Make sure you do research first

[Iknowall]

How many diets have you tried before? I just want to let you know exactly what this diet will do for you... it will begin by getting rid of your stored water... you will have to drink loads of water just to stay hydrated enough to keep healthy. Carbohydrates are the main source of blood glucose, which is a major fuel for all of the body’s cells and the only source of energy for the brain and red blood cells. Therefore when you deplete your only source of 'brain fuel', your brain actually will suffer from long-term use of this type of diet. That's the other problem. Research also shows (the research they don't care to show you) that less than 2% of the people that do the Atkins' diet actually keep it off for five years, which means you'll have to keep doing it. Every time you do it you will lose a little more muscle each time. Then eventually your bone density will be negatively affected by this lack of muscle mass on it, bringing upon osteoporosis. Feel free to ask any other questions you may have, and I will have the answer to them!

[lemonhead]

Excuse me I KNOW ALL, are you trying to encourage or discourage me to do the Atkins Diet??

[Karen]

Think I better go out and get some of that there Hagen-Dazs ice cream. I wouldn't want to lose my muscle mass or have to keep drinking water.

I would love to read the research you are citing.

Karen

[DWRolfe]

Hey Karen...don't forget to pick up some brain tonic too! :wave:

Donald

[Dave Bing]

I stopped by the Amoco, they were plumb out of brain fuel.

[agonycat]

Originally posted by Iknowall
That's the other problem. Research also shows (the research they don't care to show you) that less than 2% of the people that do the Atkins' diet actually keep it off for five years, which means you'll have to keep doing it. Every time you do it you will lose a little more muscle each time. Then eventually your bone density will be negatively affected by this lack of muscle mass on it, bringing upon osteoporosis.

Really?

Wow sounds like after 5 years on this diet there isn't anythng left of a person!


Actually Iknowall, your "facts" are a bit skewed ;). If you keep your calorie intake up, you do NOT lose lean muscle. Only on starvation diets or going below your BMR needs does your body resort to burning muscle tissue.

And as far as gaining the weight back. This is a way of life eating habit. Not a crash diet you go on and off of. If you go on ANY diet to lose weight not just DANDR and go off it, I would be willing to bet ANY one would regain the weight they loss, plus a few more pounds to go with it. People jump on and off diets like they change socks. Problem is they don't learn from past mistakes.

In order to keep the wieght off you MUST make a commitment to changing your eating habits for life. Not just for the duration of losing a few pounds.

BTW....welcome Lemonhead :wave: :)

[Natrushka]

Originally posted by Iknowall
Carbohydrates are the main source of blood glucose, which is a major fuel for all of the body’s cells and the only source of energy for the brain and red blood cells.

Actually, Iknowall (the irony isn't lost on me), the prefered source of fuel for the brain is ketones.

And muscle loss is something that happens on all diets if you do not perform some kind of weight bearing exercise - it is much more prevelant on a low fat / protein deficient DIEt.

Nat

[Karen]

I stopped by the Amoco, they were plumb out of brain fuel.

That's terrible! Do you have 7-11's down your way? Brain Fuel is usually beside the Big Gulps. And, don't forget to soooper size it!

Karen

[doreen T]

Originally posted by Iknowall
... it will begin by getting rid of your stored water... you will have to drink loads of water just to stay hydrated enough to keep healthy.True. This is a well-known and documented result of ANY weight-reduction diet. As well, drinking adequate water to prevent dehydration is not unique to ketogenic diets .. it's simply commonsense, and recommended for all.

Carbohydrates are the main source of blood glucose, which is a major fuel for all of the body’s cells and the only source of energy for the brain and red blood cells. Therefore when you deplete your only source of 'brain fuel', your brain actually will suffer from long-term use of this type of diet.False. High-fat, low-carb ketogenic diets have been used therapeutically since the 1920's to treat epilepsy in small children, as young as one year of age. The ketones soothe irritable brain cells which are misfiring and causing seizures ... and work where multiple drug therapies have failed. These kids grow normally, with no impairment in IQ, mental, behavioural or physical development. There are several scientific studies about this topic on our Studies webpage, which you can access from the orange bar at the top of the page.

There is a summary of ketogenic diets at http://www.keto.org/. The list of references can be found on that page. Here is an exerpt:It's a common misconception, even among doctors, that the brain can only use glucose for fuel. In actuality, it can burn either glucose or ketones, but under normal circumstances ketones aren't produced by the body. Most of the time, everyone in the world has their brain burning glucose. The only time the body would create and burn ketones in large quantities is when insufficient glucose is available as a fuel source. The way to make glucose (a basic sugar) unavailable, is to simply restrict carbohydrate consumption to 30g/day or less. Only a small section of the brainstem requires glucose to function; the major part of the human brain - the cerebral cortex - functions very well on ketones, and also requires a steady supply of cholesterol in order to function properly. If carbohydrate is not consumed, the liver can make its own glucose out of protein, either the protein which is eaten, or it will break down muscle tissue in the case of starvation.

If you have lots of time, you might be interested to read Lyle McDonald's papers on Cyclic Ketogenic diets. Part One (http://www.solid.net/lowcarb/lylemcd/cyclic1.htm), Part Two (http://www.solid.net/lowcarb/lylemcd/cyclic2.htm) and Part Three (http://www.solid.net/lowcarb/lylemcd/cyclic3.htm). Part One especially deals with the biochemistry of ketosis, lipolysis, gluconeogenesis and the muscle sparing effects of ketogenic diets.

Research also shows (the research they don't care to show you) that less than 2% of the people that do the Atkins' diet actually keep it off for five years, which means you'll have to keep doing it. True. Of course, the research also shows that the longterm success rate for ANY weight loss diet is less than 5%. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that once a person returns to the way of eating that made them fat in the first place, it will make them fat again.

For those of us who have resolved serious health issues with a low-carb diet -- obesity, high blood lipids, diabetes, depression, fibromyalgia, addictions, etc, etc -- we have every intention to stay eating this way for the rest of our lives. Why would we want to go back to eating a way that made us sick, and would have shortened our lives if we'd continued?

Every time you do it you will lose a little more muscle each time. Then eventually your bone density will be negatively affected by this lack of muscle mass on it, bringing upon osteoporosis.False. As noted above, a ketogenic diet spares muscle tissue, consuming adequate dietary protein and resistance exercise adds muscle.

Bone density is affected by gravity more so than by the volume of muscle attached to it, which is why weight bearing activities such as walking and rebounding are effective for increasing density, while swimming is not. As well, bone density requires adequate vitamin D in order for calcium to be absorbed. Vitamin D is made in the skin from exposure to sunlight, or supplements are taken by those in reduced sunlight areas.

Ketones have absolutely no effect on bone or calcium. The theories that excess PROTEIN can lead to increased loss of calcium in the urine are not proven. Here's from the Drs. Eades, of Protein Power:The theory behind this whole idea is that when you eat protein, it’s broken down into substances that are a little bit acidic. Supposedly this more acidic blood somehow leaches the calcium out of the bones, and it can end up giving us osteoporosis, at a later date.

Now all that sounds logical, but in fact it just doesn’t happen. This has been studied extensively over long periods of time. What researchers have found is when people eat a lot of protein, especially meat protein, they don’t have any increase in urinary calcium. In other words, they’re not leaching the calcium out of their bones and losing it in their urine as the theory would imply.

And when we look at the skeletal remains of hunters and gatherers who ate two to three times the amount of protein considered "safe" for us today, you find their bones are 17 percent more dense than ours-given the comparison is done between individuals of the same height and gender.

Lastly, there have been studies published recently that correlate the elevated insulin syndrome with bone loss. Because elevated insulin makes you get rid of calcium from your bones, it may actually be the insulin problem causing the osteoporosis! It certainly isn’t the protein in the diet.

Feel free to ask any other questions you may have, and I will have the answer to them! If you know all, how come I know better?

;)

Cheers,

Doreen

[juliek_us]

QUOTE:
For those of us who have resolved serious health issues with a low-carb diet -- obesity, high blood lipids, diabetes, depression, fibromyalgia, addictions, etc, etc -- we have every intention to stay eating this way for the rest of our lives. Why would we want to go back to eating a way that made us sick, and would have shortened our lives if we'd continued?


How true..how true!!! Before LC, I was sleeping all the time, felt basically TERRIBLE, depression, no energy, and was probably on my way to Type II diabetis (I'm certain). Now, I'm getting better everyday. Why would I want to poison myself with literally HUNDREDS of carbs a day!

Any person who decides to eat more healthy doesn't do it for a short period of time and then go back to the way they were eating before and expect the same results. LC is a lifestyle change . The amount of carbs we eat during this lifestyle change is partly determined by our goals. When trying to "cleanse", we reduce our carbs very low. While loosing, we still keep our carbs low. And when we have reached our goals, we adjust our carbs to the level that is right for each of us. Regardless of the a weightloss plan, the end result MUST be a lifestyle change!

