Finally! Low-Carb/Atkins gets a little respect! About damn time!

Sustainability is the only issue regarding the viability of a diet. The rest is s simple matter of Calroies in Calories out. This is where I am having a problem with its promoters.

Any diet works when you can stick to it, the question is one of willpower. Having a variety of foods on the diet list will help a person stick to it, as the “all grapfruit/cottage cheese/protien” diets get extremely monotonous real fast. There’s also the quesiton of energy, whcih is extremely subjective.

Atkins diet should work, assuming no other nutritional deficiencies. However, what bugs me is that there’s an element of sheer evangelism amongst its proponents. Several have all but stated that since it worked for them it would work for everyone. This is unscientific thinking at its worst. There is nothing magical about the Atkin’s diet that lets you get away with an extra 1,000 calories/day. Otherwise you have some new rules of biochemisty and physics to explain

It worked for you? Goody, but I’ve read accounts where folks who went on it for a couple of weeks were literaly salivating for carbs. Atkins works for some, but it won’t work for others. It has its disadvantages, it has some health risks (so do most diets, though) , and one study is not proof that it is any sort of magic bullet for everyone.

There are no miracles or shortcuts. Atkins diet is radical becuase it reccommmends something different up front, but when you pull away the screen its the same body trying to burn calories you had before.

Hence the “best of my knowledge” qualifier. However, if these studies exist, why aren’t they being played up on the nightly news? It seems that “scientists say you can pig out on cheeseburger patties and lose weight” would be the sort of thing to attract viewers. If the news programs have that option and isn’t using it, what’s going on?

Additionally, I’m not looking for evidence that the Atkins plan is effective in promoting weight loss. It is, for a lot of people. What I’m looking for is evidence that it’s effective for some reason other than a combination of the mundane hypotheses cited so far. To recap, these are:[list=1][li] A drastic reduction in the amount of simple sugars consumed, which leads to a more stable blood sugar level.[] Not eating everything on the plate at a restaurant.[] A relatively high protein content–protein aids in muscle synthesis and also takes a while to digest.[/list=1]I haven’t seen that yet.[/li]
As for the Ornish diet, you are correct that it’s a more drastic change. But I’d like to see comparisons of the long-term health effects of these two diets (controlling for other healthful behaviors). To be honest, I’d be surprised if there were any significant health detriments to either diet, but I’m betting that the Ornish plan will work out better.

Everyone should read the article linked to by Mr. Miskatonic. It’s interesting, to say the least.

And you make this guarantee based on your degree in medicine and endocrinology, coupled with your own extended clinical studies proving your assertions? Seeing as you know what’s happening with my body and I don’t and all.

I agree that exercise is a critical component to maintaining a healthy weight and a healthy heart. Especially weight training, which raises the resting metabolic rate by increasing muscle mass. In my own case, my commitment to and level of exercise is constantly in flux. I lose faster and easier when I’m active, but I still lose when I’m not.

You can pronounce anything you like, it does make it so. What is so is what we who have used this method have experienced in our own bodies.

And ** Mr. Miskatonic, ** I am not among those who say it will work for everyone. Some people find it a very unpleasant diet, so it won’t work for them because they can’t stand it. Also, some people don’t have the same biochemical issues that many other obese people do (insulin resistence) that makes this such a good plan. I have generally found that this is not the ideal diet for people who are just a little overweight. And I have observed that it is far and away the most effective diet for people who are truly obese. I speculate it is because of the underlying differences in the way the different populations function to begin with, and which accounts for serious obesity vs. mild overweight.

And since I’m not lying, y’all are just going to have to accept that it isn’t just about calories in calories out. I don’t lose eating 1600 calories of dry potatoes and broccoli. I lose eating 2500 calories of eggs fried in butter served with plenty of bacon. It’s a fact.

