TelBoy

Joni - "credibility" is one word that springs to mind.

Fully appreciate it's not new. But comparing a long-term restriction of carbohydrates with Grannie's two week pre-holiday cut-down is in my opinion ridiculous. There might not be the concrete proof you require yet, because people have only recently started to follow this diet to the letter en masse, but i think it would be foolish to discount all recent warnings which have hopefully been based on modern nutritional knowledge. But like all things, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

[Edited by TelBoy - 8/19/2003 10:04:16 AM]

ozzy

Fad (noun): an intense but short-lived fashion; craze

Since the majority of people try Atkins for either weeks or several months, what bit of 'fad' isn't clear?

People hear of this wonder diet, rush out and by books, try it for a couple of months then pack it in. Then the weight starts to roll back on.

Of course there's bound to be a few exceptions, but I reckon the majority fall into this category.

Your right Atkins isn't new or revolutionary, so WTF do you or anyone else need to spend money on books being told all this? Why doesn't everyone listen to their Grans and save themselves some money?

Atkins, like any other diet, is based simply on reduced calories and with a bit of luck and commonsense some exercise. If your serious about health and fitness, then by all means spend money on proper books on nutrion and not books selling unique diets.

I don't know about yours but my Grans were always skinny simple because they couldn't afford to spend huge amounts of money on lots of food. They had to stick with the basics and it was just enough for all the hard work they had to do. Until recently I didn't see too many fat Asians and it's not like they eat small quantities of rice and noodles

The problem isn't simply theses types of foods; it's the amount people eat nowadays, the amount of cr@p put into modern processed foods and the lack of exercise.

I mean, I sit on my @rse about 8hrs a day with a heart rate in the low 50's doing sod all and I need to train my @rse off for at least 1-2hrs per day to make up for it and keep fit. If people had manual labour jobs, then there wouldn't be so much people overweight or unhealthy. The trouble these days is even in labour intensive jobs no one's happy with a simple lunch and most builders I know eat greasy snack foods.

All the serious athletes I know in sports ranging from Running, Mountain Biking and Triathlon all eat pasta and potatos as part of their diets and not one of them is fat.

Stefan

joni

Go back to the original thread topic and the comparison is valid.

The "restriction" of carbs is very personal and will be subtly different for each person doing the approach. I am lucky in that my metabolism and levels of exercise allow sufficient carbohydrate intake as to be virtually unrecognisable as a low carbohydrate way of eating.

The point that those who are unfamiliar with the approach (+ most of the press!) often miss is that the "restriction" really lasts just two weeks. After that you explore the levels that are right and sustainable for the individual relying on fruit and veg more and more to increase carbs to a point where you gain and lose nothing.
At this point (in my case 8 weeks and two stones)I have reached an undeniably balanced approach to eating which really only severely restricts sugar which as everyone knows has no positive health effects whatsoever.

ozzy

So, have you detailed exactly your diet before and during your 8 week period?

Has the total calories decreased from what you ate before and are you now eating a healthy and balanced diet?

Edited to ask, how much exercise did you do before and how much have you done during the period?

Stefan

[Edited by ozzy - 8/19/2003 10:47:41 AM]

joni

Stefan, forget calories. This is not based on counting calories but carbohydrates. I certainly eat larger and more frequent meals than I used to do. For instance, breakfast would be a banana at best. This morning I had scrambled egg and bacon and a piece of brown toast and butter.
A lot more people than you give credit for find that when their carb balance is achieved (assuming they have lost what they want to lose)they can easily sustain their way of eating. In other words it ain't a diet anymore.

GaryK

Agree 100% I think thats where the problem lies, there was a programme on the TV the other week that says there is something like 10 or 20 spoons of sugar in a tin of baked beans!!!

I tried atkins and yep it works remarkably well, could I stay on it for good? dont think so, means giving up the things I enjoy (beer chips pizza ), having said that there is no long term proof of damage just 'speculation' on what it 'might' do to you.