[nolly]

So, IKNOW ALL... perhaps with your infinite wisdom :rolleyes: you could explain to me why 8 yrs ago, when I was on a very low-fat high carb diet, I had the following symptoms: Hair loss (I actually wore a wig at age 20), dermatitis (scaling & rashes),insomnia, anxiety attacks, increased appetite, depression, lack of physical strength(I previously, at 150lbs could bench press my own weight 10 reps.)...the list goes on. I will add that I continued this "diet" for 5 years consuming 15% calories from fat, and carbs, carbs, & more carbs. I suffer from NONE of these symptoms now & my M.S. is actually getting better! My weight loss is slower with this lifestyle but I FEEL GREAT!! I was considered to have the "Perfect" figure 5'7" 120lb 36D-24 -38, but I was DYING. It wasn't until the diagnosis of M.S. that I began to switch my focus from my outer body to inner. I am classified as obese at 5'7" 215lb but I feel WELL for the first time in AGES, and the weight WILL come off!

:yay:

P.S. from what I can tell form reports that I have read, the brain DOES NOT do without when other organs have necessary fuel. It will take what it needs, but as all the intelligent, and sometimes too kind people before me said, this WOL does not deprive the brain of any necessary fuel...maybe YOU should try it!!!

:lol:

[itsjoyful]

iknowitall ~ where, oh where, did you run off to?

I am so very proud to be part of such a magnanimous group of people. The time and energy that our moderators put in to this is just, well, brain numbing.

Yea to all of you,
Brenda

[ngarbade]

i am so proud of you guys :D I read....know it alls post :thdown: and its people just like that try to discourage people about something they know nothing about :confused: but he had me going....i was so glad to read all your replies and it makes me stay LC even more :roll: :daze: thanks guys

[Chrissy]

You mean I lost 55 pounds of water, thanks I needed to know that!!!!

[rustpot]

Into the ring comes Doreen and eyes her quarry.

Knowall attacks first with the water move. Feint and dodge by Doreen and the punch is harmlessly parried by a commonsense uppercut.

Knowall ripostes with the glucose shuffle. A clear miss at target. Doreen takes advantage with a pin on the orange bars and a few ketones below the belt when the referee was not looking.

In a move we have all seen before but rarely succesfull knowall tries the "never works" ploy. This move was so slow to develop that Doreen sees it before it is landed. The way of life hit to the solar plexus was really damaging to knowall.

In a last ditch attempt to stay on his feet knowall effects a direct chin shot with the withering muscles defense. But, by now weakening, knowall is looking confused and fails to see the Eades knockout punch.

Its all over, Doreen is declared the winner and asks for the belt to be taken in a few notches.

In the Interview afterwards Knowall declares that he has gained useful experience in this heavey weight division and was surprised that Doreen could punch so well below her weight.

He goes home a sadder but wiser man but vows to do more gym training and cut down on his sugar.

Meanwhile Doreen has told her sponsors that she is ready for the next round but... can she finish her book first?

[John2001]

Copyed from "Iknowall's" bio:

Biography I know all about nutrition... I'm a nutritionalist

Location : . . . . . . < no answer
*Doesn't know where he/she is from

Interests studying Occupation owner, nutritionist, trainer

Start weight 180
Current weight 192
Goal weight 190 << Duhh!

Height 70 << Ditto

LC Since 5 years ago

LC Plan carb-depletion (Bodybuilding)

LC Books you have read All of the neccessities

***************************

There's aways one of these guys everywhere you go! Is either (a) Has nothing better to do with there time, or (b) Doesn't have the will, desire, or determination to stick with any "diet", much let one that really works.

I know this is a waste of our time just typing our thoughts here like this, but at least we are having a good laugh.

Cheers, John
:spin:

[Karen]

I'm a nutritionalist

So would that make me a foodalist? Or John, you could be an entrepreneuralist. ;)

Karen

[doreen T]

Guess I'm a troll trouncerist.

:devil:

Doreen

[John2001]

:D :D :D

More good laughs!

We are all comedi-est's !

Didn't know this was a "lighter side" thread!!!

:daze:

John

[Karen]

Guess I'm a troll trouncerist.

Or a half-wit hounderist? A blockhead bouncerist?

OK! That's enough! I'll stop already! :spin:

Karen

[doreen T]

Originally posted by rustpot
............Meanwhile Doreen has told her sponsors that she is ready for the next round but... can she finish her book first? LOL!!

Actually, what I'd really like is for the interviewers and the cameras and the flashing lights and cheering crowds to just let me go home so's I can flop and put my feet up.

Gotta rest up for the next one .. lemme at 'em. http://www.smilies-world.de/Smilies/kao/blob_box.gif

Doreen

[captxray]

:roll:
Doreen has him rolling in the ring! WoW!!!! I am impressed!

The naysayer
Enters like
Muhammed Ali.
He floats like a butterfly,
Stings like a bee.

But, he's no match
For the intrepid Doreen
Who's so very pretty
And doesn't look mean.

Before he knows it
He's on the rope
Looking quite silly
Feeling the dope.

Doreen, unruffled
Paries with zest
Iknowitall does'nt
He's thrown his best.

The crowd cheers the Champ.
She smiles at the throng.
Iknowitall bows 'cause
He knows he was wrong.

I love you guys! I wonder where Iknowitall went? Doreen, you are amazing. Rustpot, you are so funny :lol: I laughed out loud in my classroom.

[lowcarbQT]

hmmmmmmmmm, I wonder how many carbs are in Troll? do you suppose it will make your kidneys explode and cause you to lose 50 lbs of water?

BTW, no ones brain runs on carbs or ketones, if that were true I'd be brain dead. Your brain runs on fat. It is made up of fat.

[IYONNA]

to iknow it all,you sound just like my physical thearpist :thdown:

per my foot doctor i need thearpy on my ankle so he sent me to this thearpist ,while this mr macho thearpist/trainer is working on my foot i am reading THE NEW DR. ATKINS BOOK he wants to know if i was doing atkins :) i said 'YES' and that i lost 20 lbs and 2 pant sizes,Well mr know it all went off he said those exact words about loosing musle and it"s only water and that i should watch what i eat-he right i am low carbing, i am watching what i eat and i feel great ,anyhow mr knowitall is upset with me because i told him he need to read the book and to talk to people who have been low carbing for years,(we had a heated conversation the other thearpists were cheering for me mr knowit all stays away from me when i am in the office)

doreen you are great :wave: :wave: i am going to print your reply and give it to MY mrknowitall :wave:

[juliek_us]

I've found that their are 2 kinds of Dr.'s when it comes to comments about this WOL...either they don't have all the facts -only believing low calorie, low fat, "starvation" diets with lots of exercise are they way to go AND/OR they've never the least bit overweight!

I actually had one doctor suggests LC to me when I was sceptical myself (because I'd been brainwashed by those other dr's!). She was a young dr (sorry guys), had ready the book and tried it herself.

My first comment is always "what's more healthy..LC or overweight?" :p

[Nutri-nut]

As a matter of fact, a pregnant woman who stays in ketosis risks brain damage to her unborn baby.

[Nutri-nut]

Juliek, you've given yourself only two choices - and a choice between two UNHEALTHY options at that. Neither L.C. nor being overweight is "healthier."

And people DO feel hungry on low carb/high protein diets. I certainly did.

How do you know YOU haven't been brainwashed by those who promote the Atkins philosophy? Afterall, he is MAKING MONEY off of this!

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Nutri-nut
How do you know YOU haven't been brainwashed by those who promote the Atkins philosophy? Afterall, he is MAKING MONEY off of this!

In the same logic, how do you know you have not been brainwashed by Weight Watchers? They make a lot more money than Atkins! Same goes for all low-fat starvation diets out there....

Wa'il

[Nutri-nut]

I don't follow Weight Watchers, so how could I be brainwashed by them?

I follow common sense. My research on this topic will continue. So far, the Atkins approach is losing when it comes to scientific soundness.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that the Creator of all things gave the Israelites carbs and protein during their 40 years in the wilderness. I'd say HE knows something about what's best for our bodies.

[Lisa N]

By the same token, you don't have to shell out money to get the information, at least the basics of the diet. They are posted on his website that you can visit for free and obtain the information that you want and even post questions for free (and get answers) if you wish to give them your e-mail address. You can also get the book for free at your local library. Yes, the local library purchased the book, but hundreds of people check out the book and read it and he only gets paid for the book once.
OTOH...if you want to follow Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig or many of the other low fat plans out there, you also have to purchase their books and pay a weekly fee to attend meetings or get checked at their weight loss centers. Who's making more money here?
Another point...brainwashing can't produce the effects that I've experienced and had verified through blood tests. I didn't wish away or imagine away 75 pounds nor did I imagine my blood sugars improving enough to maintain them at normal levels without medication. Ditto for my blood pressure and cholesterol.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Nutri-nut
I don't follow Weight Watchers, so how could I be brainwashed by them?


