Which diet is more efficacious: a diet where you are told to eat less, even if you’re still hungry -OR- a diet where you end up eating less, even though you are eating until you are satisfied?
As I said, the major concerns with any weight loss diet are health risks and long term compliance. Any diet that poses no health risk and can be adapted into a lifestyle diet is a good diet. Certain fad diets can be efficacious for short term weight loss but are still ultimately bad diets if they don’t meet the above criteria.
That would be like me saying to you: “Grow up” or “Get a life”. Great ideas, right? But really, not much for you to go on with that advice. What are the chances that you’d comply?
Everyone has a plateau weight. For some, it might be only a few pounds/kilos over ideal. For others, it’s mild to moderately overweight. And still others can become morbidly obese.
Okay, I’ll assume you’ve never been overweight and you’ve never been hungry. Maybe you’re one of the lucky people. For people in the second and third group, “eating less” means chronic hunger. Do you know what that feels like?
Now their metabolism is out of whack because of the obesity, even if there were no clinical metabolic disorders prior to gaining the weight (and quite often the weight gain begins in childhood). We’re not talking about someone who’s put on a couple of pounds because of age, a more sedentary lifestyle than previously, or a bout of overindulgence. Your advice isn’t helpful to these people, and your attitude about it is cruel and ignorant.
Eating a diet that enables you to feel satiated while eating less via a benign metabolic change is a “trick”? Anyway, what is your problem with someone being “tricked” into eating fewer calories, if there are no health risks? You’d prefer people to suffer while they’re eating less? :dubious:
A diet that supresses hunger will be much more successful than one that doesn’t.
It’s hard to imagine the feelings of hunger if you don’t have the problem. If you’re wondering what it feels like, go without eating for 24 hours. Additionally, make sure you have plenty of your favorite foods available at all times. Imagine what that would be like. Most people wouldn’t last the 24 hours. Heck, I’d have to guess that most people couldn’t even make it 4 hours before they gave in. A lot of times that’s what it’s like for overweight people. Their bodies are screaming at them to eat something. Asking them to eat less means that they will have to ignore that screaming to be successful. A diet which can quiet that urge will be much more successful.
False dichotomy. That’s not what we’re comparing. For every anecdotal tale you guys have of being satisfied by the Atkins diet, I’ll give you one of a friend who is not satisfied. There are other diets that work. Until it’s proven that Atkins is better, it remains only a claim. You’re comparing Atkins with “just eat less, dammit”, when you should be comparing Atkins with other diets. Atkins requires discipline just like any other diet.
“Good” is an extremely subjective term. I already agreed that if you lose weight, that’s good. But if you lose weight not because of the diet, but in spite of it, it’s not a good diet. There are all kinds of fad diets by which people have lost weight. Here’s where we disagree - you’re saying all those diets are good diets, whereas I say it’s not a good diet unless the theory behind it is sound. I already gave the example of the guys who went on the Fit for Life diet: they lost weight because it forced them into a regimen that resulted in reducing calorie intake. I seriously doubt it had anything to do with the dubious theory that you can’t digest foods in certain combinations. I suppose you think that’s a good diet, but then we’re just arguing semantics as to what “good” means.
No, no, no - as usual, you don’t get my point. If Atkins only works because people reduce their calorie intake, and not because of altered metabolism, as is the claim, then the induction is superfluous; you could lose weight without putting yourself through that. If all you’re really doing is eating less, then there’s no point to the rest of it. That’s what I mean by “just eat less”. There are probably hundreds of other diets out there that can do the same thing. If Atkins is so superior to all those other diets, then why is it so woefully underrepresented on the diet registry we mentioned earlier? You try to reduce everything to a dichotomy, e.g. either Atkins or nothing. There are other diets out there.
Ugh. You know, I was trying to be nicer to you, but when you hit me with this kind of shit, it makes it really hard. Um, yes, I know what hunger feels like, thank you very much. FWIW, I could stand to lose 20 lbs., but I’m not obese.
So much for being nice. That’s bullshit, and fuck you for saying it. Your advice is ignorant. You are convincing people that bread is the big, bad, evil monster and convincing them that they have to go on an unproven diet and deprive themselves of carbs when it’s quite possible that that’s not even necessary. Just last week, an acquaintance of mine saw me eating a sandwich and said “Oh, you’re gonna torture me, huh?”. Yes, she literally used the word “torture”. I wasn’t eating a hot fudge sundae, just a sandwich. She was doing Atkins, and it obviously wasn’t the “Whoopee! I can eat whatever I want” experience you are portraying it as. In fact, you haven’t shown any uncontradicted evidence that Atkins is any more effective than any other diet. I can match your anecdotes with people who aren’t satisfied, and people who claim other diets work better. *That’s * why you need hard evidence.
