I don’t know exactly except cheese is really nasty stuff for you… and I love it to death!
I am a self confessed veggie hater… they are nasty…
If I only had to loss 10 -15 pounds I wouldn’t bother with dieting…
I think I’ll stick with the gym… exercise and sweat…
It’s a minimum of 64 ounces of water daily. If you have significantly more to lose, it’s recommended that you drink more.
Since it was given as an anecdote (since the person who posted that was not close to the woman), I’m not going to put much weight into that. There’s plenty of people who have a problem with the diet that will pop in to say “Hey, I heard that my cousin’s boyfriend’s mom’s sister tried it and it KILLED HER!” When, of course, it’s only a 3rd-hand rumor that has no factual basis.
If the story is true, chances are
Aspartame, sold under the brand name, Equal, has the possibility of spiking blood sugar in some people, or creating strong sugar cravings. Also, there are some people who are very sensitive to Aspartame, and he considers it a health risk. Atkins prefers Sucralose or Saccharin as artificial sweetners because they do not cause blood sugar spikes. He particularly likes sucralose since it is derived from sugar.
He discourages the consumption of aspartame-sweetened, caffinated sodas. If you can find sodas that are sucralose-sweetened and contain no caffiene, then they’re fine (as long as you’re still drinking your minimum of water). There are two brands here on the West Coast–Diet Rite and Diet Hansen’s that meet these requirements.
First, the study was partially funded by the Atkins Institute. If you are going to quote, at least do it correctly. Since the study was partially funded by Atkins, it has no value? This basically throws out any positive results of any products where the company funds the research. The pharmacutical industry is going to be up shit creek.
Actually, this is turning into more of a religious type debate so I’ll stop posting in it now. As for your stupid comment about “rabid Atkins lackeys”, that just shows that no matter what study is done or what proof is put forth, you are going to find problems with it so really, what’s the point?
A question to the Atkins proponents, as I’m curious about this diet and the only place I hear about it is here on SD:
It appears that the Atkins diet is divided into two stages. An introductory stage that induces ketosis, is restrictive and some fear may be unhealthy, and a second stage which sounds less like a diet and more like a general way of eating for the rest of your life.
Is this correct ? If it is correct, what exactly is accomplished by the introductory phase ? Why wouldn’t it be just as good for you to begin eating immediately as per the “rest of your life” stage, skipping the introductory ketosis-inducing stage altogether ?
Aspartame is Equal. Sweet 'n Low is Saccharin. Saccharin is fine in the Atkins plan.
That is really the crux of the Atkins plan. Getting rid of all the refined, processed foods and eating whole foods. Really, so much healthier than the typical American diet.
Actually, Atkins only recommends giving up alcohol completely during induction. Wine and hard liquor is fine in moderation, once you’re in ongoing weight loss. It’s beer and sugary mixed drinks that are no-nos.
Here in Australia the CSIRO is advocating the Total Wellbeing diet. The CSIRO is the peak scientific body in the country and after years of reasearch this is the only diet they have ever endorsed. Their recommended diet was similar to what the low-carb proponents say 34% protein, 20% fat, 46%carbohydrate. All the info including meal plans is at CSIRO.
Here is a link which says in part :
"CSIRO has spent the past few years exploring the healthiest and most successful ways to lose weight. In recent studies funded by Meat and Livestock Australia, we demonstrated the benefits of an eating plan that provides more protein and less refined carbohydrates. "
Actually, it’s four stages - induction, ongoing weight loss (OWL), pre-maintenance, and maintenance.
The reasons for induction are to break the sugar/carb cravings, and get your body into ketosis. It is also a great motivator - I lost 12 lbs in my two week induction. You can stay on induction longer than two weeks if you have a lot of weight to lose. I wanted to add fruit back, so I only did it for two weeks.
I’m not saying Atkins is for everyone, sometimes it really hurts to say no to cake and cookies. But I know for myself I am so much healthier without that junk, and can turn it down with no problem. Former smokers can say no to cigarettes, alcoholics can say no to a drink. As a former carb addict, I am proud to say no to sugary, carby JUNK food. When I look at all the positive changes in my life since I’ve started eating on the Atkins plan (not just the weight I’ve lost, either), I have no problem with my choice.
I second everything every successful Atkins-er has said.
Lost 30 lbs in less than two months. Went from cramming in to a 14 to an easy 8-10. More energy than ever (I used to take a nap EVERY day when I got home from work). Eating healthier foods. My husband hasn’t had heartburn since May. My MIL’s best friend is off of her cholesterol meds after 15 years (MIL has her appointment this month). Her husband is on something like half the insulin he was on.
Another thing - people are concerned that “all that meat” is going to be “really expensive,” but I’d rather spend $6 on some pork chops and $1.50 on some broccoli than $10 at McDonald’s. And not be hungry again before I go to bed. Plus, we’re not buying chips, cookies, crackers, Rice-a-Roni, etc. anymore. And the bread we buy is only ~$2 per loaf.
We’ve fallen off the wagon pretty hard lately, but we’re re-inducting on Monday. I’ve still got 15 lbs to go!
