Found How To Make Low Carb Work Faster

[mikeroger]

I have been researching past few months about ketosis and lypolisis. and i found body builders do this all the time but they are smarter. Body builders do mainly super low carb under 10 grams a day + 200grams of protein daily + 0 fat.

They take a supplement called Alpha lipoic acid (u get from ur store or atkin site). Alpha lipoic acid takes carbs out of ur blood and into the muscle glycogen or fat cells hence u enter a ketotic state right away.

Nway the point being, High Fat does not work as Ketosis means nothing if there is no caloric deficit. You may be burning fat but your burning nothing but the food you eat.

A good Diet is a low calorie Low carb, Low fat, High protein diet.

thats where magic will occur. And dont listen to people who say your metabolism will die or enter the so called "starvation mode" there is no such thing as starvation mode.

Research everywhere say that Low calorie reduce metabolic rate by only 10%. 10% is negligable when u have a high caloric deficit daily and 1 pound of Pure fat is only 3500calories.

Metabolism Slows down if u eat less but only 10%. IF you eat more it will increase by 10% BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN UR BURNING MORE FAT, IT MEANS UR BURN MORE THE FOOD U ATE. so this whole eat more to lose more is completely False.

You need a caloric deficit, hence a good diet would be 1000calories daily with low fat low carb high protein to maintain muscle mass.You'll be in ketosis and drop pounds quickly and healthy. Your metabolism will slow down by 10% which is nothing compared to the huge caloric deficit youll be creating.

Then you take a supplement like ephedrine. that boosts by 3% to compensate the 10% drop. So you only drop 7%.

At that rate youll drop pounds daily. HIGH FAT OR HIGH ANYTHING IS NOT GONNA DELAY WEIGHT LOSS. PROTEIN IS ONLY NEEDED DAILY TO REPAIR TISSUE. And remember The fat you have in your body IS FOOD, to eat no fat doesnt mean ur starving, it means ur body will eat the fat food in ur body. FAT= FOOD. ITS HEALTHY. AND THATS HOW U LOSE WEIGHT

thats how i do it and i lose almost 1 pound a day with exercise.

[mikeroger]

oh ya another thing if ur about to CArb Cheat, Take Alpha lipoic acid IT WILL KEEP U IN KETOSIS.

I cheated once ate 200grams of Carbs(cake etcc) i took 5 grams of Alpha lipoic acid. next day I WAS STILL IN KETOSIS.

[Lisa N]

Here's a study that contradicts your theory:

Reference:
Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N.M., Jacobson, M.S., "Low Carbohydrate Dieting Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular Risk in Obese Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 2000, page 91.

Summary:
This study tested whether a low-carbohydrate diet that did not restrict calories would be more successful in promoting weight loss than a low-fat, low-calorie diet. Researchers also tested to see if such a diet would have negative effects on blood lipid profiles, thus increasing cardiovascular risk. To test their hypothesis, they recruited 39 obese adolescents for the study; 20 were placed in a low-carbohydrate diet group while 19 were placed in a low-fat diet group. Subjects in the low-carbohydrate group were allowed to consume as much protein and fat as they wanted, so long as carbohydrate intake remained below 20 grams for the first two weeks and below 40 grams for the next nine weeks. Members of the low-fat group were instructed to consume fewer than 40 grams of fat per day. The low carbohydrate group participants consumed an average of 1,830 calories per day while those in the low-fat group consumed 1,100 calories per day. Both groups showed improvement in HDL ("good") cholesterol, triglycerides and total cholesterol. The improvement in triglycerides was much more pronounced in the low-carbohydrate group. Eating 700 more calories per day than the low-fat group, the low-carbohydrate group lost twice as much weight (an average loss of 48 pounds for the low-carbohydrate group versus an average of 20 pounds for the low-fat group). Neither diet had any effect on liver or kidney function. The researchers concluded that the low-carbohydrate diet significantly improved weight loss despite a higher caloric intake. Also, contrary to their hypothesis, despite increased fat intake, the cardiovascular risk profile did not worsen, but in fact improved in certain aspects including HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.

Commentary:
These findings can be applied to the Atkins Principles of Weight Loss and Disease Prevention. You can consume more calories and lose more weight on a low-carbohydrate diet than on a low fat diet. You do not have to cut calories and starve yourself when on a ketogenic diet in order to reap the rewards. And a low-carbohydrate diet is very effective in reducing risk factors associated with heart disease, such as triglycerides and total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratios.


This is not a race. There is no need to take your caloric intake that low to lose weight unless you have a desire to foster an eating disorder such as anorexia. Sure, I'd like to wake up tomorrow and have all the weight gone, but I'm not willing to starve myself or get my body used to eating 1,000 calories a day to do it. A pound a week is plenty for me and I'm eating well while doing it.
Also...either you are not updating your profile or you aren't losing anywhere near 1 lb per day as you claim since your profile shows that you have been low carbing for about 16 weeks and have lost 35 lbs...that's still a respectable pace at 2 lbs. per week, but not 1 lb. per day.

[mikeroger]

i havent updated my profile, second
You have to realize studies are always funded.

Third here is why Low carb on a higher calorie shows more weight loss.

Do you know what happpens when you low carb? Glycogen muscle/liver starts to deplete.
how much water is in there? 15pounds or more.

Thats why peopel doing low carb first 2 weeks lose 10-20pounds.

Thats all water. i can lose 10pounds in 2 days if i cut carbs to 0.
The fat adipose tissue, which is what we are looking to burn not scale weight water/muscle.

low fat and low carb are almost same. Low carb being more simply because of water depletion and second Your in lypolisis alot longer than low fat.

Lypolisis is FAT RELEASE. Low fat low calorie gets into lypolisis but less than low carb, because Carbs when eated Halt fat loss thats why low fat didnt lose as much.

But none the less, There is no starvation mode, there is no "starving anorexia nervosa at 1000calories" Thats completely False.

Anorexia is when you HAVE NO FAT AND NO MUSCLE
thats starvation.

Remember Fat stored in your body IS FOOD. SAME AS THE ONE UR EATING. IT IS HEALTHY RICH FOOD. Living off hardly means ur starving.

Hence Low calorie (protein to maintain daily tissue and vitamins) is COmpletely nutritionally complete and healthy.

And im burning 1 pound a day for your information and it is mainly fat.

[Lisa N]

"People with anorexia nervosa—who are sometimes known as anorectics or anorexics—have a preoccupation with food, weight, dieting, and body image. They are dissatisfied with their bodies, perceive themselves to be fat regardless of their actual weight, and are obsessed with becoming thin. Many are so focused on outward appearance that they have little awareness of internal sensations such as hunger and fullness. Anorexics usually undertake strict diets, severely restricting food intake and avoiding certain foods they deem taboo. They may also undergo intense, strenuous exercise regimens and weigh themselves frequently."

Starving yourself (which 1,000 calories a day would qualify as) could be classified as anorexic behavior which we definitely don't promote here. 1,000 calories a day is not nearly enough to meet even your basic metabolic needs and is not healthy by any standard. You don't have to be already unhealthily thin to become anorexic but if this behavior continues, a person will be. Anorexia isn't just about how much a person weighs, it's much more about their frame of mind that leads them to starve themselves in an attempt to lose weight.

Yes, studies are usually funded, but that doesn't change the fact that those who ate more, lost more unless you wish to accuse those who conducted the study of outright lying in their report.

[mikeroger]

lisa N, wanting to lose weight quickly is a natural human response in this society, this does not classify them as anorexic. because anorexic never stop wanting to lose weight until they have no more muscle or fat thats is anorexic.

Most people just want to lose 10-20 or 40 pounds witihn 1 month , and by all means necessary that hardly makes them annorexic.