Well, your diet sounds a lot like them so far, with the "healthy balanced, yet low-fat" slogan. Looks like it, smells like it and talks like it, You may not "follow it", but you do beleive in it, based on your statements so far.


Furthermore, I find it interesting that the Creator of all things gave the Israelites carbs and protein during their 40 years in the wilderness. I'd say HE knows something about what's best for our bodies.

You could have saved us some time, by indicating your opinion is based on religion, not science :)

By the way, The Creator Of All Things hath always included a healthy dose of fat in thine protein, and only low-fat industry hath taken it away through evil chemicals ;). Not to mention, the carbs given to the Israelites, was not brownies, bread or sugar.....

Wa'il

[Lisa N]

Originally posted by tamarian
By the way, The Creator Of All Things hath always included a healthy dose of fat in thine protein, and only low-fat industry hath taken it away through evil chemicals ;). Not to mention, the carbs given to the Israelites, was not brownies, bread or sugar.....

Wa'il

I agree. There is much mention of the use of olive oil in the Bible as well as eating the fat of the animals along with the meat. Grains were eaten whole or coarsely ground. As a matter of fact, when the priests made sacrifices, it was the choice part of the animal with the fat that was sacrificed. They did not have sugar, corn syrup or low fat products.
They worked hard for the food that they ate and they walked pretty much everywhere they went unless they were rich enough to own a horse or donkey. Obesity, while not common, was not unknown even then. Studies of the Egyptian mummies has often shown advanced heart disease, obesity and tooth decay.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Lisa N
Obesity, while not common, was not unknown even then. Studies of the Egyptian mummies has often shown advanced heart disease, obesity and tooth decay.

Several authors, including the Edes have made reference to this fact, that the earliest evidence of heart disease, diabetes and obesity is found in Egyptian mummeis, and they couple this with the historical introduction of gains into the Egyptian diet with the invention of farming. :idea:

Wa'il

[Lisa N]

Originally posted by Nutri-nut
Furthermore, I find it interesting that the Creator of all things gave the Israelites carbs and protein during their 40 years in the wilderness. I'd say HE knows something about what's best for our bodies.


I have a few more thoughts on this particular subject. First...if you are wandering around in the desert watching your livestock and herding them as well as making and breaking camp all the time, I'd say you probably need a few more carbs and wouldn't be much in need of losing weight. That's a fairly strenous existence; one which most Western peoples certainly don't even get close to today.
Second...while God did provide manna for the Israelites during the 40 years that they wandered in the desert, it's open to speculation as to exactly what manna was. Literally translated, manna in Hebrew means "what is it?", meaning that this was a substance with which they were unfamiliar and had no reference to. It's unlikely that it was bread, since they knew perfectly well what bread was. Did it contain carbs? Hard to say since we only have a description of it and no scientific analysis. There was also no excess as they were instructed to gather only as much as was needed to feed their families for that day with the exception of the day before shabbat where they were allowed to gather enough for two days. If they gathered more than needed, it rotted. The other time that God provided food for the Israelites, it was in the form of quail. The rest of the time, they lived off of their livestock (sheep, goats, cattle) and whatever they could hunt or gather. They were never in one place long enough to grow and harvest crops, so the grains and vegetables that they had were likely very few and far between, if at all. Sounds to me that they lived a pretty low carb, strenuous lifestyle wandering in that desert.

[PoofieD]

In my own religious tradition there is an interesting passage about a wandering group eating a very low carb diet and the interesting effect it had on the women in the group. How they grew very strong and were able to easily nurse and nurish newborns while traveling.
For those interested I would be willing to share.
Nedra

[Binger]

UHm... I just want to say the I have been on Weight Watchers for year, and the thing is, it isn't low fat.(Or doesn't have to be). One can have anything they want on the plan, as long as it is in their points range. I have been LC for three days, and keeping within my points range. I am pretty sure I can do both.

EVERYONE in the weight loss business is making money. Why shouldn't they? We don't expect our gas or food or dry cleaning for free!

:wave: :wave:

[freydis]

From Losing It: America's Obsession with Weight and the Industry that Feed on It , by Laura Fraser.

"It was during the 1920's that advertisers hit on a problem that was visible enough for women to be embarrassed about, difficult enough to require buying lots of products, and best of all, would never go away: fat. Advertisers made women feel humiliated that they weren't as slim as the beautiful women in their illustrations. They sold bath salts, laxatives, reducing brushes, stimulating belts, scales, mail-away diets, and scores of other obesity cures. Every advertisement chided women for being overweight. 'Overweight these days is a woman's own fault,' proclaimed one ad for a musical reducing record.

...women began to do anything to be slim. They starved themselves and chewed gum laced with laxatives to lose weight. Told to 'Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet,' they took up smoking to lose weight; it was, as the ad said, 'the modern way to diet.' They followed a number of wild fad diets recommended by physicians and pseudophysicians, many of which involved fasting, purgatives and odd combinations of foods.

Carl Malmberg, author of Diet and Die , wrote in 1935 that the craze for slimness that swept the United States after World War I led many physicians to try to rationalize the fad - 'Scientists and health authorities have set out to prove that it is healthy as well as fashionable to be thin.' Some of these diets were the result of a mutually beneficial alliance between physicians and food producers. The United Fruit Company, for instance, was happy to advertise Johns Hopkins University physician George Harrop's banana and skimmed milk diet with the AMA seal of approval. The Hollywood Eighteen-Day Diet (585 calories a day) was promoted by citrus growers - grapefruit was a centerpiece of the regime - as being the product of careful research on the part of French and American physicians.

The commercial weight-loss industry - of which Weight Watchers is by far the leader - made $2.1 billion in 1991... There are 10,018 weight-loss centers in the country, or one for every 25,953 people. Sondra Solovay, a writer for the San Francisco-based Fat! So?, recently counted fifty-five weight loss centers listed in the Oakland, California Yellow Pages, compared with one battered women's service.

In 1990, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon held congressional hearings about weight-loss centers, exposing their unfair business practices, poorly trained employees, high failure rates, and the health problems experienced by some people who had enrolled, such as gallstones and bulimia.

In 1991, in New York City, the Department of Consumer Affairs send undercover investigators to commercial weight loss centers and found that they counseled underweight individuals to lose weight, refused to discuss the potential risks of weight loss, and made false and misleading health claims. The DCA issued a report showing that although commercial weight-loss sales representatives lead consumers to believe they'll have long-term success in losing weight, most gain the weight back. 'A plan for long-term maintenance is nearly always stressed by the weight loss centers,' the report described. 'What is not discussed, however, is that studies have shown that the majority of overweight people who lose weight regain it back within a few years.' During the 1990's, hundreds of people also sued Nutri/System, claiming that the diet caused them serious gallbladder problems."
---

If we bought gas that ruined our cars, food that poisoned us, or our dry cleaner destroyed our clothing, we would expect retribution of some kind. The reason that we should NOT be charged large amounts of money for commercial weight loss programs is that they don't work and they destroy people physically as well as emotionally .

[Binger]

well... Weight Watchers has worked for me, take a look at my stats. I have started LC'ing to speed up the last 6 pounds, because once I get to my goal, which I chose when I started, I don't have to pay anymore. I will be a Lifetime member . That means I will be able to go to meetings and weigh in every week for the rest of my life without paying. I only pay $10 a week now.

Weight Wathcers has charts, and there are minimums on those charts. For instance, I wanted to make my goal an impossible 120. They would not let me. 126 was the lowest I could go, and they counceled me against that. I know of one girl who went below her minimum and was refused entry.

I certainly don't feel as if I have been robbed, or destroyed in any way! :cool:

[PoofieD]

Its about finding out how the body actually works rather than the government fed, big business engineered food pyramid.
I am happy for you that it 'worked'.... but what working do you mean?
Working as in your lost weight quickly, or working as in finding out what your body really needs to keep working well into your 90's??
The thing is I don't think there is a person on this board that hasn't done the weight watcher thing, or the Susan powter thing, or even Dean ornish.. ANYTHING to "work" as you put it.
But the working stopped. And we had to find out why.
If your comment that you are doing this to "speed" things up , and the sort of self denial that we have all been the WW way and done that and didn't manage to keep it up, then I am not sure you have really done the work in knowing that low carbing is not about "speeding"things up, but finally recognize how we are and how our chemistry really works.

[pokey one]

We are not identical. Our physiologies are not the same. What works great for one person may not work as well for another.

Each eating plan, whether it's WW, Ornish, Bernstein, Atkins--whatever, has its success stories and it also has people who followed the plan to the letter and weren't as successful.

That's the great thing about having freedom to choose and to experiment and to find out what works for us individually.