Please try to read things in context. We were talking about the opinions of experts who say that Atkins only “works” because people eat less. in fact, you brought it up. You don’t have any evidence that it’s the “metabolic change” that’s doing it. In the context of what we were discussing, yes, it’s a “trick” if the reason you’re losing weight has nothing to do with the theory behind the diet. If it’s really just a means of exerting discipline on the dieter, and the carb-cutting is irrelevant, then people like my friend are being “tortured” for nothing. If the metabolic change really is behind the weight loss, then let’s prove it.
I already said several times I don’t have a problem with it. I said to the extent that a person loses weight it’s a good thing. I said it at least 3 times. I only have a problem with people who make unwarranted assumptions in science. Could you please try to cut down on mischaracterizing what I say?
Strawman. You haven’t convinced me that people suffer less on Atkins than on any other diet. In fact, judging from that registry, it would seem other diets are more effective. If those people on other diets are suffering so badly, how is it that they are successful?
Prove that Atkins is such a diet, and then we’ll have something. Anecdotes mean nothing. When I lived in Japan, I lost about 20 pounds, and I ate more white rice and noodles than I’ve ever eaten in my life. If cutting carbs is the magical fix, then prove it. That’s all I ask.
Uh, excuse me! I DID count my calories on diets I did before I tried Atkins.
The summer before last, I was doing 1800-2000 calories per day on a high-carb, low-fat diet.
This past year, I did Atkins, and was EASILY (almost effortlessly) able to lose at least 4 pounds more doing Atkins eating in excess of 2400 calories/day - and I only stopped technically doing Atkins (and just switched to “watching my carbs”) at the point when I started getting scared that I was going to simply disappear.
Nope. Said I agree with scepticism, as my earliest posts bear out. Here’s my actual post about Atkins working: "
The scientific and medical community, by and large, does not question if the diet works. In truth, almost all of the popular (fad?) diets work - in the short term. The important questions are: Are there health risks? AND: Will they work in the long haul (Any health prof will tell you that non-compliance is the main reason diets are not effective in the long haul)."
Nope. I was arguing with the fact that you were limiting the voluntary calorie intake of the Atkins group (a significant feature of the diet). This also creates the intervention effect, which could easily distort the results. As you also know, I said it was difficult to set up any diet study. But never argued against proper controls. I absolutely believe studies should have proper controls to be considered valid.
Nope. Never said all.
Nope. Never said that. But you do realise that your mis-characterisation here contradicts your previous mis-characterisation, right? :dubious:
Never said there weren’t. Note my criteria: “As I said, the major concerns with any weight loss diet are health risks and long term compliance. Any diet that poses no health risk and can be adapted into a lifestyle diet is a good diet.”
Never said that either. I do think processed cheese is a crime against humanity though.
ROTFLMAO
You mean like your unwarranted assumption that you could prevent ketosis on a 20 gram carb diet for your study proposal?
The registry is nothing more than an uncontrolled exercise in data collection. The only reliable statement that can be made from that data is that 3000 (self selecting) individuals (out of the tens of millions each year who try to lose weight), said they succeeded by reducing the fat and calories in their diet (and maybe by exercising, as well). In other words: 3,000 anecdotes. What was your assertion about anecdotes again??? :rolleyes:
I didn’t contend that you didn’t say it; I said you’re not doing it.
False.
Please try to follow along - I was presenting the logical conclusion that follows from your contention, not quoting you. You do understand the difference, don’t you?
Again, it was my characterization of your point, in response to your mischaracterization of my point. Not a quote. Or are you the only one who gets to do that? Your responses of “never said that” to something that’s obviously not a direct quote are beyond annoying.
A BLATANT mischaracterization, and you know it. I said nothing of the sort, either literally or in meaning. You deliberately misquote, distort, and twist my words, and then accuse me of doing the same when I didn’t. God, how can you live with yourself? Or is it that you don’t even realize what you are doing, and are just so clueless that you can’t comprehend my points? Either way, very sad for you.
Oh, NOW you want to get scientific. I see, so proper methodology is indispensable, so long as that works in your favor. You select the ancedotes that support your position, and discard the ones that do not. It is to laugh.
You just ignored everything I’ve said about that after that post. I don’t know how the 4 phases work in terms of how many grams of carbs each one recommends, so I can’t fathom the significance of your mentioning 20 grams, and I most certainly didn’t say anything about 20 grams specifically. What I did suggest was that one could have a group start at phase 2, 3, or 4, and compare them to a group that starts at induction. But then you already knew that, and just wanted to be an asshole, I guess.
I already cheerfully admitted that if it’s something that couldn’t be done, I can understand that. But I’m not aware that you’ve explained why one couldn’t perform the experiment I mentioned above.
I absolutely never said I “could prevent ketosis on a 20 gram carb diet”, which is what you falsely characterized me as saying, and your quote does not indicate that I did say that. Nice try, though. :wally
After a couple of false starts with cold turkey Atkins (went into carb withdrawal and binged like an addict) I cut potatoes, rice, pasta, all bread except a couple of slices of whole wheat for a sammy, carrots, corn, cereals, chips and sugar completely out of my diet. I eat chicken, fish, beef, pork, eggs, cheese, nuts, green veggies, tomatoes, onions, celery, broccoli, salads, homeade soups and the occassional kidney bean or blackeye pea. Don’t miss the other stuff anymore.