To be perfectly clear, I don’t think many people can stuff themselves with 3-4-5-6,000 calories a day of pure protein and expect to get slim. Calories play a PART. But they are not the “bottom line” and my own experience proves it. And I’m far from alone. If I don’t lose low-cal/low fat/high carb and I DO lose hi fat/med cal/low carb, it is obstinate in the extreme to insist that calories are the only thing in play.

Well, eating calories and digesting calories might be two different things. Maybe the carbs digest faster than the fats.

Mr. Miskatonic:

I can’t understand it either. There these people are, having all the prime rib they want, and still losing weight. WTF is there to be evangelical about? :rolleyes:

I’m not trying to explain anything. I’m just pointing out that whether the Atkins diet actually allows you to ingest far more calories, while losing weight, than any other diet I’ve experienced, or just makes you feel that you’re doing so as the numbers go down, it amounts to the same thing, from the dieter’s POV.

On most diets, the only foods in the “can eat unlimited amounts of this” category are leafy green veggies; everything else is limits and tradeoffs. On Atkins, you can eat unlimited amounts of a whole bunch of things that most of us love to eat, and still lose weight. Why anyone should be evangelical about that, I repeat: I have no idea.

:eek:

That is one of those f*cking brilliant ideas that makes me think “Why the hell didn’t I think of that!!”

:: rushes off to buy some unsweetened Kool-Aid ::

And there was a cola made from Splenda…I don’t remember the name but it was kinda skunky. Not 'cause of the Splenda, but because the cola formulation was off.

Fenris

Diet Rite Cola started using Splenda a couple of years ago. I don’t like it, though - a little too cloying (and I used to prefer Diet Rite over Diet Coke or Pepsi).

I’ll be back when I’ve had a chance to read the whole thread (assuming I have anything new to contribute). I’ve been on the Atkins’ program for almost 5 years.

Yeah, pretty much. I didn’t have a bunch of excess skin flapping around, if that’s what you mean - but I’m pretty young.

Per my MD:
Some of the digestive enzymes we use for each type of food we consume are shared.

[grotesque oversimplification]
For example If there are 5 enzymes 1,2,3 are used to deal with carbs, 2,3,4 deal with protien, 3,4,5 deal with fats

#3 used in all processes has the highest affinity for carbs, so when presented with all 3 types it hits carbs first. Then it starts on protien, then last does fat.

The way it was explained to me is that the transition from carbs-protien-fat processing can take a while for your body to shift processes. So you eat a teriaki chicken bowl…enzymes go “RICE” and go to work…they finish the rice in an hour or so…then spend 20 minutes looking for protien. In that 20 minutes you may feel “the munchies” you body is in carb mode and resisting switching to the quick and easy route of carb processing. You snack…protien and fat processing are delayed further… you wait…you body gives up and does the protien and then fat. In atkins since you tend to stay in protien/fat mode, your body is “shifting gears” less often and once its done with the fats you ate your body just goes…oh since we dont have any carbs or protien laying around…hmm…but heres this nifty stored fat!! Since we have the tools out lets work on that.

Either. I kind of vaguely subscribed to the societally implanted idea that being healthy or attractive or whatever will make you happy, so I gave it a shot. Decided it didn’t really do anything for me in the happiness department, and went back to pizza.

At least, it’s been 3 or 4 years now, and I haven’t become as fat and out of shape as I used to be… but give it another year or two and I probably will be. Perhaps I’ll lose it all again, and slack off for another 4 or 5 years… just so I don’t become morbidly obese.

Well, then, please enlighten me as to the mechanism wherein one can lose weight by ingesting more calories than one uses. You have your own extended clinical studies to back up this assertion, right?

Certain Sobes also use Splenda as their sweetener.

I’ve been using Splenda preferentially for Kool-Aid for about a year and a half now; I can’t have anything with NutraSweet in it because I get migraines from th stuff, and I loathe saccharine (blech). So, of sugared sodas or Splenda Kool-Aid I’d rather have the latter because it tastes better to me.