Gary

Tony Quinn

Media Frenzy!!!

The cause of death is thought to be the low potassium and calcium levels. The obvious flaw in attributing this to a lo-carb diet is that "potassium is found in a variety of types of foods, including fruits and vegetables, dairy products, meat and legumes". The only food that Atkins et alia restrict on that list is fruits, so there are plenty of good sources of potassium available. I'm pretty sure that dairy is a good source of calcium too.

Low potassium can most often be attributed to severe dehydration, starvation and kidney problems, not to eating foods that contain large amounts of it! Don't ignore the science, it's the reason that we don't live in the trees any longer.

Low carb diets have been used in the professional cycling world for 50 years as a way to quickly lose excess weight early in the season. These guys then subject their bodies to extreme punishment without any bad effects. If there was a risk of the kind suggested by the article, it would surely have shown itself in these conditions.

ozzy

Sorry Joni, but it is all about counting calories.

Are you trying to tell me if I eat 10,000 calories of prime roast beef and don't do any extra exercise I'm going to lose weight because by carb balance is right ???????

I spent 7 hours out in the Scottish hills on Sunday and according to my heart rate monitor I burned over 6,500 calories. I had some wheatabix, fruit and orange juice for breakfast. Then I enjoyed some jam sandiches and almond cake for lunch and a nice well-earned KFC fillet meal on the way home. All day I was drink high-carb isotonic drinks and I haven't put on any weight.

Without the raw data and a proper scientific analysis of your diet, including the total and types of calories your eating plus your activity level then your weight loss could be explained differently to just some carb balance.

Give me the raw data and I'll make up my own mind.

Stefan

TelBoy

TQ - therein lies the difference. As a "kick-start" to losing weight, nobody can argue that depleting carbs is the easiest, quickest (and most temporary imo) method to do it. Especially for cyclists, who probably don't have more than a few pounds of fat on their entire bodies!

It's the advocation of long term carb restriction that has led to the warnings.

Like all weight issues, the longer it takes to come off, the longer it will stay off. And a great long-term plan to lose weight is to reduce overall consumption and increase activity levels. Always has been, always will be, long after Atkins books are gathering dust on bookshelves around the world.

dharbige

Sorry, Ozzy, but it's just not that simple. The Human body does not simplify down to a nice simple equation of (what goes in - what you use) = what you weigh.
The problem is that over the past few decades people have been indoctrinated into the idea that Calories = Weight, and so to reduce your weight you have to reduce your calorie intake. The fundamental basis of all Low Carb diets is that This Is Not True!
You will not automatically put on weight if you eat more calories, just as you will not automatically drown yourself if you drink too much water. Your body only absorbs what it 'thinks' it needs.

As has been suggestion earlier in this thread, a good healthy diet is all about balance. But what is a good balance? Proponents of the Low Carb diet simply say that a diet that is high in protein and low in carbohydrate is more healthy than one which is low in protein and high in carbs. The idea behind these diets is to change the balance to one where the body can control its own weight more effectively. Like ALL diets, this can be taken too far - a zero carb diet is intrinsically imbalanced, and therefore may be dangerous.

And for my last point....

Humans are mammals. How many other mammals have a high carbohydrate diet?

TelBoy

Monkeys, our closest relatives, eat carbohydrate-laden fruit all day.

Ever seen anyone get fat on eating fruit?

joni

For the level of activity you describe,what you consumed would not be "breaking the rules" (apart from the sugar) assuming you were at a weight you were attempting to sustain. Congratulations you are doing it without knowing

Tony Quinn

Excellent weight loss plan Ozzy, 7 hours in the Scottish hills. Now that is the proper way to do things - no argument Don't think you'll sell many diet books though.

Telboy, I'm not qualified to comment on long term effects but I believe carbs are used solely by the body as an energy source. Therefore it seems reasonable to think that if there is an alternative energy source available that there won't be any harm caused, provided you can ensure that essential elements from high carb foods (e.g. minerals) are obtained from other sources. I'm not aware of potatoes, rice and fruits being the sole source of any essential.

