Which weight loss plan would you recommend? [Archive]

Foxxx

13-07-2003, 22:07

I'm on the Atkins diet and it is the best diet ever.

Not sure where you got your info from dabouncer, out of interest did you read the book??

Anyway, I am in the induction phase and it is soooo easy and have been for 5 weeks. (The most restrictive phase where you loose the most weight and the carbs are the lowest)
I'm currently only aloud up to 20g a day, but that will increase in time when I've lost a bit more and I move into the next phase.

When I first heard about it I thought (like most do) that it must be really bad for you all that fat. However, after reading the book cover to cover and looking at a lot of the studies and references in the back on the book, I was convinced it is actually the correct way to eat, and I will NEVER go on a low fat diet again! Low fat food makes me shudder now when I see what they put in it.

I'll explain simply....most people when they diet, go on a low fat diet because that is what the government and FDA have recommended for years. Fat is bad, etc etc. leads to heart disease and high cholesterol etc. However, look on the labels on low fat food, the fat might be next to nothing but the carbs are massive. My mum used to eat a low fat diet consisting of a small bowl of cereal with low fat yoghurt, a banana mid morning, a tuna and low fat mayo sandwich, apple for lunch, and pasta or rice with some sort of really boring low fat sauce for dinner. Sounds good hey, well boring and over 200g of carbs. Plus try eating in a resturant on a low fat diet of 1000-1200 calories a day. Very hard to.
When you eat carbs (refined flour and sugar mainly) you get an instant spike of blood sugar. In fact on most low-fat diets you get loads and loads of carbs (thats how low fat stuff tastes nice, they load it with sugar). This is NOT natural to our diet. Our body, produces insulin to carry the sugar away from our blood (blood-sugar is dangerous, hence diabetics taking insulin) to use as energy. The excess sugar is stored and once the stores are full the rest is converted to fat and we put on weight. That is why low-fat diets you count the calories to make sure you don't eat more calories than you expend. As soon as you eat normally again, you will put weight on quickly because your body will want to store the sugar in its stores. Then, you get the cravings, you are eating boring unsatisfying food, but keeping sugar in your system which we are addicted to, hence cravings for sweet things, bread, crisps whatever it may be. Even though you don't need to eat food, you eat anyway because you think you are hungry. Its a blatant addiction. If you have remarkable will-power, a low fat diet can work, but do you want to go through that?? 1000 calories a day and constantly craving and making your stomach shrink? Once you've lost the weight you end up yo-yoing anyway probably for the rest of your life.

Atkins, basically think opposite, you initially start by reducing your carbs down to 20g max a day while losing weight, but this also so you can change your metabolism. You eat fat, yes ie. butter, cream, full fat mayo, eggs and as much meat, fish, cheese, nuts etc. Your carbs come from salads and vegs, but that salad can have rich creamy dressings....yum! By doing this after 3-4days your body will not have enough sugar to use as energy anymore (glucosis metabolism) so will start to burn your own body fat as energy (lipolysis metabolism). It is a natural function of the body, and one that has been used forever, until unnatural carbs were introduced into our modern day diet.
Also, because you are eating fat, you can eat more calories because using lipolysis actually uses more energy to metabolise your energy so there is a metabolic advantage so don't wrry about claories, just count the carbs. And because your blood sugar is so low, you don't feel cravings anymore, you don't get that awful afternoon lag after eating, brain fog, headaches, you don't need caffiene anymore, and you're not overproducing insulin to cope with such a bad diet of high carbs that you end up desensitizing your insulin production to the point that you make yourself diabetic. Also, people with diabetes who have gone on this diet have got to the point where they no longer need to inject insulin all the time.
Before you ask, studies have shown that cholesterol levels have actually gone down, not up, from eating fat.

I could go on and on and on, but ask anything you want and I'll explain how they are all fallacy, made to scare us, because the entire food industry is based on the assumption that fat is bad for us, and they can't admit they were wrong! Its a big conspiracy. Think about what this means to a multi-million pound industry, to be proven wrong!

Answer me this, why after so many people buy low fat products, is obesity on the increase more than when people ate more fat in their diets?

Anyway, I've been on it and lost loads of weight and i'm still on it, I don't crave anything (the sugar addiction went within 2-3 days) and I feel alive and awake, and never feel hungry, in fact it gets to 2/3pm sometimes and I have to remind myself to eat! and I can eat big platefuls and eating out is no problem at all. I'm about to go into the next phase where I start to introduce more carbs into my diet (eg fruit and bread) until I find my optimum level where i would start to put on weight again.

Bacon and eggs for me tomorrow morning!!! :D

Good luck with what you do. Sorry for the long post, you prob got bored half way down! I'm a big convert and want to share the info.

Foxxx

13-07-2003, 22:11

Originally posted by mikey
Fact
Is doesn't matter how many calories you eat as long as you burn them off. (obviously it has to be low fat and a balanced diet)

By just eating a low fat diet, none of this prepacked weight watcher stuff, just eat fruit, vegetables, pulses, fish, chicken etc etc combined with rigorous excercise, you will lose weight.

All of the above is easier said than done, keep at it, and lets see the before and after pictures.
There's a motivator for you:D

See what I mean, everyone thinks low fat is the way to go. Government brain washing!!!
Atkins is basically going back to a hunter gather diet! None of this processed crap that is available now. You are half right (in my atkins opinion)! :) Yes excercise will help burn off even more of your own body fat once you are into lipolysis.

cosywolf

13-07-2003, 23:13

Alternatively, the Atkins will drive you into a fervent wish to die rather than undergo another day of it:lol:

monkjack

13-07-2003, 23:37

The trouble with the Atkin's diet is that it is unproven, and some studies have even linked it to higher rates of kidney damage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2859733.stm

The other thing I've read against Atkin's is that once you end your diet you pile weight back on, because your body is used to operating on low carbs. Once the carbs are re-introduced you can see 10lb gain in a short time.

If I continue with my projected weight loss, then by Christmas this year I will have lost 10 stone in 18 months.

I don't do Atkin's, or any other fancy things, I follow the one canon in dieting - you lose weight by calories in < calories used.

And since both Protein and Carbohydrates have 4 calories per gram, I don't understand why one is better than the other in terms of helping you lose weight (forgetting other factors).

costessey

14-07-2003, 07:18

have you ever seen a fat heroin addict?

Abdul

14-07-2003, 07:44

Originally posted by costessey
have you ever seen a fat heroin addict?

Yeah - Boy George (or was it Cocaine...)

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Foxxx

14-07-2003, 21:38

Originally posted by cosywolf
Alternatively, the Atkins will drive you into a fervent wish to die rather than undergo another day of it:lol:

Why is that??

Foxxx

14-07-2003, 22:34

Originally posted by monkjack
The trouble with the Atkin's diet is that it is unproven, and some studies have even linked it to higher rates of kidney damage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2859733.stm

The other thing I've read against Atkin's is that once you end your diet you pile weight back on, because your body is used to operating on low carbs. Once the carbs are re-introduced you can see 10lb gain in a short time.

If I continue with my projected weight loss, then by Christmas this year I will have lost 10 stone in 18 months.

I don't do Atkin's, or any other fancy things, I follow the one canon in dieting - you lose weight by calories in < calories used.

And since both Protein and Carbohydrates have 7 calories per gram, I don't understand why one is better than the other in terms of helping you lose weight (forgetting other factors).

The point is you don't end your diet. It is for life. In fact its not a diet, its a nutritional way of eating. Call it re-educating your eating habits. The induction phase is just a strict version of it were you lose most weight (and its this phase that all the media slag off saying its bad for you), but you don't stay on that forever. So all this about gaining weight is not true if you stick to it and gradually go through the phases.
As for the kidney thing, that has only been shown in people who had pre-existing kidney disease and Dr atkins readily admits people with kidney disease are not recommended to go on this diet and should consult their doctor before doing so. The main fallacy is that all you eat is meat, eggs, cheese and fish, fats and oils, vegs and salad. This is true for the induction period where you are losing weight and getting your body to change metabolism and you must drink lots of water to flush out the protein, but you don't stay on this forever, you gradually introduce more carbs e.g. wholemeal bread, fruit and pasta until you find the amount that puts weight on you again. This is called the lifetime maintainence phase.
There are many studies and when i have time I'll post the links which show the opposite to what that article you posted states.
In fact the recent studies are scaring the hell out of the food industry because its prooving that low fat diets are bad for you!!
As for piling weight back on this shouldn't happen if you stick to it, and if you start to put weight on then you go back onto the induction programme for a couple of weeks. It has actually been shown that coming off low fat diets piles more weight on its all down to the carbs in your body and how your body stores them.

At the end of the day its down to personal choice, diets will be argued about for a long time. Its up to the individual what they prefer. I just know that I don't like the thought of feeling tired and craving food, and eating small portions to keep my calorie intake down! I like feeling awake, saited and healthy at the same time, which i really do.

monkjack

14-07-2003, 23:47

I'm not a nutrition so consider my replies to be complete rubbish.

>> The point is you don't end your diet. It is for life. In fact its not a diet, its a nutritional way of eating. Call it re-educating your eating habits.

Precisely. So are you going to give up carbs for life ?? Of course not, so why do a diet where its always going to be a temporary solution. The best way to lose weight for life, is, as you say to change your eating habits to sensible ones. Sensible eating habits don't include cutting down to 20g of carbs.

>> At the end of the day its down to personal choice, diets will be argued about for a long time. Its up to the individual what they prefer. I just know that I don't like the thought of feeling tired and craving food, and eating small portions to keep my calorie intake down! I like feeling awake, saited and healthy at the same time, which i really do.

I'm on a low fat diet, and I certainly don't feel tired or craving food. However I am willing to conceed, that as a large man of 23, a low calorie diet for me is 2250 calories a day, whereas if I was woman restricted to 1000 I would find it very difficult going.

DaBouncer

15-07-2003, 09:12

Originally posted by cosywolf
Alternatively, the Atkins will drive you into a fervent wish to die rather than undergo another day of it:lol:
Sorry Cosy must disagree with you there.
Today is the beginning of my 3rd week into the atkins diet.
I've lost 9lbs so far (and am happy with that amount over the time scale) and looking forward to saying that's 1stone gone and only 2 more to go!

I enjoy the food on atkins! I can go down the pub and have a mighty mix grill, I just don't eat the chips! Big steak, big gammon, lamb, chicken, veg..... phwoooooar! YUMMY!

Breakfast... ok I like my omlettes and bacon... but when I get bored I've picked up a protein shake tub from body active at the bottom of the moor! Contains 0.2g carbs per serving and fills me right through till lunch... and it's strawberry flavoured!

Lunch is usually meat with salad. chicken, Tuna mayo, etc, with boiled egg and cheese too!

Dinner can be a nice BIG steak... FRIED! Or yesterday I had some burgers... fried some Jalapeno's and mushrooms.
Put the Jalapeno's and 'shrooms on top of the burgers and placed a nice thick slice o' cheese on top.
Banged em in the oven for the cheese to melt and ate them with some salad (with plenty o mayo)!

I love my diet, and yes I do miss chocolate and crisps... but when I'm at my ideal weight, I'll do the atkins during Mon - Fri and whatever i feel like at the weekends!

Long Live the Atkins diet!

DaBouncer

15-07-2003, 09:16

Foxxx, do you have a link to an atkins style site that gives recipies for meals?

I'd love to find more and more delicious meals for my tea!

Cheers

DB

Clik32

15-07-2003, 09:24

I heard bad things and good things about this diet, losing the weight but then as soon as you go back to normality the weight piles back on.

Heres a link DaBouncer for recipes...
www.lowcarbfriends.com

Another diet that works, my mum's lost a lot of weight on this is Slim Fast. I don't like it, tastes like the stuff we had when we were ill as kids!! I find that bike riding helps me lose weight, I go on every day as soon as I get home from work. Swimming too. For the women here at Heeley baths they have a women's night which is great, no screaming kids when you've just finished work either.
Chloé

DaBouncer

15-07-2003, 09:55

Cheers Chloe

halevan

15-07-2003, 14:14

Exercise will not lose you any weight, you get enough with your daily chores,also,it does not cost anything to slim.

All you have to do is change your diet and eat as much as you wish,I.E.fruit & veg. a cooked dinner but use soya meat, raw vegetables put through a grinder, mixed with everything you can think of in the fresh fruit line, soya milk and margarine.

Ryvita instead of bread, with only a scraping of soya marge, eat small meals but more often, avoid saturated fats, ( a killer ) above all be focussed and determined and remember it took a long time to put the excess weight on, so it will take time to get it off, don't weaken!!!

Phanerothyme

15-07-2003, 14:18

don't avoid all saturated fats, you do need them in your diet

monkjack

15-07-2003, 14:33

>> Today is the beginning of my 3rd week into the atkins diet.
I've lost 9lbs so far (and am happy with that amount over the time scale) and looking forward to saying that's 1stone gone and only 2 more to go!

Most of that will be water. Not trying to **** on your bonfire as it were.

>> I enjoy the food on atkins! I can go down the pub and have a mighty mix grill, I just don't eat the chips! Big steak, big gammon, lamb, chicken, veg..... phwoooooar! YUMMY!

>> Breakfast... ok I like my omlettes and bacon... but when I get bored I've picked up a protein shake tub from body active at the bottom of the moor! Contains 0.2g carbs per serving and fills me right through till lunch... and it's strawberry flavoured!

>> Lunch is usually meat with salad. chicken, Tuna mayo, etc, with boiled egg and cheese too!

All that cheese and dairy. Hmmm, just think of the calories ;)

There is the same calorific content in Carbs as there are is in Protein. You can only lose weight by calories in < calories out. The atkins diet only gets all the press it does because people lose stupid amounts of 'weight' in the first 4 weeks, say 14lb, but it soon levels out to be the same, and I'd argue that its mostly water.

But if you're happy doing it and you think its a wonder diet then that's a good motivator and thats probably the hardest thing to get.

monkjack

15-07-2003, 14:34

Originally posted by halevan
Exercise will not lose you any weight, you get enough with your daily chores,also,it does not cost anything to slim.

While its difficult to do enough exercise to lose a lot of weight via pure burning of calories, regular exercise will increase your BMR and that makes a big difference.

A walk for an hour a night would lose you a pound over a 2 week period (working on 250 calories burned per 1 hour, and 3500 calories per pound of fat).

Moon Maiden

15-07-2003, 14:44

I think all in moderation is perhaps the key here - with an upturn in physical activity.

Whilst it may not help you loose the weight it will help tone up the skin that is left behind as you loose it.

Moon Maiden

DaBouncer

15-07-2003, 17:04

Originally posted by monkjack

Most of that will be water. Not trying to **** on your bonfire as it were... blah blah blah.

You obviously haven't read the book or seen the studies.
People always mock what they don't understand... if you're happy to dismiss it, fine! If it were as crap as you say then why would stars with very lean fit bodies swear by it and only use THAT diet?

If you read what Dr Atkins wrote, calories don't make a difference... but modern day rubbish that has been spewed at you through the TV makes you think it does!

I know a woman that lost 9st on this diet...and has maintained her new weight for over 6 years. I suppose it's all water? Don't make me laugh!

I've read into a lot of diets and i am a qualified gym instructor (I also take regular exercise) I know about fats, calories and carbs... so sorry to **** on your bonfire!

