I'm now boycotting any food product that says anything about "Carbs"

The BBQ Pit
181

I don’t have the experience to be able to argue in the Pit, but just to help back up some of the other “Low Carbers” in this discussion -

I have lost 90 lbs so far in a year while following Atkins. I don’t check for ketosis like BiblioCat does, but that’s mainly because I see the results in the scale. I eat more veggies than ever before. I don’t count them “as carbs” but I do count the grams of carbs contained within the makeup of the veggies.

I do eat whole grains - flax meal, unprocessed wheat bran and whole rye (crackers, not bread).

Atkins’ ideas aren’t fadd-ish. They’ve been public since 1972.

But all the new “low carb” foods are just plain scary to me. Since the FDA can’t/doesn’t regulate what counts as “low carb”, I can’t bring myself to believe them. If I do eat “specialty foods” I have to see the label myself. You’ve got to keep edjucated on ingredients to be able to do LC successfully.

The worst part about the new trend of low carb eating as a fad is that SO many people are going to try it and SO many people are going to do it completely wrong and that’s going to bring about a whole slew of “I tried Atkins but it didn’t work for me” dumbfucks.

I do believe in ketosis. You shouldn’t be eating high fat when not in ketosis, if everything I’ve read is true. If you eat a high-fat dinner with just a few carbs and then follow it up with a cookie (of the sugary ilk) then you get out of ketosis, your body is burning those carbs up first and the fat you ate is merrily on its way to your thighs and arteries.

But that’s just my pea-brained MTV generation take on the whole ketosis thing. All I know is I’ve lost a heck of alot of weight in the last year, and continue to drop more pounds. This is the only way that’s worked for me. Perhaps I’m eating less calories than before, but if I ate 1600 calories a day of flour and potatoes, I’d be one hungry chick.

Hopefully this IS a fad and the weirdo LC foods will go quickly out of fashion and I can someday hold my head up proudly and say “I’ve lost 150 pounds [my goal] because I stopped eating sugar and starch. You got a problem with that?”

182

I agree completely. I do not – and will never – understand the amount of vitriol leveled at those who follow a LC lifestyle. I dislike the market being flooded with all of these LC products, too, because the Atkins method focuses on unprocessed, whole foods. These LC products are by and large just chemical-laden junk.

As to what I say when people ask me how I’ve lost so much weight? “My doctor told me to cut down on my sugar and starches.” This way, I avoid the fight that would otherwise inevitably follow my outing as an Atkins dieter.

183

And the idea of cutting carbs has been around at least since Brillat-Savarin wrote The Physiology of Taste in the early 1800s:

184

That’s it, exactly. Go read the label on one of those low-carb candy bars or protein bars or snack chips. Find one that has “2 Net Carbs” or something like that on the label. It will list something like 25 carbs, but after you subtract the fiber, you’re left with only 2 “impact” carbs, like we were talking about earlier. I understand it, but I don’t quite “get it.” I keep looking at the “25 carbs” part, and just can’t quite bring myself to believe that I need to only count 2 carbs. Part of me thinks someone, somewhere is calculating something wrong.
The ingredient list is all chemicals I can’t pronounce. I don’t want to eat that crap.

That’s what I’ve said. The most important thing is to read the book and talk to your doctor. I just know there are people who think they’re on the Atkins Diet, but have never read the book, and are just eating the heavily-processed “LO-CARB!” crap like the shakes and protein bars, and are still unfamiliar with vegetables and exercise. When they fail, they have an easy out. “Oh, that Atkins diet doesn’t work. I tried it, ate all that low-carb food, and it didn’t work.”

There was poster in another thread who claimed to have tried it for a week or so, and said his sodium levels shot up so high his doctor made him go off of it. When pressed, he said he couldn’t remember what he ate that made his sodium levels go up so much. Obviously, he wasn’t eating quite right.
In that same thead, a poster mentioned a casual acquaintance who was very, very obese, decided to try Atkins, didn’t read the book or consult with her doctor, but just ate fried eggs and bacon every day, and ended up dying of a heart attack.
As with any diet, you have to read the book, or at the very least, go to the website, and find out all you can. The book is out in paperback, and you can always get it at the library. And of course, you should always talk to your doctor before starting a diet.

185

Why do the choices have to be The Atkins Diet or all flour and potatoes? You don’t think there’s any middle ground between the two?

I talked about this in another thread, but years ago I worked with a group of people who all went on the “Fit for Life” diet. They all lost a lot of weight. The diet worked very well for them. You’re probably thinking they must have cut out carbs to lose that much weight. NOPE. Guess what they ate every morning for breakfast? Bread. Yep, they ate bread - lots of it. Guess what else they ate for breakfast? Fruit. Lots of it. Lots of complex carbs; lots of simple carbs. And they lost a lot of weight. Why? Because the other part of the diet (or at least their interpretation of it) said to eat only vegetables for lunch. And get this: it said they could eat whatever they wanted for dinner.