I’m staying out of the rest of the debate, except to note that my roommate tried the Carb Addicts diet (and did it right) and didn’t lose a thing; I was on Atkins and became extremely ill

**

I did excercise strenuously, but towards the end, I took a week or two off from the strenuous excercise, and still low carbed. I still lost 2-3 pounds a week, and I was only 30-40 pounds overweight by that time. Of course, with excercise, it was more like 6-7.

As for the rest of the post, I learned this stuff years ago, and I never had a degree in biology, so forgive, and feel free to correct, any technical errors.

I think you all might be looking at this the wrong way. Low carbing doesn’t provide a magical way to lose weight so much as provides a way for the body to fix itself after mistreatment through a ‘normal’ diet.

Insulin is known as the master hormone because it controls lots of bodily functions, not just blood sugar levels.

In a normal civilized diet in a society with agriculture and processed foods, we consume an ungodly amount of carbs compared to what we’d see in a natural environment. The fact that insulin controls many different biological processes means that it has to be kept in a certain range for everything to function correctly.

The ridiculously high amount of carbs we eat requires our pancreas to output an accordingly high amount of insulin. Higher than you’d see in a natural diet (that is, whatever we’d eat without agriculture). This happens at almost every meal, year after year. And after time of being blasted with more insulin then they’d expect, day after day, year after year, the insulin receptors in cells begin to become tolerant/resistant to insulin. This is known as insulin resistance, or Syndrome X.

This forces the pancreas to release even more insulin, in order to achieve the same response in cells with insulin receptors. Which, in turn, causes the receptors to become even more tolerant, which in turn causes more insulin to be released, and so on. At the extreme, there comes a point where your insulin receptors are so tolerant of insulin that your pancreas physically can’t produce enough insulin to control blood sugar. This is how one becomes a type 2 (adult onset) diabetic.

And if insulin were only responsible for blood sugar regulation, the only risk of insulin resistance would be diabetes. But it isn’t - the master hormone is responsible for all sorts of stuff, like regulating fat storage, cholesterol production, water storage, etc.

All of the processes it regulates need to be in a certain range in order to function properly. When the blood sugar issue (insulin resistance) forces the pancreas to output insulin way out of it’s range, the other processes are accordingly overstimulated.

Insulin controls cholesterol production in the liver, or at least stimulates it. Most (something like 85%, IIRC) of the cholesterol in the body is made by the body - dietary intake is only a small factor. So eating something like speghetti all the time will spike insulin production, and hence spike internal cholesterol production - and the net result is having more excess cholesterol in your body from speghetti than from eggs. It’s funny that the “accepted” response to high cholesterol is to reduce dietary cholesterol - the tiny minority that it is - and eat foods that will spike internal cholesterol production.

This one my memory is a little sketchy about, so feel free to correct me. High amounts of insulin in the blood encourages fat storage mechanisms to go into overdrive, taking whatever energy/glucose they can find and converting them to fat, at a higher rate than you’d see without high insulin levels. It also makes the body less likely to use fat stores as energy, IIRC, but I can’t recall the actual mechanism.

High insulin levels also encourage the kidneys to hold onto excessive amounts of water - more than they’re really designed to store. This, among other things, puts some pressure on the blood vessel system, encouraging high blood pressure.

Anyway, there are more effects of out of whack insulin, but those are the big ones I can think of at the moment.

Essentially, what I’m trying to say is, with a normal ‘civilized’ diet, with lots of processed foods and ridiculously high carb intake, forces the body to operate out of it’s normal range of operation. Over time, the problem becomes worse and worse (due to increasing insulin resistance), and so we get fatter, have more cholesterol in our blood, higher blood pressure, and eventually some of us get diabetes (depends on the degree of genetic predisposition towards insulin resistance as well as lifetime dietary habits).