John

15-07-2003, 22:12

Quote taken from the website

Nutrition Toolbox

Wondering how many calories that delicious fettucine alfredo dinner has? Curious if your favorite snack is ruining your efforts to lose weight? If you have questions about the nutritional values of different foods, this is the place to get answers -- our database has nearly 40,000 entries for foods, including many popular brand-name items you'll find at grocery stores and fast food restaurants.

Find it here

Nutrition Toolbox (http://www.principalhealthnews.com/topic/nutritiontoolbox)

monkjack

15-07-2003, 22:29

>> You obviously haven't read the book

Because the book written by him to promote his diet is of course going to by very independant.

>> People always mock what they don't understand... if you're happy to dismiss it, fine! If it were as crap as you say then why would stars with very lean fit bodies swear by it and only use THAT diet?

Because all diets are effective to SOME degree, and if you get there via your preferred choice you will swear by it, even if you don't realise you could have got there quicker by another diet.

If I had a body like Brad Pitt and did so via the eating carrots diet, then no doubt I would be telling everyone to only eat carrots.

>> If you read what Dr Atkins wrote, calories don't make a difference... but modern day rubbish that has been spewed at you through the TV makes you think it does!

I'll forget the advice of scientists then and take your advice. Thanks for correcting me. The only true weight lost via Atkins
is from calorific deficit.

>> I know a woman that lost 9st on this diet...and has maintained her new weight for over 6 years. I suppose it's all water? Don't make me laugh!

I said water was mainly in the first few weeks, when people claim they've lost a stone in an hour. That's what makes me laugh. And once you dismiss the inital water loss, the differences between low fat diets and Atkin's diet is nothing.

>> I've read into a lot of diets and i am a qualified gym instructor (I also take regular exercise) I know about fats, calories and carbs... so sorry to **** on your bonfire!

I've lost 6 stone so far, so I'm not a novice to the game myself.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=atkin+diet&btnG=Google+Search (Some random musings on Atkins)

I'm happy that people are losing weight by any means, but Atkins seems to be having a bit of a comeback at the moment, and the fad will pass.

Repeat to yourself. Weight loss = calories in < calories out.

DaBouncer

16-07-2003, 08:57

The methods promoted by Dr Atkins is the method that primative human have used since the dawn of time!

Where they eating potatoes, bread, pasta, banana's? No because none of which were available... with the exception of Banana's (tropical.. so European human's wouldn't have used them) and Potatoes, I doubt primatives would be making mash.

All I'm saying is that I have tried MANY diets in the past including Slim Fast, Weight Watchers, Slimming World and Atkins!
For a person with a large appetite this is THE ONLY diet that has worked for me.

Weight Watchers..ok I lost a stone.. but it was hard graft and always hungry! With Atkins I haven't been hungry and I'm still losing weight.

So the Calories I eat aren't making a difference in my weight loss at all! It's the carbs I eat that put the weight on. I cut down/out the carbs...I cut the extra weight I carry!

So I don't need to repeat to myself the Weight loss = calories in < calories out. Because in MY case and the case of others I know... it just simply isn't true!

Dug

16-07-2003, 10:42

Originally posted by DaBouncer
The methods promoted by Dr Atkins is the method that primative human have used since the dawn of time!

Where they eating potatoes, bread, pasta, banana's? No because none of which were available... with the exception of Banana's (tropical.. so European human's wouldn't have used them) and Potatoes, I doubt primatives would be making mash.

Nor were they eating processed beef burgers, sausages and chicken!

DaBouncer

16-07-2003, 10:49

But they were eating large amount of protien... that being my point. They ate a very high protien diet with very low carbs.

Most carbs are man made (i.e bread, pasta) although I am aware there are carbs in most vegetables and fruits. The diet they lived on wasn't low fat, it was the opposite, very high fat, ,lots of calories and plenty of protien.

That't the point of the Atkins Diet. I know it wont work for everyone (becuase not everyone will like it) but the fact is, Weight loss doesn't just mean Calories in < Calories out.

Phanerothyme

16-07-2003, 11:00

primitive humans began agriculture and eating starchy foods many, many thousands of years ago.

before that it was nuts, berries, wild fruit (very poor nutritional content) and the very occasional piece of meat.

DaBouncer

16-07-2003, 15:46

Just because it come from your mouth Phanerothyme the human ensyclopedia doesn't mean I'm going to believe it.

From what I've seen on documentarys that comment on occasional meat is simply not true!

Foxxx

16-07-2003, 21:37

Originally posted by monkjack
>> You obviously haven't read the book

Because the book written by him to promote his diet is of course going to by very independant.

.

Have you heard of scientific references??? His book is full of them and if you turn to the back it lists all the sources and studies to back up his claims.

I've been away for a couple of days and this has kicked off, thank you Dabouncer for what you have said, you have pretty much summed up what I would have said!

Monkjack, like many others are stuck in their ways about low fat this low fat that, calories this calories that etc etc and are quite happy to continue to follow this kind of diet. Well thats up to you, but you like many others are afraid of change. There are more and more studies out there showing how bad all this processed junk i.e. ready made low fat 'diet' food, which is full of carbs and refined food. Its just not natural to our diet. We are actually designed to eat fat. We should eat more fat in fact. Monkjack please answer me this, why is obesity and diabetes on the increase very dramatically since low fat foods were introduced as the way to go?

Dabouncer I'm sure you've seen this anyway but for anyone else for more recipes visit http://atkins.com/

Furthermore, Dug mentioned the point of processed burgers and sausages etc. This is a sad fact too processed foods. I buy fresh meat. People say this is expensive, but to be honest so too is low fat food, I spend no more on food now as I used to.

Someone else mentioned that you don't eat any carbs on Atkins. This is also not true. You avoid all unnatural, refined, processed carbs. You eat 20g of carbs a day which all comes from the good natural carbs found in salad greens and vegs. After you have lost some weight you introduce more carbs into your diet until you find the level of carbs at which your body will start to put weight back on really very simple. So you can have fruit again and wholemeal bread etc.

Another point Monkjack made (several times!) was

There is the same calorific content in Carbs as there are is in Protein. You can only lose weight by calories in < calories out. The atkins diet only gets all the press it does because people lose stupid amounts of 'weight' in the first 4 weeks, say 14lb, but it soon levels out to be the same, and I'd argue that its mostly water.

Please forget about this obsession with calories and no this is not the 'only way' to lose weight. Atkins is about changing your metabolism over to lipolysis which is fat burning, Lipolysis is a natural process in our body and it has a metabolic advantage over burning sugar (glucosis) i.e. it takes more energy (calories) to burn fat than it does to burn sugar which most people do as they eat so much carbs in their diet. Therefore, you can happily eat much more calories than a low-fat diet.

As for the water loss you mention, this is only true on the first week or so, as it is with any diet you start. Do you really think people continue to lose water for 6 months to a year while they lose 3 stone?? 3 stone of water?? Don't make me laugh! Is all that extra weight we carry water?? The reason the papers jump on the fast weight loss was because it has always been considered unwise to lose weight quickly on a low fat diet because it usually means you are eating so few calories that you start to burn your muscle away which is dangerous. Atkins is different because you are only burning fat which is perfectly safe. Therefore it doesn't matter how quickly you lose it. You only lose it quickly for a while, then you introduce more food into the diet to slow it down and eventually maintain the weight. I personally think some of the hollywood stars lose too much weight and are too skinny! But I'm not following this diet because they are!

There was also a very interesting article in the paper the other day about Dr Udo Erasmus who has been researching into how important fat is in our diets. I'm trying to find a link to this article but there doesn't seem to be an archive for the paper.

I'll type some of the facts from the article: This refers to women but its in a womans health supplement!
"Levels of obesity in British women have almost doubled in less than a decade. More than 1.15million woman suffer from heart disease while type 2 diabetes is on the rise"

"Dr Uldo Erasmus believes people who eat processed foods, such as ready made diet meals or low fat desserts are likely to put on more pounds than they lose. More worryingly, he says the absense of good fats, or essential fatty acids from our diets can cause heart disease, high blood pressure and kidney malfunction. We have become so obsessed with eliminating fats from our diets we've ignored how vital some are for our health"

During 6 years of extensive research he found that people who want to lose weight need more oily fish, olive oil, green vegs than processed foods. He also says "about 20 years ago we were told certain myths about fats and carbohydrates. The first is that fats are bad and make you put on weight. What we should have been told was there are bad fats and good fats. In fact the body needs essential nutrients provided by good fats and we should raise our fat intake not reduce it. The second myth is that we should eat less fat to lose weight - when infact good fat actually makes you slim"

He then goes on to talk about carbs and how bad they are for you and the worse thing to do is go on a low fat high carb diet! but I'm not going to type it all out! Its basically Atkins that he is talking about and he is independant to the late Dr Atkins!

Time will tell hey, more and more research is being done now and to me it makes sense. We shall see...I am waiting for the low carb food to start appearing in supermarkets!

DaBouncer

17-07-2003, 08:30

Me too, aparently the US have low carb choccy bars already, and I'm looking forward to THOSE being introduced.

I've got some links at home which I was given by an American woman living in the UK who is on Atkins. Foxxx I'll PM you when I get home tonight with the links! You may find em useful!

Phanerothyme

17-07-2003, 08:43

Originally posted by Foxxx
HThere was also a very interesting article in the paper the other day about Dr Udo Erasmus who has been researching into how important fat is in our diets. I'm trying to find a link to this article but there doesn't seem to be an archive for the paper.

this book is very good:
Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0920470386/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-1266515-4740668)

Worked with it extensively when marketing hemp seed oil a few years back. Although he is regarded by some vested interests as a fringe scientist, his scientific creds are impeccable and his research is first rate.

Titian

14-08-2004, 11:10

I watched Horizon the other night about the "Atkins Diet". I know friends that have done it and I always thought it an unatural way to eat.

After watching the programme it seems that people on the diet consume less calories than people on other diets such as low fat etc.

Protein supresses your appetite better than other foods and is more difficult to digest.

They did say at the end that they would have to wait approx. 20 years before they saw any results on how it affects people long term and if there would be any heart, liver, kidney damage as a result of it.

One thing that alarmed me about the programme was that the atkins followers were very rather excited about the fact that they were in keytosis!! As far as I am aware this can be dangerous having suffered an illness which resulted in high keytones (not self induced may I add, genetic disorder). I was hospitalised and fed by drip quite a few times. Taken too far (thin line) keytosis makes you vomit, dizzy, dehydrate, your veins collapse and it sets up a vicious circle of symptoms. Now that cannot be good for you!
You can't beat the old everything in moderation diet, IMHO

Titian

14-08-2004, 11:13

There is the alter ego of the Atkins diet that works just as well. The carbs only diet (no limit on fruit veg etc).

I suppose your body needs to be multi tasking to digest protien and carbs. So if you give it one thing at a time your body works more efficiently. Similar to the hay diet theory.

shelley1

14-08-2004, 18:22

I go to slimming world and it seems to work for me, they don't call it a diet they say its healthy eating.

I have lost 1 stone 8lbs so far. look at the website for your nearest class www.slimming-world.com

Titian

14-08-2004, 18:23

I would second that. Their eating plan I think is one of the best. Basically because it encourages you to eat better.

shelley1

14-08-2004, 18:27

here, here!

You can eat all day long if you wish as well as they have free foods to fill up on, where as with weight watchers you get so many points for the day and once you have had them thats it!! starve.

Foxxx

16-08-2004, 12:23

Originally posted by bonny
I watched Horizon the other night about the "Atkins Diet". I know friends that have done it and I always thought it an unatural way to eat.

After watching the programme it seems that people on the diet consume less calories than people on other diets such as low fat etc.

Protein supresses your appetite better than other foods and is more difficult to digest.

They did say at the end that they would have to wait approx. 20 years before they saw any results on how it affects people long term and if there would be any heart, liver, kidney damage as a result of it.

One thing that alarmed me about the programme was that the atkins followers were very rather excited about the fact that they were in keytosis!! As far as I am aware this can be dangerous having suffered an illness which resulted in high keytones (not self induced may I add, genetic disorder). I was hospitalised and fed by drip quite a few times. Taken too far (thin line) keytosis makes you vomit, dizzy, dehydrate, your veins collapse and it sets up a vicious circle of symptoms. Now that cannot be good for you!
You can't beat the old everything in moderation diet, IMHO

http://www.ketosis-ketoacidosis-difference.com/

Perhaps you are getting confused, as many people do, especially the media, between ketosis and ketoacidosis. The later being dangerous and NOT an effect from Atkins. The former being a safe and normal body function.

As for Horizon, I found it interesting, but what I got annoyed with is that they failed to explain about appetite enough.
So evidence shows that protein suppresses the appetite. What they should really be explaining is that a low carbohydrate diet stops you craving food and overeating.
People who eat high carb diets, which you are on even when on a low fat diet, are constantly spiking your blood with sugar. You body metabolises the sugar through glucosis. However your body is addicted to sugar and craves, so about an hour or so after eating (e.g. cereal, toast etc for breakfast) your body needs more sugar for energy and you crave food. Hence having a mid morning snack before lunchtime, hence overeating, hence putting on weight.
Eating an Atkins style diet, means you have cut the sugar, complex carbs out and are only eating carbs that release sugar very slowly into the blood, so you maintain a constant level of blood sugar which is low. Your body burns fat (liposis) for energy and gets used to doing this and therefore doesn't crave sugar anymore. It takes a while to withdraw from sugar, like withdrawing from anything addictive, hence some people reporting they feel unwell on Atkins. Once you have got the sugar out of your system, you don't crave food, therefore eat less, or don't snack between meals. i.e not overeating, eating the correct amount to feel saited.
Until further research is done, you can't conclude that protein reduces your appetite, you can only conclude that you don't have false hunger that you get with sugar, therefore are actually eating a normal appetite's worth of food a day.

I went on Atkins and lost 2 stone 3 pounds in 3 months. I ate large portions and did eat a lot more calories than would be allowed on a low fat diet, so I'm not convinced about the eating less calories theory because I didn't and I lost weight.

mimicraze

16-08-2004, 12:41

is it possible to go on the atkins diet when your vegitarian or is it all red meat like it looks to be?

linds

Kathryn3

16-08-2004, 12:49

Originally posted by mimicraze
is it possible to go on the atkins diet when your vegitarian or is it all red meat like it looks to be?

linds

Tofu and Quorn are high in protein and low in carbs, also if your a vegetarian who eats fish, thats allowed.
Then of course you can eat all the other things that low carbers do, lots of green veg, salad and cheese

evildrneil

16-08-2004, 13:27

Didn't dear Dr Atkins recently die from heart disease brought on by severe obesity? Hardly a good advert is it?

Personally I think the Atkins diet is a very stupid way of dieting - too many refined carbs are bad yes but the answer to this is to cut them a bit not decide to eat no carbs at all! Its certainly not designed as a long term eating solution - from what I recall reading about it, the Atkins diet was designed for short term use in the chronically obese under hospital supervision - not for the slightly chubby who want to loose a few pounds quickly!

elf

16-08-2004, 14:07

Originally posted by Kathryn3
Tofu and Quorn are high in protein and low in carbs, also if your a vegetarian who eats fish, thats allowed.
Then of course you can eat all the other things that low carbers do, lots of green veg, salad and cheese

Errrrrr a vegetarian that eats fish??!!!
That would be someone who is not vegetarian then!