Yes, they lost weight without maintaining a permament state of ketosis, or whatever the Atkins claim is. How did they do it? My guess is that since they substituted bread for bacon, eggs, pancakes or whatever they used to eat for breakfast, and salad for a cheeseburger and fries, or whatever they used to eat for lunch, they simply cut their caloric intake. They also started getting more exercise. No metabolic tricks, no peeing on strips, just common sense.

The “magic bullet” for the Fit for Life diet was food-combining. I got to hear over and over from these people how eating bread and meat together causes whatever processes that occur in the stomach to break these foods down to cancel out. They honestly believed that they lost weight just because they didn’t eat bread and meat at the same time. To me, it was the same thing I’m hearing from all the Atkins folks now - taking pseudo-scientific claims at face value, and overlooking the simple fact that they were just eating more vegetables, and less junk. They didn’t need any proof of this food-combining theory, they just accepted it as true and attributed their success to it.

Now even as I write this, I predict someone will come along and say, “Well I do Atkins and don’t eat vegetables; I only eat meat”, and this will be followed swiftly by someone else saying, “Atkins isn’t just eating meat, you didn’t read the book”, and we’ll be right back where we started.

I guess that what gripes people about being saturated with this Atkins stuff is that bread*, which man has been eating since the dawn of civilization, is all of a sudden supposed to be the boogey man, and we’re supposed to believe that just because Atkins said so.
*I mean “bread” figuratively - please don’t respond with “It’s not just bread.” Thank you.

186

Well I have been watching this thread since the OP and it has provided quite a bit of humor to say the least.
In my own case, I have lost over 32 lbs since I starting doing Atkins’ in January.

Am I in ketosis? Yes I am, I can “taste” the ketones on my breath when I exhale. If I eat a meal high in Carbs that “taste” goes away.

Do I eat less now than I did before going on Atkins? Yes, most of the time.

Does that mean that my weight loss is from eating more healthy foods? No I always ate healthy foods, lots of veggies, and chicken and fish, along with red meat. Now all I have done is to cut out the bread and cut way down on other carbs. So that is not the answer.

Well then it must mean that you are losing weight because you are eating smaller portions, right?
Perhaps some of the weight loss is from smaller portions, and some may have come from my working out, since now all of a sudden I have about three times the energy that I had before, but the bottom line is this:
It does not matter to me if the weight loss is from ketosis, smaller portions, my working out, or if Morgal the friendly dreleb comes by each night with a 1920’s style fat burning ray and zaps my ass. I am losing about 3lbs a week, I’m not hungry, my energy level has gone through the roof, I have to go buy new smaller clothes, and my friends are telling me I look great.
Arguing as to whether it is ketosis or smaller portions is the, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? argument for the new millennium IMHO. The correct answer is of course Who give a fuck?

187

A little factoid from Dr. Atkins book

158 pounds is one hell of a lot of sugar. Not to mention all the other carbs being consumed.
you are welcome

188

It doesn’t, of course. This is where the real debate lies, IMO. If we can stop arguing at cross purposes this would be a very enlightening debate.

And it has already been pointed out to you in this thread that this is not a valid argument. You admitted it was a valid point then, so why are you bringing it up again?

A couple of points:

1)Carbohydrates per se are not essential to the human diet. If you’d like to dispute that, I’d ask for some cites other than your personal hyperbole. Now, there are phyto-nutrients in fruits, vegetables and grains, still under study, but I don’t believe this is your point. If it is, we can narrow this debate accordingly.

2)If by “the dawn of civilization” you overlook the previous paleolithic era of animal (protein) based diet, you are also overlooking the corresponding rise in many health problems, including:
–an increased incidence of auto-immune disorders
–an increased incidence of infectious diseases
–an increase in iron deficiency anemia
–an increased incidence of osteomalacia, porotic hyperostosis and other bone mineral disorders
–an increase in the number of dental caries and enamel defects

Early agriculture and the subsequent grain based diet did not bring about increases in health, but rather the opposite. Obviously, humans have had little evolutionary experience with the high carbohydrate, grain based diet which is ubiquitous in modern western industrialized countries. There is considerable evidence to suggest that this type of diet has the potential for creating health problems. The heavy grain basis of the USDA food pyramid has been subjected to much critisism.

Care to dispute this? Again, the debate narrows.