If your definition of anorexic is people who deprive themselves, then you are an anorexic, because your not accepting who you are . a fat person you need to restrict your carbohydrates and starve yourself eating only fat and protein thats anorexic behavior. because you are preventing your self frmo eating ice cream and every other food and paranoing about your diet .

thats anorexic behavior.

[PoofieD]

I think Lisa has accepted a great deal.
what is more is that she is making great progress.
What is your problem with the fact that we have been there and done that to ourselves with the way you want us too??
can't .. won't.. sorry.
Please feel free to make your own choices.. but I still wonder about what sort of thing is in your craw since you won't leave this issue alone.. starting new threads about it on such a continual basis?
Your way... got me to the point that I am severally insulin resistant, and with my family background THAT is a bad thing.
I guess I could do it your way if I had to accept the fact that living on 600 Kcal and running 9 miles of hills a day is normal.
its not.
Mike, just hear us. GO do it your way. Live happy and in peace.
But leave others to make their life decisions.

[Lisa N]

Sorry, Mike...

Anorexia is about being willing to starve yourself to achieve a goal which definitely does not include me. There is a big difference between being unwilling to accept an unhealthy weight by medical standards and losing that excess weight at a healthy pace and starving yourself to achieve a weight loss of 30-40 lbs in a month's time. Sure, it's human nature to want that excess weight gone tomorrow. After all, we live in a society that has been weaned on instant gratification, but it's also common sense to realize that it would be unhealthy to try and make that desire reality.
Eating 1,000 calories a day definitely qualifies as starvation no matter how you want to put it or how much you wish to protest that it isn't. Anything that supplies less than your basic metabolic needs in calories is starvation.
As I said before, anorexia begins with the mindset before the behavior ever starts. The mindset that says "I will be thin in as short a period as possible no matter what the cost to my health."
My mindset is more along the lines of "I will reach a healthy weight no matter how long it takes and enjoy myself and what I'm eating along the way."
Also, eating 1,800 calories a day would not be considered starvation as I'm consuming plently of calories to support my basic metabolic needs. Where I get the calories from (fats, proteins and small amounts of carbs) doesn't matter as far as anorexia goes. Furthermore, I didn't begin low carbing specifically to lose weight, but to deal with an out of control blood sugar. The weight loss has been a great side benefit, but my primary concern was dealing with the diabetes which is why I'm more than content to go along losing a pound a week because my primary objective (controlling my blood sugar and getting off medication) has been achieved.
I'd also like to point out that "depriving" myself of things like ice cream at this point is not anorexic behavior, but rather the behavior of a diabetic who doesn't particularly like the idea of having to be on insulin for the rest of my life and the truth is, I actually DO eat ice cream from time to time...it's just the sugar free kind.

[Kristine]

>>"High Fat does not work as Ketosis means nothing if there is no caloric deficit."

Incorrect. You can eat plenty of fat and <b>still maintain a caloric deficit</b>, but not so much that your metabolism slows down. <b>That</b> would be totally counter-productive.

>>"A good Diet is a low calorie Low carb, Low fat, High protein diet."

Incorrect. A low-calorie, low-carb, low-fat, high-protein diet is <b>malnutrition</b>. A good diet includes the vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, anti-oxidants, fiber, essential fatty acids, etc <b>from their natural sources</b> that you need to be healthy.

>>"And dont listen to people who say your metabolism will die or enter the so called "starvation mode" there is no such thing as starvation mode."

Oh yes there is. The symptoms include fatigue, poor circulation, cold extremities, lowered body temperature, lower heart rate, lower blood pressure, mental confusion, depressed mood, early morning waking, etc. It evolved to protect us during times of famine. If it doesn't exist, what caused those things to happen to me every time I went on a low-calorie, low-fat diet?

>>"wanting to lose weight quickly is a natural human response in this society, this does not classify them as anorexic."

<b>Wanting</b> it is normal. <b>Attempting</b> it is not. Eating disorders are defined by <b>behaviour</b>, not by how much is still left on their body.

>>"thats anorexic behavior."

Uh, no; actually, it's the behaviour of someone who wants to avoid insulin resistance, diabetes, obesity and lipid disorders; or someone who's treating one of those conditions.

[nsmith4366]

I eat

leaner proteins
lots of lc veggies
and an adequate amount of essential fatty acids
with a multivitamin every day.
I eat whenever I want to.
I don't eat processed foods/trans/hydrog fats.

No weightloss tricks/drugs or fads.

It is a low carb diet / my carbs are 10-30 daily

I walk an hour a day - good fat burning exercise.
I don't want to build muscle/I have plenty!

I feel fine.
Great skin.
Maintaining weightloss and happy.

[DrByrnes]

It looks like this thread has been adequately explored. But I will add one thing: High protein diets that do not have enough animal fat in them are, in the long run, harmful to the body because the diet will lack vitamin A, only found in animal fats, and the body needs that vitamin to properly utilize protein.

I'm sure someone will reply that they take a vitamin pill to get vitamin A so they don't need to eat the fat, but vitamin pills are not the same as food and, let's face it, if you tried your diet 100 years ago when vitamin pills weren't available, you'd be up the creek without a paddle in time.

Besides all of that, there are a number of fatty acids (not just EFAs) that provide benefit to the body--vitamin pills do not supply these.

[nsmith4366]

The animal proteins I eat are LEAN
or leanER cuts, not fat free.

There are many benefits from eating
proteins and fats of all kinds, but some
do the body more good than others
(trans-fatty acids/hydrogenated
not so great for you)

[Daethian]

Then you take a supplement like ephedrine.

Do you know the dangers of ephedrine???

Ephedra is one of the most dangerous of the dietary supplements.

Over 800 injuries have been reported by users and doctors to the FDA and various state medical bodies, including more than 50 deaths.
Most of these cases involve the heart attacks or high blood pressure leading to bleeding in the brain or stroke.



Recent studies sho wthat many people are seriously injured by the use of ephedrine. They are often unaware that ephedrine suppliers are can make wide ranging health claims about the product that have no scientific basis. Nor is there any mention of the potential for dangerous side effects. Because the industry was lobbyed to pass a law deregulating these products in l994, the FDA has been unable to regulate these products.

http://www.ephedrine-ephedra.com/pages/ephedrine_side_effects.html


I am not willing to die to be thin. I want a healthy heart so I can be thin and live a good long time.

[nsmith4366]

I would never use ephedrine ever...not worth it.
I think they will ban it soon anyway...

[Suzan]

Mike, please update your stats so we can see your success. My calculations - 16 weeks ~ 7 days = 112 days ~ 1 lb. per day...Wow! According to your "beliefs" it sounds like you may be anorexic.

It's such a shame people aren't always willing to take the time to understand eating disorders, perhaps this is part of the reason that they are so debilitating to so many people. I am bulimic - have been for about 20 years. I remember a person telling me one time that there is no way I could be bulimic because I'm so overweight....I shake my head!

Good luck to everyone....we are all doing fantastic, feeling great, and in the words of Cosmo Kramer "lovin' every minute of it."

:roll:

[Teuthis]

Body builders also take steroids; and they tend to die young. Look at poor Arnold. Wasn't it a Quadruple bypass? Yes they take all sorts of artificial junk. But for anyone here was around in the 60's, have any of the modern bodybuilders ever looked as good as Steve Reeves did? He used totally natural methods.

We are fat here because we eat too much, and too much of the wrong foods. I see no reason to risk even more of our health by taking more artificial junk. Zero fat has already been proven to promote colon cancer. Natural is the best way to go. I've lost 50 pounds and I feel much better than I have in years. I can wait for the rest to come off naturally.

Good Luck in your own efforts:)

[goddessgrl]

I really wish people would understand disordered eating....

all anorexics are NOT skinny.

I was as anorexic at 228 pounds as I was when I was dancing ballet...anorexia is in your HEAD, your attitudes to food and the lengths you go and obsess over food. Food is everything, passion and pain to you. You love it and that makes you hate it and yourself.