And so the Atkin’s diet isn’t just a matter of eating less, but it actually corrects all these problems. We’re designed (by evolution or God if you’d prefer) to store a good amount of fat, in case of famine, but we’re not designed to become really obese, and of course none of the other problems that come with insulin resistance. So when you begin to feed your body the sort of food it was designed to work around, it loses the ‘burden’ of operating at high insulin levels, and simply begins to correct itself. If you’re 20-30 pounds overweight, you’ll probably stay the same or lose slowly, because it’s natural to be at least a bit overweight (by chart standards), but if you’re 100-200 pounds overweight, you’ll lose weight like crazy, because that’s an unnatural condition.

The body no longer has out of whack insulin to cause excess cholesterol production, and so your body produces a healthy amount of cholesterol, and dietary intake is pretty much irrelevant. In my case, I went from, IIRC, over 320 cholesterol to 180, with improvement in HDL levels. My triglycerides, IIRC, went from about 700 to 50.

The body no longer stores all that excess water (and there’s another mechanism I’m forgetting), and so blood pressure levels out.

The body no longer sends the fat cells signals to collect all the fat they can, and so you find it easier to lose the weight.

In my experiences, not only did I drastically lose weight, but I became physically better in every imaginable way. I could not get sick - I even tried taking long walks in cold rain and stuff just to get sick, to test my immune system. I had a lot more energy and endurance - and this is within 3-4 days of starting low carbing, not after I’ve been working out for weeks. I gained muscle faster than I would’ve otherwise, my blood lipids went from horrible to perfect, I was almost never sore (and I worked out a LOT), even my mind seemed to function better.

This is consistent with the idea, to me, that our body is completely out of whack due to our unnatural diets. Low carbing allows the body to have the proper fuel and proper insulin ranges, and it nearly instantly begins to correct all of the conditions that the unnatural diet induces.

So, as I said, I don’t think the atkins is a magical way to lose weight, so much that we really fuck up our bodies with what’s considered normal eating habits, and low carbing allows the problems created that way to be fixed.

And so I don’t think it’s merely a “less calories, more excercise” thing - but other biological things are at work which allow one to lose weight, improve blood lipids and blood pressure, etc. disproportionately (or in contradiction) to what normal calorie in/calorie out methods would tell us.

Longest. Post. Ever.

:slight_smile:

Btw, this is the second time I was writing this - stupid IE erased my first draft :(. I was frustrated when I wrote this one, so it’s a bit shorter and probably less well written than my first. Sorry.

Feel free to ask anything or make any corrections to what I said.

Sobes - they’re the ones that say stuff like “Mind - body - lizard” under the bottle cap, right? :slight_smile:

OK, but 99mg is ~10 pills to the gram. And I’m getting 3.5g as the RDA in the pages I Google. But even at an RDA of 2g, 20 pills is a lot, though size can make a big difference.

The ones I used several years ago were big. You say your potassium pills are small - you got a brand name I can look for in case I do this again? The two big reasons I quit last time were worries about potassium (not enough) and aspartame (potentially too much), and Splenda might solve the latter.

Another good sugar substitute is stevia.

I used the stuff for a while to make kool aid - it’s very good. I also found that mixing the powdered and liquid variety seemed to have the best effect.

I stopped using it though, when I became too lazy to do mail orders for sugar substitutes :). And I don’t mind saccharine - if you balance it just perfectly, it tastes just like sugar in kool aid. It’s all in precise balancing.

“120 is not a worthy study, therefore atkins can’t work, therefore just starve yourselves as we’ve been telling you!!!”?

If you want to criticize the study, that’s fine - but to say that there isn’t enough study, therefore just use your minimally effective and very difficult method, is kind of silly.

That seems to make sense, because the fatter a person is, the more likely they are to be fat because of a genetic predisposition towards insulin resistance. And hence, would see the most benefit from a diet that negated the effects of insulin resistance.

Yes indeedie. Today’s lid said “Dude, where’s my Sobe?”

:slight_smile:

My mistake, I was thinking that there were 100 mgs in a gram.

Well, shit. Either food has a LOT of potassium, or we’re all horribly deficient.