And the obvious point that was made at my dojo was that I’d probably put on more muscle mass if I ate more protein.
That is a problem, being a lazy vegetarian who doesn’t feel like varying his diet enough (already take vitamin b-12, rather then finding foods that have it).
I’ll probably go with small amounts of those protein drinks they sell at the gym…
But will more then one program work for a person?
For that matter, I’m still not convinced the Atkins diet is completely healthy (neither, in my opinion, is veganism).
In any case, I could easily become an overweight vegetarian by gorging on cheeses, butter, sweets and plenty of other fatty products, then sitting around all day. However, I doubt I would keep the weight on while still exercising unless I ate a LOT of those (and sensei would not let me sit around if I wanted too 
)
Sure Atkins can help you lose weight. Plenty of people have attested to it. What I’m wondering is - is it healthy, and, is it the only way?
Thanks Porcupine… I’ll give Lindt a try…
Is Atkins healthy? The Doc himself doesn’t look so great, but…
He has claimed that he has reduced heart disease in a study conducted on 2000 nurses (I apologoze for not have a specific reference), but then, Linus Pauling claimed vitamin C could cure cancer.
Even Atkins highly recommends eating a healthy amount of green veggies in addition to all the wonderful eggs, cheeses, meats, etc.
As my 2 cents in support of the low carb diets, I have to say that I FEEL MUCH BETTER when I stay away from carbs. Like <b>DEMISE</b>, I used to have heartburn all the time which was eliminated with the diet. Most importantly to me, however, is the fact that I have so much more energy when I’m on the diet. I sleep less and do more. Eating carbs leads to a spiral for me, too; the more I eat, the more I want. Then I want a nap. Every day with carbs feels like Thanksgiving to me; I just want to crash on the couch after I eat.
I think this diet works for me because I am sensitive to insulin. I can’t imagine this would be a good diet for someone who doesn’t have the problems with carbs that I do.
As a slight side note, I am amazed at the bias that goes into reporting on diets. Almost any article or book I read which is critical of any particular diet seems loaded with emotionally descriptive terms. Not to pick on the link supplied by <b>tracer</b>, but I had to laugh at some of the language in the article, such as “These high-protein diets are often sold to the public with the claim that there is something unique, even mystical, about the
effects of protein on the body that makes all well established dietary advise obsolete…High-protein diet gurus are usually establishment bashers…I call these ‘the make yourself sick diets’…” and some of the sub-titles, such as “Sickening Foods”, “Protein Damage”, and “The Heart Disease Zone”. This author goes on to provide compelling, rational arguments against many of the claims made by Dr. Atkins and others, but I suspect it is his general tone which is most convincing to many. Funny that debates about diet can seem nearly as emotionally laden as arguments about religion (not on this board, but in much of the published literature).
BTW, my results on low-carb: 50 lbs lost over about a six month period three years ago. I have regained and relost 10lbs of that a couple of times due to the fact that I go for long periods of not following the diet (anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of months). So, 40lbs lost and kept off for 3 years is not too bad, I think. I would like to lose more, but I think I’m at the point that I’m not going to lose anymore on the diet alone (this is NOT a diet that you can starve yourself into model-type emaciation on). Got to start the exercize thing…
Pamela
I really wish someone could tell me if they’d try’d a Glycemic index diet, and what the results were.
LaMaxwell, you said you were sensitive to insulin. Maybe low-carb worked because you cut out the “bad” foods on the glycemic index along with the “good”
I’m calling them “bad” and “good” because I don’t know much about this diet, except for a rave review from a passing acquaintence.
Anyone here know anything about it?
What is a glycemic index diet?
I have a hormonal disorder (PCOS) that is now known to be caused by insulin resistance and hyperinsulemia. Pretty much everyone in the know agrees that a low carb diet is the best approach.
In the last two months, I’ve made one change to my eating habits: every morning, I drink a protein shake instead of having cereal or a bagel or yogurt like I used to. My perception of the results is that my blood sugar has stablized - no more hunger headaches, no more low blood sugar events - and that I’m slowly beginning to take some weight off. What’s even more cheering is that I’m losing it around my waist, which has never happened before.