Kathryn3

16-08-2004, 14:23

Is cracking your head open on the pavement the same as heart disease? interesting.
Atkins doesn't cut out carbs completely, it restricts them, after 2 weeks you can start adding them back in and that stage is only to give you a kick start, it isn't necessary.
I enjoy many fibrous carbs my current favourites being broccoli and cauliflower, which before I would never have bothered including in a meal.
Its not for everyone, especially athletes, but it suits me and many others.

And Elf, yes there are people who claim to be vegetarian and still eat fish.

Dug

16-08-2004, 14:39

Originally posted by Kathryn3
Is cracking your head open on the pavement the same as heart disease? interesting.

Yes but after the accident didn't the post mortem reveal he was suffering from heart disease?

Kathryn3

16-08-2004, 14:48

He had Cardiomyopathy which is caused by infection not diet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/cardiomyopathy.shtml

Dug

16-08-2004, 15:00

Originally posted by Kathryn3
He had Cardiomyopathy which is caused by infection not diet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/cardiomyopathy.shtml

According to that link they are not sure what causes Cardiomyopathy. In addition, it was his wife who said it was caused by a viral infection, I hardly think she is going to say it was his diet!

Also from the BBC website -

A medical report leaked to the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday said he weighed 116kg at the time of his death.
Given that he was 1.8m tall, that would make him medically obese under US guidelines......
...... the British Heart Foundation has warned against the diet.
"There is strong evidence that diets that are high in saturated fat contribute to various diseases of the heart and blood vessels. Diets need to be varied to protect against these conditions - and this one isn't," the foundation said in a statement.

Foxxx

16-08-2004, 16:09

Originally posted by evildrneil
Didn't dear Dr Atkins recently die from heart disease brought on by severe obesity? Hardly a good advert is it?

Personally I think the Atkins diet is a very stupid way of dieting - too many refined carbs are bad yes but the answer to this is to cut them a bit not decide to eat no carbs at all! Its certainly not designed as a long term eating solution - from what I recall reading about it, the Atkins diet was designed for short term use in the chronically obese under hospital supervision - not for the slightly chubby who want to loose a few pounds quickly!

Do you believe everything you read!

He fell and hit his head. The rest is the papers speculating and telling lies, which they had to apologise about.

And no you don't cut carbs out, yet another complete media lie. You cut out all the crap carbs and complex carbs, processed food, which isn't natural anyway. You eat lots of vegatables and salads. It is a long term life diet, read the book, it explains how you re-educate yourself and end up getting the balance right eating enough carbs e.g. wholemeal bread, wild rice, wholemeal pasta etc and not the bad ones, which people over eat.

evildrneil

16-08-2004, 20:43

Ermmmmm brown rice, wholemeal bread etc. ARE complex carbs!!!! And if your eating lots of veg and salad then you arent on a low carb diet???

Titian

16-08-2004, 21:27

Originally posted by Foxxx
http://www.ketosis-ketoacidosis-difference.com/

Perhaps you are getting confused, as many people do, especially the media, between ketosis and ketoacidosis. The later being dangerous and NOT an effect from Aitkins. The former being a safe and normal body function.

I went on Aitkins and lost 2 stone 3 pounds in 3 months. I ate large portions and did eat a lot more calories than would be allowed on a low fat diet, so I'm not convinced about the eating less calories theory because I didn't and I lost weight.

I would like to add that my condition was not Type I insulin-dependent diabetic. Just incase you were thinking that it was ketoacidosis that was my problem. I was admitted to hospital with a high level of ketones. Ketones are a sign of a negative energy balance not a positive one.

At what level do keytones become a problem, or is it just the case of atkins followers that the more keytones the better?

What about the essential vitamins and minerals you are deleting from your diet?

A diet without some glucose is not a good thing, it impairs brain activity etc. It can also lead to diabetes.

How long do you do the 1st phase of the diet? and the second etc? As far as I am aware the first phase should only be done for no more than 2 weeks or maybe one (I'm not sure). Isn't this because it is dangerous to continue this phase? If so why would that be healthy. Surely a balanced diet is better for you rather than a quick, possibly dangerous fix?

Also, like the doctors have warned, the health issues of the atkins diet will only become apparent after 20 or so years with regard to the heart liver and kidneys , not to mention colon cancer etc.

One final point.
The carbs that you keep refering to are processed ones. Any processed food is not good for you. I for one do not eat a lot of prcessed foods. There are plenty of carbs available that are not processed.

More info on keytones:
http://www.therasense.com/educator/questions/monitoring_1.htm

A more balanced report other than a dieting website can be found here:
http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/contributors/atkins_diet_dangers_pork_rinds_721.htm

Atkins followers death:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/21/1069027307658.html?oneclick=true

Moon Maiden

17-08-2004, 08:15

Hi Folks - wow this was posted last year :o

I would just like to add that since July 2003 I am now about 12.5 stones. This has been due to a number of factors I think.
1. I came off depo injection April 2003 this is reported to aid weight gain.
2. I stopped drinking 2litres of coca cola a day in early 2003
3. I went to weight watchers for a bit
4. I increased my acitivity both mental and physical. Physical from the odd walk down the road to walks up Rivelin and surrounding areas. Mental - crossword puzzles, more programming of websites anything to excercise me grey matter.
5. I also discovereed by accident that my love of pasta dishes was helping me keep weight on and I lost a stone in about 6 weeks thru stopping eating that.

I reckon the rest is coming off thru stress and further excercise. I haven't done anything in the way of diets except to cut out the bad stuff like the coca cola and decrease my consumption of pasta.

I don't like the atkins diet much (can't remember if I posted this back in one of the other pages) the idea of eating all that meat makes me feel ill *bleurgh*. My sister in law has used it but she says it isn't one you can maintain, the weight just piles back on. She has lost all her weight thru weight watchers and increasing her excercise. It wasn't until she started with the excercise that the weight finally started coming off and staying off.

These diets are all very well but if you don't impliment something like walking or swimming or bike riding you will just start a cycle with faddy dieting.

Moon

Titian

17-08-2004, 08:28

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
Hi Folks - wow this was posted last year :o

I would just like to add that since July 2003 I am now about 12.5 stones. This has been due to a number of factors I think.
1. I came off depo injection April 2003 this is reported to aid weight gain.
2. I stopped drinking 2litres of coca cola a day in early 2003
3. I went to weight watchers for a bit
4. I increased my acitivity both mental and physical. Physical from the odd walk down the road to walks up Rivelin and surrounding areas. Mental - crossword puzzles, more programming of websites anything to excercise me grey matter.
5. I also discovereed by accident that my love of pasta dishes was helping me keep weight on and I lost a stone in about 6 weeks thru stopping eating that.

I reckon the rest is coming off thru stress and further excercise. I haven't done anything in the way of diets except to cut out the bad stuff like the coca cola and decrease my consumption of pasta.

I don't like the atkins diet much (can't remember if I posted this back in one of the other pages) the idea of eating all that meat makes me feel ill *bleurgh*. My sister in law has used it but she says it isn't one you can maintain, the weight just piles back on. She has lost all her weight thru weight watchers and increasing her excercise. It wasn't until she started with the excercise that the weight finally started coming off and staying off.

These diets are all very well but if you don't impliment something like walking or swimming or bike riding you will just start a cycle with faddy dieting.

Moon

Not sure what your starting wieght was but BRAVO! It seems you have the right balance. I think that is the hardest part of weight control, finding a balance that is healthy and changing bad habits.

I have struggled with weight in the past and I think a if its a slow process it is easier to maintain the change and break the habit.

Kathryn3

17-08-2004, 08:40

Originally posted by evildrneil
if your eating lots of veg and salad then you arent on a low carb diet???

Ok I give you some figures becuase you obviously don't know, these are grams of carbohydrates per 100g.
Bean Sprouts 2.5
Broccoli 1.1
Cabbage 2.5
Cauliflower 1.9
Canned Tomatoes 3
Leeks 2.6
Lettuce 1.7
Green Pepper 2.6
Strawberry 6

and for comparision
Rice 30
Wholemeal Bread 36.6
Roast Potato 25.9

I easily get my five-a-day, if you consider a side salad or 100g Broccoli are 1 portion.

Moon Maiden

17-08-2004, 08:47

Originally posted by bonny
Not sure what your starting wieght was but BRAVO! It seems you have the right balance. I think that is the hardest part of weight control, finding a balance that is healthy and changing bad habits.

I have struggled with weight in the past and I think a if its a slow process it is easier to maintain the change and break the habit.

:) Thank you. I'm not sure what my starting weight was. I know shortly after my daughter being born in 2001 I was over 16 stone and in a size 22 and between then and beginning of 2003 I had put more weight on due to the depo.

I think balance is just the ticket, before having kids my metabolism was fine. I could eat what I wanted and it didn't matter and I think/hope I am heading that way again.

Moon

Foxxx

17-08-2004, 08:49

Originally posted by evildrneil
Ermmmmm brown rice, wholemeal bread etc. ARE complex carbs!!!! And if your eating lots of veg and salad then you arent on a low carb diet???

Yes, you cut these out initially, that's the complex carbs and the processed food. You continue to cut out processed food, and introduce carbs that are not made from refined white flour, hence the wholemeal and brown. So you do eat complex carbs but the right healthly ones. Sorry if my post wasn't clear.

As for salad and veg, as I explained, Atkins does not cut out all carbs which seems to be a popular misunderstanding. Salad and veg contain carbs but their glycemic index releases sugar slowly into your blood stream (so stick to green veg). You are allowed to eat about 20g of aitkins carbs a day in the induction phase, which is not cutting it out. Another common mistake is you are counting certain types of carbs, so although the food might have 30g of carbs in it, you only have to count 10g because this is the carb that effects you. So that means you've eaten 30g but only count 10g towards your daily total.

You really should stop believing what you hear, you never cut out carbs. This is complete tosh!!!

I love the way everyone jumps on this diet saying how it's bad to cut out a food group (which you're not anyway, you're cutting out the unhealthy part of a food group). So please answer me why it's ok to cut out fat? That's what a low fat diet does. And as previously mentioned in this thread, your body needs fat. Read the facts, low fat diets are not providing your body with the fat it requires.

Basically the food industry have based a multi billion diet industry on cutting fat out, and are being challenged by carbs. Don't you think that they will do anything to stop this? After all if they are shown to be wrong (and looking at the fact that obesity is on the rise because low fat food contains so much carb) they would have a lot of angry people to answer to, plus the money they would loose on all the diet food produced (which is the most important thing to them).

Moon Maiden

17-08-2004, 08:53

Hi Foxxx from what I am reading it sounds like the atkins diet is a reverse detox. I say reverse cosof my personal revultion at that much meat.
In a detox you completely remove certain elements from your diet and stick to water and certain fruits (the ones I have seen anyway) then reintriduce foods gradually over the next few weeks.

Just an observation ;)
Moon Maiden

evildrneil

17-08-2004, 09:18

Originally posted by Foxxx
Salad and veg contain carbs but their glycemic index releases sugar slowly into your blood stream (so stick to green veg).

This sounds more like a GI dies than Atkins...

[quote]You are allowed to eat about 20g of aitkins carbs a day in the induction phase, which is not cutting it out. Another common mistake is you are counting certain types of carbs, so although the food might have 30g of carbs in it, you only have to count 10g because this is the carb that effects you. So that means you've eaten 30g but only count 10g towards your daily total.

WHAT???? how can only 10g out of 30g of carbs 'affect' you? A carbohydrate is just a CHO chemical it doesn't know whether to be absorbed or not. You may be eating 10g of sugars and 20g of complex carbohydrates but that is sugar counting not carb counting and a low sugar not a low carb diet.

I love the way everyone jumps on this diet saying how it's bad to cut out a food group (which you're not anyway, you're cutting out the unhealthy part of a food group). So please answer me why it's ok to cut out fat? That's what a low fat diet does. And as previously mentioned in this thread, your body needs fat. Read the facts, low fat diets are not providing your body with the fat it requires

Its not - cutting out ANY element of your diet is bad and no nutritionist worth his or her salt will tell you a ballanced and varied diet is what is required for health.

Basically the food industry have based a multi billion diet industry on cutting fat out, and are being challenged by carbs. Don't you think that they will do anything to stop this? After all if they are shown to be wrong (and looking at the fact that obesity is on the rise because low fat food contains so much carb) they would have a lot of angry people to answer to, plus the money they would loose on all the diet food produced (which is the most important thing to them).

This is not because carbs are bad per se but because 'low fat' diet foods are often high calorie as fat is removed but replaced by sugars! And lets be honest the diet industry doesn't really want people to loose weight - if it did it would be telling them to eat properly and in moderation and get some exercise not feeding them short termist patch approaches...

evildrneil

17-08-2004, 09:26

Originally posted by Kathryn3
I easily get my five-a-day, if you consider a side salad or 100g Broccoli are 1 portion.

Really? According to carbohydrate-counter one apple is 19.06g of carb, one orange 15.39g, one portion of broccoli 13.63g, one tomato 5.71g - I make that well over the 20-30 g of carbohydrates and thats barely 4 portions...

Kathryn3

17-08-2004, 09:49

Where did you find carbohydrate-counter?
Is it net carbs? i.e total carbohydrate less fibre?
I used the one on
low-carbdiet.co.uk
Why are you talking about oranges and apples. Apples aren't reintroduced until pre-mainatenace stage when you could be on around 40-80g of carbs, depending on your metabolism.
If you had actually read about Atkins you would know that G.I plays an important role.
Can I suggest you go to the website and have a read,
so you can actually find a point to make that actually is relevant to the diet
http://atkins-uk.com/

Titian

17-08-2004, 09:51

Just a question.

if on the atkins diet you are cutting out processed foods, what type of butter, mayonaise, creams etc do you use?

Titian

17-08-2004, 09:53

Originally posted by Kathryn3
Where did you find carbohydrate-counter?
Is it net carbs? i.e total carbohydrate less fibre?
I used the one on
low-carbdiet.co.uk
Why are you talking about oranges and apples. Apples aren't reintroduced until pre-mainatenace stage when you could be on around 40-80g of carbs, depending on your metabolism.
If you had actually read about Atkins you would know that G.I plays an important role.
Can I suggest you go to the website and have a read,
so you can actually find a point to make that actually is relevant to the diet
http://atkins-uk.com/

It is probably better to look at websites that are not advocating the diet or dismissing the diet for a more balanced opinion. There are plenty around I am sure.

It's not really fair to accuse non followers of believing hype when your only references are Atkins related.

evildrneil

17-08-2004, 09:53

http://www.carbohydrate-counter.org/

And I quote " This free carbohydrate counter has been set up for those on low carb diets as a simple way of finding the carbohydrate content in a variety of foods." So it seems pretty relevent to a low carb diet a la Atkins to me?

Titian

17-08-2004, 10:00

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
:) Thank you. I'm not sure what my starting weight was. I know shortly after my daughter being born in 2001 I was over 16 stone and in a size 22 and between then and beginning of 2003 I had put more weight on due to the depo.

I think balance is just the ticket, before having kids my metabolism was fine. I could eat what I wanted and it didn't matter and I think/hope I am heading that way again.

Moon

Kids and metabolism ! I know it well. Especially seeing as surgery was something I encountered after childbirth due to pregnancy!

I'm sure I will make them aware what I went through for them one fine day lol

I can recommend a good book for you if you like. It's by Kate figes called life after birth. It tells it as it is warts and all.

Kathryn3

17-08-2004, 10:04

Originally posted by bonny
It is probably better to look at websites that are not advocating the diet or dismissing the diet for a more balanced opinion. There are plenty around I am sure.

It's not really fair to accuse non followers of believing hype when your only references are Atkins related.