Anyway my comment was on the original article which related to a girl who had been on the diet for 2 weeks before "it killed her". Which, even to a lightly-educated mind like mine is implausible drivel of which the author and publisher should both be ashamed.

Any docs here, any digestive tract hobbyists? Is it easier to for the body to consume calories from sugars than meats. For those of us capable of eating 10,000 cals of meat, can the body actually process this?

TelBoy

I don't have recognised qualifications TQ, but i've been round the block with regards diet.

Carbohydrates are absorbed more easily than any other foodstuff. Simple carbohydrates more so than complex ones. They are also the easiest to deplete from the body, as they are, as you say, primarily an energy source. That's why carb depletion gives the quickest results. Sure, you could get equivalent energy from meat, but you'd have to consume a lot, over a long period of time. For most people, this isn't convenient, and ignores the other potential dangers of a diet high in animal fat.

Carbohydrate is not just needed for energy though. As part of potatoes, bread, cereal and so on it provides fibre for healthy intestines and kidneys, and guards against cancer of the bowel.

That's why the above is listed as a danger of Atkins, as well as increased cholesterol levels, increased risk of heart disease, increased risk of kidney stones and the possible occurence of bad breath.

Student Bloody Lamo.

Atkins sucks, but everybody whose on it is sooooo defensive, but each to their own I suppose.

Student. - there are better ways of doing it, its just that Atkins is quick.

Tiggs

"but everybody whose on it is sooooo defensive"

oddly not. the people on it have lost weight and are only defensive of what they know to be true. the passion comes from those not on it and weirdly keen to have a shot at those who are.

monkies.....i think even the laziest monkey does more exercise in a day than the avarge human.

-=Buzz=-

Well I'm not dead yet..

*sigh* Just to re-iterate my own position here, and it was me who posted the above, I do regularly exercise and I maintain my weight - all beit a far too high one - and have done for a fair few years now whilst still eating and drinking far too much of the "wrong stuff". Were I to not exercise at all I would be 40 stone I'm sure of it - no one could live on the food I have been and not put huge amounts of weight on if they sat around all day.

So I didn't have any beer last night and ate some sliced beef, turkey and pork for my tea with some salad, washed down with some mineral water, then didn't have anything else apart from more water before bed.

For me this is exactly what has been said numerous times in this thread - a very short term measure to get my weight down - this in turn I hope will help me feel better about myself and then hopefully kick me out of the habit of over-consumption and into the habit of a better diet.

I'll let you know when I'm either near death or a stone lighter than I was on Sunday (which was 18st 5lb), OK?

joni

Here (hopefully) is a link that lists and precis' various research into LC dieting and it's effects.

http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/lce_results.asp?catid=215

edited because I am poor at attempting clicky links

[Edited by joni - 8/19/2003 1:20:37 PM]

-=Buzz=-

where?

aha! it's HERE!



[Edited by -=Buzz=- - 8/19/2003 1:25:02 PM]

mj

well said, my sentiments exactly. I only need to loose about a stone ( Fat back & love handles )

If I can do that and live on steak & scrambled eggs for a month who am I to complain ?
Though to be honest I havent felt hungry - all I have eaten since monday morning is 2 x 200g packs of Bernard Mathews chicken ( sarni filling, ******* BOOTIFUL )I have been on the low carb plan a week before this.

Sunday night I had half a quiche ( made myself with no pastry - more like an oven cooked omlette TBH )very nice indeede

I have knocked some of the beer on the head - one box of baby stellas per week instead of 2 boxes. Shares in Vodka & diet Coke have gone up somewhat though

I would recommend this to anyone - you dont feel like your on a diet at all.
Oh and I am playing badminton on thursday - this about the secong time I have attemted any sports since leaving school.