Be forewarned, however, that folks who are below their ideal weight, however that is determined, often GAIN weight if they start low-carbing. LCing only causes weight loss (one of the side benefits of the LC WOL) if you actually have fat stores to burn.

Oh, and one more thing for those who look to LC as a quick way to drop some weight. What do you intend to do after you've lost it? Unless you continue eating LC, you will very likely gain it all back (and maybe more) as soon as you start eating the way you used to (before LC).

Low carbing is not a quick fix nor a "diet." It's a Way of Life--the way many of us have chosen to spend the rest of our (hopefully longer and healthier) lives.

There's my 2 cents. Lecture is over.

Pokey One

[bluesmoke]

PoofieD, Absolutely right. Nyah Levi

[Lisa N]

While I'm sure it's possible, I personally think I'd have great difficulty combining the Weight Watchers plan with low carb and being satisfied with my food choices (ie not hungry all the time).
Weight Watchers is built around the premise that fat is bad and needs to be limited and their point system is based on how much fat a food contains (more fat = more points), so while you could choose higher fat items, that would tend to limit greatly the quantity of food that you could eat and I would think that you would use up your points for the day fairly quickly. Weight Watchers is also a reduced calorie plan with the calorie range for women being between 1,300 and 1,500 per day, the higher level for those who are either very active or very overweight. Personally, I aim for the highest calorie level that I can maintain and still lose to keep my metabolism for shifting downward (between 1,500 and 1,800). I don't know about anyone else, but the thought of having to maintain at 1,300 -1,500 calories a day because I lowered my metabolism through low calorie dieting doesn't really appeal to me.
I've said this often before and I'll say it again: This is not a race! The speed with which you can lose weight doesn't matter nearly as much as how successful you are at maintaining your new weight once you reach your goal. I would rather lose weight slowly once than lose it quickly a dozen times only to gain it back again and then some. Generally, those that lose the slowest are the most successful at keeping the weight off, mostly because in losing slowly they had the time to gain a lot of knowledge about what works for their body and what doesn't and there are other advantages to losing slowly as well such as giving your skin time to stretch back as you lose (don't want to wind up with my thighs hanging down around my knees like baggy panty hose :p ). This isn't just about losing weight; it's about learning how to keep it off for a lifetime and eat as healthy as possible.

[dex]

don't want to wind up with my thighs hanging down around my knees like baggy panty hose

Ugh. Now there's an image that will not be leaving my brain anytime soon. Almost makes me antsy to get to my lower body workout tomorrow. LOL ;)

[orchidday]

Nutri-nut - If you were hungry low-carbing then you really weren't low-carbing. You should eat until you are full and eat whenever you are hungry. I keep my carbs under 30, and it is real easy to do.

I have no problem with weight watcher's. It works for a lot of people. I lost weight on WW pretty easily. Of course, I was ALWAYS hungry and never felt right. I would lose weight on any diet that restricts calories and makes you exercise more. I might have been exhausted by the meetings, filling out the menus, reading the stuff, weighing and measuring everything, etc. And the bottom line for me is that low-fat products are gross tasting and very overpriced. On Atkins, I don't buy any special products except splenda in lieu of sugar. One taste of that low-fat mayo is enough to make me hurl.

Virtually anyone can lose weight by restricting calories, we can see it on Survivor every week. That is just not rocket science. MAINTAINING it is the key. You have to make a lifestyle change and not DIET. For me, I can live happily low-carbing forever. I don't want to be 85, in a nursing home, counting my points. I will just pass on the bread, potatoes, flour, rice, and pasta. I believe that simplicity is the key, we have to do it forever.

People can also be successful on WW for the longterm if they want to live permenantly on a low-calorie diet. I will pass on that and hand me the deviled eggs!

[wwdimmitt]

Always remember that the fundamental error in low fat plans is their assertion that "a calorie is a calorie".

What makes Dr. Atkin's low carb plan "revoltionary" is the fundamental insight that there are very different calories, which are chemically processed by entirley different processes.

For a large group of us, the constant demand for insulin to assist in metabolizing all kinds of sugars and starches has led to a breakdown in our internal processing of carbohydrates.

For all of us with significant insulin resistance, the alternative of eating other kinds of calories, and allowing our damaged internal chemical systems to process those calories differently makes all the difference, and gives us a chance to live for years without obesity, and without diabetes and its related maladies.

Hip, hip hooray for Dr. Atkins and his revolutionary insight.

People who do not have significant insulin resistance can make a workable choice to lose weight either through low fat, or through low carb eating plans, depending upon their personal tastes and preferences.

For those of us with significant insulin resistance, the only workable, healthy solution, is the low carb route.

IMHO, of course! :D

Keep on, keepn' on!

[Teuthis]

Are you trying to tell us that a diet of protein and vegetables and reasonable amounts of fats, will damage our brains? That being the very diet on which homo sapiens evolved our big brains? Your name must be as apocrophal as your knowledge. Just because we do not eat processed sugar, bread and potatoes, our brains are going to rot? I think you've been sitting alone in your room too long.

A fact is that most people on diets fail at maintence. Not Atkins or anyone one else can promise that once you reach your goal weigh you are going to have the character and will power to maintain it. Atkins does provide a rather effective system for slowly losing weight and then learning to maintain it. I can attest that the low fat/high carb diets are no more successful. In fact, in order for some of us to maintain weight on those diets, near starvation levels are required.

If you are fat and trying to lose weight, get on a plan that works, maintain your goal weight for five years and then come back and tell us how to do it. Until then, I think I shall get my diet information from more reliable sources.

Good Luck!

[PoofieD]

That five year thing is critical.
Not only that.... but its the point that your body setpoint may have changed in a more downward fashion..anyone that does it for that long will know the work it took.
Nedra

[tigersue]

I must be one of the few that can't loose on a low calorie plan, the minute I do it, I gain weight. :)
As to the other stuff, I think we all need to be proactive in what we do and how we go about it. Luckily I go to a doctor who seems to understand what I needed to heal. I was asking about WW, so the comment that it is NOT low fat is not true, sure maybe you could use up your points eating fat, but is that what they are teaching you? I'm sure it is still high carb, low protein, and lower fat, and eating processed fats, and hydrogenated fats that are high in transfatty acids. He told me that it was too high carb for me. He even mention that I could do Body for Life, but thought that would be too high carb for me. ( I happen to think BFL is a good well balance plan for the most part.) I like TSP because of its emphasis in balance, goes along well with what I was taught about balance in all things. High carb didnt' work for me, with PCOS it was bad news all over. Now I feel so much better, than I have in years, and I mean years. I'm okay with slow, the metabolism has time to readjust to it's new weight, it has time to say oh you aren't starving any more, you aren't malnurished, you are doing what you are designed to do. I'm okay with that. I won't ever go back to a high carb life because I don't want Irritable bowel syndrome to rule my life, I want my skin to look good, (I actually saw someone the other day who said I was looking so young, what was I doing?), I want my hair to be back to what I knew 10 years ago, the last time I did HC/LF/LP I lost my hair, (IT was WW), it still isn't back up to par, I want to be able go outside and play basketball with my children, I want to enjoy going out and being with people, I want the insulin resistance to go away (it wont on high carb), There are so many things I hope for now, when less than a year ago I thought it was hopeless. I have hope now, and the courage to be patient, and take my time, and do what is best for me.
Balance, what a concept.
Tanya

[Morgan1974]

How many diets have you tried before? I just want to let you know exactly what this diet will do for you... it will begin by getting rid of your stored water... you will have to drink loads of water just to stay hydrated enough to keep healthy. Carbohydrates are the main source of blood glucose, which is a major fuel for all of the body’s cells and the only source of energy for the brain and red blood cells. Therefore when you deplete your only source of 'brain fuel', your brain actually will suffer from long-term use of this type of diet. That's the other problem. Research also shows (the research they don't care to show you) that less than 2% of the people that do the Atkins' diet actually keep it off for five years, which means you'll have to keep doing it. Every time you do it you will lose a little more muscle each time. Then eventually your bone density will be negatively affected by this lack of muscle mass on it, bringing upon osteoporosis. Feel free to ask any other questions you may have, and I will have the answer to them!

Ah, C'mon...level with us. This is REALLY Susan Powter, isn't it? Dean Ornish, maybe? :lol:

[ItsTheWooo]

How many diets have you tried before? I just want to let you know exactly what this diet will do for you... it will begin by getting rid of your stored water... you will have to drink loads of water just to stay hydrated enough to keep healthy.
This is partially true, but it isnt such a "life and death" issue you make it out to be. Fat stores exist to be used in times of starvation, they are there to keep us alive. Not a very efficient source of back up fuel if it cant be used during food restriction, now is it?

Carbs have a lot of water, and you will need to drink more water to make up. Hardly a big deal.