I know that I need to add more exercise (though going to school has now added about a half a mile of walking every day), and I really need to cut out the sodas. Once I manage to do that, things will probably really start to change.
phouka wrote:
Through a blizzard uphill both ways, right? 
Stoidela said hijacks were okay.
I have nothing to add from personal experience, but a guy at work, in his 50’s, says he’s lost 58 pounds in the last six months just by giving up pop (soda, for you Easterners, I guess). He says he only drinks water and fruit juice. His pot belly is totally gone. He says he feels great, and eats whatever he wants.
He’s probably fudging a bit. If you give up pop, you’re probably also cutting down on the side stuff, like chips, popcorn, snack stuff, because those things go together. And if he’s drinking more water, well, then he’s getting a full feeling, so he’s probably eating less without realizing it.
Just thought I’d throw that out. Who knows whether the weight will stay off. Wouldn’t it be great if it were that easy?
I got myself from 150 to 135 by eating macrobiotically, but I fell of the wagon pretty fast, but even after I went back to eating my regular way too high in fat diet, the weight stayed off. Of course, I had gained the weight by gorging myself on Portugese sausage every day at a breakfast buffet…
But the macrobiotic diet left me feeling generally shitty, tired all the time, and constantly craving sweets and fats.
I picked up this book called Eat Right for Your Type, which is a diet based on your blood type. I’ve been following it for a couple of weeks. I’ve only lost a couple of pounds, but I’ve been eating a lot of chocolate and not getting enough exercise. If I would behave myself, I’d probably get thinner pretty quick. But I have a lot more energy, and generally feel healthier.
It seems a little more individualized than other diets. I don’t think there’s any such thing as a one-size fits all diet. A lot of it depends on your own body chemistry. High protien might work for some, total vegan for others. But I think the reasoning behind adjusting your diet based on your blood type seems fairly sound- it stands to reason that people with one blood type might have fairly similar body chemistry, but be quite different from another blood type.
Anyhow, that’s my $.02 worth.
As I said, I don’t trust Atkins, especially after hearing some of the things
he said on the radio. But, his suggestion of using the test strips may be a
good idea. On the other hand, if your kidneys are in good shape it may be
that you could still have high levels of ketones in the blood without
getting a reading on this from the strips. Just a thought I haven’t seen any
data one way or the other…
Along with the ketones I’d be worried about the heavy nitrogen load that the
liver, kidneys and other tissues might be exposed to. If you have low carbos
but high protein then the liver will be turning a lot of the protein into
glucose. Unless you are an incredible body builder it has no where else to
go. Excess protein won’t be pissed or shit out and it won’t be automatically
converted into muscle - it will be turned into glucose. Now a defining
characteristic of proteins is that they have a lot of nitrogen. Note that
there isn’t any nitrogen in glucose so the first thing that the liver does
with all these /amino/ acids is to remove the amino groups. This forms -
AMMONIA which is highly toxic and some of it gets out into the blood where
it could /potentially/ stress the body. A lot gets converted in the liver
into urea which needs to be disposed of in the kidneys. So the liver and
kidneys bear the brunt of the nitrogen burden. In fact, for people with
kidney failure the protein is drastically /reduced/ to prevent total renal
failure. Then there’s a fair amount of sulfur in protein that also has to be
dealt with…
As with the ketosis issue, I haven’t seen any data one way or the other as
to what levels are reached on the various diets nor whether or not they are
dangerous. Have someone smell your breath and see if they smell acetone!
Hopefully not.
However, I have done a lot of reading lately on such diets and am pretty
well convinced that there’s a lot of snake-oil being sold out there. For my
money I’d much rather go for a balanced moderation diet with increased
exercise than one of these off-balanced diets. You should get the same
benefits and maybe then some - certain of these diets go against some of the
STRONGEST evidence we have from dietary epidemiology studies - namely that
increased consumption of fruits and vegetables is good for you, especially
in terms of lowering the risks of cancer and heart disease while increased
consumption of animal fats and red meat increases risk for these diseases.
There’s a lot of controversy out there in dietary studies but these two
overall trends are consistently seen again and again.
