat or dairy. Not unless you eat the bones, or the container it was packaged in.
Actually Epimetheus, consuming fat is the most appetite satiating not least. That is an integral part of Atkins whole premise. Consumption of carbs leads to additional carb cravings.
In addition, the great dalmuti, please dont forget that Atkins isnt ONLY meat and dairy. There are pages and pages of veggies that are allowed that can and do provide fiber in your diet.
That may be. Fat that is from an animal that was fed toxins are dangerous. Therefore we should give up all meat, and eat lots of Carbs (read:sugar), after all, sugar is so good for you: http://www.mercola.com/article/sugar/dangers_of_sugar.htm
Actually, saturated fats are the bad guys, as there is a lot of evidence to show that they contribute to all sorts of health problems. And the Atkins diet is rather high, not only in fat, but saturated fat (again, per the article I previously referred to, which lists a “typical” meal at each of the various phases). Presumably, one could further limit their intake of saturated fats as well, but I’m not sure that such a diet would be representative of Atkins.
And rather than address your other posts independently, I will assume you’ve read the link about fat metabolism, which probably answered some of your questions. To summarize: glucose is the primary energy source for most cells, and fat is used as storage, not for energy (fat is, in fact, broken down to produce glucose for use by the cells). However, glucose is also used in the fat metabolization process; this pathway can be “short circuited”, as happens in low-carb diets, but prolonged use of such a diet results in higher blood pH levels, etc. In such cases, ketone bodies are produced, which the cells can utilize for energy as well, but less efficiently than glucose.
While I do retract my statement that the results of this diet are little more than simple caloric limitation, I still do not see this diet as being superior to any other (excepting, perhaps, starvation diets), and inferior in many aspects. That it works at all is testament to our bodies’ ability to compensate for metabolic processes wherein key elements are “missing”, not because of any inherent value (or harm) of the individual foods selected (or restricted).
Are you being sarcastic? I can’t tell. Never once did I mention sugar. And never once did I even remotely hint at anything having to do with eating lots of carbs. I don’t understand what you’re getting at.
I agree that sugar is no good. Personally, I don’t eat anything with refined sugar in it. When cooking, if I need a sweetener, I use blackstrap molasses or barley malt. They’re much easier for the body to digest, and loaded with minerals.
While I agree with most of the 78 points from the last link you gave, a laundry list of dangers for anything is fairly easy to come by on the internet, and not very credible. I’m sure I can find an even longer, and just as well documented list detailing the dangers of eating meat. But would you at all take that list seriously? Probably not.
I won’t forget it. But, it’s doubly important that YOU don’t forget it. You’re going to need all that fiber, with the the amounts of meat and dairy you’ll be eating on the Atkins diet. Remember: Don’t skimp out on the veggies!
I am not Mr. Spock. Understanding logic and applying it are two different things. I’m not morbidly obese, but I need to lose about thirty pounds or so.
I have taken what information I’ve found, including information on low fat diets, and applied it. It was while on the low fat diet that I went from needing to lose ten pounds to needing to lose twenty more.
In the past couple of weeks, I have seen new information on the Atkins diet, and have found its reasoning compelling. I am now beginning to apply it to my life.
If you want to carry on your snit about your hurt feelings over being called out for your errors in logic, why don’t you take it to the Pit rather than continuing to hjack this thread? No one here gives a damn about the issue that you seem to have wrapped your life around. I’m about due for another Pit thread anyway.
I would assume that anyone who feels he can make this case is in possession of a fully developed ethos for living which accounts for all aspects of human action and interaction and provides unambiguous valuations for all choices.
Would you mind sharing it, please? I could really use one.
True. Saturated fats are quite the danger.
I read your link, and understand about the fat storage points.
(I don’t feel the atkins diet is a superior diet, but I certainly don’t think the low-fat, high carb diet is either. especially considering that low fat foods tend to put sugar in it’s place) And not all low carb diets are the atkins diet either.
TGD-
Not sarcastic. I think the dangers of protien as a primary fuel source is shown to have possible side effects in health, so if you avoid fats, then you MUST have carbs as your primary fuel source right? Carbs are nothing more than complex sugar molocules from what I gather, though I am no molecular biologist. Carbs are repleatedly refered to as nothing more than sugar.
Hence the link to the dangers of sugar.
Not very credible huh? If you can find such a list, please do post it. If you find the list to be not credible, please debunk it, dismissing it because it goes against your worldview that you cling to tenatiously does not suggest you are interested in the truth, but what you want to believe.
Nope. Not unless you had once be obese and had overcome it. Most of the slim people I know have crappy dietary habits, they just happen to be less disposed to weight gain because of it.
Then you have an extremely limited understanding of the human condition.
With ease. One’s weight has nothing to do with logic or the lack of it. It is not by logic that we are made, nor is it by logic that we make our choices of what to eat and how to behave. In fact, hardly any human behavior is dictated by logic. The overriding factor in most human activity is emotion. Pursuit of pleasure, flight from pain, that sort of thing.
This statement isn’t accurate. Ketosis is a byproduct of fat metabolism, when you burn fat to create energy. If you run for an hour and exhaust your glucose stores, you’ll generate ketones as a byproduct of the fat you burn to generate energy.
It also happens during starvation because you run out of glucose and need to burn fat for energy. But to associate it with starvation and only starvation and give it a negative connotation is either a misunderstanding or misleading.
It’s a natural part of fat metabolism, which is, in turn, a natural part of generating energy.
I just wanna take what Dalmuti said a little bit further: bones don’t have dietary fiber in them either. One of the great distinctions between plants and animals is that plant cells have cell walls, whereas animal cells don’t; dietary fiber consists of (I believe) cell walls.
From the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center:
Libertarian wrote:
This looks to me like a false dichotomy. On the one hand, I agree that a healthful diet doesn’t focus on refined sugar, bleached flour, and white rice. However, these aren’t what’s eliminated in the first round of the Atkins diet: whole-wheat flour (rich in fiber, calcium, and B-complex vitamins); brown rice (rich in fiber, thiamin, calcium, B-complex vitamins, and other minerals); corn (rich in fiber, calcium – you know the drill by now), and other grains. Fruits, rich in vitamins and fiber and antioxidants and phytochemicals, are verboten (as near as I can tell – certainly most fruits are verboten). Legumes, rich in protein, iron, calcium, fiber, and other goodies, are (as near as I can tell from looking at the Atkins Web site) forbidden during the pre-maintenance phase.
The disagreement isn’t over whether white flour, sugar, white rice, and so forth should be reduced in most Americans’ diets. The debate is over whether whole grains, fruits, many vegetables, and legumes should be reduced.
(I purposefully didn’t address starchy vegetables such as potatoes, because I’m not clear on their nutritional values; I’ll lump them in with white flour until I know better).