LC is one way for people with eating disorders to get control of bad eating habits and be healthy.

I embrace it because it is teaching me that numbers are less important than leanness...and that leanness is beautiful regardless of the number or dress size.

Crista

[cc48510]

I can talk from personal experience...

During early 1997, I ate a diet close to 1,000 calories/day, with 92g Carbs, and I got a couple hours of vigorous exercise on weekdays. After 6 months, I had lost 22 pounds.

Now, flash foward to early 2003, I eat a diet close to 3,000 calories/day, with 10-20g Carbs, and exercise weekly. In the past 4 months, I have lost 62 pounds, almost 3 times, what I lost in 6 months on a 1,000 calorie a day, low-fat diet.

I have varied my caloric consumption while on Atkins and have found that no matter how I vary it, it does not effect my weight loss. I lose less eating 700 calories/day as I do consuming 3,000 calories a day.

April 16:

2656 Calories
1850 Fat Calories
Total Fat -- 206g
Sat. Fat -- 94g
Total Carbs -- 12g
Fiber -- 4g
Protein -- 183g
Weight Lost -- 1.5 Pounds (254.5 --> 253.0)

April 6:

675 Calories
395 Fat Calories
Total Fat -- 44g
Sat. Fat -- 5g
Total Carbs -- 23g
Fiber -- 8g
Protein -- 48g
Weight Lost -- 0.5 Pounds (257.0 --> 256.5)

[srd0821]

that is very interesting! I think I may have to consider that....thanks for the info!

Shannon's fitday (http://fitday.com/WebFit/PublicJournals.html?Owner=srd0821)

[orzabelle]

I'm so glad to see how well Atkins is working for everyone! Congratulations - over 65 lbs.!

I'm sorry to say that on Atkins, if I eat more than 1500-1600 cals (and work out 4 x a week - vigorously) I don't lose any fat. Guess women are different! :rolleyes:

[Spabsie]

I registered at this site to get to know and see other peoples low carb experiences and had no intentions of preaching a different method of weight loss because I know how much I hate it when people register at my usual forum to preach how a certain lifestyle is wrong. That being said....

Please be aware that while this is a low carb dieting forum, there may be members here who have disordered eating. For me, as an example, my anorexia grew out of my low carb dieting over a matter of months. Now I am not trying to dissuade anyone of low carb dieting because it did in fact work and before I began cutting calories out, I was very pleased with it. Its just that I do somewhat resent the stereotypes that are being thrown around this site about anorexics. Lets all just be supportive of one another and keep in mind some people may have larger food issues lurking deep. Thank you guys so much.

btw, anorexics frequently fear carbohydrates, even moreso than fat.

Sabrina

[Karen]

Its just that I do somewhat resent the stereotypes that are being thrown around this site about anorexics.
Hi Sabrina,

You are in the War Zone Forum which is quite different from the rest of the Forum. It does not represent the whole forum. In other words "the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management." Above all, we uphold a sane, safe and healthy approach to changing your way of life with low-carbing as one of the tools.

Here is the stickie at the top of the War Zone Forum in case you haven't read it:

This War Zone forum was created to provide a place for opponents of low-carbing to debate the merits of this lifestyle and diet. We may also choose to move here any heated debates that erupt in our other low-carb support forums, when the discussion gets more "colourful". Many of these debates end up being heated and offensive to some members who are looking for support, not angry arguments.

Active Low-Carber Forums has always promoted a supportive environment for its members. For this reason, we decided to open this special forum for those who don't mind a heated debate. For those who might be easily offended, they have the choice to not participate in this area.

So, this forum has a more relaxed set of rules to allow for such debates. However, obscenities will not be tolerated here. We will remove any profanity, and replace it with *** as we see fit. In addition, we will discourage personal attacks, blatant flames and insults that detract from the debate and add nothing to the discussion.

For example, if you label someone with obscenities, such as "you're a f**king moron", it willl be deleted and your account will be suspended. If you call someone "a jerk, or idiot" and the like, your post will be edited, but your account will not be suspended. However, repetitive abuses will result in suspension. When your post has been edited, we will leave a comment, and reminder to observe the rules.

If you strongly believe in your argument, there's no need for obscenities.

In addition, members are encouraged to provide references to research and medical studies. Do not be offended if someone asks you for proof to what you claim is a fact.

Please note that while the rules are relaxed here in this War Zone forum, we will continue as we've always done to uphold the rules of the Registration Agreement in all other areas of our support forums. Members who start flame wars in other areas of the forum, will be suspended.

If someone comes here with an obvious eating disorder, we advise them to get help ASAP.

Karen

[Azraelle]

Do you know the dangers of ephedrine???

Ephedra is one of the most dangerous of the dietary supplements.

Over 800 injuries have been reported...Most of these cases involve the heart attacks or high blood pressure leading to bleeding in the brain or stroke.


I would never use ephedrine ever...not worth it. I think they will ban it soon anyway...


Like everything else (including water consumption) ephedrine in moderation is not dangerous, less so for some than others. I have ADHD as do all my children and my ex-wife as well--we gave them a genetic double-whammy, so to speak. For adults and teenagers past adolescence, the treatment of choice is Dexedrine (or Adderal, a sort of timed release Dexedrine). PET scans of "normal" brains vs ADHD brains, only available since the early 90's, show very clear differences in glucose metabolism in the frontal lobes--ADHD brains have only 10-20% of normal brains. Dexedrine (and Ritalin in adolescents) has a very different effect on ADHD brains than on normal brains--it increases glucose metabolism to about 90% of normal.

What is my point?? Dexedrine was first synthesized from Ephedrine, making it about 2-2-1/2 times more effective as a stimulant. For those of us not well-heeled enough to afford the costs of prescriptions, and doctor visits once a month (USDA in its infinite wisdom prohibits prescribing Dexedrine for more than 30 days) have to find less expensive alternatives. Ephedrine worked for me fairly well until I discovered L-Tyrosine. The point is that persons with ADHD probably are at less risk from ephedrine than normal people. Since there is about a 1 in 5 chance that a person has ADHD, it might be well to get tested b4 spouting off about banning it from the market.

[han_gaozu]

Greetings everyone:

A recap: The initial post advocated a LOW CARB, LOW FAT, HIGH PROTEIN diet, reducing calories low. He admitted it has an effect(namely a 10% metabolic reduction) but he balanced that with Xenadrine (I guess exercise could also be a substitute metablolic increaser)).

The first reactionary post cited a study which comapared low calorie eaters (that were JUST restricting calories, not carbs), with those that were restricting carbs but not restricting calories. Forgive me, but I don't see how this study relates. The diet the original poster is advocating is not just low cal, it's also low carb, and although he seems to pin a lot on calories, he's not actually advocating low fat, high carb like most, he realizes the presence of insulin has an effect on body fat burning.


That being said, I must say.... (I shudder to bring this on myself) that I don't disagree with him. While, I would not advocate dieting at 1000 calories, cause its sucks for lack of a better word; I DO think that in some people cutting back on calories while on Atkins is the way to go. For me, for instance, I had a heck of a time losing after the 3rd week when I was eating high fat, high protein (consequently high calories). I was plateaued out for a while (even though I was excercizing, resistance training and all that... and don't say I was losing inches, cause 'taint true... it was a honest to god stall). I was also in ketosis... of varying levels, mainly medium sometimes large or extra large. So I knew my blood sugar was regulated... So the ketones registering were more than likely from dietary fat... it was frustrating nonetheless. Aaanyway. I started cutting fat a bit, not freaking out on copious amounts of hamburger and steak... having protein powder instead of cheese... it's working better now. I'm not a freak losing one pound a day. (what on earth would my skin do if that happened, eeew... i'm having difficulty as it is!) I'm losing more like 2 lbs per week. which is good.