I meant he/she should have a look at the website to know what the diet entails. There is no point having a discussion with someone if they don't know the facts first, because you are just discussing misunderstandings, which gets really dull.

Moon Maiden

17-08-2004, 10:15

I think the problems with many of these diets is that they are led by money - the industry that is springing up out of the atkins diet and the number of diets appearing that claim to be based on the principals of the atkins but make it better is disgusting.
I commented before about the money making behind weight watchers it is all about the money for many.

There is multiple information out there and everyone is clammering to be right - the person who manages to find 'the' ideal form of weight loss for everyone is going to be very very rich.

Moon

evildrneil

17-08-2004, 10:47

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
There is multiple information out there and everyone is clammering to be right - the person who manages to find 'the' ideal form of weight loss for everyone is going to be very very rich.

calories in < callories expended = weight loss

calories in > callories expended = weight gain

Can I have my money now ;)

Moon Maiden

17-08-2004, 11:06

you can have your money when you can fit that into a diet that is

1. easily affordable by everyone not just those who can shell out £50 per day on special food
2. Produces easy information on ALL foods so it can be followed by the illiterate.
3. Works for all lifestyles

:D

Moon

Kathryn3

17-08-2004, 11:08

Originally posted by evildrneil
Really? According to carbohydrate-counter one apple is 19.06g of carb, one orange 15.39g, one portion of broccoli 13.63g, one tomato 5.71g - I make that well over the 20-30 g of carbohydrates and thats barely 4 portions...

Had a look now, that works out as 437g of Broccoli which is a serving not a portion. So the Broccoli by itself makes 4 portions according to the BBC nutrition site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/nutrition/basics_fruitveg.shtml

Dug

17-08-2004, 11:10

It sounds to me that when people are on a diet they spend most of their time working out cals, portions, servings, grams of fat, grams of carbs......

Kathryn3

17-08-2004, 11:18

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
you can have your money when you can fit that into a diet that is

1. easily affordable by everyone not just those who can shell out £50 per day on special food
2. Produces easy information on ALL foods so it can be followed by the illiterate.
3. Works for all lifestyles

:D

Moon

May I also suggest that it isn't going to kill you, otherwise I know of someone who had great success on the speed diet.

Foxxx

17-08-2004, 11:21

Originally posted by Dug
It sounds to me that when people are on a diet they spend most of their time working out cals, portions, servings, grams of fat, grams of carbs......

Not true, on Atkins, I don't have to think about what I eat.
I will generally eat a good portion of meat, vegatables, salad and wholemeal bread in the maintainence phase. Sometimes I'll have some cheese with it. I don't weigh, I don't count, I'm eating healthy food. What's the big deal? Why do I need to eat potatoes with that? I have meat, 2 or 3 veg and mixed salad, which is all perfectly healthy, safe and Aitkins friendly. For the first few weeks, I just wouldn't have had the bread to kick off the change in my energy burning.

When I was on a weight watchers type diet a long time ago, it was a nightmare to work out.

Foxxx

17-08-2004, 11:23

Originally posted by evildrneil
calories in < callories expended = weight loss

calories in > callories expended = weight gain

Can I have my money now ;)

On a low fat diet yes, but not on Aitkins.
You need to read up on the metabolic advantage to fat burning vs sugar burning. The equation is different because your body uses more energy burning fat than it does burning sugar.

Moon Maiden

17-08-2004, 11:24

Originally posted by Kathryn3
May I also suggest that it isn't going to kill you, otherwise I know of someone who had great success on the speed diet.

wouldn't that cut it out at easily affordable?

Moon

Kathryn3

17-08-2004, 11:29

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
wouldn't that cut it out at easily affordable?

Moon

really wouldn't know!

Moon Maiden

17-08-2004, 11:32

Originally posted by Kathryn3
really wouldn't know!

lol - try the prisons thread and people turning to crime to feed their drug habit? ;)

FairyNormal

17-08-2004, 11:35

Well just to add my 2 pennorth!

I am overweight, very!! I walk a lot, rarely eat fried food etc. Losing weight has been a constant battle for me most of my life. Chubby baby, chubby toddler even bigger adult. I am not one for fad diets. I have looked at Atkins but all that meat just puts me right off. If I eat meat on more than 2 consecutive days, I feel bloated, sluggish and get constipated. I was vegetarian for 8 years and only started eating meat again last November. As a family, we eat loads of fresh veg and fruit, rice, pasta and a proportion of meat.

I am determined to shift the excess weight I have and I know it's gonna be a very long hard slog. In the last 10 days I have lost 3lbs. Ok, it may not seem like much but I am really pleased. Basically, I have swopped to low fat spread instead of butter, diet coke instead of regular, watching my portions and swopping things around a bit. I eat danish bread (4 slices = 2 meduim white) and fill up on raw veg if I'm peckish. It's no hardship really and it's making a difference already.

So there you go! I'm a believer in moderation and just being sensible. Fad diets won't work for me or my family and I refuse to cut things out of my diet to have to replace them with vitamin supplemets etc.

Just my opinion but I am happy with what I am achieving.

Foxxx

17-08-2004, 11:37

Originally posted by bonny
Just a question.

if on the atkins diet you are cutting out processed foods, what type of butter, mayonaise, creams etc do you use?

Full fat mayonnaise (often make my own), which consists or eggs, olive oil, lemon juice, salt, pepper, mustard, water.

Nought wrong with those ingredients. Not processed.

I do not buy low fat mayonnaise which has lots and lots of added sugar to compensate for less fat and processed things to make it last longer and bind better due to less fat.

I generally make all my own salad dressings with fresh ingredients because bought ones contain lots of processed stuff and unecessary preservatives.

I eat cream (usually double cream), not by the bucket load, and I don't see what's wrong with eating butterfat which is directly from cows milk, it is the stuff skimmed off the top of the milk. I avoid creams that are processed and have lots added to them, e.g. low fat creams.

I eat butter, not margarine. Again, made from milk which comes from a cow.

Cream and butter have been made for centuries from milk. I'm not sure what your point is.

Foxxx

17-08-2004, 11:43

Originally posted by FetishFairy
Well just to add my 2 pennorth!

I am overweight, very!! I walk a lot, rarely eat fried food etc. Losing weight has been a constant battle for me most of my life. Chubby baby, chubby toddler even bigger adult. I am not one for fad diets. I have looked at Atkins but all that meat just puts me right off. If I eat meat on more than 2 consecutive days, I feel bloated, sluggish and get constipated. I was vegetarian for 8 years and only started eating meat again last November. As a family, we eat loads of fresh veg and fruit, rice, pasta and a proportion of meat.

I am determined to shift the excess weight I have and I know it's gonna be a very long hard slog. In the last 10 days I have lost 3lbs. Ok, it may not seem like much but I am really pleased. Basically, I have swopped to low fat spread instead of butter, diet coke instead of regular, watching my portions and swopping things around a bit. I eat danish bread (4 slices = 2 meduim white) and fill up on raw veg if I'm peckish. It's no hardship really and it's making a difference already.

So there you go! I'm a believer in moderation and just being sensible. Fad diets won't work for me or my family and I refuse to cut things out of my diet to have to replace them with vitamin supplemets etc.

Just my opinion but I am happy with what I am achieving.

Well done, keep it up. :)

At the end of the day, it's all down to personal choice. Which ever diet you choose and whatever you believe. The main thing is to stick at it and have will-power.
Atkins doesn't suit everyone, and a lot of people don't agree with it or understand it. Fair enough.
I just know that it worked well for me and does for a lot of people and I agree with the science behind it and also the benefits of it.

evildrneil

17-08-2004, 13:06

Foxxx

17-08-2004, 13:08

Originally posted by bonny
I would like to add that my condition was not Type I insulin-dependent diabetic. Just incase you were thinking that it was ketoacidosis that was my problem. I was admitted to hospital with a high level of ketones. Ketones are a sign of a negative energy balance not a positive one.

At what level do keytones become a problem, or is it just the case of atkins followers that the more keytones the better?

What about the essential vitamins and minerals you are deleting from your diet?

A diet without some glucose is not a good thing, it impairs brain activity etc. It can also lead to diabetes.

How long do you do the 1st phase of the diet? and the second etc? As far as I am aware the first phase should only be done for no more than 2 weeks or maybe one (I'm not sure). Isn't this because it is dangerous to continue this phase? If so why would that be healthy. Surely a balanced diet is better for you rather than a quick, possibly dangerous fix?

Also, like the doctors have warned, the health issues of the atkins diet will only become apparent after 20 or so years with regard to the heart liver and kidneys , not to mention colon cancer etc.

One final point.
The carbs that you keep refering to are processed ones. Any processed food is not good for you. I for one do not eat a lot of prcessed foods. There are plenty of carbs available that are not processed.

More info on keytones:
http://www.therasense.com/educator/questions/monitoring_1.htm

A more balanced report other than a dieting website can be found here:
http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/contributors/atkins_diet_dangers_pork_rinds_721.htm

Atkins followers death:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/21/1069027307658.html?oneclick=true

Ok, looking at the first link, it only says that ketones are a problem with high blood glucose. On Atkins you will have a low, steady blood glucose level and therefore are not in danger of getting ketoacidosis. Also, you eat enough glucose to service your brains needs, you just don't eat enough to let glucose build up in the liver as stored energy. All the references to starvation in the link are not applicable to Aitkins since you are eating large portions of food. The section on hypoglycemia is probably the closest to Atkins, since you have a low blood glucose and it clearly states the ketones are harmless.
The rest of that article refers to ketones being in the body due to fat burning, which is exactly what you are trying to achieve on aitkins and it is a natural body function. Fat burning = weight loss. Once you've lost the weight, you then introduce more carbs/sugar until you get the right balance between fat burning and sugar burning and therefore don't change weight. You maintain your weight. Rather like on weight watchers where you gradually add fat back until you maintain and don't lose or put weight on.
Ketones itself aren't the problem, the problem is when you can't excrete them which leads to ketoacidosis. You must have had a problem with a build up of ketones and weren't able to excrete them. This is rare and doesn't happen to normal people on aitkins, hence when measuring your ketone levels the ketosticks will show ketones in the urine and hence no problem with build up.
I've not had a chance to look at the other links yet but I will, I am always interested to read different angles.

To answer your other questions as best I can:

You follow the first phase (induction) for 2 weeks which is the phase where you are clearing the sugar out of your body in order to switch to fat burning. It is restrictive because you need to withdraw from sugar. The second phase is ongoing weight loss and is much slower and you introduce more carbs and loose weight, now you've got sugar out of your system you eat only the right carbs and slow sugar releasing carbs rather than carbs that spike your blood quickly giving a sugar rush. You follow this for as long as you need until weight is lost, the third phase, pre-maintainence is where you start introducing more carbs to stop losing weight, then the final phase is maintainence, so basically eating balanced diet, to maintain weight which is life long.

You aren't deleting essential vits and minerals since you are eating foods with these in e.g. vegs, meat, salad. It is recommended you take suppliments while on the 2 week induction. Then again, vegetarians should take suppliments also. I take multi vits anyway.

The health risks of Atkins are being researched, this is true and maybe it will be good and maybe it will be bad. Low fat diets have been around for a longtime and the long term effects of these are becoming quite apparent now e.g. increased diabetes, increased obesity. The diet industry are starting to realise they got it wrong.

Your final point, I am not sure if you were referring to something I said or someone else said? Which carbs have been referenced that are processed? I don't eat processed food, only carbs not processed e.g vegs, salads, wholemeal etc

evildrneil

17-08-2004, 13:09

Originally posted by Foxxx
On a low fat diet yes, but not on Aitkins.
You need to read up on the metabolic advantage to fat burning vs sugar burning. The equation is different because your body uses more energy burning fat than it does burning sugar.

Actually it applies to Atkins as much as any other - Atkins simply claims that you use up calories in the breaking down of fat and protein (true to an extent) and that gluconeogensis isn't as efficient a way of getting glucose into the blood as absorbing it straight from the gut (also true) but the the calories in < calories out still holds...

evildrneil

17-08-2004, 13:11

FairyNormal

17-08-2004, 13:17

Originally posted by evildrneil
But at least if we get another ice age you will be the one who survives!!!

Kiss the Not-so-Evil-one!!

Foxxx

17-08-2004, 13:56

Originally posted by evildrneil
Actually it applies to Atkins as much as any other - Atkins simply claims that you use up calories in the breaking down of fat and protein (true to an extent) and that gluconeogensis isn't as efficient a way of getting glucose into the blood as absorbing it straight from the gut (also true) but the the calories in < calories out still holds...

No it doesn't! As I said earlier, I eat the MORE calories on Atkins than I did before!
This is only a theory about eating less calories on Atkins. I must be a special case if this is true.

Foxxx on Atkins: calories in > calories out = weight loss!

evildrneil

17-08-2004, 14:07

Originally posted by Foxxx
No it doesn't! As I said earlier, I eat the MORE calories on Aitkins than I did before!
This is only a theory about eating less calories on Aitkins. I must be a special case if this is true.

Foxxx on Aitkins: calories in > calories out = weight loss!

If you read the Atkins stuff you will see he is claiming extra calories are burned in breaking down the food so although you may be eating more callories you are also burning more so the net effect is calories in < calories out

evildrneil

17-08-2004, 14:15

Originally posted by FetishFairy
Kiss the Not-so-Evil-one!!

Oiiii are you trying to ruin my evil reputation :p

Foxxx

17-08-2004, 14:23

Originally posted by evildrneil
If you read the Atkins stuff you will see he is claiming extra calories are burned in breaking down the food so although you may be eating more callories you are also burning more so the net effect is calories in < calories out

Yes Bingo. This is what I said earlier! You've kinda twisted it. I have already said about the Metabolic advantage. I ate more calories than I did before and lost weight. This was not due to me doing more exercise to burn off calories or by starving myself on a low fat calorie controlled diet by eating less. This is because my body is burning off it's own fat and uses energy to do this.
It's not as simple as stating calories in <calories out though. It is much more complex and puzzled scientists for a long time as they couldn't work out how you could eat more calories but lose weight.
We are kinda agreeing here but coming from different angles.

Rubysoho

17-08-2004, 16:30

Originally posted by Kathryn3
Tofu and Quorn are high in protein and low in carbs, also if your a vegetarian who eats fish, thats allowed.
Then of course you can eat all the other things that low carbers do, lots of green veg, salad and cheese

Hmm, a vegetarian who eats fish - so not really a vegetarian at all then!!!

Titian

17-08-2004, 19:27

Originally posted by Foxxx

Your final point, I am not sure if you were referring to something I said or someone else said? Which carbs have been referenced that are processed? I don't eat processed food, only carbs not processed e.g vegs, salads, wholemeal etc

What about the cream, mayonnaise, butter you eat? Isn't that processed and contradictary to the Atkins methods of no processed foods?

Also if the Atkins diet leaves you prone to constipation surely you are not excreting the ketones either. Which becomes harmful as you become toxic.

What are safe levels of ketones? and what is unsafe? When you test your urine when do you think enough is enough?

It's just another diet fad for those who cannot eat a healthy well balanced diet.

To me it seems common sense that balance and harmony are everything, you only have to look at nature to see proof of this. This is a totally unbalanced way of eating. You can get all the nutrients you need from good eating habits so why do something that means you have to take supliments.

Another point is that after tests findings were that people on a low fat diet lost the same amount of weight as those on the Atkins. This was due to the Aktins followers actually not eating as much calories as they thought they were, and not as much as the low fat dieters? So what does that conclude?