It’s not just “Atkins saying it”, and it’s not “just about the bread”. IMO (shared by many scientists), it’s more about insulin control and efficient fat metabolism. I don’t agree with Atkins completely (I do think the type of dietary fat is important), but I think he was on the right track about the over-emphasis of grain based carbohydrates in the diet - processed or otherwise. For some people, even whole grain products create health problems and metabolic problems. Sensitivity to wheat, in particular, is a grossly undiagnosed problem in western societies.

I agree with you in that there needs to be more research in all these areas, and also more studies on the long term effects of ketosis (I see Boo Boo Foo is still spreading ignorance on this particular subject). Can you at least acknowledge that there are many variables involved, and that optimal diet is an individualised prospect? No one diet is for everyone, but for many people, a high carbohydrate diet is not feasable. Why do you seem to have such a problem with that, considering all the evidence that is out there?

189

I hate doing this, but “Me too.” Like I said higher up, I just don’t understand the amount of vitriol leveled at Atkinsers. Why the fuck does it matter to you (not you, Rick) how I’m losing weight? Why do you care so much about it? Can’t you just be happy for me, or at the least indifferent?

190

Also not to mention the decreased activity level of modern American as compared to 1828. Moreover, blowero, many Atkinsers (yours truly included) will occasionally eat unrefined flour products, such as whole wheat bread or flaxseed rolls. If you want to roll out the “dawn of civilization” line, you might want to pin down when the majority switched from relatively unprocessed, high-fiber grain products to modern, bleached white flour, as well as when they switched from relatively unrefined sweeteners to pure sugar crystals.

The point of ketogenic diets, such as Atkins and South Beach, is that diets high in these sorts of foods cause a blood sugar response leading to an insulin spike, which encourages the storage of excess calories as fat and also causes a feeling of hunger. A person on a ketogenic diet eats foods with a very low impact on blood sugar, which in turn causes a drop in fat storage. (As an aside, this low blood sugar impact is the reason that many diabetics on Atkins and South Beach are able to eliminate or reduce their use of injected insulin.) Moreover, when the body requires energy in a ketogenic state, it triggers the release of stored fat and converts it to the required glycogen. This process is not very efficient and leads to the production (as a side product) of ketones. These ketones are excreted in the urine, which is why my Ketostix turn purple. This lack of efficiency is what I and my fellow ketogenics are exploiting – since the process is inefficient, we lose weight at a rate that appears higher than simple IN - OUT = NET LOSS would imply. This is how I managed to lose 4 pounds a week while eating 3 - 4000 calories daily for my first few weeks. My intake now has slowed somewhat, but my weight loss has remained high.

On preview, as annaplurabelle points out, there are no carbohydrates required that the body cannot manufacture. The only essential nutrients are certain fats and proteins that the body cannot synthesize. Even though your diet and the diet recommended by the USDA are both high in carbohydrates does not necessarily mean you and the USDA are right.

191

If I cut down fat and ate more carbs and stayed at the same calorie level I’m at now (so as not to be hungry), I think I would be eating alot of flour and potatoes, yeah. There’s alot more calories in fat than in carbs, aren’t there?

If you believe in ketosis, and I do, then yeah it’s either you do a Low Carb diet with NO FLOUR or STARCH or SUGAR (which all have high glycemix indexes and will raise bloodsugar and knock you out of ketosis) and be able to burn your fat directly through ketosis.

OR

A low fat diet which would consist of a much higher carb/fat ratio because I’d be eating a ton of fruit, breads (albeit whole grain), pancakes, crackers, sugary “light” salad dressings and plain baked potatoes. And boxes of Snackwells cookies :wink: Have you ever looked at the labels of “lite” foods? They tend to contain more sugars than their fattier counterparts, as filler or to make up for taste.

So if you compare what I eat to what a low-fat dieter eats, yeah it would sort of look like they eat ALL CARBS and I eat NO CARBS. Of course that’s not true, but it would come across that way.

Honestly I don’t care how other people lose weight. Like I said before I wish LESS people would be following a low carb style of eating, so I wouldn’t feel like such an ass for doing it. There’s alot of people I wouldn’t recommend who do it. People who can’t afford to eat so much meat. People who can’t be bothered to read the book. People for whom Weight Watchers works. People with kidney problems. Peole who think they can survive on Atkins shakes and bars. But it works for me 'n stuff. Cool.

Some people around here complain so much about how everyone in America is fat. Well now I’m alot less fat and so are alot of my friends. And I’m getting less fat every day. Everyone is different. Don’t listen to the media, listen to those of us who have been there.

192

Nobody is disputing the merits of limiting ones intake of refined sugar.

You fail to distinguish between simple and complex carbohydrates.

193

Exactly my point. You attribute your weight loss to sustained ketosis, yet you don’t care if it’s actually true or not. The “bottom line” is the only thing you are concerned about, and to that end, it doesn’t concern you one way or the other if the results you achieve are for the reason Atkins claims, or for some other reason. You can use as large a typeface as you like; it’s still true.