Some atkins people advocate eating 10-12X your body weight per day. That would be on and over 2120 calories. I believe that will work for some, but not for others. Certainly not for me. I wish that were the case... i guess I'll just chalk it up to "everybody's different." (which is my normal argument when I'm confronted by people who disagree with my diet :roll: )

If you're wondering I eat about 1200-1500 calories a day, a decent bit of it is fat since I supplement with extra virgin coconut oil. But I try to keep the animal fat to a minimum (which for me is about once a day... I used to be a fiend!)

What am I rambling on? I'm just saying that I was someone who had to take a lower fat path on the LC lifestyle is all... so the guy isn't all wrong. Although his motivations seemed waaaay intense as a dieter... I can see why the word "anorexic" was thrown around. He seemed kinda like the stereotypical evil villain behind a chair, stroking a white cat and laughing as he lost weight before your eyes. Like the Dr. Evil of LC. "hahahahahahaaaa"

There's only one thing I disagreed with (well two... since I don't think the Xenadrine stuff is necessary, but I do exercise which gives a similar result in metabolic lift).... He mentioned something about eating 96 grams of carbs one day and taking ALA and still being in ketosis. ... .... Now... I must say that I'm not sure I believe that the ALA helped him (although he knows his level of insulemic reactions far better than I do). I read somewhere (don't you hate it when people begin this way) that the body dispenses insulin in proportion to the averages of your prior few meals, not what you actually eat per se. So if you've been LCing for years and you eat a candy bar it'll be a blip on the radar, may not even do a thing. But if you're only a week into it that same bar will easily put you out of ketosis. I remember a few weeks ago I ate about 90 grams of carbs. (I don't remember it being a heck of a lot of food, I think it was two of those tiny packages of hummus) and I was still in ketosis without any ALA. So everybody's different, maybe he's highly reactionary and needs the stuff or something. (I wanna note that my level of reaction is never constant and this week chili with like... 1/4 cup of kidney beans booted me out onto the cusp, which was no biggie I just took a walk and was back into it.)

This post is too long. I'm sorry. I'll stop now.

[mikeroger]

Thanks for the post.

As i said before Atkins himself did say The only thing essential for human life are Protein Amino Acids + Essential Fatty Acids (omega3/omega6) and multi vitamins.

Hence , if you eat all the protein and the essential fats like olive oil and canola oil and flaxseed oil ull be fine.

Caloric Deficits are necessary to speed up fat loss.

And eating maintenance at atkins will yield very crappy results.

some lose 2.5 lb a month thats very poor. excluding water or muscle.

I advocate low carb , high protein, essential fats (olive oil and canola oil etcc flax seeD) no stupid eating butters or or forcing urself to eat heavy whip cream.

even cheese is no good.

oprah herself went on a 4 months low carb low fat(essentials only) and protein diet.

[walken1]

The person that started this thread is dead wrong! I am a bodybuilder and I'm telling you, atheletes that use a low carb diet do not take in 200g protien and 0 fat! If anything, the opposite is true....they take in high protein and high fat, very low carbs. Then, for one or two days of the week, they will eat high carbs to replace muscle glycogen. Did you know that history demonstrates that when people were forced to eat a diet of nothing other than lean meat, they suffered from a condition know as "rabbit poisoning".....it caused weight loss, weakness, diarhea, and eventually death. Bottom Line: don't be posting dangerous advice like that if you don't know what you're talking about!

[han_gaozu]

Man, those guys should be laying off the rabbit! I didn't know rabbits would react rapidly to a radical regimen rich only in protein--rather, I rationalized rabies was really their most ready risk.


:spin:

[miyagi]

I'm a little confused about a point Mikeroger made which seems to makes sense to me in theory and has been left unanswered in these threads.

One of his points is that while in ketosis your body has switched to burning fat as it's primary fuel, so he argues that if you are feeding your body a hight protein/high fat diet, then your body would just end up burning the dietary fat you are eating and sparing most of the fat stored in your body thus the slower weight loss. So by reducing (not completely cutting out) your dietary fat intake, your body will burn a higher percentage of body fat since dietary fat has been reduced and is not available for your body to use. Like I said, in theory this seems to make sense. Does anyone have any information or research on this as to why this wouldn't be the case or wouldn't be healthy.

[nikkil]

I don't know the answer to your question (sorry!), but I sure wish I did!!! That has been a huge question for me, but I'm always afraid to ask it and get my head bitten off :D ! Maybe we're looking at it from the old 'calorie intake' point of view, tho. Like, if you create a calorie deficit, your body will used stored fat for energy, if you have too many calories, extra will be stored as fat. It's not that simple with fat burning????

I think I read somewhere here that with fat, as long as there are insignificant amounts of carbs with it, cannot be stored without carbs, so any dietary fat that your body does not use for fuel is 'dumped' ;) . The fat you eat satisfies your appetite more quickly than carbs, so you don't eat as much, your body uses what you ate for fuel, dumps what it doesn't need, and you've still taken in fewer calories than if you were eating LF/HC. Does that make sense?? You may be eating, say, 2000 cals per day, but if 60% of that is fat (1200 cals) and you're body is using only part of those fat cals and dumping the rest, whatever is dumped could be subtracted from your calorie intake for the day. A much lower number of calories would be actually recognized by your body than the 2000 you ate. I don't know if this makes sense, but that's the reasoning I've gathered.

I may have confused you more (if so, sorry!). It's the middle of the night....my excuse.
Nicole

[Rosebud]

Maybe the information here will help:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=296145#post296145

Cheers. :)

:rose:Rosebud:rose:

[han_gaozu]

...8 links later... there's a post which explains why dietary fat is benign and does not have tremendous effect on the body... It stated that dietary fat, without the presence of insulin cannot be stored. A fact I knew. It states fat is taken to various places in the body (bowels, liver, la da) and then the sentence that puzzles me "...some is used for fuel..." HM? "Some"? I will assume that the volume of this "some" is different for each person and their caloric requirements... however, isn't this the issue really??? The issue at hand is partially a question of whether the body favors burning dietary fat or body fat for fuel, and even if it "prefers" body fat, whether inducing a MINOR caloric deficit (not a freakishly large or starving one... say... like 200 calories) would make the body switch from dietary fat to body fat.

I FIRMLY stick to my original contention that everyBODY's different (pun intended) and that some people may thrive (and lose) eating whipped cream and butter and all that, but some don't. I don't. It's not even that it boots me out of ketosis... or increases insulin. I can be in ketosis for weeks and weeks and not lose an inch until I bring down the calories a bit. MY BODY, apparently, has little effort converting dietary fat for fuel. :roll:

[miyagi]

Thanks everyone for your insight and replies. There is a wealth of information in the links to the other threads. However, not to be a pest but now a new question has risen from this. Most of posts suggest that without the presence of insulin, any unused dietary fat will just be expelled or wasted. So my question is why is it recommended to consume a HIGH fat diet? since the unused fat will just be expelled and wasted anyways, why not consume a moderate amount of fat. Is a high fat diet recommended only because it's suppose to give you the feeling of being full and satisfied?

One more point, lets say you reduce your fat to "low" fat on a low carb diet but enough to still give your body the necessary nutrients it needs from the ingested fat, why is this considered unhealthy or dangerous if you're getting the amount of fat you need and your body would expel the rest anyways.

Have I annoyed anyone yet, other than myself?

[Jeanne Sch]

Two points on this thread I want to make because I so recently read all of Dr Atkin's book.

1- when you ingest too much protein, the body will turn the excess to glucose - not good.

2-Atkins recommends the FAT FAST for those who are metabolically resistant. It is 1000 calories of MAINLY fats each day for about 4 to 5 days to get the body *jump started* into ketosis.

If both of these statements are true, it makes Mike both right and wrong I guess (scratching head). See? Now I'm really confused - hahahaha.