Also, I wouldn’t be too comfortable with the fact that I might be generating
long-term ketosis, nitrogen load and sulfur load. This may not be bad for
you but I’d rather not bet on it…
>>> Actually, I’d like to suggest at this point that all of these agencies
that you
>>> reference are and have been some of the slowest to accept change and new
ideas,
>>> or to review ‘currently accepted positions’ in light of new or conflicting
>>> data.
And this is based on your carefully researched study of these organizations?
I’d suggest that you look into the history of Atkins-style diets, they go
all the way back to the 1800’s, hardly “new ideas” (or are you suggesting
that these agencies are /that/ slow!?). High protein/high-fat diets have
come and gone many times over the last 100 years, if they are so damn
successful and easy to follow as Atkins claims then why haven’t they been
widely adopted and why do they keep fading out over time? Why are there no
controlled research studies testing the efficacy of these proposed diets?
As far as accepting new ideas that fly in the face of the vast majority of
research that’s been done to date then, yes, I say move slowly!
>>> Not to justify ‘selective reporting’, but doesn’t the government do the
same
>>> thing? What makes that selective reporting any better that that which you
>>> accuse Atkins of? I’d suggest that you scrub up your pot before you go
after
>>> the kettle.
The difference is that, on the one hand, you have several large
organizations /not all of them governmental I might add/ that are fairly
consistent in their recommendations - reccommendations that have been
arrived at for the most part by panels of reputable experts based on the
totality (both positive and negative) of scientific evidence. It is
inconceivable that all these diverse organizations have arrived at the same
conclusions independently because they all suffer from the same selective
reporting. Even more bizarre is the claim that Atkins makes - that there is
some kind of conspiracy going on whereby all these organizations are being
controlled by “Agribiz.”
Look, the thinking behind the recommendations these organizations have made
is published, as is the research backing up their conclusions. Anyone can
look it up and see that it makes sense (I have doen this). The situation
with Atkins or the Eades is just the oposite - their claims are virtually
unsupported by any hard evidence.
Next you’ll be telling me that the tobacco companies were right all those
years they claimed no ill health effects for smoking, contrary to the bulk
of scientific evidence (as well as common sense!) and that all these
governmental agencies were just too damn slow to accept this “new idea.”
>>>> I personally am convinced that low carb diet is good for some quick weight
>>>> loss. Am not entirely convinced I need it long term, as I don’t seem to
>>>> have the insulin problems.
Yes but most of this weight lost is actually water and is apparently a
common phenomenon with low carb diets. The body is forced to deplete its
stores of glycogen (a sugar storage compound analogous to starch in plants).
There is a lot of water associated with glycogen (3 parts water to each part
glycogen) so 3/4 of the weight lost early on low carb glycogen-burning diets
is actually water, most of therest is glycogen with little fat weight being
lost.
From an energy point of view it is obvious that you can’t have lost
significant fat weight over this week. Think about it this way - A normal
average person burns about 1800 kcal per day during usual activities. Fat
has an energy content of 9 kcal/gram = 3900 kcal per pound. So, to lose 10
pounds of fat you’d have to lose an energy equivalent of 39,000 kcal which
is enough energy to run your body for 22 days! Put another way, you’d have
to eat ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for 22 days to burn off 10 pounds of fat. The
point of this is that if you lost 10 pounds in one week while still eating
it couldn’t possibly have been body fat. It’s simply impossible there’s nothing magic here, you can’t get around the laws of thermodynamics.
Carbohydrates and proteins each have about 4 kcals per gram or about
1730 kcal/pound (less energy density than fat) so to lose 10 pounds of body
protein and/or carbohydrate (glycogen) you’d need to lose 17,300 kcal which
would correspond to the energy requirements for 10 days - that is you’d only
have to starve for 10 days to lose 10 pounds of carbo/protein. But again,
note that you said you lost 10 pounds in only 7 days and, more importantly, you were
eating during this time.
Overall, it soundsl like you lost some weight - probably 2.5 pounds or so of
mostly glycogen, protein and a little fat and that the bulk of your weight
loss - some 7.5 pounds - was probably due to water losses.
>>> If your body is not responding well to the insulin’s role in
>>>digestion and metabolism, then the next claim is that by
>>>reducing the carbohydrates, you reduce insulin production.