194

Good, then we agree.

I don’t know what that means. Yes, caloric intake is essential. We burn calories as fuel. We would die without them. Now, if what you’re saying is that you can eat other things; of course you can. I can’t think of any specific food that you could say is essential, i.e. can’t be obtained from any other source.

Care to prove it? I don’t get this whole quoting out of the Atkins Bible, then saying “YOU have to DISprove it.” Yeah, right…

Yeah, acheived through very limited carbohydrate consumption, right? After all this, please don’t try to tell me Atkins isn’t about limiting carbohydrate consumption. Please don’t.

Some people are allergic to peanuts. That doesn’t mean nobody should eat peanuts.

But that’s just it. The way everyone is jumping on the Atkins bandwagon, you’d think it was supposed to be for everyone.

Sure. I understand that it’s not advised for diabetics, but I don’t see what that has to do with the rest of us. I also don’t see why it has to be HIGH carbohydrate. Why not moderation for everything?

I don’t have a problem with certain people, such as diabetics, having to be on special diets. Why did you think I had a problem with that?

195

Well, I did, but you ignored that.

And you can ignore my points all you like but the fact remains that:

Ketosis diminishes appetite.

Ketosis is not a faery tale, it is an accepted scientific fact. As I’ve said before, more studies need be done on the long term effects, and precise “metabolic advantage” - but ketosis itself, and the altered metabolic effects/appetite suppressant qualities - are not in dispute in the scientific community. What part of this do you not understand???

Your continued stance is based on willful ignorance.

196

With 4.2 grams of carbs in each teaspoon of white sugar, according to you it should’t matter. 158 pounds of caloric sweetener is, pardon the pun, a metric butt load.

What part of, It doesn’t fucking matter, isn’t clear? Is the It doesn’t or the fucking matter? Or is there a grey area in my statement that I am unaware of?
Look, when I was consuming bread and other carbs, I could not limit my eating. For breakfast I would eat a 3 egg omelet with stuff inside, hash browns, bacon, and toast. For lunch I would have a large sandwich and fruit. For dinner some type of meat, plus veggies and bread or potatoes. Plus I always wanted to snack.
Now typically I will eat 1 or 2 eggs scrambled, plus a couple of strips of bacon for breakfast, either 1/2 of a burger patty, or the lunch meat and veggies out of half a sandwich, dinner I will order the smallest steak the restaurant carries and some veggies.
Yes I am eating less. No doubt, no argument.
But why am I eating less? Before, I would eat that large sandwich for lunch by 4 PM my stomach was sending up messages asking if my throat had been slit, I was so hungry. Now I don’t even start to get hungry until 6:30-7:00. The only thing that has changed is that I am limiting my carb intake. Hmm, anybody see a connection here? Anyone? Bueller?
I don’t get hungry on this diet, I don’t feel deprived, and I lose weight. For me this is the magic of Atkins.
As far as understanding just how Atkins works, there are lots of things in this world I don’t fully understand, but I still use. For instance I don’t understand how a touch screen works on a computer, but that does not stop me from using one on the diagnostic machine at work. Once again just in case you missed it the first time It doesn’t fucking matter. Atkins works for me, I am losing weight, I am happy.

197

Will you take the word of Vanderbilt University?

Need any more straw for that strawman you are building?

198

It means what I said it means in my post. Essential amino acids are those that are derived from outside sources and cannot be manufactured internally. The essential fatty acids are listed here. Similarly, Wikipedia has this to say in re the necessity of carbohydrates in the diet:

So to sum up, here is what I am (and what I believe annaplurabelle is) saying. There are certain fatty acids and amino acids that humans cannot synthesize in the body. These must be ingested, and they are called the essential acids. There are no carbohydrates that the body needs that it cannot synthesize out of protein and fat. This process is inefficient, and it is the reason for weight loss in ketogenic diets.

199

Didn’t catch your last post on preview, but here goes:

Where to begin? Your ignorance of nutritional studies is too vast. Here’s a basic start:

(on preview, I see Bambi has cited this already).

Here’s more:

Scientific Evidence to Support Low Grain Diets

See the rest of the cite for more info on the paleolithic diet.

Address my points with something other than hyperbole and I will document as needed. I’m already too familiar with your disingenuous time wasting debating tactics. It shouldn’t be necessary to cite accepted science.

200

It’s nice to know someone’s listening. Neither he nor Boo Boo Foo has answered my question in re what’s causing my body to remain in ketosis if not my restricted carbohydrate intake. Usually in these threads, I let you do all the talking because you seem to know more than me about metabolism, but this time I had to pipe up.