[han_gaozu]

miyagi,

I totally hear you... i think it is the fullness thing that people are concerned about. And perhaps an assumption that the "low fat" "low carb" people are eating 0 fat. (Which i think was intonated in the first post, but mike has since changed it to include essential fatty acid type oils) I think that it's sort of funny how people are arguing over something that seems so individual. I also think it's funny how if someone says they're eating bacon, cream and butter, everyone's like "cool, great going" but if someone's cutting calories a bit they're like "whoa, now... don't go all crazy" (not actual quotes, just sentiments)

There's nothing wrong with either approach as long as you're consuming what you need and you're healthy and supplementing and whatnot. About the fat fast thing. I've done it. It does get you into ketosis fast, but I've never lost weight on it.

Maybe I should try it again and see what happens? I feel an experiment coming on... :thup:

ERica

[Almeiraz]

"since the unused fat will just be expelled and wasted anyways, why not consume a moderate amount of fat."?
***************
Doreen explained it really well:
There is plenty of evidence to show that consistently eating below a certain caloric level will result in the slowing of the metabolic rate, as an adaptive "survival" mecanism. The body thinks it's starving, so it turns the thermostat down to conserve fuel. Your engines will run on less and less. In other words the less you eat on a continual basis, the less you will NEED on a permanent basis. This will only work against you in the long run, making it increasingly difficult to lose fat weight, and also making it easier to GAIN fat if you return to a carbohydrate & insulin-based way of eating. So eat up, and especially eat FAT

The other question is how does eating fat stimulate the burning of BODY fat?? Well, it acts like kindling. It primes the liver into fat-burning and ketone-production mode. Once this ketone production is in full swing, and the dietary fat is used up, the liver starts looking for more source of fat to process. It turns to your body fat stores.
************
she has an excellent post here:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=263355#post263355
.

[han_gaozu]

Interesting. Informative. Accurate.

However, also somewhat off point.

"There is plenty of evidence to show that consistently eating below a certain caloric level will result in the slowing of the metabolic rate, as an adaptive "survival" mecanism."
True. However, THAT this happens is not in dispute, what is in dispute is at what caloric level it happens. (likely different for different people). And the argument is not about what happens if people go under this starvation threshold, but what if people go under their "threshold to maintain the, say, 250 lbs they already tote around" level. What if their maintenance threshold is 2200 calories, but they only eat 2000? Would that moderate decrease in calories be made up by the body burning body fat for food... I think so. Nothing said here so far has disproved that.

In fact, that reminds me of the general inconsistency in your post:

"The other question is how does eating fat stimulate the burning of BODY fat?? Well, it acts like kindling. It primes the liver into fat-burning and ketone-production mode. Once this ketone production is in full swing, and the dietary fat is used up, the liver starts looking for more source of fat to process. It turns to your body fat stores."

Also true, accurate and well-spoken; however, it goes right to the heart of the issue doesn't it... "once the dietary fat is used up"... but what if people aren't using up their dietary fat. In fact, they "eat up, and especially eat FAT," so much in fact that they're eating calories up to or beyond their metabolic burn rate? How would this affect body fat loss? That's more to the issue... and again perhaps the exact issue is not the effect that eating fat beyond their daily metabolic rate would have (the "metabolic advantage" spoken of by Atkins), but rather whether eating slightly below it would help you burn faster...

Metabolism... while a very important consideration is still somewhat off point... for example, what if one ate x calories below their daily rate and that slowed their metabolism by (just shooting a figure out there) 1% but they exercized daily and increased their metabolism by that same rate.

I think the important thing for me is that in questioning the "high" fat approach that many are taking, is that I'm NOT advocating starvation or extremes (although the starter of the thread seemed to be). But the qeustion of a MODERATE (or small, monikers such as that are so amorphous anyway...) calorie reduction.

(Actually, in my case a grand percentage of my daily calories happens to be fat, but I do keep it somewhat below my daily average to maintain what was my 210... actually, now 206 frame. :yay: ) Barry Sears follows that philosophy when he says to eat for the size you want to be, not the size you are and you'll get there... (or rather, the musculature you are, without regard to the excess "pounds"... same diff... you're eating as if you aren't carrying around that fat) In addition, now that I think of it, if you eat for the size you will be... it seems somewhat impossible for you to gain weight when you maintenance out... cause you won't be increasing your calories at all.
However, that being said I just want to let you know that I DO HEAR YOU about the metabolism. If you eat less you may not prosper because your metabolism will slow to meet your decreased caloric intake; however, at what level of caloric restriction does this happen. 1 calorie? 10? 20? 50? 100? This is what I'm more interested in myself.


However, I take issue with your statement that if you switch up, lose the Atkins Way of Eating and eat carby again you'll gain weight... but if that happened regardless of eating 2200 cals or 1800 cals if you're sensitive to insulin you'd gain weight... no?

Hmmm... foods for thinkings...

[Morgan1974]

You need a caloric deficit, hence a good diet would be 1000calories daily with low fat low carb high protein to maintain muscle mass.You'll be in ketosis and drop pounds quickly and healthy. Your metabolism will slow down by 10% which is nothing compared to the huge caloric deficit youll be creating.

Then you take a supplement like ephedrine. that boosts by 3% to compensate the 10% drop. So you only drop 7%.

At that rate youll drop pounds daily. HIGH FAT OR HIGH ANYTHING IS NOT GONNA DELAY WEIGHT LOSS. PROTEIN IS ONLY NEEDED DAILY TO REPAIR TISSUE. And remember The fat you have in your body IS FOOD, to eat no fat doesnt mean ur starving, it means ur body will eat the fat food in ur body. FAT= FOOD. ITS HEALTHY. AND THATS HOW U LOSE WEIGHT

thats how i do it and i lose almost 1 pound a day with exercise.

And your medical degree is from....what University? We're happy and successful. Leave us alone! And good luck to you!

[DerBlumers]

About taking ephedrine (ephedra, "ma huang"), I just wanted to add my own personal warning ....

About 10-15 years ago I attended a county fair in which there was a kiosk by a certain company giving away samples of this "energy" drink that will boost metabolism and jump start any weight loss program. It was "all-natural, nothing artificial" so, according to them, it couldn't harm me. I'm quite skeptical about these things, but apparently naive enough at the time to drink the small 2 oz. sample. Within about 5 minutes after I ingested it, I started having serious heart palpitations...like I was skipping beats...like it was out of rhythm, and found myself gasping for air. Since I had never experienced anything like this in my life (I've never had any heart trouble), I thought I might be having a heart attack...and luckily found myself near a first aid station, where I was able to sit, rest, not move a muscle..for half an hour or more...before everything returned to close enough to normal that I was able to continue enjoying the fair. I knew that I must have had some kind of reaction to the sample, so I immediately went back to the kiosk..and explained what happened, and asked to read the label (which I should have done previously, since I already know that I am somewhat sensitive to one ingredient in a common overthecounter medicine). I was shocked to see that the main ingredient was EPHEDRA....which is linked to the substance to which I am sensitive. UPSET, I asked them why they don't tell people about this...why they don't WARN others about the danger...WHY are they indiscriminately giving away samples of this?? They kept trying to tell me that I couldn't have reacted to THEIR sample because THIS is different...it's NATURAL and people don't react to this...the synthetic stuff is dangerous, but NOT THEIR stuff because it's NATURAL!!!!

All I told them was that ANYONE can be allergic to ANYTHING....and, besides...NATURAL??? I'd like to see them eat opium poppies, marijuana leaves, pennyroyal leaves, hemlock, etc..etc...I could give them huge list of all the NATURAL things that could HARM ANYONE!!!!

Since then, I learned that Ephedrine is not just my own personal sensitivity...but it is dangerous to MANY people...and I do hope they take it off the market permanently!!