Carbohydrates are the main source of blood glucose, which is a major fuel for all of the body’s cells and the only source of energy for the brain and red blood cells. Therefore when you deplete your only source of 'brain fuel', your brain actually will suffer from long-term use of this type of diet. That's the other problem.
Atkins is LOW carb, not NO carb. The definition of low carb is, high enough to maintain bodily function, not so high that you end up quivering with hypoglycemia, or type 2 diabetes :).

Research also shows (the research they don't care to show you) that less than 2% of the people that do the Atkins' diet actually keep it off for five years, which means you'll have to keep doing it. Every time you do it you will lose a little more muscle each time. Then eventually your bone density will be negatively affected by this lack of muscle mass on it, bringing upon osteoporosis. Feel free to ask any other questions you may have, and I will have the answer to them!
1) Sadly, all weight loss attempts only have a 2% success rate. There are deep seeded psychological and biological functions involved in becomming obese, and not everyone can break them. Unlike other addictions, such as drugs or alcohol, all you have to do is abstain. You say "no", go through withdrawl, and you don't ever have to look at your drug of choice again. The temptaion is there of course, the psychological addiction remains, but its not in your face. You don't choose between "good heroin" and "bad heroin". You don't need heroin to live.

With a food addiction, not only do you have all those problems, but you are further faced with the problem of every day, at least 3 times a day, confronting your drug of choice. Temptation is right in front of your face wherever you look. You have to confront your addiction, engage in the activity, just to live.

Of course the rate of beating a food addiction is going to be abysmally low. It has nothing to do with the atkins diet.

2) All dieting causes the loss of muscle and bone tissue. Atkins is not unique in this regard. It is just a natural biproduct of restricting dietary intake. Now ask yourself, whats worse, obesity or a slight loss of muscle density? Easy choice for me.

[Dstar96920]

I was gonna post something, but my brain is so dried out, I've forgotten what it was...

[captxray]

I forgot the name of the person who is on WW and trying to do the LC thing to "lose those last few pounds." If you're on WW, stick to it! If you want to try LC, stick to it! Don't mix the two together. It just won't work. You will mess up both WOE. I lost 117 pounds on WW, am a Lifetime Member, etc. However, it didn't last. Oh, it lasted for a while...about three years. One day I got a wild hair to eat some candy, because I could...the rest is history. I gained back over 120 pounds in about two years. My problem with WW was that I was always hungry. I loved the program. But, I was always hungry. I had to obsessively count all my portions, too. Now, they have gone to points...same thing. I'm a Neandernut...I'm on Neanderthin and the best thing about it is that I count...absolutely...NOTHING! No carb grams. No Calories. No points...you see, I'm kind of lazy that way. If you see my stats, you can see that I'm almost there. It hasn't been fast. But, I'm in this thing for life! So, it doesn't have to be fast. I will never gain back the weight because I have NO DESIRE...NO CRAVINGS for any of the "FORBIDDEN FRUITS." That's the magic of this WOE, No Cravings! I don't eat ANY grain products. I eat no Dairy products. See? I'm on a more restrcted woe than Atkins, but I'm a "carboholic," and even a little of the carbs takes me off the "Wagon." Each of us is different. WW is really working for my daughter. It has really worked for my mom, who has been a lifetime member and kept the weight off for over 30 years...although, I think she looks like a cadaver because she has no muscle tone, which this woe naturally takes you to, over time. Her cholesterol is pretty much out of control, too and she has high blood pressure, even though she is thin as a rail. I have her genes. She won't do my WOE because she has been indoctrinated to the thought that this is a dangerous "DIET." In the time I've been on this WOE (about 2 1/2 years, now) my cholesterol has gone down where it is supposed to be, my high blood pressure went away in the second week, never to return, my lean body tissue and body fat index have greatly improved. I take a calcium supplement because that is one thing you have to be a little careful about on an LC woe...I'm told that by my doctor, who really believes in what I'm doing. My liver functions were a bit high in protein and low in calcium, at first but I adjusted my eating to include a few more veggies and a little less protein (made my diet that much less expensive) and take that calcium supplement. I plateau every winter and then lose about 20 more pounds over the summertime. My metabolism is like a wild animal in the forest. Animals put on weight in the winter and lose it during the summer. By the end of next summer, I fully expect to be at my goal, or slightly below. I have been given a new life because of this woe. Even my flab is starting to disappear so, I won't have half my stomach hanging below my knees when I'm in my seventies!

[kyrasdad]

I always enjoy how a troll can enter this board, drop an ignorant post, and speed off. A year later, we're still talking about it. The best part is, the threads tend to be useful and informative, long after the troll is back cruising porn or whatever they do when they're not posting foolishness. :)

[nikkil]

I was thinking the same thing, kyrasdad! It's funny how they just drop their little bombshell and then run for cover. Probably keeps coming back to read about all the 'low-carber nuts' going into a frenzy!!

I ALWAYS read these ones, tho, for the same reason you stated. The poop-disturbers who post this stuff don't even realize they're HELPING rather than HINDERING the low carb plan, because we learn soooo much from the posts that follow....backfired, again!

so THERE, Iknowall--stick that in your pipe and smoke it :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mollymom]

I was just thinking the same thing, that the originator of this thread obviously hasn't the guts to respond. I learned a lot, laughed a lot. I haven't discussed this at all with my doctor. When he noticed I had lost some weight he said, "Keep it up, eat lean meat, lots of vegetables, stay away from fast food" BUT DON"T DO ANYTHING SILLY LIKE THAT ATKINS! :rolleyes:

I won't say I have found everything about this easy but I will tell IKNOWITALL what terrible effects it has had on me:

I sleep like a baby, no more insommnia
My irritable bowel symptoms have almost completely disappeared
my skin isn't as dry
my nails are stronger
my mood is incredibly improved
I actually have hope again
NOW WHERE IS THAT STEAK, PASS THE BACON, BLUE CHEESE DRESSING>>HELL YES! A HUGE SALAD THANK YOU!

[captxray]

Wow! I'm impressed with all of you LCrs...Way to go! Keep up the great attitudes. I know, from experience, that you WILL lose all the weight and inches your heart desires...or that's good for you...if you just stick to this WOE and don't EVER go back to the Old You. Now, an ocassional "slip" does not mean that the WOE has been compromised to the point that you need to give up. Just hang in there and LOSE! I love this LOOOOSERS forum!

mollymom! You are doing GREAT! What an inspiration! All the rest of you are inspiring me, too! I love these trolls! Bring 'em on! You trolls give me inspiration, too! You make me do the research and I learn and learn. And everything I learn just points to the fact that the good Doctor was onto something...something really big...He was ahead of his time. He challenged a false paradigm...(it think that's how you spell it). Challengers to paradigms always get the shaft from small thinkers and those who are afraid to go against "tradition," because tradition is a safe place to hang out and takes little energy. To actually challenge a false paradigm means you're a heretic, and few can stand that label, much less, live in that spotlight. Some of our greatest discoveries have come from "heretics." That term has put more original thinkers to the stake by small-minded people who were just plain afraid to upset the apple cart and try something new and different. So, TROLLS! Give us your best shot! I just wish you'd stay around and take what you give. You might actually learn something. But, then again, with a handle like IKNOWALL, I guess you figure there is nothing left to learn.

[toning_up]

On another board I write to we call trolls like that "Seagulls". They fly in, dump their little pile of poop and fly off never to be seen again.......

[cls923]

"I KNOW ALL"????????? Gee, the name says it all...........NOT!!!! There's thinking highly of yourself, but I think your pushing it a bit!! Get a grip, and do some REAL research!!

[Rosie Real]

Dr. Atkins cites many studies in his book proving that there isn't a diet out there that causes LESS loss of lean tissue than his own. Carbohydrates are NOT the only source of blood glucose, they're the source of EXCESS blood glucose, and we all know what that causes.

Nah, I'll stick with what I know works because I'm just one of the many victims of the food pyramid who am grateful as heck that I found Dr. Atkins book when I did.

I notice you're eating plan is "carb depletion". Are you not worried about your own health? Oh, and if you read DANDR, Dr. Atkins DOES warn that bodybuilders and extreme athletes should NOT Follow a carb restricted diet. :)

I too would love the link to the studies you cited. Thanks!

[M. Howard]

Iknowall speaks the truth. YOU ARE LOSING WEIGHT BECAUSE YOU ARE ON A LOW CALORIE DIET! YOUR BRAIN FUELS ON CARBS, WHOLE GRAINS ARE GOOD - SO IS FIBER. SCALE WEIGHT IS A POOR PREDICTOR OF SUCCESS, KETOSIS IS THE BODY'S EMERGENCY RESPONSE, SATURATED FAT LEADS TO LONG-TERM COMPLICATIONS AND HEART DISEASE, AND YOU HAVE ALL BEEN DUPED!