The effects, since Thanksgiving, have been a seriously reduced appetite (I can actually decide if I want to eat or not) and a loss of 20 very surprising pounds. 20 extra pounds I’ve toted around for 3 or 4 years. I’m impressed and going for another post holiday round.
I’ve done some study of the South Beach Diet and believe that what I wound up doing was more similar to that than the more strict Atkins but in my opinion the low carb theory diet actually does work.
I don’t understand this. I do know that people get dramatic results from the Atkins diet. I know some chronic unsuccessful dieters who went into it all the way: eggs, bacon, cheese, steak. They lost weight with no ill effects on their cholesterol level. Well, in their blood anyway.
I’ve lost weight over and over since I was a teenager. I’ve never been really heavy, but I’ve strapped on a “quick” 15 on more than a few occasions. The one thing that has allowed me to stabilize my weight might be termed quasi-Atkins. This is not going to make much sense necessarily. It just worked for me.
I eat a lot of fast food. I probably average once a day.* I peel most of the bread away from the sandwiches and I rarely eat freedom or French fries. OTOH, two sandwiches is the norm. I try not to drink many calories. That’s almost always sugar. I skip dessert, unless compelled by the hand of the Devil. I pig out on all the foods filled with fat. My blue cheese salad dressing (no carbs) consumption alone some days exceeds my RDA for fat.
Bottom line: I lost 20 lbs eating fatty foods to “excess”. So far, continuing to eat a lot of fatty foods “overloaded” (according to the RDA) with protein, I’m just as strong, fitter, and thinner. I do exercise and work out. This is not a one-trick solution to fitness.
Too much sugar puts me into a sweaty, sleepy, almost comalike state. I’m about 100% sure everyone isn’t like me in this respect. Whatever that is, IMO, makes a fatty protein diet work for me.
*Move over, Jared. I lost weight eating Wendy’s triples.
I think one thing that mystifies a lot of people with respect to Atkins is the thing about calories. But just because you swallowed the food doesn’t mean that the body extracted the calories from it. As I understand it, that’s the whole idea. It’s carbs that the system assails immediately, breaking them down into sugars which causes an insulin surge which causes the carbs to be stored as fat. Maybe other (non-carb) calories are substantially passed through with your waste. Does anyone know whether that’s possibly the case?
Well, MsRobin, that is a sad story. It also shows that really overweight people should see a doctor before going on any diet.
As far as the missing gall bladder goes, that will change the equation. The Atkins diet is for “normal”(#1) people. People who have medical issues need to consult a doctor.
I am on Atkins and dropped 20 pounds, I was only a little overwieght, and love it. I eat food I like, feel better and look better. Everyone I know who has done Atkins loves it.
I get to eat what I want,except pasta, when I want and I don’t go hungry.
But, it is not going to work for everyone. Different people have different medical conditions.
Slee
#1. When I say normal, I mean people who are not missing an organ due to a medical condition. No insult intended
Not scientific, but assuming the same heat value applies to human waste, the combustible gas produced from human waste contains 17000 kJ/m[sup]3[/sup]. At 80% efficiency, that means the human waste source for the cubic meter contained 21250 kJ/m[sup]3[/sup]
That means 1 tonne of shit could produce 35 x 21250 = 26,031,250 kJ.
That means 1 kg of shit produces 26,031 kJ
That means 1 lb of shit produces 26,031/2.2 = 11,832 kJ.
Now, trust me , 1 Calorie = 1 Cal = 1 kilocalorie = 4.184 kilojoules
That means 1 lb of shit has 11,832/4.184 = 2828 calories
Of course, , we are talking average, I don’t know if were talking wet or dry shit, and the data is partially based on bullshit or cowshit, but considering one can readily burn up a fart, there is no question that the human body does not consume all the calories it takes in.
This is basically what I eat now, too. I have broken that carb addiction and just don’t miss pasta and potatoes any more. I still make them for my family, but I prepare something else for myself those nights. It’s not limited at all; I have lots to choose from. I eat lots of green veggies; I have salad every day, and a big serving of a dark green leafy veggie every night.
And to my way of thinking, it’s no longer a “diet;” it’s a way of eating. Without trying to sound too much like a wild-eyed fanatic, this has really been a revalation for me. I’ve decided that this is how I am supposed to eat.
I knew I shouldn’t eat root vegatables like carrots and turnips and potatoes - they were a migraine trigger. I can’t eat sourdough bread or yogurt - again, migraine triggers. And now I know that stuff is full of sugar, which I now avoid with the carbs, and I no longer get the severe migraines. I also don’t drink soda; it’s just liquid sugar.
I feel like the carbs and the sugar were slowly killing me, and now, cutting them out of my diet and eating more protein and veggies, I feel wonderful. I have tons of energy, no headaches, and feel better than I have in years.