[Azraelle]

Since then, I learned that Ephedrine is not just my own personal sensitivity...but it is dangerous to MANY people...and I do hope they take it off the market permanently!!
...and throw the baby out with the bath water for those of us who AREN'T sensitive to it, who actually derive some useful benefit from it, such as in my case a SAFE (and a hell of alot cheaper) non-prescriptive alternative to Dexedrine and/or Adderall for (adult) ADD!! If YOU are sensitive to it, then YOU don't have to take it! Since MD's typically get ONE CLASS during their 8 years of medical training in pharmacology, don't look for help from your family practitioner to write SAFE PRESCRIPTIONS all the time, or even most of the time. What if you had been diagnosed with ADD and your doctor decided to prescribe Adderal, knowing that it is the prescriptive treatment of choice without doing the research to know that it is chemically similar to Ephedrine (and in fact is just a "timed-release" form of Dexedrine, which was initially synthesized from Ephedrine, as was Pseudoephedrine)? Your next of kin's ability to sue the doctor for negligence or malpractice would be small comfort to them, when the hypothetical disaster could have been prevented by YOU doing your OWN research on it, instead of depending on the dubious knowledge of a physician. Which is what you imply we should all do by taking Ma Huang off the market. While we're about it why don't we take tobacco and sugar off the market as well? They're just as deadly (if not more so--especially when they are "abused") over the long haul.

[Froggiebro]

I jumped on the Metabolife bandwagon a few years ago and I WILL NEVER TAKE EPHEDRINE AGAIN!!! When I was on it, I would lay down at night and could feel the blood rushing through my veins and I could feel my heart pumping away. Mind you, it had been several hours since my last pill. It probably damaged my heart. I'm not sure why I took it, maybe just because I was desperate. Well, I became quite addicted to the stuff, I couldn't function without it. I tried to wean myself off and couldn't. I ended up going cold turkey and suffered for days. I know I sound like a drug addict, and that's exactly what I was. That stuff is some of the worst stuff out there and I can't believe it is still on the market.

[Froggiebro]

By the way, didn't lose more than 5 lbs in the months I was addicted, even though I barely ate because of the appetite suppresant qualities of metabolife.

[DerBlumers]

Response to Azraelle:

I appreciate your feedback and you do make valid points about ephedrine. However, maybe I wasn't making myself clear enough that I was responding to the forum member who told us that we should ALL take ephedrine to make our program work faster. I wanted to drive home the point that ephedrine isn't for everyone...and can be downright dangerous for quite a few. I guess I didn't realize that it could be a valid course of treatment (even a "lifeline") for many others, including those dealing with ADD. I should have known better...ADD is in my family.

Maybe, what I should have said was, in lieu of my experience...and that of others as well...it should be taken off the shelves as an overthecounter drug, and doled out only as a prescription. And...not for any weight loss program...ever! :) :-)

[Azraelle]

I apologize for getting hot and bothered, but that was precisely my point: I take it BECAUSE it is available over-the-counter--I could never afford it if it were ONLY available on prescription, because not only would this jack up the price at least twofold for the Ephedrine, but I would have to pay another $75 out of pocket to a MD just for the privilege of getting him/her to write me a prescription. If it were put on prescription, it would undoubtedly be classified, as is Dexedrine/Adderal as a class III narcotic, which means that any prescriptions written cannot be for more than a month's worth of dosage, and are non-refillable. So I would have to fork over $75 each month to the damned doctor, as well as pay for the drug itself. As a person without medical insurance, this cost would be prohibitive.

[fviegas]

Hi, everybody.
Just adding to the discussion,
I have been seeing this and other discussions along other
boards.And a pattern starts to emerge.
Every discussion revolves around low-carb,low-fat studies.
So we have:
low carb,high-fat,high protein (atkins)
medium carb, low-fat, medium protein (zone)
high carb, low-fat, medium-low protein ( ww and standards)

So, when someone says "low carb is not working for me" or
"low carb is compatible with low-fat"
Everyone just throws at him the argument of standard
low-fat diets, and studies done on atkins vs. low-calorie.

But this has a logical flaw. Because there is one variable missing,
which mikeroger put on the table, and there are no studies
done on this, so noone can say he is right or wrong.
What about low-carb, low-fat, high-protein studies ?

You have three macronutrients (P,F,C), three levels of
comsumption of each (low,medium,high). This to me gives
3x3x3 = 27 (hope I did the math right) possible diets.

Why do we continuously assume that low-carb is high-fat and
high-protein ? It can be other combinations, which ones did
the studies do ? Why do the studies give low-carb against
low-fat as logical opposites, and bunch everything up in the
same group ? low-fat(calories) can be low-carb, high protein, or
high-carb,low-protein and on, and on ...

So mikeroger proposes a version of low-carb,high-protein,low-fat.
Can this be bad ? If it has been used by bodybuilders with success,
maybe its the appropriate diet for those of us who need to loose
those last pounds, like one of the threads that was going on
here by a bodybuilder who gained pounds of fat when he tried
atkins.

So , I ask mikeroger, has it been working for you ? How do you
feel ? What is your typical menu? Is it all protein power or can
you achieve this with real food ?

P.S. Calling this regime anorexia is a bit extreme.Everyone who diets
suffers from orthorexia nervosa which is a form of anorexia,
or do you think that obsessing over carbs/fat/protein/etc. is
a normal thing ? ;-)

[modizzle]

Do you know the dangers of ephedrine???

Ephedra is one of the most dangerous of the dietary supplements.

Over 800 injuries have been reported by users and doctors to the FDA and various state medical bodies, including more than 50 deaths.
Most of these cases involve the heart attacks or high blood pressure leading to bleeding in the brain or stroke.



Recent studies sho wthat many people are seriously injured by the use of ephedrine. They are often unaware that ephedrine suppliers are can make wide ranging health claims about the product that have no scientific basis. Nor is there any mention of the potential for dangerous side effects. Because the industry was lobbyed to pass a law deregulating these products in l994, the FDA has been unable to regulate these products.

http://www.ephedrine-ephedra.com/pages/ephedrine_side_effects.html


I am not willing to die to be thin. I want a healthy heart so I can be thin and live a good long time.

funny, but aspirin related deaths are 340 X those of ephedrine related deaths. Funny fact hunh?

[VALEWIS]

Reading this thread, I have a question. Isn't the low calorie, low fat, no carbs, high protein diet advocated by Mike in fact the Stillman diet? I tried to do this myself many years ago (he proposed it in 1969) and it had the same effect on me that ephedra has had on certain posters here...I went into non-stop ectopic heart beats (skipping beats) for days and it scared me. I don't get this effect with Atkins.

But it works well for people who don't get this bad response...there is a lady on another forum who has lost about 160 lbs with Stillman.

Someone posting here was wondering about research on lc/lf/hp diet...perhaps a search on Stillman might answer that.


Val

[Morgan1974]

Reading this thread, I have a question. Isn't the low calorie, low fat, no carbs, high protein diet advocated by Mike in fact the Stillman diet?

Val

Yep! I remember that diet very well (aging myself here!) :nono:

I can't believe The Stillman diet would be healthy for anybody; at least if they did it more than two or three days! I think it's used quite often today to break plateaus (which I appear to be on!) :cry: But starvation diets are not for me. :)

[Azraelle]

And then there was the "protein-sparing fast" (circa 1979) which supposedly worked well if you took lots of potassium suplements, and had the money for the partially digested liquid protein elixer (~600 cal/day). Until the USDA shut them down. The idea being that when you went on a complete fast, you lost as much protein weight (from muscle) as fat weight, so if you took in 600 calories of pre-digested protein a day, you would go into ketosis (after a complete fast of 48 hours to deplete the body's store of glycogen), and lose only fat weight. But without potassium supplements, it had a remarkable (!) tendency to cause heart attacks, not to mention renal failure...