LG John

You simply could not consume a silly amount of calories on Atkins! After a few days of induction your body starts to metabolise (sp?) fat as its primary source of fuel in place of carb and alcohol. If alcohol is present in your system your body will use that first, then carb, then fat. I suppose because your body prefers alcohol that someone will tell me this MUST be important hence we should all have 2 pints for breakfast, 3 for lunch and a few shots in the evening Without the carb you switch to fat which is particularly useful as there are two sorces of that: what you eat and what you got on you. The other advantage is that when you are on a fat burning metabolism you tend to not be as hungry and therefore don't need to eat as much - consequently (and without knowing it) you probably take in less calories although this is not always the case. Without the carb you body will use the fat you eat (which is very unlikely to be enough) and then it will turn to its stores and burn that. On a more normal diet you body must first use the carb you eat (and you don't need a lot to sustain you if you don't exercise!), then the fat you've eaten and ONLY then the fat on your body if its needed.

Fat works just as well (if not better!) than carb as a source of fuel. Your body is designed to burn it and can do so quite happily! The only problem is that by missing out carb you miss a lot of foods that have other nutrients and vitamins your body needs. There are ways around this though and other foods you can eat to get them you just have to try a little harder. Provided you ensure that you get your vitamins, minerals, etc then Atkins is not very different from a normal diet.

Its all down to energy remember! You actually COULD sustain yourself on beer only as you'd get your energy needs from the alcohol. Unfortuantly, you won't get much in the way of protien, vitamins, etc, etc! Theoretically though, if you used a relatively pure source of alcohol as you primary fuel and also got your vits, mins, protiens then your body would be just fine - clearly this is not very practical

-=Buzz=-

I fail to see the "clearly"

Still alive....

LG John

LMAO

Tim-Grove

Same hear

ozzy

still fat

Kenny,

I think you missed the sarcasm in my 10,000 calories post. You are starting to argue for/against energy sources and missing the point I was making.

What I'm saying is if you simply reduce your intake and exercise you'll lose weight. Likewise if I eat 5,000 calories, but spend a day out in the hills I'll easily burn that off.

It doesn't matter whether the largest percentage of my 5,000 calories are carbs or fat, if I exercise or stay active I'll keep the weight off.

I've went from 11% bodyfat down to 8.5% and my diet hasn't changed radically. Plenty of exercise and activity and a sensible diet. I still eat the odd chocolate biscuit and KFC so I'm not perfect. I can add and subtract though

Atkins is short-term and what I'm preaching is a much healthier way of losing weight AND keeping it off.

Stefan

gregh

What I'm saying is if you simply reduce your intake and exercise you'll lose weight.

>>True, but proven not to work long term, you starve your body >>and it's not healthy. Look at the state Redgrave got himself >>into.


Atkins is short-term and what I'm preaching is a much healthier way of losing weight AND keeping it off.

>> Atkins is NOT short term. If you look at how obesity has grown over the years the standard calorie/low fat ways of eating are clearly not working long term.

read this http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/nonsense_diets.html

from another page on the same web site:

Athletes are told to eat a diet high in carbohydrates and low in fats. This, they are told, will increase their performance. However, this was not confirmed in a dietary study published in 1994. (5)

Using three diets: normal, high-fat and high-carbohydrate, the study showed that the high-carbohydrate diet increased performance by an average ten percent over a normal mixed diet. Not bad, you might think, but the high-fat diet increased performance by a massive thirty-three percent. That's much better. The authors conclude that restriction of dietary fat may be detrimental to endurance performance.
5. Muoio D M, et al. Effect of dietary fat on metabolic adjustments to maximal VO-2 and endurance in runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise . 1994; 26 (1): 81-88

greg

dead_neurons

heh! thought i'd chuck in on this topic - i love these debates

1) i've been 'on' a low carb diet for over 2 years now.
2) i was approaching 18 stone with a 40'' waist, eating the "normal - recomended 5 fruit & veg blah blah" diet.
3) i now weigh 10st,and have a 30/32 inch waist.
4) im still eating this way and will continue to do so, because i know intrinsically the science (and my/my wifes health) proves it to be the correct diet for us (and almost every other human on the planet)
Most of the weight i lost in the first 3 months, in reality the health benefits far outweigh any weight loss in the long run.