Whoever said in this thread that people who don't approve of the Akins diet were afraid of change and something new was totally wrong.

It's more a case of having a little bit of common sense and knowing that there will be negative effects long term.

Take for instance cigarettes. They were promoted heavily and were the best thing since sliced bread at one time. Now look years later.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/handouts/tobacco_advertising/selling_tobacco_30s_40s.cfm

Kathryn3

18-08-2004, 08:48

Originally posted by bonny
Also if the Atkins diet leaves you prone to constipation surely you are not excreting the ketones either. Which becomes harmful as you become toxic.

What are safe levels of ketones? and what is unsafe? When you test your urine when do you think enough is enough?

It's just another diet fad for those who cannot eat a healthy well balanced diet.

To me it seems common sense that balance and harmony are everything, you only have to look at nature to see proof of this. This is a totally unbalanced way of eating. You can get all the nutrients you need from good eating habits so why do something that means you have to take supliments.

Do you realise that many people are in ketosis when they wake up in the morning, or if they skip breakfast?
Ketones are excreted in the urine, not faeces, so constipation is not an issue. And as Foxx has already said healthy people pass ketones through no problem, they don't build up, your body regulates them.

On the issue of supplements I rarely take anything, but what do you think of vegetarians and the supplement they have to take?
The 'You are what you eat' series on C4 and now a book, advocates taking huge amounts of vitamin pills, supplements and homeopathic remedies.

Dug

18-08-2004, 08:53

Originally posted by Kathryn3

On the issue of supplements I rarely take anything, but what do you think of vegetarians and the supplement they have to take?
The 'You are what you eat' series on C4 and now a book, advocates taking huge amounts of vitamin pills, supplements and homeopathic remedies.

I'm a vegetarian, I take no supplements and am perfectly healthy.

elf

18-08-2004, 10:22

Veggie too and don't take supplements usually, only at the moment coz am pregnant and need more iron, folic acid blah blah.

There is nothing wrong with supplements though.

Foxxx

18-08-2004, 12:20

I love a good debate! Ok, I'll try answer:

Originally posted by bonny
What about the cream, mayonnaise, butter you eat? Isn't that processed and contradictary to the Atkins methods of no processed foods?

I still don't understand your point about these and if you read my post above I've already explained. I guess it depends on your definition of processed. Generally "Processed foods are foods that are cooked, or made in a factory and put in a package -- like instant soups, snacks, hot dogs and many frozen things, like pizza or waffles. Apples, oranges and other fruits are not processed, but fruit salad in a can is processed. Applesauce in a jar is processed food, too. Raw chicken, pork and beef are not processed, but hot dogs and some sliced meats are" quoted from a website, lost the link now!
On Atkins you would eat fresh meat, rather than burgers, sausages etc since these are mixed up bits of meat with added starch, wheat, breadcrumbs, sugar etc. This is processed.
Maynonnaise, butter and cream go through a processing phase to get the milk into that form and are heated to get rid of e.coli, salmonella etc but aren't processed in the sense you are going on about. It is better to buy butter without added salt and normal cream without added sugar like some pouring creams have. If I could, I would make butter and cream myself but it's not really practical because a) I don't own a cow b) would need a lot of equipment and c) it is a long drawn out process which I frankly don't have time for or could be bothered with!
Mayonnaise I do make myself from natural fresh non processed ingredients e.g. eggs, as stated in previous post.
What do you personnally think is wrong with butter, mayonnaise and cream?? I don't understand where you are coming from. On Atkins you wouldn't eat yoghurt or margarine, both I'm sure you will agree are processed.

Originally posted by bonny

Also if the Atkins diet leaves you prone to constipation surely you are not excreting the ketones either. Which becomes harmful as you become toxic.

What are safe levels of ketones? and what is unsafe? When you test your urine when do you think enough is enough?

Ketones are excreted in your urine, as Kathryn3 stated. I personally do not suffer constipation, this is not a side effect everyone gets on atkins and generally only occurs in the first couple of weeks while your body adjusts to a new, healthy way of eating.

As for measuring the ketones in urine, there isn't an unsafe level, read the link you posted, it said that. Ketones in urine is a good thing, it would be a problem if you weren't excreting them.

As Kathryn pointed out, a lot of people have ketones in their urine due to not eating breakfast and the body goes into starvation mode. Ketones are a normal bodily function and nothing to worry about unless you are unfortunate to have a rare condition that lets them build up and not excrete them. Don't you think this would have become quite apparent by now if they were bad, considering the millions of people on the Atkins nutrional approach to eating (that's it's proper name, not diet!)

Originally posted by bonny

It's just another diet fad for those who cannot eat a healthy well balanced diet.

I wouldn't exactly call it a fad, it's been around since 1970s!

Originally posted by bonny

To me it seems common sense that balance and harmony are everything, you only have to look at nature to see proof of this. This is a totally unbalanced way of eating. You can get all the nutrients you need from good eating habits so why do something that means you have to take supliments.

I agree, balance is good. What isn't balanced about eating meat/fish, 3 veg, salad and a bit of fat e.g. omega 3 oils, olive oil, butter etc. Strawberries for pudding.
There is carbs in that, but healthy ones. Why do I need to fill myself with a load of starch by adding potatoes to that? Or pasta?
What is wrong with meat and veg? I would have thought that was extremelly healthy.
You mention nature, Atkins is virtually a hunter gatherer diet. Eating meat and veg. It's a natural diet cutting out alot of crap that has only been introduced into society in the last century and funnily over the last few decades since all this food has been introduced, obesity has risen alarmingly.

Originally posted by bonny

Another point is that after tests findings were that people on a low fat diet lost the same amount of weight as those on the Atkins. This was due to the Aktins followers actually not eating as much calories as they thought they were, and not as much as the low fat dieters? So what does that conclude?

I have already explained this in a previous post.
a) metabolic of Atkins
b) I did eat more calories, but didn't over eat because I wasn't craving food in between meals which you do when you eat lots of sugar (see previous post for appetite discussion)

At the end of the day, if you do eat as much calories on low fat vs Atkins, I know what I'd prefer. A nice juicy fillet steak with a cream sauce as optional or tomato based sauce if preferred, either is ok, spinach in garlic, broccoli etc and salad with a lovely oily dressing. Starters a nice mozzeralla, tomato, avocado salad or something. Usually full by now but could cram in strawberries and cream perhaps.
Or shall I have low fat meal, a tiny portion of pasta with a tasteless sauce on it, a tuna salad with no dressing for starter, no pudding or maybe an apple. Best watch those points. But hang on, no fat in that. (your body needs fat btw)
And I'm sure the Atkins calories would be greater there but apparently not according to research.

Originally posted by bonny

Whoever said in this thread that people who don't approve of the Akins diet were afraid of change and something new was totally wrong.

Well you are afraid of change, so they weren't wrong!

At the end of the day, you have your opinion and i have mine! I'm not arguing, just debating.

:)

Rubysoho

18-08-2004, 12:38

What about all the growth hormones, antibiotics etc that have been given to the meat that you are eating at every meal - or do the long term side effects of this ingestion not concern you as long as you lose weight in the short term!?!?!?

The amount of saturated fat involved in the Atkins diet is frightening - why would you want to risk your future health by eating all that?? Saturated fat is a killer, and a major contributor to heart disease, atherosclerosis etc. By consuming too much protein it leeches calcium from your body - so you might get thin now, but what about in 20, 30 or 40 years time??? Is it worth the risk??

If you don't believe any of this, feel free to check out any books by the following authors: John Robbins, Michael Klaper, Dean Ornish, John McDougall and Susan Powter.

One last thing - didn't the Atkins diet come third in BBC's Diet Trials last year behind Rosemary Conley and Weightwatchers???

Titian

18-08-2004, 21:06

Originally posted by Foxxx
I love a good debate! Ok, I'll try answer:

Ketones are excreted in your urine, as Kathryn3 stated. I personally do not suffer constipation, this is not a side effect everyone gets on atkins and generally only occurs in the first couple of weeks while your body adjusts to a new, healthy way of eating.

As for measuring the ketones in urine, there isn't an unsafe level, read the link you posted, it said that. Ketones in urine is a good thing, it would be a problem if you weren't excreting them.

:)

Ketones are metabolic end products of fatty acid metabolism. In healthy individuals, ketones are formed in the liver and are completely metabolized so that only negligible amounts appear in the urine. However, when carbohydrates are unavailable or unable to be used as an energy source, fat becomes the predominant body fuel instead of carbohydrates and excessive amounts of ketones are formed as a metabolic byproduct. A finding of ketones in the urine indicates that the body is using fat as the major source of energy.

Three ketone bodies that appear in the urine when fats are burned for energy are acetone, acetoacetic acid and beta-hydroxybutyric acid. Normally, the urine should not contain enough ketones to give a positive reading. As with tests for glucose, acetone can be tested by a dipstick or by a tablet. The results are reported as small, moderate, or large amounts of acetone. A small amount of acetone is a value under 20mg/dl; a moderate amount is a value of 30-40mg/dl, and a finding of 80mg/dl or greater is reported as a large amount.

Screening for ketonuria is done frequently for acutely ill patients, presurgical patients, and pregnant women. Any diabetic patient who has elevated levels of blood and urine glucose should be tested for urinary ketones. In addition, when diabetic treatment is being switched from insulin to oral hypoglycemic agents, the patient's urine should be monitored for ketonuria. The development of ketonuria within 24 hours after insulin withdrawal usually indicates a poor response to the oral hypoglycemic agents. Diabetic patients who use oral hypoglycemic agents should have their urine tested regularly for glucose and ketones because oral hypoglycemic agents, unlike insulin, do not control diabetes when an acute infection or other illness develops.

In conditions associated with acidosis, urinary ketones are tested to assess the severity of acidosis and to monitor treatment response. Urine ketones appear before there is any significant increase in blood ketones; therefore, urine ketone measurement is especially helpful in emergency situations. During pregnancy, early detection of ketonuria is essential because ketoacidosis is a factor associated with intrauterine death.

Ketosis and ketonuria occur in:

Metabolic abnormalities such as diabetes, renal glycosuria, or glycogen storage disease
Dietary conditions such as starvation, fasting, high protein, or low carbohydrate diets, prolonged vomiting, and anorexia
Conditions in which metabolism is increased, such as hyperthyroidism, fever, pregnancy or lactation
In nondiabetic persons, ketonuria may occur during acute illness or severe stress. Approximately 15% of hospitalized patients may have ketonuria, even though they do not have diabetes. In a diabetic patient, ketone bodies in the urine suggest that the patient is not adequately controlled and that adjustments of medication, diet, or both should be made promptly. In the nondiabetic patient, ketonuria reflects a reduced carbohydrate metabolism and excessive fat metabolism.

Also a low fat diet does not mean a no fat diet.

I am not doing or have ever done either diet, I'm just playing devils advocate.

"Well you are afraid of change, so they weren't wrong!" does not equal debate either, just argumentative words with not much backup.

Moon Maiden

19-08-2004, 08:12

Originally posted by FetishFairy
Well just to add my 2 pennorth!

I am determined to shift the excess weight I have and I know it's gonna be a very long hard slog. In the last 10 days I have lost 3lbs. Ok, it may not seem like much but I am really pleased. Basically, I have swopped to low fat spread instead of butter, diet coke instead of regular, watching my portions and swopping things around a bit. I eat danish bread (4 slices = 2 meduim white) and fill up on raw veg if I'm peckish. It's no hardship really and it's making a difference already.

So there you go! I'm a believer in moderation and just being sensible. Fad diets won't work for me or my family and I refuse to cut things out of my diet to have to replace them with vitamin supplemets etc.

Just my opinion but I am happy with what I am achieving.

Congratulations Festish :banana: That is great!

Always think it is better off then on no matter how small an amount it may seem. It is the small changes that can work wonders when all the other diets don't make a difference.

Moon

Foxxx

19-08-2004, 08:39

Originally posted by bonny

"Well you are afraid of change, so they weren't wrong!" does not equal debate either, just argumentative words with not much backup.

What and stating Whoever said in this thread that people who don't approve of the Akins diet were afraid of change and something new was totally wrong. isn't being argumentative?
I said my comment in gest (hence the smiley face), because you obviously don't accept this way of eating, but you can't just state it's wrong. It's only wrong in your opinion. Just the same as I believe it is a good way of eating in my opinion. So I would say you were the first to be argumentative in this case.

Yes, I'm trying to have a debate and in doing that, I answered all your questions and addressed all your points. You haven't answered any of my questions and only addressed one point about ketones.

You keep going on about processed food, I have answered this twice and asked you what your point is and again you have ignored it. I aksed you what was not balanced about meat/fish and vegs? You haven't answered. So please don't accuse me of using argumentative words with no back-up.

I'm just having a bit of fun on a subject I find particularly interesting.

:)

Titian

19-08-2004, 09:15

Originally posted by Foxxx
What and stating isn't being argumentative?
I said my comment in gest (hence the smiley face), because you obviously don't accept this way of eating, but you can't just state it's wrong. It's only wrong in your opinion. Just the same as I believe it is a good way of eating in my opinion. So I would say you were the first to be argumentative in this case.

Yes, I'm trying to have a debate and in doing that, I answered all your questions and addressed all your points. You haven't answered any of my questions and only addressed one point about ketones.

You keep going on about processed food, I have answered this twice and asked you what your point is and again you have ignored it. I aksed you what was not balanced about meat/fish and vegs? You haven't answered. So please don't accuse me of using argumentative words with no back-up.

I'm just having a bit of fun on a subject I find particularly interesting.

:)

Whoever said in this thread that people who don't approve of the Akins diet were afraid of change and something new was totally wrong.

It's more a case of having a little bit of common sense and knowing that there will be negative effects long term.

Take for instance cigarettes. They were promoted heavily and were the best thing since sliced bread at one time. Now look years later.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli...cco_30s_40s.cfm

Was my original text. It wasn't argumentative and was backed up by reasoning.

The processed food questioning was to do with Atkins allegedly saying avoid it. I assume most people on this diet are not making their own mayonnaise etc, hence buying processed food. You have answered my question in that you make your own and have no processed food in your diet.

I apologise if I didn't acknowledge your answer with a response.

The reason I keep bringing up the subject of ketones is that I have first hand experience of the dangers and not in any form that you have described to me.

They are a real and serious issue, which you seem to object to that fact. If you are right then I am a medical phenomenon and am probably in the BMA reports somewhere. Perhaps a visit to a local hospital where women are on IVs due to high levels of ketones will give you a better perspective on this.

Clare Sweeney collapsed due to the diet. CZJ sued a journal for linking her with the diet etc. (CZJ and lawsuits??? not much of a reccomendation I accept)

Also you say that low fat diets are bad as they eliminate all fat. This is not true from what I understand, they eliminate saturated fat.

Reading one book and accepting without question its findings is the same principle as religion. Until you read other approaches and facts how can you be objective and not sound brainwashed?

As I suggested earlier if you quote some other references other than Atkins and ones that are more neutral I might take it more seriously. Until that point I cannot believe one or a few biased sources only.

Kathryn3

19-08-2004, 09:51

Originally posted by Rubysoho
What about all the growth hormones, antibiotics etc that have been given to the meat that you are eating at every meal - or do the long term side effects of this ingestion not concern you as long as you lose weight in the short term!?!?!?