This is certainly true for diabetics. They either don’t make
enough insulin or don’t respond well to the insulin that they do make therefore they can’t clear blood glucose when it rises after a carbo meal. One way to deal with this clinicaly is to cut back on the amount of carbos (especially simple sugars) in their diet.
>>> Thanks for the discussion, but I had hoped to learn a >>>little bit more as to specifics of things you don’t >>>agree with in the research.
If I saw some specific research I could better evaluate such claims. I have
searched the biomedical literature and haven’t found any. If there are
specific studies you are aware of I’d love to see them!
All I’ve read in SEVERAL physiology, biochem, and nutrition texts as well as
a few basic research articles and some govt/ papers consistently supports
the view that what is most important in weight management is caloric input
vs caloric output. In fact, I was in the medical bookstore yesterday
browsing and came upon a brand new text full of review articles on the
nutrition literature. This source clearly spelled out in no uncertain terms
that what was most important was the total calories in the diet not the
makeup of the diet.
A. Studies indicating that there is no differential weight loss with diet
composition, that is, it’s calories that count, not their partitioning
between fat, protein, and carbs:
“long-term studies in humans comparing high-fat and high-carbohydrate diets
under controlled conditions fail to show differential effects on body
weight.”
"Studies using whole body calorimetry show that under these circumstances
there are no perceptible differences in total daily energy expenditure over
a range of diets containing from 10% fat to 80% fat when the diets are
consumed in amounts to maintain energy balance, or when people consumed the
diets ad libitum.
“…total energy expenditure is controlled by the body’s needs rather than
the composition of the diet.”
[They evaluated the effects of two hypocaloric diets of 1200 cal/day either
25% carbs or 45% carbs…]
"This study shows that the composition of a hypocaloric diet does not, in
itself, influence weigfht loss or loss of adipose tissue. Weight loss after
12 w of diet was not different between the two diets containing respectively
25% and 45% carbohydrates. These results are in accordance with a recently
published study by Alford et al who compared diets of 25%, 45% , and 75%
carbohydrates. [ The effects of Variations in carbohydrate, Protein, and Fat
Content of the Diet Upon Weight Loss, Blood values, and Nutrient intake of
Adult Obese Women J Am Diet Assoc 90:534- 1990] "
[The study by Alford mentioned above looked at effects on three different
1200 cal diets over a 10 wk period and found “No significant differences
were found in the parameters except for BUN, which was significantly greater
in the 25% carbohydrate group.” note: BUN = blood urea nitrogen, other
parameters measured included body composition, cholesterol, triglycerides,
uric acid, and % body fat.]
[compared 440 cal/d diets either 41% protein plus 55% carbohydrate or 95%
protein over 3 weeks. ]
“There were no significant diet effects in weight loss, loss of lean mass,
metabolic rate reduction, or meal-stimulated thermogenesis.”
[the authors review the available data relating dietary fat intake and
obesity.]
They conclude, in part, that “Ultimately, obesity is caused by an energy
imbalance and the focus on dietary fat may have been overemphasized at the
expense of total energy intake. This is a crucial point when it comes to
placing the role of dietary fat intake into its proper context. Total energy
balance is what matters most and the focus on dietary fat consumption must
be seen through its effects on total energy intake.”
[ No weight differences seen in either low-fat or high-fat subjects on
isocaloric diets.]
[Essentially no difference in low fat vs high fat diet groups long-term (one
year).]
[Compared high vs low sucrose hypoenergetic diets over a 6 week period]
“Results showed that a high sucrose content in a hypoenergetic, low-fat diet
did not adversely affect weight loss, metabolism, plasma lipids, or
emotional affect.”
Note: the following 3 studies are listed among the small handful of older
studies Atkins himself cites in his book.
" Studies were therefore undertaken on patients admitted to the metabolism
ward, where intake could be quantitated; the effects on weight loss of a
high-fat diet providing 2870 calories daily were compared with those of an
isocaloric high-carbohydrate low-fat diet of approximately the same protein
content. The weight changes with both diets were the same."
