I don't know if they have them in my city, but I will check.

I've just got to stop my yo-yo-ing and diet shopping. Right know I am sort of doing Atkinish but not strict. Dr. says I will probably develop Type 2 Diabetes within a year if I gain any weight back.

ps: I still have a HUGE problem with the religious aspect of OA since I am not religious.

I feel as though I have posted this a million times. I had a lovely childhood, but candy was the drug of choice for my parents. They tried hiding it from me, but I was clever about finding it. It became a game. Some of you probably know the drill....rearranging the chocolates in the little paper cups so that it looks as though none are missing.

But anyhow.

I was able to stick to a low carb diet during a three year period when both my parents and my husband died. Suddenly the only thing I could control was what I put in my mouth. I know everyone is different, but there is a part of me that gets annoyed when I read posts that talk about "I had a lot of stress and couldn't stick to low carb".

So don't give me the "stress" excuse, please. You can make the decision to deal with stress without stuffing your mouth.

Kay

I don't think I or Linda implied that a person couldn't stick to low carb because of stress and I certainly wasn't using it as an excuse. I think I prefaced what I said by saying I love food. Some people use hobbies to relieve stress, other people use sports while others use support groups. But you can't get around the fact that some people use drugs, alcohol and/or food to relieve stress. That doesn't mean that those who do the latter can't make other choices. Of course we can. Life is always about choices.

well said

Many in recovery from alcohol abuse become sugar addicts....they know it and as long as they are not drinking alcohol, they are abstinent.

Those of us who have used food to self medicate can't just stop eating. We need to confront our drug 3-5 times a day. Its much different than giving up drink ....and a whole lot harder, if you ask me. We need to make peace with our food.

I needed to find the foods that I abused the most and be hyper vigilant about how I eat them now....thats why I think flour is evil...it is flour that is my drug...I binged on it constantly. It is why a restrict my grain intake as I find them to be addictive also.


If you don't have an addictive personality, it may be a difficult concept for you to get.... Yes...we always have choices and when we are actively into our addiction, we can't see the choices....or we don't care to see them. We are more interested in numbing our bad feelings.

Judy...big red flag there for gluten intolerance. Huge. Red. Waving. Flag.

It was my drug of choice too (and dairy, but flour/grains much more so). Then I got diagnosed, and cut out all gluten...and cravings, hunger, insanity just went away (among other things I'd always assumed were "normal"). Prior to that, I'd thought I was a food addict...it's what I started my blog to discuss, my food addictions. Suddenly it vanishes and I feel totally normal! I was like, what the hell am I gonna write about now?

Anyway...just sayin'.

Oh right, Jimmy Moore...never appealed to me, though I'm sure he's a great guy and all that. Just never liked his writing style much. And Kimkins? I think most ppl bash it bc it just seems in bad taste, charging $60. If she made the info free, and then charged for the lifetime membership/counselling, it might sit better with me. I mean, k/e is basically m/e with lower fat, no? I can buy Atkins '72 for 5 bucks.

I hear ya!!

Fluffy,

I have been a little the same way.

Somtimes it's good to go back to what we know - DANDR.

It does work, we have to have faith. (Well that's what I tell myself)

Sam,

Could you give me a link or references to where you got this information, preferably from a source other than Atkins's books? I'm asking because this goes against all the research and studies I've read on human metabolism and biochemistry, especially tightly controlled studies.

Thanks . . .

From Dr Eades---http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/index.php?s=how+low+carb+works&submit=Search



Since posting the piece on ketone bodies and their causing breathalyzer problems I’ve had enough comments and emails to make me realize that there are probably many people unsure of what ketones really are, where they come from and why. Let’s take a look at the goals and priorities of our metabolic system to see what happens. I’m going to try to keep the biochemistry to a minimum, so fear not.

The primary goal of our metabolic system is to provide fuels in the amounts needed at the times needed to keep us alive and functioning. As long as we’ve got plenty of food, the metabolic systems busies itself with allocating it to the right places and storing what’s left over. In a society such as ours, there is usually too much food so the metabolic system has to deal with it in amounts and configurations that it wasn’t really designed to handle, leading to all kinds of problems. But that’s a story for another day.

If you read any medical school biochemistry textbook, you’ll find a section devoted to what happens metabolically during starvation. If you read these sections with a knowing eye, you’ll realize that everything discussed as happening during starvation happens during carbohydrate restriction as well. There have been a few papers published recently showing the same thing: the metabolism of carb restriction = the metabolism of starvation. I would maintain, however, based on my study of the Paleolithic diet that starvation and carb restriction are simply the polar ends of a continuum, and that carb restriction was the norm for most of our existence as upright walking beings on this planet, making the metabolism of what biochemistry textbook authors call starvation the ‘normal’ metabolism.