[Lisa N]

And then there was the "protein-sparing fast" (circa 1979) which supposedly worked well if you took lots of potassium suplements, and had the money for the partially digested liquid protein elixer (~600 cal/day). Until the USDA shut them down. The idea being that when you went on a complete fast, you lost as much protein weight (from muscle) as fat weight, so if you took in 600 calories of pre-digested protein a day, you would go into ketosis (after a complete fast of 48 hours to deplete the body's store of glycogen), and lose only fat weight. But without potassium supplements, it had a remarkable (!) tendency to cause heart attacks, not to mention renal failure...

This was also found to be very poor quality protein, mostly collagen if I remember correctly, (another reason why the USDA shut them down) which was not supplying the body with what it needs along the lines of complete amino acids, hense the muscle wasting effect even though the person was supposedly getting 125 grams of protein per day.

[scthgharpy]

You guys realize this first posting happened in december last year? It first hit whe nthey talked of ephedrin BEING banned, and it just has.

I SWEAR this cat was selling something. Just in time for your pre-holiday indulgence and new years fasting!

Very educational, though, hearing the banter back and forth. I knew he was a phony when he said there was no such thing as starvation mode...cuz Ive been in it! Anyone who's ever crashed at the gym knows what it feels like, only long term.

Heres to living la vida lo carb.

JC

[han_gaozu]

Pardon me... but:

> Very educational, though, hearing the banter back and forth. I knew
> he was a phony when he said there was no such thing as starvation
> mode...cuz Ive been in it! Anyone who's ever crashed at the gym
> knows what it feels like, only long term.

What??? No comment on the "phony" comment or the unfounded implication that the guy was selling something.... however, the "crashed at the gym" comment seems totally off. Crashing at the gym feels very little like slowing metabolism.

"Crashing during exercize" is when your body has depleted the stored glycogen in the muscles and liver... which is basically a speeding up of the process which occurs during induction anyway. Although very fast and stressful way to do it... Regardless, I've felt that at the gym after running long distances... but I would never liken it to "starvation mode" when the body slows down the metabolism in response to a reduced caloric intake.

In fact, a real serious gym crashing occured one a few months ago after a severely strenuous run and it felt EXACTLY like the powerful sugar lows I used to get all the time. (Which makes sense, since it's basically the depletion of all body's glycogen and, I assume, accompanied by a decrease in blood sugar.) I remember it was lightheadedness, dizzyness, nausea, hunger... maybe some other things. Fatigue was minimal compared to the other, more prominent, symptoms.

"Starvation mode" on the other hand, is a general lowering of the metabolism due to a reduction in calories. I may have had it, yes but not due to starvation... but I have had a general lowering of metabolism from another mechanism (thyroid) and I suffered entirely different symptoms: GREAT GREAT GREAT fatigue being the prime symptom, others being yawning, general cold (may be thyroid specific), hair loss, no hunger. It was a totally different feeling. Most of these symptoms are consistent with both starvation diets and thyroid problems. But all I'm saying is it felt utterly and completely different.

But maybe you were just trying to say "starvation mode" happened to you... and if that's the case... well... I guess I'm just up in arms about a less than elegant analogy.

C-Ya
:cool:

[han_gaozu]

By the way... if you remember how I was avidly insisting that high cal low carb didn't work for me???


It didn't and since then I have discovered I am hypothyroid... so now I know why. :) And knowing is half the battle. (At least it's good to know I wasn't CRAZY for being unable to lose at 10X bodyweight calories!!!)

yadadeedum

[yags3ue]

i got ala the other day and i was wondering what the amount u should take and how many carbs per that amount?

[han_gaozu]

That is a tangential thought; hopefull you're not asking me! I have no idea what supplements to use, in what proportion or what not.

My life is thusly structured:

I take what my momma tells me to take--she's in medicine.
My momma structures her finances as I tell her to structure them-- I'm the tax lawyer.

It's a simple specialized existence, but it works... :wiggle:

[pltrygeist]

Sorry pal, "starvation mode" is a very real entity. It is a natural occurrence that each and every one of us has the potential to experience if we for any reason do not consume a set number of calories vs. calories expended, have system/organ dysfunction concomitant with weight loss, alter macro or micronutrient ratio for an extended period of time, or experience hormone changes. There are many other ways to have slowed metabolic rate, but the bottom line is it happens as a way to prevent us from continuing to lose weight until we wither away. The physical signs of starvation mode are quite possibly a way for the body to cause us to end whatever it is that is causing the starvation mode.

We're not talking about people starving here. We're talking about how the body responds to change on a cell/organ/system level. You can talk to nearly any weight loss physician who will confirm that this is definitely real. I can assure you that depending on what diet a person is on when they enter starvation mode---of the normal variety---there are OTC products which usually quite rapidly counter the slowed metabolism.

With LC dieting, it's not the same type of starvation mode as low fat, or reduced calorie--unless the LC'er is also hypocaloric as well--but it has the same end result. I would go into this more carefully, but it is quite complex and I think I will devote no less than 3 chapters to going over it in the proper physiological detail it deserves---something which I cannot do here.

Simply put, with a low carb diet metabolism slows to prevent further deterioration just like with any other type of diet strategy. The body is able to recognize every single method of inducing weight loss (whether accidental or purposeful). You can't escape it without having to take further action. That being said, there are definitely ways to counter weight loss stalls and starvation mode. Again, that's a rather LONG post that I can't do here (probably no less than 2 book chapters).

As to a low fat, low carb, high protein diet for bodybuilders, that's just not true for the majority of bodybuilders, I can assure you. If you are not consuming a LARGE amount of fatty acids doing this--and I mean LARGE--then expect to have severe arthritis pains after just a few short weeks.

However, you are right that increased protein and lots of essential fatty acids are required for bodybuilders.

Also, don't knock butter if you please. It's a very valuable substance in my view.

I don't agree that everyone needs to take ephedra based products. Some people certainly have sensitivity to them and have demonstrated these symptoms before.

I disagree that ephedra should be removed from the market. However, the heavy advertising should stop, I agree. As to it being allowed only as a prescription, it's already been done so to speak. Meridia, while not ephedra based, is nonetheless a close chemical cousin and works by very similar mechanisms as ephedra. Certainly we don't hear of the same level of side effects with Meridia and I find that quite odd since it is probably a stronger beta 3 stimulant. Ephedra is also being studied for medical application as well (for precisely the reasons one member already mentioned). So don't put it above the pharmaceutical companies to drive for it's removal for financial reasons.

I don't feel ultra strongly one way or the other about removing ephedra from the shelves, but many people do on both sides of the issue. Personally, I would rather it be available with a document of waiver of liability signature required for purchase by adults 21 and over only than to see it removed completely.

I will say this against ephedra, the combinations I have seen in some products containing ephedra are way too strong and can sometimes contain several stimulants including caffeine and other herbs which can cause very strong stimulation. It is not nearly as common to hear of side effects from the more simple based ephedra stacks.

[Charlif761]

OK. I feel COMPELLED to comment on the Ephedra issue...... I am not going to even TRY to allude that people haven't had VERY real problems related to the intake of Ephedra.....even so far as some people dying. But, I am going to argue that saying Ephedra KILLS people is as stupid as saying guns kill people. (Please don't argue the merrits of gun control yet, stick with me. haha) Guns only kill people in the hands of someone who then use it to kill someone...whether it be out of stupidity, lack of education or just plain meanness.