The amount of saturated fat involved in the Atkins diet is frightening - why would you want to risk your future health by eating all that?? Saturated fat is a killer, and a major contributor to heart disease, atherosclerosis etc. By consuming too much protein it leeches calcium from your body - so you might get thin now, but what about in 20, 30 or 40 years time??? Is it worth the risk??

If you don't believe any of this, feel free to check out any books by the following authors: John Robbins, Michael Klaper, Dean Ornish, John McDougall and Susan Powter.

One last thing - didn't the Atkins diet come third in BBC's Diet Trials last year behind Rosemary Conley and Weightwatchers???

I'm not trying to lose weight, I have a condition that recent research has connected with insulin resistance and many people have found a no sugar, low carb diet reduces or eliminates their symptoms. So I'm not irresponsibly trying to shed pounds, I'm trying to improve my health.
I don't worry about hormones in meat, just like I don't worry about whether there is oestrogen, or more recently reported prozac, in our drinking water.
I've read trans-fats may be more of a problem than saturated fat, after all, most research into saturated fat is in conjuction with a high-carb diet, and people on Atkins actually lower their LDL cholesterol.
A quick google I found this about saturated fat.
http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/17/saturated_fat1.htm

Moon Maiden

19-08-2004, 10:09

This is really interesting guys - lets try to keep tempers from flaring ;) (from the expert of flared tempers)

I have to jump in on the bandwagon with the meat and anti-biotics. Now being immune to most anti-bitotics and a keen meat eater I have to consider the possibility that the additives in our meat have contributed to the fact. Not that I am really bothered I am hardly ever ill now to warrant needing the damned things.

You could have burgers if you made them yourself tho using unprocessed mince yeah? Same with sausages. What about a butcher who could verify the contents of his produce?

From what I have read about the Atkins overall it looks like a good diet - my main concern would be the start of it where you send you body into shock with the changeover. Some peoples bodies aparently can cope with it and others cannot.

I guess over time we will see the long term effects of ALL the diets.

Moon

evildrneil

19-08-2004, 10:38

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtml

From this it looks like you don't have to cut out carbohydrates at all - just up your protein intake!

misstook2

20-08-2004, 15:43

I started eating the Atkins way about a year ago, I wont call it a diet because it is a way of eating for life.
I only wanted to lose 1 stone to be at my ideal weight. I enjoyed the food even though I only eat fish not red meat or chicken.

The first 2 week's I lost 4 lb, and that same 4lb for the next 50 week's went on, off,on, off.
One year later I'm still the same weight, that's after never going above 20carbs a day, apart from 3 times (yes I can remember those 3 times) 1 day it was 22carbs and the other 2 it was 25................I know Atkins works but I think It's more for people who need to lose a lot of weight, not just a little bit.

I also know fat DOESN'T make you fat unless it's eaten along with refined carbs, or I would've been a good few stones over what I started at!!!!!!!

For the last 2 week's I've been following the G-Index diet , wich seems so much more balanced, and I feel so much better, I'm not saying I felt rough doing Atkins, I didn't get any of the so called "symptoms" but since I started this I've got more energy & I know my jeans are looser but I'm determined not to get the scales out just yet...........plus I can eat apples & pasta again.

evildrneil

20-08-2004, 19:51

Originally posted by misstook2
[BI also know fat DOESN'T make you fat unless it's eaten along with refined carbs, or I would've been a good few stones over what I started at!!!!!!! [/B]

Although this is the much touted theory the best available scientific evidence is that it is in fact wrong - high levels of protein appear to satiate the appetite early - see the link above...

misstook2

20-08-2004, 20:36

The Atkins diet gets so much bad press, it does not say anywhere in the book that "you can eat as much as you like" of anything. It says "you eat until you are satisfied".

To evildrneil, if fat makes you fat, why aren't I any heavier than last year, when everyday I've been eating, double cream, full fat cheese, full fat mayo, olive oil, butter, mascarpone?
The only reason is, I haven't been eating refined carbs, when you eat fat & refined carbs together, the body has to burn the carbs off first, wich is a slow process, before it starts on the fats, that's when the body starts storing fat as fat, so if you're not having many carbs to start with, your body burns the fat of quicker.

It didn't work for me, but I'm happy for anyone who has success eating the Atkins way, and I know plenty that have.

evildrneil

20-08-2004, 20:55

Originally posted by misstook2
To evildrneil, if fat makes you fat, why aren't I any heavier than last year, when everyday I've been eating, double cream, full fat cheese, full fat mayo, olive oil, butter, mascarpone?

Read the link - double blind scientific tests have shown that people on 'low carb' diets eat less - though they think they eat more as the protein in the diet sates you. Also tests have shown that its the high levels of protein in the diet that causes the satiation not the fat The much touted thermobolic and ketogenic effects appear to have no basis in fact.

misstook2

20-08-2004, 22:12

I read the link & if it's true then good for protein, all I can say is my daily intake every day was 65%fat, 30%pro & 5%carbs, I dont think that's a very high intake of protein!!!!!!

Cyclone

21-08-2004, 08:47

it is most certainly very unhealthy whatever the effect on your weight.
I'd hate to look at your arteries when follow atkins into a coranary infarction.

Refined carbs do not take long to digest, which is one of the problems, so the bit about it having to burn of the carbs first and thus storing fat as fat is rubbish.

Any excess calories will be stored as fat. But it actually takes more energy to digest fat for energy than it does to digest it and turn it into our own personal fat. So by the time the fat is being digested the refined carbs have provided all the energy you need, so the fat gets turned into your fat.

A more reasonable modification to a normal diet is to reduce the amount of carbs and increase the amount of lean protein.

slimsid2000

21-08-2004, 14:27

I would recomend the Whiskey diet. This is very simple: you drink a full bottle of whiskey for breakfast, one for lunch and a normal vodka based dinner.

This diet is very effective - I lost three days last week.:D

Foxxx

23-08-2004, 12:00

Originally posted by Cyclone
it is most certainly very unhealthy whatever the effect on your weight.
I'd hate to look at your arteries when follow atkins into a coranary infarction.

Read the horizon link, here's an extract:

NARRATOR: And they hadn't just lost a few pounds, they'd lost twice as much as those on the low calorie diet. Not only did the Atkins diet actually work it was the hands down winner. It seemed you really could get thin without worrying about calories. But there remained the other unresolved issue. The scientists' biggest criticism of the diet was that the high fat would lead to high cholesterol which would clog the arteries and kill. Back in Pennsylvania Gary Foster embarked on a study to find out if the Atkins diet really did increase the risk of heart attack.

Dr GARY FOSTER: We fully expected that this would be a quick and dirty study. We would show that cholesterol would actually get much worse. It would be the first and last study of the Atkins diet.

NARRATOR: But when Foster sifted through the data he too couldn't believe his eyes.

Dr GARY FOSTER: My first reaction was could this be, this doesn't make a lot of sense. Not only were there no bad effects of the diet in terms of cholesterol, but actually there were quite positive ones.

NARRATOR: In other words despite the fears about eating lots of fat it looked as if the Atkins diet might not be bad for the heart after all.

Dr GARY FOSTER: You actually had about a tenfold improvement in cholesterol compared to a low fat, low calories diet.

Originally posted by Cyclone
A more reasonable modification to a normal diet is to reduce the amount of carbs and increase the amount of lean protein.

er, that's what you you do on atkins!

Foxxx

23-08-2004, 12:13

I always thought Horizon was a good documentary. However, being a scientist myself things have been bugging me.

The section where they take two twins and put one on Atkins and one on a low fat diet and test the urine and oxygen etc etc.
My first reaction to this was, how can you compare TWO people. That is not science. TWO people!!! lol. Then when they analysed the results, Atkins did show more weight loss, but then they dismissed it as "Twenty two calories is too small to suggest that there really is anything going on." Atkins also showed more calories were lost in the urine, but they commented, "This is not enough to suggest that this particular demonstration showed a difference". Ok, they are small differences, fair enough, but then they draw a conclusion from an experiment based on TWO people and say

NARRATOR: It seemed being in ketosis made barely any difference at all. Again Dr Atkins's theory appeared to be wrong. This came as little surprise to Donnelly.

Prof JOSEPH DONNELLY: I think the results are what we expected. There's no difference between the two diets.

Call that science!!! Don't make me laugh. You can't test just TWO people, then analyse the results but when you find there is a difference, in favour of Atkins (although only small), just randomly conclude there's no difference and Atkins is wrong. BAD science. You need to test a large group of people over longer and actually statistically analyse the results.

Horizon, I'm surprised at you!

MuteWitness

23-08-2004, 12:29

See what I mean, everyone thinks low fat is the way to go. Government brain washing!!!

And the government is brainwashing people telling everyone milk is good for you!

in march this year i saw an article about scientists saying Milk as bad as tobacco (am sure you can find it on google or i will try and find it again.

If you look open your mouth wide and look in a mirror yoou can sometimes see the white mucus stuck to the back of your throat i can when ive had a korma! but at least have it knowing its bad for you.

evildrneil

23-08-2004, 14:41

Originally posted by Foxxx
Call that science!!! Don't make me laugh. You can't test just TWO people, then analyse the results but when you find there is a difference, in favour of Atkins (although only small), just randomly conclude there's no difference and Atkins is wrong. BAD science. You need to test a large group of people over longer and actually statistically analyse the results.

Its entirely more credible than the scientific evidence backing up Atkins (i.e. none!) and to put this difference in context they are talking about 23 calories over 24 hours - the equivilent of burning about an extra 3g of fat or 6g of carbohydrate - not exactly going to cause major weight loss is it? And I note you ignored all the high cohort experiments showing that despite all claims to the otherwise the reason that Atkins works is that people eat less - not because of some theoretical thermogenesis / ketosis.

Foxxx

23-08-2004, 16:25

Originally posted by evildrneil
Its entirely more credible than the scientific evidence backing up Atkins (i.e. none!) and to put this difference in context they are talking about 23 calories over 24 hours - the equivilent of burning about an extra 3g of fat or 6g of carbohydrate - not exactly going to cause major weight loss is it? And I note you ignored all the high cohort experiments showing that despite all claims to the otherwise the reason that Atkins works is that people eat less - not because of some theoretical thermogenesis / ketosis.

It's still bad science, testing two people and over 24 hours, it isn't long enough. Besides it takes 4-5 days for the body to go into lipolysis so 24 hours won't prove much. The 23 calories isn't significant true, but that was in that person. Another person might have used the 100 calories they expected to find. (I still love the way they dismissed it though even though the Atkins person still used 23 calories more than the other, I am betting if it had been the other way round, they would have concluded that significance!). You can't just test one person doing Atkins and come to any conclusions.
As for 'weight' loss, I think you are missing the point of Atkins. You are using fat for energy, so therefore you are using the stored fat in your body for energy rather than stored glucose from the liver, burning fat from your fatness makes you thinner hence a physical loss in mass. Burning glucose from the liver doesn't change your size.

I haven't ignored the section on eating less. I have already answered this in a previous post where I discussed appetite. I discussed the fact that sugar spikes your blood unlike protein and your body craves sugar once the blood sugar decreases which makes you have a false hunger. Read my previous post for more detail. Horizon failed to cover this angle. I believe protein stops you feeling false hunger, it doesn't decrease your appetite. I believe you eat a normal proper amount, rather than over eat. There is a difference.

If you actually bothered to look at any of the Atkins books they are littered with references, the references are listed at the back so that you can look up the actual scientific paper if came from. I was actually quite impressed, it's the first 'diet' book I've read that actually has scientific references in it. There is also a wealth of evidence now showing Atkins decreases your chloesterol, including the study done in Horizon itself which you posted on here!

evildrneil

23-08-2004, 17:14

Originally posted by Foxxx
It's still bad science, testing two people and over 24 hours, it isn't long enough. Besides it takes 4-5 days for the body to go into lipolysis so 24 hours won't prove much.

The pair had been on their respective diets for 2 weeks before the test - more than enough time to start gluconeogenesis...

The 23 calories isn't significant true, but that was in that person. Another person might have used the 100 calories they expected to find.

If this is a diet based on a universal principle wouldn't you expect to see this sort of difference in all cases? Remember here you are looking at comparison between identical twins under controlled conditions (i.e. a scientific experiment not ad hoc).

As for 'weight' loss, I think you are missing the point of Atkins. You are using fat for energy, so therefore you are using the stored fat in your body for energy rather than stored glucose from the liver, burning fat from your fatness makes you thinner hence a physical loss in mass. Burning glucose from the liver doesn't change your size.

Ihate to point this out but ALL diets work by making you fall back on stored reserves - i.e. burning fat for energy its not unique to Atkins!

[I haven't ignored the section on eating less. I have already answered this in a previous post where I discussed appetite. I discussed the fact that sugar spikes your blood unlike protein and your body craves sugar once the blood sugar decreases which makes you have a false hunger. Read my previous post for more detail. Horizon failed to cover this angle. I believe protein stops you feeling false hunger, it doesn't decrease your appetite. I believe you eat a normal proper amount, rather than over eat. There is a difference.

It does pretty much put paid to the thermogenisis/ketogenisis argument doesn't it? And doesnt even support the cutting down of carbohydrate as a dieting technique - gorging on fat hat no effect where eating high levels of protein did.

As an aside - its hardly false hunger is it? We are designed to over-eat when food is available so we have resources of the lean times ahead...

If you actually bothered to look at any of the Atkins books they are littered with references, the references are listed at the back so that you can look up the actual scientific paper if came from. I was actually quite impressed, it's the first 'diet' book I've read that actually has scientific references in it. There is also a wealth of evidence now showing Atkins decreases your chloesterol, including the study done in Horizon itself which you posted on here!

Having gone through medline I still can't find anything supporting loss of weight by themobolic/ketogenic means - the curent oppinion seems to be Atkins works but the weight loss isn't signifcantly different in the medium term to any other reduced calorie diet, that it works only because people on the Atkins ARE on a reduced calorie diet, and that the long term safety of Atkins is unproven with a high amount of evidence that high levels of protein are deleterious to the kidneys and bones...

Titian

23-08-2004, 21:39

Originally posted by Foxxx
I always thought Horizon was a good documentary. However, being a scientist myself things have been bugging me.

The section where they take two twins and put one on Atkins and one on a low fat diet and test the urine and oxygen etc etc.
My first reaction to this was, how can you compare TWO people. That is not science. TWO people!!! lol. Then when they analysed the results, Atkins did show more weight loss, but then they dismissed it as "Twenty two calories is too small to suggest that there really is anything going on." Atkins also showed more calories were lost in the urine, but they commented, "This is not enough to suggest that this particular demonstration showed a difference". Ok, they are small differences, fair enough, but then they draw a conclusion from an experiment based on TWO people and say

NARRATOR: It seemed being in ketosis made barely any difference at all. Again Dr Atkins's theory appeared to be wrong. This came as little surprise to Donnelly.

Prof JOSEPH DONNELLY: I think the results are what we expected. There's no difference between the two diets.

Call that science!!! Don't make me laugh. You can't test just TWO people, then analyse the results but when you find there is a difference, in favour of Atkins (although only small), just randomly conclude there's no difference and Atkins is wrong. BAD science. You need to test a large group of people over longer and actually statistically analyse the results.

Horizon, I'm surprised at you!

What sort of scientist are you Foxx? and what level?

Cyclone

24-08-2004, 05:10

Foxx is correct. It's bad science to use such a small sample, and to draw any conclusions based on that data. The margin for error is just too high.