Oh, and for studies, check out www.lowcarbresearch.org. I used some of their articles for two speeches in my class last summer. I convinced my prof and her sister (by osmosis) to try it. For basic info on the diet, check out the “official” website (not sure what it is). For great testimonials, recipes, a decent message board (some of 'em can’t spell to save their lives! ), and a marketplace, look at www.low-carb-friends.com.
Mmmmm…liquid sugar.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. If Atkins hadn’t subsidized some of the studies, no one would have done any. But if there weren’t any studies, then people would be dubious. Now that the diet is beginning to become trendy, people will do studies on their own. And we’ll see how they come out.
Admittedly the research I linked to at CSIRO was funded by Meat and Livestock Australia but it is quite compelling. There are further links there to the studies and results and presentations. The research is even what blowero wants: two groups that are only differentiated by the proportion of calories derived from protein. The low protein group had more carbohydrates to balance the calorie intake.
The results reported are just what Atkins has said for years. More people stuck to the higher protein diet with better health outcomes in every area.
I said it was “Funded by the Atkins Foundation”. They gave funds for the study; therefore they funded it. Please indicate where I said entirely funded.
Why don’t you try actually reading the article you linked to?
Or are you questioning CNN’s judgment, too?
Well you’re the one who turned it that way. Sorry, didn’t realize I wasn’t allowed to ask questions about your evidence. If you’re just gonna take the studies on blind faith, why even bother with evidence at all?
No it doesn’t, it shows that someone would try to portray me as an Atkins basher, which I am not. And as I predicted, you have done exactly that. But again, I’m not trying to bash Atkins - for all I know it could be an effective diet. I’m just treating it with a healthy dose of skepticism, as should any rational person.
blowero is right about treating any diet with skepticism. Before doing any diet, it’s important to research the pros and cons of it. I did so, thoroughly, before deciding to try Atkins. I was mostly looking for the negatives, since it’s easy to find the positives on the Atkins site. I thoroughly read Scylla’s GD thread about Atkins (I’ve tried to find it in the past and failed), and I still decided it was a safe diet when done correctly. I also read in entirety the “How To Do Atkins” part of their site plus the “Why It Works” section, and it all made sense.
I encourage anyone thinking of trying any diet to research it. Look for the possible bad stuff and examine those sources, too, since they could well have an agenda of their own (I treat anything Dr. Ornish says against Atkins with skepticism, for example, because he only supports vegetarianism).
Atkins for 1 year. 35 lbs down. 15 to go.
That sounds good, but I have a question: How close is this diet to the Atkins diet? You said, “Their recommended diet was similar to what the low-carb proponents say 34% protein, 20% fat, 46%carbohydrate.” Does the Atkins diet actually recommend 46% carbohydrates? I thought it was much lower than that. The Total Wellbeing diet sounds closer to the standard low-fat diet to me; can somebody help out with the actual figures for the Atkins diet?
Actually, looking at Reepicheep’s link http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/14/lowcarb.mystery.ap/ it looks to me like that study fits the bill much better. It was controlled by having the meals for the Atkins group and the control group prepared by a restaurant, and the caloric content was equivalent between the 2 groups. A third group was given the Atkins diet with 300 extra calories, and actually lost more weight than the control group. That’s the kind of study they should be doing more of. Another thing that’s interesting to note is that this is a lot different than the popular conception of Atkins that you can eat all the fatty red meat and cheese you want:
Don’t ask, the Wellbeing Diet sounds promising, but is at all comparable to Atkins? In the study I just referred to, they said the low carb meals were 5% carbs, whereas you said that in the Australian study it was 46% carbs. That’s a big whopping difference, there.
The Wellbeing diet is probably very similar to phase 4 of Atkins, which is pretty different from the induction phase.
Reepicheep’s link is the one I was referring to on the first page. Thanks for finding it, Reep.
When you say “probably”, do you mean you know that for a fact, or you’re just guessing? I’m having a hard time making a comparison, since the Wellbeing study states it in terms of percentage of total calories, while Atkins seems to state it in terms of total grams of carbohydrates. The info on the web is kind of vague, but it sounds like Atkins Phase 4 is somewhere between 60-90 grams of carbs per day. How does that compare to the 46% used in the Wellbeing study?
At any rate, I was under the impression that according to Atkins’ theory, the induction phase is critical in that it supposedly changes your metabolism. If the Wellbeing diet starts at the equivalent of Phase 4 (and I’m not even sure it does that), then it doesn’t seem to be a very useful comparison, in that it skips over the very reason that Atkins is supposedly effective.
So from what we have in this thread, it sounds like Reepicheep’s link is the most relevant study so far.
Right now I’m guessing.
This site is the only one I can find with dietary percentages for the different Atkins phases. The maintenance diet works out to be 25% protein, 45% fat, 22%carbohydrate and 8% alcohol. While I thought the proportions of protein to carbohydrates worked like this I am stunned at the fat content. As the sample diets are from Atkins book they are hard to dispute.
Most opponents routinely quote figures from the induction phase and at least these figures permit a fuller view.
I had lost weight several times on the high protein-low carb diet. Both times, I went off it and soon found myself eating very badly (sugar, mostly). This isn’t because of the diet. I’ve always had a raging sweet tooth.
I’m going back on it in a couple of days. Mostly, to help control my blood sugar.