EXERCISE! EAT OFTEN, EAT WHOLE GRAINS, REDUCE SATURATED FATS, INCREASE OMEGA-3 SOURCES OF FAT, EAT FRUITS, VEGETABLES, BEANS, NUTS AND SEEDS AND DRINK WATER. ATKINS CAUSES BAD BREATH - NOT "SWEET, KETONE BREATH"

SO MAKE FUN OF IKNOWALL, ALL YOU WANT, BUT IKNOWALL SPEAKS THE TRUTH.

http://www.pcrm.org/news/health031120_report.html

High-Protein Diets Risky for Bones and Kidneys

Ten healthy participants were asked to follow an Atkins-style, carbohydrate-restricted diet for two weeks and then follow a moderately carbohydrate-restricted diet for four more weeks under close monitoring. It turned out that the meaty diets increased their calcium loss by 55 percent (from 160 to 248 mg/d, P < 0.01). The researchers conclude that a high-protein diet presents a marked acid load to the kidneys, increases the risk for kidney stones, and may increase the risk for bone loss.
Reddy ST, Wang CY, SakhaeeK, Brinkley L, Pak CY. Effect of low-carbohyrdate high-protein diets on acid-base balance, stone-forming propensity, and calcium metabolism. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;2:265-74.
Meat-Heavy Fad Diets Linked to Osteoporosis, Kidney Disease, and Colon Cancer
Washington, D.C.—To counter the current flood of misinformation surrounding high-protein fad weight-loss diets, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is launching a TV ad in Houston, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., this week. The ad, entitled “Safe Diets,” warns that meat-heavy diets put people at risk for osteoporosis, kidney disease, and maybe even colon cancer. In addition, a print ad will appear in USA Today during the week of 24 February.
“For weight loss, studies show that high-protein diets do not work any better than other diets, but they do lead to a quick loss of calcium and, very likely, an increased risk for colon cancer,” says Neal D. Barnard, M.D., president and founder of PCRM. “PCRM is countering the flood of misinformation about fad diets.”

A study recently published in American Journal of Kidney Diseases shows that high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets, such as the Atkins Diet, cause a rapid and pronounced loss of calcium in the urine, while studies of vegetarian diets have shown safe, effective weight loss. Groundbreaking studies published in Lancet (1990) and Journal of the American Medical Association (1998) show that a low-fat vegetarian diet can reverse heart disease. Each year, there is additional scientific evidence that a diet rich in fruit and vegetables is best in terms of long-term health. Visit PCRM’s new Web site at www.safediets.org for further information.

New Studies Show High-Protein Diets Fail to Live Up to Their Hype, Say Nutrition Experts

Findings Show Minimal Weight Loss and High Drop-Out Rate Group Will Launch Summer Ad Campaign to Warn of Diet's Risk
Washington, D.C.-Two new studies in the May 22 New England Journal of Medicine on the controversial high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets show that the diets fail to live up to their hype, says the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Both studies, which compared a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet to a more conventional low-fat diet, demonstrated minimal weight loss and a high drop-out rate. Despite these findings and cautions by the researchers that more studies are needed to assess possible long-term health risks, PCRM nutrition experts are concerned that these messages will be lost in the low-carb publicity machine. To counteract the Atkins hype and inform the public about the diets' risks, PCRM is launching a summer ad campaign; a print ad is scheduled to run in U.S. News & World Report's "Best Hospitals" issue and a TV ad will run on CNN's AccentHealth network. The ads are viewable at www.safediets.org/ads.html.
"The new studies support what many of us have been saying all along," says Amy Joy Lanou, Ph.D., PCRM's nutrition director. "High-protein, low-carbohydrate diets are extremely hard to stick with and don't work any better over the long run than a conventional 'reduce-the-fat' diet-which doesn't work very well itself." A review of 107 studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April 2003 showed that reduced carbohydrate intake did not impact weight loss-only longer diet duration and fewer calories did.
"If researchers really want to test the effectiveness of the Atkins Diet, they should compare it with the kind of largely vegetarian, lifestyle-changing approach Dr. Dean Ornish recommends: no animal fat, plenty of complex carbohydrates such as beans and legumes, and lots of fruits and vegetables. That's a diet that not only helps people lose weight, but it can help prevent and reverse heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses," says Lanou.
"It's scandalous how much money is being spent to promote these risky, high-protein, meaty diets," continues Lanou. "For example, a Harvard study published earlier this year in the Annals of Internal Medicine showed that high-protein diets may cause permanent loss of kidney function in anyone with reduced kidney function. The most frightening thing about that study? As many as one in four Americans may already have renal problems. Other studies have shown that meat-heavy diets significantly increase one's risk of colon cancer and osteoporosis." PCRM's summer ad campaign, "Safe Diets," focuses on the long-term health risks of the Atkins-like diets. PCRM also maintains a registry at www.AtkinsDietAlert.org for dieters who believe they may have sustained health problems due to a high-protein, low-carb diet.
Second Fatality in Atkins-Type Dieter Suspected; Other Dieters Report New Cases of Serious Illness to Family Members, Patients, and Nutrition Experts Present Details at Nov. 20 News Conference Doctors Urge CDC Inquiry; Video of Conference Available

WASHINGTON-New information questioning the safety of the Atkins Diet and other high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets, including data on a previously unreported fatality and numerous serious illnesses, was the focus of a news conference on November 20 at the National Press Club. A panel of nutrition experts, including Paul Robinson, M.D., the author of the first scientifically documented case history of a death linked to a high-protein diet, presented their concerns about the health risks of these diets. Joining the doctors were several people who report being harmed by these diets, as well as family members of the deceased. The physicians called on the Centers for Disease Control to begin an immediate investigation into these incidents and the prevalence of adverse effects and deaths associated with the diets. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) organized the conference. Video of the conference is available.
For example, 42 percent of registrants describe a loss of energy; 22 percent report reduced kidney function, stones, or severe infection; and 20 percent report heart problems or elevated cholesterol. Related Material: Preliminary Report by Neal Barnard, M.D.

[Lisa N]

Whoah....no need to shout. I'm right across the monitor from you. ;)

High-Protein Diets Risky for Bones and Kidneys

Right. After 3 years at 30 grams of carb per day, my kidney function is still perfect (as a diabetic, I have kidney function studies done every 6 months) and the last x-ray I had showed my bone density to be better than average for a woman my age.
BTW...10 people do not a "study" make and coming to the conclusion that something "may" cause a problem is not anywhere near showing conclusively that it will.
Can anyone say "scaremongering"?

[Kristine]

First of all, QUIT YELLING.

>>YOU ARE ON A LOW CALORIE DIET!

Wrong. When I was on the diet you described, I was on a low calorie diet. Btw, we are not all on Atkins here. Upon low carbing, I was eating more calories than I had previously and still lost weight.

>>WHOLE GRAINS ARE GOOD

Maybe, but they're totally unnecessary. Our paleolithic ancestors survived without them for hundreds of thousands of years. Virtually all paleopathology points to agriculture and grains as being detrimental to a society's health.

KETOSIS IS THE BODY'S EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Incorrect. That's an opinion.

>>SATURATED FAT LEADS TO LONG-TERM COMPLICATIONS AND HEART DISEASE

This has ONLY been demonstrated in the presence of the modern high-refined-carbohydrate diet. The cause is insulin. Saturated fat has never been demonstrated to be harmful in those who eat a low carbohydrate diet. If you disagree, go find the study that shows this. At the same time, explain why our ancestors hardly ever died of heart disease, despite eating far more saturated fat.

>>EXERCISE! EAT OFTEN, EAT WHOLE GRAINS, REDUCE SATURATED FATS, INCREASE OMEGA-3 SOURCES OF FAT, EAT FRUITS, VEGETABLES, BEANS, NUTS AND SEEDS AND DRINK WATER

Thank you for agreeing with us. Though you forgot the protein, you've just described a low carb diet.

So if you're so right, why have so many people on this forum alone had such extraordinary results? I'm not just talking about weight loss: I'm talking about complete cessation of diabetes medications, improvement in conditions such as PCOS and depression, and better cholesterol profiles? That was a very short list, by the way.

I'll tell you why: because we're eating what we evolved to eat.

So you think my kidneys are going to bomb out any time now. Okay: show us one documented case of kidney or liver failure because of a low carb diet. You won't find it because it hasn't happened.

Even if there was a slight risk, I am so much healthier now, I'll take it.

Btw, keto breath is a heck of a lot better than plaque breath. There's little for mouth bacteria to feed on in a low carber. What do YOUR teeth look like first thing in the morning? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

[FromVA]

M. Howard's information is quoted from the PCRM. Like I am going to go to them for any unbiased, accurate information on Atkins or any other LC WOE! :lol:

[captxray]

Isn't the PCRM associated with PETA? Like I am going to trust a bunch of militant Vegans to tell me that my WOE is all washed up? I can tell you, for me, my diet is NOT low calorie. I eat more now than I ever did on any other "diet" I've ever been on...and that is a LOT of diets! I know a calorie when I see one, or taste one, and...shoot!...I sometimes drink the fat out of the pan from the meat I cooked! I know that isn't good to do...too many Omega 6 tansfatty acids and all, but if that is LOW Calorie, I'm a monkey's uncle! Incidentally, what happened to this guy? Are you still there? Or are you like Iknowall...hop in, cause a stir, and leave 'cause you can't take the heat in our meat-filled oven?