“Classical reports on the specific-dynamic action of foodstuffs do not point
to any increase of metabolism due to fat; on the contrary, the action of fat
seems to be smaller than that of carbohydrate, and this has recently been
confirmed by Hawthorne et al. Swift et al found no appreciable difference in
the energy utilization by man of equicaloric diets containing widely
differing amounts of fat.”
"We were led to the following conclusions:
“From this study it may be concluded that, over the periods studied,
isocaloric sub-maintenance diets are equally effective in weight reduction
whatever their composition.”
“On 800-calorie and 1000-calorie diets very obese patients lose weight
steadily over periods of up to four months. If the periods of study are long
enough to achieve a :steady state” the rate of weight loss on a diet
consisting mainly of fat does not differ significantly from the rate of
weight loss on an isocaloric diet consisting mainly of carbohydrate. When
these diets are interchanged, deviations from the weight curve occur,
lasting up to ten days. These can be accounted for mainly by changes in the
fluid balance."
[A critique of three contemporaneous studies studies purporting to show
increased weight loss on high-fat low-carbohydrate diets, this was the same
time period where Atkins cites literature supporting his “calories don’t
count” theory.]
Kenney, a member of the National Council Against Health Fraud, discussing
barry Sears’ Zone diet states that the plan is "a thinly disguised
calorie-restricted diet. Sears has somehow reached the conclusion that a
diet high in carbohydrates, rather than fat, is the main cause of heart
disease and obesity. The author further contends that ‘you can burn more fat
watching TV than by exercising’ (!)
B. Adverse health relationships and meat/fat consumption
Dietary Fat and Risk of Chronic Disease: Mechanistic Insights from
Experimental Studies J. Weisburger J Am Diet Assoc 97:16- (1997).
Well-Done Meat Intake and the Risk of Breast Cancer W. Zheng J Nat
Cancer Inst 90:1724- (1998)
Cornary Heart Disease Mortality Among Seventh-Day Adventists With
Differing Dietary Habits R. Phillips et al, Am J Clin Nutr 31:191-
(1978).
Relation of Meat, Fat, and Fiber Intake to the Risk of Colon Cancer in a
Prospective Study Among Women W. Willett et al, N Eng J Med 323:1664-
(1990).
Animal Fat Consumption and Prostate cancer: a Prospective Study in Hawaii
L Le marchand Epidemiology 5:276- (1994).
International patterns of Osteoporosis B. Nordin Clin Ortho 45: 17-
(1966).
Calcium Metabolism in Postmenopausal and Osteoporotic Women Consuming Two
Levels of Protein J Lutz et al, Am LJ Clin Nutr 34:2178- (1981).
Note that, as I’ve discussed previously, “fat” is too general a term - not
all fats are created equal in terms of their impacts on human health (see
below also) so it is important to take this into account. Also, the results
from studies linking increased protein intake to potential increased calcium
loss are mixed. I’m only including a couple of these here as examples to
show that the research is not as one-sided as the high-protein diet authors
might have you believe. True, the jury is still out, but that’s no excuse
for selectively citing only those studies showing little or no effect on
calcium metabolism therefore concluding there is no risk.
C. All fats are not created equal when it comes to human health
[This is a very good recent detailed review of the effects various lipids
have on plasma lipoprotein and cholesterol levels in humans. If you’re at
all interested in this topic this would be a good place to start.] A few
highlights:
"…clear that saturated fatty acids are hypercholesterolemic and that
unsaturated fatty acids elicit a hypocholesterolemic effect compared with
saturated fatty acids… it appears that myristic acid is the most potent
saturated fatty acid… stearic acid is uniquely different in that it
appears to be a neutral fatty acid. Monounsaturated fatty acids appear to
exert a neutral effect or to be mildly hypocholesterolemic. trans Fatty
acids elicit effects that are intermediate to those of hypercholesterolemic
saturated fatty acids and the cis-monounsaturated and cis-polyunsaturated
fatty acids. Polyunsaturated fatty acids elicit the most potent
hypocholesterolemic effects. "
“Unfortunately, a focus on fat intake alone distracts from the more
appropriate focus on total energy intake and physical activity levels. Bray
and Popkin do agree that total energy intake, not fat per se, in relation to
energy expenditure determines body fat accumulation.”