Now, as for Ephedra, the same argument stands. Ephedra only kills people when they take it without training, or knowledge. I am a Traditional Chinese Medicinalist...I am an acupuncturist, with some knowledge of herbs. I am however, NOT an herbalist. I do however know that Ephedra has been used safely for thousands of years, not only by the Chinese, but by many other (if not all) Asian populations. Where did they get it? I can assure you it was NOT Walgreens, Eckerds, Safeway or similar places......They got it from HERBALISTS... trained in the art of herbal remedies. I can also tell you that very rarely was or is Ephedra prescribed as a single entity. Someone skilled and knowledgeable about herbs knows the properties of herbs and can combine them into formularies which can temper some properties, boost others etc. Ephedra would also NOT be "prescribed" by an herbalist without a THOROUGH intake....in my experience, much more thorough than one given by a Western Medical Doctor...and they would not prescribe something like Ephedra to someone who had a history of certain ailments (such as heart issues etc.)

Now, I again am NOT an herbalist...although I have many friends that are and have read many books. I would NEVER take ANY herb...including "St John's Wort", "Ginko" etc., without going to an herbalist TRAINED and KNOWLEDGEABLE about such herbs. It can be exceptionally dangerous and at the very least cause severe unbalances in your system. In the State I trained, it wa a three year program for an acupuncture degree (5 days a week and in addition to my Bachelor of Science) and then to go to Herbal school, it was another TWO YEARS. So, when people take Ephedra without benefit of soemone with this kind of training, they are taking risks as surely as if they were playing with an unfamiliar gun.

I implore people to not mess with their bodies and risk series damage to their health. Seek professional guidance form a trained herbalist....and your physician won't do. They don't have this specialized knowledge. You can find someone in your area by going to www.acupuncture.com for example......

Best Wishes,
Charlotte Vennik-Fordham, LAc

[mnbooger]

I can't help myself...But :devil:
Guns don't kill people
It's those little bullets that rip through the body that kill them.
:lol: :lol:

[Morgan1974]

I can't help myself...But :devil:
Guns don't kill people
It's those little bullets that rip through the body that kill them.
:lol: :lol:

And those daggone little bullets just shoot out of those guns all on their own, don't they? Sorry, couldn't help myself. :p

That's kind of like saying it's not jumping off of a highrise that kills ya; it's that sudden stop at the bottom. :lol:

[Betsy2]

Ephedrine is a proven killer! This sounds terribly dangerous!

[modizzle]

All those idiots who died from ephedrine deserved to die. They should've went by the recommended dosage.

[Lisa N]

All those idiots who died from ephedrine deserved to die. They should've went by the recommended dosage.

That's a pretty harsh statement. I'd also like to add that if you're sensitive to ephedrine even "recommended dosages" can cause big problems. How do you know if you're sensitive to it or not? You don't...until you take it.

[Azraelle]

I'd also like to add that if you're sensitive to ephedrine even "recommended dosages" can cause big problems. How do you know if you're sensitive to it or not? You don't...until you take it.

The same can be said for aspirin, penicillin, or any other drug or food! Ephedrine is no more safe, and no less safe either, than any other drugs that can kill in high doses (aspirin, alcohol, cimetidine, phenylpropanolamine...). None of them are on prescription. Why is there such a penchant in this country for avoiding the responsibility of looking out for ourselves? Do we really need laws to protect us from our own stupidity? (Mandatory helmet and seatbelt laws, steroids, yada, yada, 200+ stickers on ladders these days reminding the stupid consumer not to use ladders while intoxicated, etc.) Making ephedrine illegal w/o a prescription accomplishes nothing positive--after all, Phen/Fen was only available on prescription--and that didn't protect the consumer at all, now did it??

[korry1977]

Azraelle:

You make an excellent point on personal responsibility. If this issue is not discussed on a wider level, some medical practioners may as well just pack up their bags and get into another type of business due to skyrocketing malpractice insurance. Also, think about our civil courts, in any case (for example fat kids vs McDonald's, I know the judge threw it out, but what if the kids won) would be flooded, and overwhelmed with ligitation, and possibly fraudelent lawsuits.

Its time for people not to believe everything on the news for granted (even thinking its reliable...) and for people to develop some analytical skills and reasoning ability...

JMHO,
Korry

[fourkids]

This has been interesting to read- from Mike to everyone else. Thanks Mike, and everyone else, for a very interesting debate. It reminds me that I need to do more researc, and my OWN research!
Thanks,
Kathy

[Lisa N]

for example fat kids vs McDonald's, I know the judge threw it out, but what if the kids won

Actually, while the judge threw out the first case, he left the door open for them reformulating their case and presenting it again later or refiling for a new case and while I can't remember where I read it, I do remember reading that they lawyers were working on doing just that.

[jeanne48]

Mikeroger,
Going back in time to your statement of low carb, low fat, high protein diet is more effective. I'm living proof that low fat with a low carb diet does not work--my HDLs took a nosedive on such a diet. True, the LDLs and the triglycerides did too. However I was exercising more with that diet and the higher HDLs are supposed to be heart protective.

Jeanne48

[hotrod]

Ephedrine if abused can be a problem..but the main reason the government wants it off the shelf is because it can be used to make meth.

I known people who would take 15 times the recomended dosage at one time of ephedrine...It is becuase the used it as speed and built up a tolorance to it. Personally I found caffine to be a better stimulant to ephedrine. Back when I use to have to work 16 hour shifts 7 days a week

I have read some scientific studys on Ephedrine/Caffine/asprin ("ECA stack" ) and fat loss. The study show more fat loss and less muscle loss than not using the stack. I drink lots of caffine and take a asprin a day so I guess I got two thrids of the stack. Do a search on ECA stack for more information. I dont do it becuase I have slightly high blood pressure. I'm not recomending it for anyone but if any one is intersested do a web search on ECA stack and decide for yourselfs. I belive that everyone should have the right to chose what they put in their bodies.
Rod

[DerBlumers]

Ummmm...excu-u-u-use me for living, Modizzle.....I'm one of those who tasted a SAMPLE of a product at a county fair that just happened to contain ephedrine....and it almost KILLED me!! Recommended dosage? What's that? For me...it was ZERO!!! And according to you, I'm an idiot who deserved to die, simply because I "tasted" the product.

I admit I was a bit hasty in the past....telling others that ephedrine should be banned...but, actually, it has been pointed out to me that it has a valid use for many people...and quite notably people who have ADD and ADHD, for whom ephedrine can be a cheaper alternative to more expensive prescription drugs for treatment of hyperactivity. I will understand if it gets taken off the market completely, but I now believe that it should NOT be. However, it should be monitored carefully....because too many people are way too sensitive, and some people who even use it for the first time can react violently. Believe me....I KNOW.....

[thin2win]

Last time I checked.... ephedrine kills. I think anyone who takes it is an idiot and asking for trouble :nono:

[Hellistile]

Getting back to the original thread started by mikeroger, I would like to state that I am low-carbing for my health only. I don't care if my body is bulging with well-defined muscles or if I ever get into a swimsuit again. I do not need to lose a pound a day. I NEED to REGAIN MY HEALTH. Low-carbing is not a cosmetic and it is not a race. Once you reach my age and develop serious illnesses, fast weight loss is irrelevent.

I average a 2 pound loss per month. I eat plenty of meat, lot's of fat, nuts, fruits and vegetables. I am never hungry, never tempted (yes there are high carb foods in the house for my 6', 200 pound baby) nor do I count calories or carbs EVER. I do not feel restricted by the NeanderThin Plan. However, eating this way has made me HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY, and STRONGER STRONGER STRONGER than I have felt in decades. Most of my illnesses have disappeared or been alleviated.

Oh and WALKEN1, thanks for quoting the death by eating lean meats such as rabbits scenario out of context. The lean meat story refers to death by starvation by eating lean meat only and excluding "FAT" not "Carbohydrate" from the diet. Hunter gatherers who ate lean meat only would eventually die if they could not get dietary FAT. Carbohydrates were of no real consequence for the hunter gatherer as they did not consider them necessary for survival. Fat was of prime importance not protein.

Time for some people to do their research.