And don't even start about how good grains and beans are for us! Before either of them, there is NO EVIDENCE in the fossil record of any autoimmune disorders such as diabetes, lupus, MS, arthritis, cancer...to name a few. That tells me something.

My kidneys were just given a bill of health by my doctor in my bi-annual physical. He says I'm in better shape than I was two and a half years ago..before starting this woe. Then, I was 95 pounds heavier, had high blood pressure, cholesterol problems, kidney problems, and blood sugar problems...I was just waiting to die...Sorry, fella, or lady...I'm not buying your couched Vegan hype.

[mosquito]

I am not a "vegan militant" nor am I undercover for the PCRM. Obviously no body of research, no matter the source, is going to sway any of you. You've made up your minds and that's that. I think we can all agree that obesity is the real enemy here. What I don't like, is that Atkins preys on people's desperation to lose weight quickly. He falsely states that carbs are making us fat, where excess calories are the real culprit. According to a long-term epidemiological study, every man, women and child has consumed 200kcals more, and expended 200kcal less in the past 20 years (on average). In one study FUNDED AND PUBLISHED BY Dr. Atkins, they reported that during six months on a high-protein/low-carbohydrate diet:

• 70% of patients were constipated.
• 65% had halitosis.
• 54% reported headaches.
• 10% had hair loss.

I'm not saying low fat is the way to go, but Atkins has not produced one single study that is blind, carefully controlled variable, or peer-reviewed to prove his claims. Of Atkins "research", 5 of these 18 studies are just unpublished abstracts not peer-reviewed. Another 6 are either solely funded by the Atkins foundation or written by co-authors of other studies solely funded by Atkins. The remainder of studies are also questionable because of either sample size, short term investigation and/or lack of a control group. One, for example, “Effect of 6-Month Adherence to a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Program,” is prominently featured as a promotion of the Atkins diet. But they never mention that participants experienced serious side effects, including constipation, bad breath, headaches, hair loss and increased menstrual bleeding.

Further, the high profile New York Times article (What if it’s all a Big Fat Lie. July, 2002) which gave the Atkins diet an unfounded glowing report revealed the following;

“Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across as supporters of the Atkins diet,” said John Farquar, professor of medicine at Stanford University’s Center for Research in Disease Prevention. Farquar felt his views had been intentionally misrepresented by Taubes. “What a disaster,” he added. The editors of this particular piece were subsequently fired for fallacious journalism.

The fact is, people on Atkins lose weight because they are on a low calorie diet. Numerous studies have revealed that cutting out an entire category of foods will invariably yield a lower caloric intake. If you burn more calories than you take in, you will lose weight – period. I just don’t understand why people are willing to put themselves through all of those side affects when they can lose fat by exercising more and continuing to enjoy carbohydrate-rich foods. This is the most effective method for long-term success, without the possibility of damaging your kidneys. I agree (and so do many other bodies of nutritional research) that cutting back on simple carbohydrates is necessary, but whole grain carbohydrates should comprise a good chunk of any healthy diet.

Mel

[captxray]

Did you bother to read MY last entry? I don't have bad breath...never had it. I haven't had ANY side effects, except tremendous weight loss, an increase in lean body tissue with a reduction in fat, better health than I've ever had...and that is according to my doctor of twelve years! My high blood pressure dropped after two weeks of being on this "diet!" My firend, who had insulin-injecting diabetes, is no longer taking insulin because his symptoms are DISAPPEARING! This to the amazement of HIS doctor, who has NEVER seen anything like this happening in his career...to the point that HE is now on the "diet." MY kidneys were just examined and I have had kidney problems all my life...guess what? They are in better health than they have ever been since they started being tested! I used to get kidney stones quite regularly...you don't have to tell me about that one...Haven't had a kidney stone since I started doing this 2 1/2 years ago...that says something to ME! Science can do the double blind tests and all, but anectodotal evidence has some bearing, too, and we don't have to wait nearly as long for the results! I FEEL better than I've ever felt. OOPS! Not scientific, again! I lost 117 pounds on Weight Watchers and gained it back in three years...why? Because it is a DIET, not a WOL and I had to watch everything...I watch nothing on this WOE. I'm on Neanderthin...basically the diet of our ancient ancestors prior to the advent of agriculture...when people started genetically altering grass to make (harmful) phytate-containing GRAIN and started milking animals for their (harmful) lectin-containing dairy products which are designed for other animals, not humans, and genetically altering (harmful alkaloid-containing) legumes. Since all three of these INVENTIONS of Mankind, the fossil record showed an immediate increase in autoimmune disorders such as diabetes, arthritis, MS, and Lupus and Cancer from virtual non-existence! SCIENTIFIC Studies of hunters and gatherers still existing in the modern world have almost NONE of these disorders in their populations. These are Scientific studies, too! You must think we are all a bunch of dolts! I've done the research! So have many of us. This is a highly informed forum, contrary to what you seem to believe. I've researched diets for almost my entire adult life...a long time...and NOTHING ever worked like this woe. Contrary to what you may think, we DO know what we are talking about on this forum and this "diet" is NOT LOW CALORIE!!! I eat, on the average about 4000 calories a day and have lost almost 100 pounds and am keeping it off! So, don't sit there and tell me that a calorie is a calorie!! It just isn't, and that is all there is to it. I eat NO grains, or their by-products. I eat NO dairy or it's by-products. I eat pork rinds (sometimes dunked in left-over fat from my meat dish)EVERY DAY! I eat fat! I eat meat! I eat foul! I eat fish! And I eat tons of veggies slathered with my own olive oil salad dressing and nuts all over it. I eat handfuls of all kinds of nuts, except peanuts (which are legumes, which I also don't eat), and cashews (which are part of the poison ivy family and need to be cooked to be edible...I only eat what doesn't NEED to be cooked to be edible..just a rule of my woe). I also eat tons of fruit and berries. Not low-calorie, my misinformed friend! Not unhealthy, either! Our "diet" is the most "natural" diet Mankind has ever had during our over 10,000,000 year evolution from pure vegans to what we are today. About 5,000,000 years ago, our ancestors moved out of the forest and onto the savana and started eating meat until, at some point our systems no longer made certain absolutely necessary B vitamins that can ONLY be obtained from red meat. Biological systems cannot evolve to an entirely new eating style in 10,000 years. That is less than the blink of an eye in evolution. That is what happened with the advent of agriculture. It kept Mankind alive and kept the species from disappearing because all of the large animals that were used as a food source were being made extinct by efficient hunters and gatherers and their dog-friends. But, it IS NOT HEALTHY to eat all of those complex carbohydrates mixed with fat and meat!!! If you want to talk UNHEALTHY, research a vegetarian diet! That diet is totally UNNATURAL to the human digestive system and body.

[Ogden]

I am not a "vegan militant" nor am I undercover for the PCRM. Obviously no body of research, no matter the source, is going to sway any of you. You've made up your minds and that's that. I think we can all agree that obesity is the real enemy here. What I don't like, is that Atkins preys on people's desperation to lose weight quickly. He falsely states that carbs are making us fat, where excess calories are the real culprit.

I don't think anyone doubts that portion size, overall in the US is WAY out of line withwhat we really need, or that people taking in more calories than they use will get fat.

The thing is, to really understand why low-carb works you have to rethink what has been drilled into all of our heads for the past 30 years. Indeed part of the culprit may be calorie content. But why are we eating more? How did we get so out of tune with our bodies? Could it be because we are eating a diet that is less satisfying and less in line with what our body needs when we eat a high carb diet as we've been told? So we get hungry faster and what do we eat? More carb-based foods that don't satisfy us, trigger blood sugar spikes, and result in craving more food, usually carbs...and the cycle goes on.

The problem IS the carbs (actually it is the insulin response that the carbs trigger and how that effects us over time). Now, not everyone agrees on how restricted you have to be. South Beach is different from Atkins, is different form Protein Power, is different from someone doing Vegetarian Low-carb. Atkins folks will probably be amongst the most restricted and other people will regularly include some quantity of whole grains in their diet, but they are all operating based on the same principles.

I've been low-carb for a year. I've lost 50 pounds and 6 inches off my waist. My cholesteral is 162, my blood sugar level, to quote my doctor, is "perfect." I have lots of energy, I'm rarely hungry...you are right, you are not going to convince most of us that this is not a way to eat healthy, because most of us have had some or all of these results and are in fact, much healthier than we were, and much healtheir than we have been on other more traditional (low-fat) diets.