The documentary which I saw that 'discovered' the protein effect was still using small samples, but at least they were 10 people in each group rather than 1.

To be rigorous you'd be wanting sample sizes of >100 people from across a broad range of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds i'd have thought.

JoeP

24-08-2004, 06:42

I'm sure other people have said this but isn't the problem that we all want something for nothing?

I've had a life in which I perfected weight gain. I ate the wrong stuff, didn't excercise too much and found I had a sure fire method of gaining weight. The Diet was then replaced for a while by the Natwest Diet - where your bank won't let you have enough money to eat - and that started me in the direction of weight loss.....

Seriously, it all boils down to eat sensibly, eat less and excercise more. Drink plenty of fluids, eat your greens, cut out snacks between meals, keep the booze and 'empty' calorie intake down. Realise that sometimes you can't have what you want if at the same time you want to lose weight.

Realise WHY you want to lose weight; I started losing weight about 3 years ago when my BP went up. Although it could be controlled by medication, I didn't want that and so decided to do mild excercise and watch my diet by just moderating what I do - slowly and surely I've lost weight, gained energy and even look thinner.

Of course, it's taken time, effort and some self-denial on my part. Perhaps rather than chasing fad diets that promise the moon on a stick we should just realise that some effort and a little patience will also give us longer lasting and healthier results.

Joe

Foxxx

24-08-2004, 11:59

Originally posted by evildrneil
The pair had been on their respective diets for 2 weeks before the test - more than enough time to start gluconeogenesis...

Ok, fair enough. 2 weeks is long enough, but individuals can take longer, or be quicker to switch from glucosis to lipolysis depending on their metabolism and a huge number of factors. Testing and assuming you have the dietry levels correct in one person isn't good enough.

Originally posted by evildrneil

If this is a diet based on a universal principle wouldn't you expect to see this sort of difference in all cases? Remember here you are looking at comparison between identical twins under controlled conditions (i.e. a scientific experiment not ad hoc).

No. Because there are factors out of the control of science that can make results misleading, hence having to have baseline readings, control groups and more than one person being tested within each subject group. Are you telling me you've never done an experiment and no matter how careful you are, you have got some odd results and had to repeat it?
Lets say for instance one of the twins had some stress that day, they would have different levels of chemicals, neurotransmitters, hormones in their body, maybe from feeling anxious etc. All these chemical reactions could have an effect on the outcome, there are too many factors to take into account however controlled the conditions are. Therefore you would need to test over a longer period ie after the two week run in, one set of results over 24 hours isn't good enough. You would also need to test a variety of people since two twins doesn't account for any difference in their pharmacogenetics/genetic polymorphisms etc.

Many things are based on universal principles but don't always give the readings you expect.

Originally posted by evildrneil

Ihate to point this out but ALL diets work by making you fall back on stored reserves - i.e. burning fat for energy its not unique to Atkins!

I hate to point out to you that Atkins is unique in the respect that it purely uses fat burning (lipolysis) as the bodies source of energy. Low fat diets, work on using up the blood sugar first, then your stored glucogen in the liver and because you've eaten less calories then your body needs it will start using the fat for energy but usually you've eaten more sugar containing products in the meantime so your body is always functioning in a state of glucosis. Weight loss is generally slower in low fat. The difference is that you don't convert the excess sugar to fat because you have eaten less than the energy given out. Atkins purely burns fat, not sugar and is therefore not the same as other diets. You loose weight quickly because you are burning your fat straight away. Over time the weight loss between low fat and Atkins balances out. I've never denied that but ALL diets are not the same.

Originally posted by evildrneil

It does pretty much put paid to the thermogenisis/ketogenisis argument doesn't it? And doesnt even support the cutting down of carbohydrate as a dieting technique - gorging on fat hat no effect where eating high levels of protein did.

As an aside - its hardly false hunger is it? We are designed to over-eat when food is available so we have resources of the lean times ahead...

This hasn't been proven yet, either way, whether it's though protein or a metabolic advantage it does work. I don't have the answer for this, it's an area which interests though.
Over-eating is not what we are designed to do. Over-eating is not healthy and leads to obesity, heart problems and diabetes. People are eating too much carbohydrate in their diet. You need to balance out your fat, protein and carbs which you do on Atkins. By eating more protein and fat, you aren't giving your body the craving for sugar. So much food these days is now processed and full of sugar, particulary low fat products. When I've tried eating low fat food (as per governments recommendations and not to lose weight), I've ended up feeling hungry all the time and snacking. On Atkins, I eat a nice healthy meal e.g. fish/meat with salad and vegs and feel sated without the need to eat till my next meal. I feel full of energy, no longer get afternoon headaches and brain fog. Sugar was doing all this to me. It is any wonder that since low fat food was brought into the world, obseity and diabetes have dramatically increased. Seems very coincidental doesn't it.
I don't gorge on fat anyway, I eat a normal amount of fat, protein and carbs (the healthy ones). My weight stays constant and I feel healthy. I don't feel the need to stuff my face between meals and my body no longer craves sugar. They need to do more experiments on the area of protein effecting appetite I agree to this fact. But my point was Horizon didn't cover any of this angle. They talked about more energy expenditure in fat burning, then protein causing you to eat less. My gripe is not what causes the weight loss but the fact they are presenting it from a biased angle. [/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by evildrneil
Having gone through medline I still can't find anything supporting loss of weight by themobolic/ketogenic means - the curent oppinion seems to be Atkins works but the weight loss isn't signifcantly different in the medium term to any other reduced calorie diet, that it works only because people on the Atkins ARE on a reduced calorie diet, and that the long term safety of Atkins is unproven with a high amount of evidence that high levels of protein are deleterious to the kidneys and bones...

This interested me quotes taken from Vidyya Medical News Services:

Eckel: High-protein, low-carbohydrate diets put people at risk for heart disease. Long-term, the saturated fat and cholesterol content of the diet will raise the bad cholesterol and increase the risk for cardiovascular disease, particularly heart attacks. People who have lost weight and continue to maintain their weight on such diets will experience an increase in cholesterol levels because they continue to eat high amounts of saturated fat even though they are no longer losing weight.

Atkins: When people lose weight on the Atkins Diet, cholesterol goes down because the body switches from a sugar metabolism to a fat metabolism. As long as the person stays beneath their critical carbohydrate tolerance (the point at which the body no longer burns fat for fuel), cholesterol will not go up.(1) The only way cholesterol will rise on the Atkins program is if the dieter goes back to eating excessive carbohydrates, which is not recommended on the Atkins program. When an Atkins dieter reaches their goal weight and is on the maintenance plan, if their carbohydrate tolerance level allows them to take in a lot of carbohydrates without going to excess, then we recommend cutting back on saturated fats, and incorporating more monounsaturated fats such as olive oil, avocado, seeds and nuts, into the diet.

Eckel: People lose weight on high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets because they reduce calories.

Atkins: While it may be true that some Atkins dieters reduce calories, it is because the satiation effects of protein, fat and vegetables may decrease one's cravings for sugar and excess calories.(2) A recent study published in The Journal of Adolescent Health showed that those following a low-carbohydrate diet consume more calories (1830) than those on a low-fat diet (1100) and still continue to lose weight.

Furthermore, a review of historical and new research that Dr. Atkins presented before a very receptive audience at the ACC conference (March 20) confirms that elevated triglycerides and low HDL (high-density lipoproteins, the so-called "good cholesterol") may ultimately prove to be the most important risk factors in heart disease. This research review demonstrates how high carbohydrate intake is directly linked to elevated triglycerides and decreased HDL; while a low-carbohydrate diet can decrease triglycerides, increase HDL, and normalize the HDL/LDL ratio, potentially reducing or eliminating the need for pharmaceuticals and, in many cases, invasive therapy.(3)

In short, a diet that controls carbohydrate consumption correctly, as the Atkins Diet does, is not dangerous, in fact it is probably very beneficial to the heart as it reduces risk factors. A controlled-carbohydrate diet allows your body to burn fat rather than store it, lowering cholesterol. It is the combination of fat and carbohydrates that is dangerous, not fat on its own.

Next steps to resolve this controversy:

Experts from Atkins Health & Medical Information Services, along with a team of independent experts from major medical research facilities around the nation, are prepared to meet with the AHA to review current scientific research in the hopes of issuing a balanced and scientifically accurate report to the American public within the next few months.

References: The following are examples of scientific references in support of the aforementioned statements.

(1)

Volek JS et al.: Fasting lipoprotein and postprandial triacylglycerol responses to a low-carbohydrate diet supplemented with n-3 fatty acids. J Am Coll Nutr Jun; 19(3):383-391, 2000

Sondike S et al.: The ketogenic diet increases weight loss but not cardiovascular risk: A randomized controlled trial. J Adol Health 26: 91, 2000

Westman E et al.: Effect of a very low CHO diet and nutritional supplements on serum lipids in mildly overweight individuals. Abstract presentation at Southern Regional Society Genl Int Med. Feb. 18, 2000

(2)

Lean ME et al.: Weight loss with high and low carbohydrate 1200 kcal diets in free living women. Eur J Clin Nutr Apr;51(4): 243-8,1997

Willi SM et al. : The effects of a high-protein, low-fat ketogenic diet on adolescents with morbid obesity : body composition, blood chemistries, and sleep abnormalites. Pediatrics 101(1) : 61-7, 1998

Latner JD and Schwartz M: The effects of a high-carbohydrate, high-protein or balanced lunch upon later food intake and hunger ratings. Appetite 33(1):119-28,1999

Skov AR et al.: Randomized trial on protein vs. carbohydrate in ad libitum fat reduced diet for the treatment of obesity. Int J Obesity 23:528-36, 1999

(3)

Gaziano JM et al.: Fasting triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, and risk of myocardial infarction. Circulation 96(8):2520-5, 1997

This is the kind of thing you will find in the Atkins book.

Foxxx

24-08-2004, 12:06

Originally posted by bonny
What sort of scientist are you Foxx? and what level?

I did a degree in Pharmacology at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital Sheffield University and my disertation research was on coronary heart disease risks and testing the design of the Sheffield table compared to other methods. So lots of work on Cholesterol, diabetes, smoking etc etc. Do a search and read about it. P.R. Jackson was my tutor, very interesting subject.
I went on to work for SmithKline Beecham, and did a few years research so know a bit about setting up experiments!. I am now setting up and running clinical trials.

Rubysoho

24-08-2004, 13:35

So Atkins burns purely body fat then does it? If so then why (in the BBC programme Diet Trials 2003) did Atkins dieters show a result of not only body fat lost but also a substantial amount of lean muscle tissue when compared to those following Rosemary Conleys Low Fat eating and Weightwatchers programmes (also a Low Fat eating program). Those dieters following Rosemary Conley and Weightwatchers reported the biggest body fat loss along with the least amount of lean tissue loss, (internal cannibalism = loss of lean muscle tissue - yummy, wonder why no-one mentions it as a side effect of Atkins??!!).

Also a wealthy American businessman is suing the Atkins foundation with the FULL backing of the PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) after using the Atkins products and program and suffering from a heart attack!!

All Low Fat processed foods are full of sugar - hmm, more than likely, but it is possible to follow a Low Fat Diet without eating processed foods, and without being hungry or getting headaches.

evildrneil

24-08-2004, 14:14

Originally posted by Foxxx
Ok, fair enough. 2 weeks is long enough, but individuals can take longer, or be quicker to switch from glucosis to lipolysis depending on their metabolism and a huge number of factors. Testing and assuming you have the dietry levels correct in one person isn't good enough.

Given that you have only a few hours worth of glycogen stored in muscles and liver, if you are starved of carbohydrate you would have to be in lipolysis well within 2 weeks (either that or dead!)

No. Because there are factors out of the control of science that can make results misleading, hence having to have baseline readings, control groups and more than one person being tested within each subject group.

The experiment design was sound - remember with twin studies you can only ever compare twin A with twin B from one set of twins without introducing the genetic variation that you are using twins to avoid. However I will agree that more repeats of the investigation would be required if they were going to publish in a journal.

I hate to point out to you that Atkins is unique in the respect that it purely uses fat burning (lipolysis) as the bodies source of energy. Low fat diets, work on using up the blood sugar first, then your stored glucogen in the liver and because you've eaten less calories then your body needs it will start using the fat for energy but usually you've eaten more sugar containing products in the meantime so your body is always functioning in a state of glucosis. Weight loss is generally slower in low fat. The difference is that you don't convert the excess sugar to fat because you have eaten less than the energy given out. Atkins purely burns fat, not sugar and is therefore not the same as other diets. You loose weight quickly because you are burning your fat straight away. Over time the weight loss between low fat and Atkins balances out. I've never denied that but ALL diets are not the same.

Well a) it can't use purely lipolysis as certain organs can only be fueled with glucose which must be gleaned whether from the diet or via gluconeogenesis and b) it may move you into using body fat marginally earlier but the net effect is still the same - reduce calories so you have to rely on stored resources and use them up.

This hasn't been proven yet, either way, whether it's though protein or a metabolic advantage it does work.

I don't know - it sems to have been proven fairly conclusively that Atkins works because you eat less and nothing to do with metabolic advantage.

Over-eating is not what we are designed to do.

Really??? Were different to just about every other animal on the planet then who eat when food is available, lay down reserves and then live on them when food is not available then?

Over-eating is not healthy and leads to obesity, heart problems and diabetes.

Yes this is undeniable - but it wasn't really a factor in our environment untill comparatively recently - the modern abundance of food is a new phenomenon - one that you can't expect evolution to have cought up with so its up to people to moderate there normal behavious - as they don't now need long term fuel reserves.

People are eating too much carbohydrate in their diet.

Some are yes - and some are eating too much fat too - but its the quantities of these things that is the problem not their presence in the first place - some sugar won't do you any harm - lots will - you don't need a Dr to tell you that!

So much food these days is now processed and full of sugar, particulary low fat products.

Yup - but that doesn't mean you need some carbohydate reduced diet - just that you need to eat proper real food rather than over-processed junk - again not something you need a Dr to tell you

It is any wonder that since low fat food was brought into the world, obseity and diabetes have dramatically increased. Seems very coincidental doesn't it.

Not really - are the obese people the ones who are on low fat diets or are they simple the ones who eat a super-sized McDonnalds for every meal? Thats a very specious argument.

Eckel: People lose weight on high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets because they reduce calories.

Atkins: While it may be true that some Atkins dieters reduce calories, it is because the satiation effects of protein, fat and vegetables may decrease one's cravings for sugar and excess calories.(2) A recent study published in The Journal of Adolescent Health showed that those following a low-carbohydrate diet consume more calories (1830) than those on a low-fat diet (1100) and still continue to lose weight.

I notice he didn't say how much weight nor who the people were - for a fairly average person such as myself my maintenance is 2721 calories per day - considerably more than the 1830 quoted. So the unnamed sample could still be eating less than maintenance calories and so losing weight.

I'm pretty much ignoring all the heart risk stuff as I haven't mentioned anything about that - if someone else wants to take that up thats there choice! However other diets (Effects of diet modification on cardiovascular risk: results from the leipzig wholesome nutrition study - Richter et al) have shown weight loss and improved blood lipid profiles on a standard diet.

References: The following are examples of scientific references in support of the aforementioned statements. <list snipped>

NONE of which seem to support the Atkins position of weight being lost be thermogenic/ketogenic means in fact one of them found "Weight loss was accompanied by a reduction in resting energy expenditure of 5.2 +/- 1.8 kcal/kg of fat-free mass per day" which is exactly the opposite of what you would expect if calories were being burnt of thermogenically???