Quite a lot of people miss the point, in that if you change your diet to lose weight, if you stop 'dieting' and go back to what you were eating before, you will gain weight again. Weight watchers relies on that. Repeat business.

People tend to mistake 'atkins' carbohydrate restriction as a miracle cure where you can eat all you want. A bit sensationalist that maybe, but its not far from the truth with a simple addendum
"eat as much [protein/fat] as you want UNTIL YOU ARE FULL - THEN STOP". Eat when you're hungry, stop when you're full. SIMPLE.
if you eat too much of anything (even protein) you WILL still gain weight. Eating foods which your body can accurately measure thus let you know when to stop is part and parcel of low carb.
thats why you'd never ever be able to chug down more than a couple of burgers and an egg, but could quite easily eat a whole box of jaffa cakes and go back for another, and then still be 'peckish' an hour later.

Atkins certainly wasnt the first to publicise this diet, in fact it first became widely known in 1869 from a paper written by William Banting, titled "Letter On Corpulence", the low fat diet regime is far more of a fad (popularised for 'only' 20yrs now) than low carb ever was.
Calorie counting is completely daft. Your body simply doesn't convert everything you eat into energy, that fact alone should be enough to make any clear thinking individual question the usefullness of "calorie control".
Calorie controlled dieting is about one thing... Money.
Low carbohydrate dieting promotes eating only non processed foods natural foods , suitable for the human digestive system. nothing more, nothing less.
The Very same people who are selling you your Kraft light spreads, and your low fat yoghurts are the ones selling you the anti-fat drugs (phentermine, xenical etc) to help control your weight .. neat huh?
Sugar in the form of simple carbohydrates and processed food is the next tobacco.
the whole goverment approach to weightloss is to spread more F.U.D about anything other than the 'official' line of your standard 5 fruit & veg food pyramid rubbish, Low fat is a £20bn industry.
dont sap the hype, do what i did, study the truth, hard scientific facts don't lie.

/2ob

TelBoy

Dead neurons (!), nice post. Just one question;

How can you be sure that your low carb diet isn't doing you long-term internal damage, or increasing your chances of one of the side-effect ailments linked with Atkins?

Answer that conclusively, and you have a convert!

MooseRacer

Do doctor's recommend Atkins type diets for obese people?

-=Buzz=-

how can anyone be sure? how long is "long term"? Until you die? We've got to die of something - I'd rather it WASN'T suffocating under my own weight if you don't mind

It was a good post though, and I do find myself thinking "I'm eating un-processed meats, naturally growing salad stuff and drinking un-processed water (except to take the **** and acid out of it of course ), how CAN it be "bad" for me?"

I also have to say that since Sunday I've "lost" about 5 lbs. I appreciate that some of this will be dehydration but I've been drinking at least 3 litres of water each day so far (I've got some here as it happens) to try to reduce this false reading.

I'm still going to give it a go for a couple of weeks and then see how I feel and what I weigh. If I feel crap I'll have a doner kebab to cheer me up (but only one!)

EDITED to add - Moose racer - at 6 feet tall and over 18 stone I am classed as seriously obese, but I'd argue that I'm not - I dont have fat legs, fat arms or huge dangling jowels - I just weigh a lot and I know that a reasonable amount of that is muscle. I only have to look in the mirror and lift heavy things to know I've got a good amount of strength - after all at my weight it's like a "normal" person carrying 3 sacks of potatos about with them for 24 hours a day - how good an exercise would THAT be?
Anyway, I can't see that anyone would suffer from a reduced intake of crap food and too much alcohol no matter what size they are.
[Edited by -=Buzz=- - 8/19/2003 9:39:48 PM]

[Edited by -=Buzz=- - 8/19/2003 9:41:16 PM]