You have chosen a tough battle to fight. I can see why Atkins bugs you, to be honest the recent emphasis on Atkins food products bugs me because it is a serious distraction from the core of the diet as stated in his book, which is a return to the diet similar to the one that humans ate before the advent of agriculture. What we can't help though is the fact that many people out there doing "low-carb" are following the guidlines as laid out by a story they saw on NBC, or what their friends told them it was, rather than reading the book, or as most people on this site have done, reading A LOT of books, articles, etc that run counter to the accepted low-fat-mantra. That most of us have done lots of reasearch and read the studies and articles you bring up makes this a tough row to hoe.

According to a long-term epidemiological study, every man, women and child has consumed 200kcals more, and expended 200kcal less in the past 20 years (on average).

No surprise there at all. We don't need as many calories as our ancestors did, we don't work on the farm, so why not cut out the things that were added to their diets to stretch them out and increase their calorie intake, like rice, wheat, many startchy root veggies, etc. and stick with the more nutrient dense veggies for our carbs, healthy fat sources (I leave this open to intepretation as opinons also differ greatly here) and protein-rich food sources like eggs, meats, dairy products.

Also, look up how much more sugar we are eating in the last 100 years too. Low-fat frankenfoods introduced since the advent of low-fat mantra have added even more sugar and high fructose corn syrup, to everything from Ice Cream to "healthy" non-fat yogurt.

Then do a search and correlate the introduction of large amounts of sugar and vegetable shortning (trans-fats) into the American diet, and the increase of heart disease and obesity in this country. You might be surprised.

Look at centarian studies, common threads in people living longer are not eating sweets and avoiding processed foods.

In one study FUNDED AND PUBLISHED BY Dr. Atkins, they reported that during six months on a high-protein/low-carbohydrate diet:

• 70% of patients were constipated.
• 65% had halitosis.
• 54% reported headaches.
• 10% had hair loss.


While I have not heard about the hair loss, or experienced it, in fact my hair is pretty nice and healthy these days, I would be interested to see the timing of all of these other simptoms. Halitosis is a result of being in ketosis, constipation and headaches are common in the induction phases as your body detoxes from carbs. It is litterally is carb withdrawl. These are clearly listed and discussed in his books.

I'm not saying low fat is the way to go, but Atkins has not produced one single study that is blind, carefully controlled variable, or peer-reviewed to prove his claims. Of Atkins "research", 5 of these 18 studies are just unpublished abstracts not peer-reviewed. Another 6 are either solely funded by the Atkins foundation or written by co-authors of other studies solely funded by Atkins. The remainder of studies are also questionable because of either sample size, short term investigation and/or lack of a control group. One, for example, “Effect of 6-Month Adherence to a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Program,” is prominently featured as a promotion of the Atkins diet. But they never mention that participants experienced serious side effects, including constipation, bad breath, headaches, hair loss and increased menstrual bleeding.

Studies are underway. It has only recently recieved enough attention to merit a larger study in the eyes of the scientific community. The only people interested in funding it up to now were Atkins folks, so it makes sense that they are behind all the studies. But, apparently the existing information is making many professionals rethink their positions. Don't knock it just yet.

Further, the high profile New York Times article (What if it’s all a Big Fat Lie. July, 2002) which gave the Atkins diet an unfounded glowing report revealed the following;

“Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across as supporters of the Atkins diet,” said John Farquar, professor of medicine at Stanford University’s Center for Research in Disease Prevention. Farquar felt his views had been intentionally misrepresented by Taubes. “What a disaster,” he added. The editors of this particular piece were subsequently fired for fallacious journalism.

There was a whole thread about this on here somewhere, I'm sure someone can come up with the link.

The fact is, people on Atkins lose weight because they are on a low calorie diet.

No. The fact is that people following a low carb diet become more healthy because they correct a seriously problem in human body chemistry that has been reinforced and made much worse by the high-carb-low-fat-mantra of the last 30 years.

Numerous studies have revealed that cutting out an entire category of foods will invariably yield a lower caloric intake. If you burn more calories than you take in, you will lose weight – period. I just don’t understand why people are willing to put themselves through all of those side affects when they can lose fat by exercising more and continuing to enjoy carbohydrate-rich foods. This is the most effective method for long-term success, without the possibility of damaging your kidneys. I agree (and so do many other bodies of nutritional research) that cutting back on simple carbohydrates is necessary, but whole grain carbohydrates should comprise a good chunk of any healthy diet.

And this bring us to the last point. You don't know it, or maybe you do, but you are advocating for a low-carb diet. You should read something like Southbeach, it is probably very much in line (though still fewer carbs) than what you are thinking of. Also pick up Protein Power for the in depth medical explanation of the effects of excess insulin on the human body. "Low-carb" is relative. If you eat meats, fish, poultry, eggs, green veggies, berries, dairy products, healthy fats, and SOME whole grains, you are eating still low-carb.

My suggestion is that you may very well have a point about Atkins marketing targeting people unfairly, but you are not arguing from a point of strength because you do not understand WHY many people, partcularly on this forum, think this diet works. We are not "cutting out" anything. At least not anything that wasn't "added in" to our diet in the last 14,000 years. We are eating in a way that returns body chemistry to a more balanced and natural state. The 14,000 years of agriculture we have had is a drop in the evolutionary bucket, and NOT enough time for the human body to adapt to eat large amounts of carbohydrates, refined or otherwise. Think of it this way. In that time period, most agricultural products have grown up to TEN times the size of their wild ancestors. Now think how hard it would be to collect a handful of grain, or oats, if the individual seeds were 1/10 the size they are know, and the plants grew randomly and wildly, rather than in nice cultivated rows. Would it even be worth the effort? Maybe if other foods were scarce, but when there are other sources around?

We can get into the differences between animals that are designed to consume carbs as a primary fuel source and those that are not, but that's also been done in another thread (or sevarl) before.

Your beef here seems to be primarily against Atkins, but it is unclear whether you dislike the marketing and the company, or actually dislike the diet itself. If it is the company and marketing you dislike then I totally understand, if it is the diet itself, you might want to do more research, from BOTH sides of the issue, so that you can really understand why it is that low-carb diets work, according to the diet's supporters. Despite the focus of the media, weight loss is practically just a by-product of what the diet really does for people. I think if you tool time to read, even with a skeptics eye, the reasoning behind why the diets work and get beyond the weight-loss that everyone looks at in medical studies and the media, you might find yourself with more solid ground to argue from.

[fridayeyes]

*scratches her head*

Let me see, I am on a low-carb 'diet', so that must mean that I am NOT:

* 4-pointing my PhD courses at a rigorous university
* losing about 2 lbs of fat per week
* gaining an average of .5 lbs of muscle per week
* running out of machines at the gym that I have not maxed on lower body
* developing better cardio-fitness than at any other time in my life


Hmm. It all makes sense now. Too bad about all those hallucinations. I was enjoying them.

As for the 25 lbs of 'muscle' that I must have lost on my low-carb diet in the last 12 weeks, I never knew I had so much muscle flopping around just under my skin on my belly and upper thighs! Now I understand that all that jiggling was just... isometrics?

Back to reality - don't even get me started on bone mass since on this WOL, I have increased consumption of natural, calcium-rich foods like yogurt and cottage cheese, increased vegetable consumption, eliminated sodas except once in a blue moon, begun weight-bearing exercise, and added muscle (which adds weight and helps insulate/support/protect bones).

Nutritionalist? OMG *Friday gets fits of giggles*

OMG, I will now change my business card to read "Sociolologist". Actually, I kind of like that...

Cheers,

Fridayeyes, SocioLOLogist.

[kyrasdad]

I'm curious where the battle is here.

Any diet is by nature a low calorie diet. It's impossible to take in more calories than you expend and lose weight -- no matter where those calories come from. Low carb is more efficient at burning fat, and studies have supported the reality that you can eat more calories low-carb than you can low-fat and still lose weight.

You just can't eat more calories than you need and still lose weight.

I eat 1500-1800 calories a day most days. If I ate 4000 calories of protein, it's likely that I'd gain weight instead of losing it. The metabolic advantage is true, but it isn't so extreme that you can totally ignore calories, even though you can be like I am; very loose on counting them. It's hard to eat 4,000 calories without carbs, so we lose.

As to the PCRM foolishness posted on this board, don't pay attention to it. It's got all the credibility of the National Enquirer. :)

[sinergygrl]

How about this... none of you really no anything, there have not been any longitudinal studies done on LC diets, therefore longterm and any other side effects of the diet in question can not be proved or disproved. You can read and quote all of the studies you want, but until there are LT studies and those studies are replicated we are all SOL. That is why we all have to do what we think is right and what our bodies are telling us. Anyone that knows anything about research would be questioning about 90% of the studies that have been done. They are crap.

[sinergygrl]

LOL! I mean know anything... haha. Not no anything.