Rubysoho

24-08-2004, 19:25

www.atkinsfacts.org/

for bounteous amounts of information on why the Atkins diet is bad news.

Grissom

25-08-2004, 16:17

The Las Vegas Review Journal published a good article on carbs and healthy eating today that may be of interest to some people :

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Aug-25-Wed-2004/living/24562818.html

diamond 5

28-11-2005, 15:28

LOOKING FOR DIETS THAT REALLY WORK AND YOU DONT JUST HAVE TO EAT RABBIT FOOD LOL:clap:

nick2

28-11-2005, 15:29

The "eat everything in moderation" diet works realy well for me.

evildrneil

28-11-2005, 15:29

Yup - eat less calories, do more stuff = Loose weight

That will be £250 please :)

Clare85

28-11-2005, 15:29

Do all these diets work? I just say don't eat cakes, choc crisps etc and go to the gym a lot. Its worked wonders for a couple of my mates!

jenbop

28-11-2005, 15:30

me too, im looking for a diet, where its good to eat as much chocolate as you want and do no exercise...... im not holding out much hope though!

Clare85

28-11-2005, 15:34

This is not really a good time to be even thinking of diets!

Moon Maiden

28-11-2005, 15:42

Don't diet....make small changes that you can maintain so you are make change to your diet and increase your exercise.

For example...sugar in hot drinks? Increase the amount of water you drink...most weight is down to water retention and drinking mroe fluids helps reduce this. Increase the amount of fruit and veg you eat.

Enjoy your food rather than feeling guilty about what you are eating.

Moon

Kry10

28-11-2005, 15:48

Look into the GI Diet, IT WORKS !!!!!

I have placed my son on this diet as he is clinically obese, he has lost 7 Kg since Febuary, which proves that it works, it is not really a diet as such, more of a healthy eating plan, for example, the person who posted above me mentioned water retention, well, eating normal white bread produces insulin, which causes water retention, so, eat 100% wholemeal or even better is stoneground, also, avoid dairy products as much as possible, if drinking milk, change to skimmed not semi-skimmed, this has virtually no fat content and it may taste horrid to start with, but, after a few weeks drinking it, you won't find any difference, also, change from sugar to sweeteners, I always have a cup of tea with skimmed milk, sweeteners and de-caf teabags (because caffeine makes you feel hungry).

Hope those pointers help, but I strongly recommend checking out the GI Diet, the books are not too expensive.

nick2

28-11-2005, 15:58

If you eat a sensible balanced diet (everyone knows that more fruit/veg and less chips is a good idea) and have a bit of regular exercise you shouldn't need to go on any kind of diet.

IMO special diets are for special reasons, like if someone is obese or has some other medical condition, thay are not for people to follow as a fad just to look better, they can actually harm you is you don't need to be on them.

Moon Maiden

28-11-2005, 15:59

AVOID the sweetners and anything that contains them....many of them contain aspartame....do a search on the net for the dangers and then decide which you would like....a slimmer figure in a shorter time or alzheimers?

I know which one I would choose.

Agree whole heartedly with the wholegrain foods. Porridge for breakfast is a great help too!!

poppins

28-11-2005, 16:05

I think ALL diets work, it's us that don't....... much easier to say oh! that one dosen't work, it would if only we would give it a chance, but motivation comes first don't you think ?

franc1987

28-11-2005, 16:20

Slimming World- Eat as much pasta, veg, fruit, meat as you want with 70 syns per week to use on "bad" stuff

Weight Watchers- Same as above but 21 Points.

Know people on both and they have both worked. Not like a diet at all and you are encouraged to eat mounds of "free" food!

Cyclone

28-11-2005, 16:23

Originally posted by diamond 5
LOOKING FOR DIETS THAT REALLY WORK AND YOU DONT JUST HAVE TO EAT RABBIT FOOD LOL:clap:

the get your shoes on and go for a run every other day diet. Works amazingly well. Couple it with nick's moderation diet and you're onto a sure fire winner.

cloudybay

28-11-2005, 16:25

I recommend the Gin & Tonic diet...........I lost 3 days ....:hihi:

robbie

28-11-2005, 17:22

Meaks has been doing that for years ;)

wasy. eat helthier and smaller portions and exercise. walk when you can. skimmed milk, lots of fruit

meumeu77

28-11-2005, 20:11

or get somebody to propose to you! Worked wonders for me. Lost a stone and a half in 3 months.
Used Weight Watchers online. It's great and only worked out about £10 a month.

PM if you want more details.

willman

28-11-2005, 20:15

Originally posted by Cyclone
the get your shoes on and go for a run every other day diet. Works amazingly well. Couple it with nick's moderation diet and you're onto a sure fire winner.

unless your physically unable to run that is!!

Cliff Clavin

28-11-2005, 20:24

Dieting only makes you fat!

Excercise regularly, eat les salt, fat and processed foods. Try to eat whole grain cereals, brown rice, fish and other white meat, fresh fruit and vegetables. Most importantly eat only when hungry. Food should be consumed for fuel and not as a comfort.

If you manage to do this, then write a book, become rich and then pass on to me the miracle self will and control, you have.

Because of the society we live in, I feel there's too many temptations out there. I really feel for Obese people and understand how easy it is to get Obese in our so called civiliesd society.

Cyclone

28-11-2005, 20:24

Originally posted by willman
unless your physically unable to run that is!!

true. But there's swimming, cycling, any aerobic excercise basically. The majority of people are capable of doing some aerobic excercise.
If not then it makes it all a lot harder and you're probably never going to achieve ripped abs (I think that's the right term for a nice 6 pack).

kirky

28-11-2005, 20:25

Originally posted by diamond 5
LOOKING FOR DIETS THAT REALLY WORK AND YOU DONT JUST HAVE TO EAT RABBIT FOOD LOL:clap:

stop eating cream buns:thumbsup:

GoGo_dancer

29-11-2005, 08:00

Originally posted by Clare85
This is not really a good time to be even thinking of diets!

Have to agree here!
I got married in September, and I did lose about a stone before but have gradually put half of it back on.
I do want to lose it again but I'm being realistic here and I know there is no way that I would be able to lose weight over the christmas period....... it's just not gonna happen! So it'll be a New Year fitness plan for me!!

Another tip though, I had some nasty dental problems last year, and I ended up having two back teeth removed, and as a result I had to chew my food slowly and carefully, and eating slower made me feel full quicker, so I ate less, and it paid off! (wouldn't recommend the double tooth extraction though!):hihi:

Saifa

29-11-2005, 08:02

I lost four pounds over the weekend.

Had a hole in me jeans :hihi:

pete_fcs

29-11-2005, 08:13

"eat less and exercise more"

:|

margarete

29-11-2005, 08:30

It sounds wrong, because it is counter-intuitive and because we have been fed the Calorie Myth for decades now, but for people who are overweight or obese, all that is necessary to lose weight is to reduce salt/sodium intake. - Calorie intake is irrelevant. - To lose weight faster eat plenty of foods rich in potassium - that is fresh fruit and (unsalted) vegetables. - Potassium helps to displace sodium, and the water that accompanies it - from the body.

EVERYONE who reduces their sodium intake loses weight. - There are no exceptions. - One woman lost 5 stone - 70 pounds - in a year by following my advice...(o: - She is my star...(o:

It's free to try this...(o: - No drugs, no hunger involved...(o: - Absolutely no adverse side-effects...(o: - There are a host of health benefits from eating less salt and you feel SOOOOOO much better...(o:

If you like the taste of salt, you can always use, in moderation, LoSalt, which contains only one third the amount of sodium as ordinary table salt or sea salt.

Further explanation on my website. In particular, read my article on Obesity and the Salt Connection, which is one of the links on the left.

JUST TRY IT!

pedro1

29-11-2005, 10:35

I`ve got a copy of the CSIRO complete well being diet book. I bought it by mistake. It`s brand new and i`m selling it for a fiver. It sold over 200,000 copies in Australia so it must work. PM me if you`re interested

Cyclone

29-11-2005, 10:42

you know what's strange, since i've been excercising less and eating more i've started to put on weight, but I haven't changed my salt intake at all (i don't use at all).
Luckily I change jobs soon and so can excercise more and eat less, i'm pretty confident that doing that will reverse the trend in my weight.

Originally posted by margarete
It sounds wrong, because it is counter-intuitive and because we have been fed the Calorie Myth for decades now, but for people who are overweight or obese, all that is necessary to lose weight is to reduce salt/sodium intake. - Calorie intake is irrelevant. - To lose weight faster eat plenty of foods rich in potassium - that is fresh fruit and (unsalted) vegetables. - Potassium helps to displace sodium, and the water that accompanies it - from the body.

EVERYONE who reduces their sodium intake loses weight. - There are no exceptions. - One woman lost 5 stone - 70 pounds - in a year by following my advice...(o: - She is my star...(o:

It's free to try this...(o: - No drugs, no hunger involved...(o: - Absolutely no adverse side-effects...(o: - There are a host of health benefits from eating less salt and you feel SOOOOOO much better...(o:

If you like the taste of salt, you can always use, in moderation, LoSalt, which contains only one third the amount of sodium as ordinary table salt or sea salt.

Further explanation on my website. In particular, read my article on Obesity and the Salt Connection, which is one of the links on the left.

JUST TRY IT!

Moon Maiden

29-11-2005, 10:54

It may also be sensible at this stage to point out that you really should see your doctor before starting any diet!

I don't think any doctor would disbute the benefits of reducing salt intake (high colestoral and heart disease being one example) but it is not the entire story.

I would be wary of anyone giving you a miracle solution! Everyone is different and gains the weight for different reasons which should be addressed before you look at how you loose weight.

For example if you see food as a comfort...why? If you don't sort out why you are comforting eating you will always go back to it because the problem is still there.
If you put on weight becase you had children...then it is likely you need to change your eating habbits and increase the amount and type of exercise you do.

Moon

nick2

29-11-2005, 10:56

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
It may also be sensible at this stage to point out that you really should see your doctor before starting any diet!

Yes, you might actually have some kind of illness thats causing you to put on weight and no amount of dieting is going to sort that out.

margarete

29-11-2005, 11:01

Reducing salt intake is not 'dieting'.

My webpage http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/pregnant_mothers.html explains why women often gain weight because of pregnancy.

DaBouncer

29-11-2005, 11:02

Been on Low Carb diet for nearly 2 weeks now.
Lost about 6lbs so far.

Never feel hungry between meals and meals are always yummy.

Moon Maiden

29-11-2005, 11:22

Originally posted by margarete

My webpage http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/pregnant_mothers.html explains why women often gain weight because of pregnancy.

its not exactly rocket science tho is it? :loopy:

Oh look I will grow to twice my size whilst carry a small human inside, increase my food intake to accomodate it, thus increaseing my weight and decreasing my ability to move and have my entire body invaded by a life form which not only alters my body internally but alters it's hormonal make up for ever. After pushing a 9lb melon out of an extremely small hole I will then experience a hugely disturbed sleep pattern and stress myself stupid over discolration of puse and poo.

margarete

29-11-2005, 11:46

If you read the page I gave you, M M, you will see it is not abt the small human inside...(o:

My hands are too delicate 4 me to indulge in argument.

The advice on my website is safe, reliable and it works. I am not selling anything. The advice is there if people want to try it to lose weight.

Typically, an obese person seriously taking my advice about sodium reduction, and giving up 'slimming' and 'dieting', loses about a stone in the first month. The weight loss slows down after that but weight continues to be lost as long as sodium intake continues to be reduced. If sodium intake goes up again then weight will go up again, so people need to keep to a lower sodium intake permanently if they do not want to gain weight again.

So anyone wanting to lose weight can follow my advice if they choose to.

And anyone who wants to keep playing the calorie game can keep on yo-yoing but ending up heavier in the long run if they choose to.

My advice is free. It works. It is safe and reliable. - 'Nuff said!...(o:

nick2

29-11-2005, 11:50

But if soemone gives-up salt alltogether (which they will if they think they will lose even more weight) they could end-up quite ill.

Moon Maiden

29-11-2005, 11:53

Originally posted by margarete

My advice is free. It works. It is safe and reliable. - 'Nuff said!...(o:

You cannot catagorically state that because of this (http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/disclaimer.html) and as Nick points out advising someone to reduce salt intake and not being able to properly monitor them is dangerous. Nuff Said

Hardly anyone on this thread has said anything about calorie counting. There has been one mention of slim fast and weight watchers and the rest have been sensible comments about balanced eating and increase in exercise.

Moon

margarete

29-11-2005, 11:54

It is impossible to give up salt altogether because ALL food and ALL drink - even plain tap water - contains salt, and contains enough salt for the body's needs. - So if u eat and drink u get enough salt. - If u don't eat and drink, then u won't have enough salt, but I suggest that will be rather low among your problems...(o:

Moon Maiden

29-11-2005, 11:57

Originally posted by margarete
It is impossible to give up salt altogether because ALL food and ALL drink - even plain tap water - contains salt, and contains enough salt for the body's needs. - So if u eat and drink u get enough salt. - If u don't eat and drink, then u won't have enough salt, but I suggest that will be rather low among your problems...(o:

Without knowing a persons medical background even a reduction to basic salt additives in food can have a negative effect on that persons health

and being that you are still not qualified to give out such advise as gospel it seems you have more problems on your plate than just tapping a few keys in this conversation...i.e an impending law suit

Cyclone

29-11-2005, 12:04

your advice is basically contrary to common sense, so unless you can provide some evidence to back up this claim about salt then I'd advice everyone to treat it with caution.

On the other hand common sense would suggest that obesity is caused by taking in too much energy and not expending enough, solution, eat less, excercise more, if you expend more energy than you consume then your body will burn fat to make up the difference and your weight will go down, reverse that and your body creates fat from the excess energy and proteins and you gain weight. Quite simple really.

margarete

29-11-2005, 12:09

You are mistaken in yr beliefs about salt, M M. I shall not argue with u. People can take my advice if they wish. It is completely safe and it works. The advice usually given by dieting 'experts' is clearly unsuccessful because obesity has been increasing markedly for years now.

Calorie counting and advice about increasing exercise and reducing fat and carbohydrate intake are ineffective, counter-productive and often damaging. - See the article in the British Medical Journal of November 2003 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7423/1085 for actual research on what happens when this advice is followed! - Over 800 obese adults were put on energy deficit diets, given diet sheets and plenty of instruction and help from trained staff, and apparently, visited fortnightly for a year, at the end of which they had GAINED weight! This mirrors the real experience of obese people, viz. - dieting makes you fat.

It is commonly accepted now that less than 5% of dieters actually lose weight, and most gain weight as a result of dieting. - Even the ones who manage to lose weight do not usually improve their health. - See http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1515455,00.html for a report in The Guardian of Monday, June 27th 2005. It is about a huge research study of nearly 3000 people over a period of 18 years. The study found that overweight people who diet to reach a healthier weight are more likely to die young than those who remain fat. It also found that dieting causes physiological damage that in the long term can outweigh the benefits of the weight loss. The failed calorie-reduction advice continues to be given, however...

Contributing to the increase in obesity we have the widespread prescribing of steroids and HRT and other drugs which cause weight gain, and the failure of doctors to adhere to the protocols connected with the prescribing and monitoring of steroids.

Another possible factor is the increase in the amount of oestrogen in the water table.

I shall not post again on this thread as I must protect my hands.