“…advice regarding dietary fat intake should emphasize replacing saturated
and trans fats with nonhydrogenated unsaturated oils, and balancing energy
intake from both carbohydrates and fats with regular physical
activity…supported by a wealth of empirical data from metabolic studies of
blood lipids and from epidemiologic and randomized trials of coronary artery
disease…”
" The strong correlation between the level of intake of saturated fatty
acids and the rates of coronary heart disease among the 16 populations
examined in the Seven Countries Study is often quoted as evidence that the
consumption of saturated fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease. A
subsequent biochemical analysis of food composites representing the average
intake of each cohort at baseline not only confirmed that the intake of
saturated fatty acids was strongly correlated with the risk of death from
coronary heart disease but also showed that the intake of trans fatty acids
was correlated…"
"The major life habit that causes elevated LDL cholesterol concentrations is
the high intake of saturated fatty acids and cholesterol. In addition,
increasing obesity contributes to rising serum concentrations of LDL
cholesterol. "
Hydrogenation: The Food Industry’s Wild Card L. Blume, Nutrition action
8: 9- (1987).
Trans Fatty Acids and Their Effects on Lipoproteins in Humans M. Katan
et al, Annu Rev Nutr 15:473- (1995).
Estimated Intakes of trans Fatty acids in the U.S. population D. Allison
et al, J Am Diet Assoc 99:166- (1999).
trans fats were first introduced in 1911 and have since risen to represent ~
3 -6% of total dietary calories. It seems that Atkins could just as easily
point to this as the cause for increased coronary disease rather than
refined sugars. The logic would be just as valid, and just as flawed -
correlation does not prove causation.
D. High recidivism rate for diets
Methods for Voluntary Weight Loss and Control. NIH Technology Assessment
Panel Ann Int med 119:764- (1993).
E. Weight loss lowers blood cholesterol
Effects of Weight reduction on Blood Lipids and Lipoproteins: a
Meta-analysis A. Dattilo et al Am J Clin Nutr 56:320- (1992).
Phew! had enough yet Eric? There are a bunch of references indicating that
diets high in fruits and vegetables appear to have protective effects but
I’m sick of typing, I’ll leave this as an exercise to the student if you’re
interested.
In closing, here’s a web link with a short simple critique of
low-carbohydrate diets.
http://www.cce.cornel.edu/food/expfiles/topics/levitskyoverview.html
-Lupulin, shameless puppet of Agribiz
That’s basically what Sugarbusters is, Kyber. GI lists are printed in the book along with recipes, success stories, and so on.
I lost 70lbs in 5 months, translating to about 8 inches off the waist. I feel great, have plenty of energy, lost my chronic heartburn. I’ve been to the mendosa website you posted earlier, and used it as an expanded list for foods in addition to what is published in the Sugarbusters book.
**
So I’ve lost 50 lbs of water? :rolleyes:
Only the first few lbs are water weight.
lupulin wrote:
Not true. You could burn 10 pounds of fat in less than a week, if you ate absolutely nothing and sprinted nonstop 24 hours a day.
My post was responding to another person who said they’d lost 10 pounds in a week and this was what I was responding to. Most of this weight loss early in the diet is water weight. Once the glycogen stores (and their associated water) have been depleted then you start losing less water. However, it is this initial dramatic and relatively easy weight loss (primarily due to lost water) that allows diet promoters to claim such great results. How many times have you seen come-ons that say things like “Lose a pound a day for the first week - guaranteed!!!” it’s hard to resist such a sales pitch. Since this weight is relatively easy to lose and one is often enthusiastic during the initial stage of a new diet it seems as if the diet is working and great testimonials result. Unfortunately, later on the weight is harder to lose and one tires of the diet which is a big reason the recidivism rate is so high. Remember, you probably put the weight on slowly over a period of months if not years, to expect an easy, quick and safe fix is unrealistic.
-Lupulin
[total hijack]
:o
Mea culpa.
It’s a habit from Usenet - I rarely look for gender clues.
Sorry!
PS: Hey, at least I recognize your name when I see it in a thread - you must be doing something right!
[/hijack]
Quite alright! I actually owe you one for the sig inspiration. I’ve never been good at that. Creativity is not my forte.