So, bearing in mind that carb restriction and starvation are opposite ends of the same stick and that what applies to one applies to the other, let’s look at how it all works. I’ll explain it from a starvation perspective, but all the mechanisms work the same for a carb-restricted diet.

During starvation the primary goal of the metabolic system is to provide enough glucose to the brain and other tissues (the red blood cells, certain kidney cells, and others) that absolutely require glucose to function. Which makes sense if you think about it. Your a Paleolithic man or woman, you’re starving, you’ve got to find food, you need a brain, red blood cells, etc. to do it. You’ve got to be alert, quick on your feet, and not focused on how hungry you are.

If you’re not eating or if you’re on a low-carbohydrate diet, where does this glucose come from?

If you’re starving glucose can really come from only one place and that is from the protein reservoir: muscle. A little can come from stored fat, but not from the fatty acids themselves. Although glucose can be converted to fat, the reaction can’t go the other way. Fat is stored as a triglyceride, which is three fatty acids hooked on to a glycerol molecule. The glycerol molecule is a three-carbon structure that, when freed from the attached fatty acids, can combine with another glycerol molecule to make glucose. Thus a starving person can get a little glucose from the fat that is released from the fat cells, but not nearly enough. The lion’s share has to come from muscle that breaks down into amino acids, several of which can be converted by the liver into glucose. (There are a few other minor sources of glucose conversion: the Cori cycle, for example, but there are not major sources, so we’ll leave them for another, more technical, discussion.)

But the breakdown of muscle creates another problem, namely, that (in Paleolithic times and before) survival was dependent upon our being able to hunt down other animals and/or forage for plant foods. It makes it tough to do this if a lot of muscle is being converted into glucose and your muscle mass is dwindling.

The metabolic system is then presented with two problems: 1) getting glucose for the glucose-dependent tissues; and 2) maintaining as much muscle mass as possible to allow hunting and foraging to continue.

Early on, the metabolic system doesn’t know that the starvation is going to go on for a day or for a week or two weeks. At first it plunders the muscle to get its sugar. And remember from a past post that a normal blood sugar represents only about a teaspoon of sugar dissolved in the entire blood volume, so keeping the blood sugar normal for a day or so doesn’t require a whole lot of muscular sacrifice. If we figure that an average person requires about 200 grams of sugar per day to meet all the needs of the glucose-dependent tissues, we’re looking at about maybe a third of a pound of muscle per day, which isn’t all that big a deal over the first day. But we wouldn’t want it to continue. If we could reduce that amount and allow our muscle mass to last as long as possible it would be a help.

The metabolic system could solve its problem by a coming up with a way to reduce the glucose-dependent tissues’ need for glucose so that the protein could be spared as long as possible.

Ketones to the rescue.

The liver requires energy to convert the protein to glucose. The energy comes from fat. As the liver breaks down the fat to release its energy to power gluconeogenesis, the conversion of protein to sugar, it produces ketones as a byproduct. And what a byproduct they are. Ketones are basically water soluble (meaning they dissolve in blood) fats that are a source of energy for many tissues including the muscles, brain and heart. In fact, ketones act as a stand in for sugar in the brain. Although ketones can’t totally replace all the sugar required by the brain, they can replace a pretty good chunk of it. By reducing the body’s need for sugar, less protein is required, allowing the muscle mass (the protein reservoir) to last a lot longer before it is depleted. And ketones are THE preferred fuel for the heart, making that organ operate at about 28 percent greater efficiency.

Fat is the perfect fuel. Part of it provides energy to the liver so that the liver can convert protein to glucose. The unusable part of the fat then converts to ketones, which reduce the need for glucose and sparing the muscle in the process.

If, instead of starving, you’re following a low-carb diet, it gets even better. The protein you eat is converted to glucose instead of the protein in your muscles. If you keep the carbs low enough so that the liver still has to make some sugar, then you will be in fat-burning mode while maintaining your muscle mass, the best of all worlds. How low is low enough? Well, when the ketosis process is humming along nicely and the brain and other tissues have converted to ketones for fuel, the requirement for glucose drops to about 120-130 gm per day. If you keep your carbs below that at, say, 60 grams per day, you’re liver will have to produce at least 60-70 grams of glucose to make up the deficit, so you will generate ketones that entire time.

So, on a low-carb diet you can feast and starve all at the same time. Is it any wonder it’s so effective for weight loss?

Interesting post pennilink. So, what role does insulin play in all of this or the hormone glucagon? Also, I think a discussion of exactly at what point the fat burning process (ketosis) starts and stops should be mentioned too. Science has determined this and the discussion is seldom in grams, but microunits per milliliter (mu/ML). Guys, we know at what level insulin needs to rise to completely stop fat cells from releasing their contents! There is just no way that we can have a fruitful discussion of ketones and not mention insulin, or glucagon. Hell, without either hormone, ketones wouldn't exist!!

Finally, I'm asking for tightly controlled metabolic studies, not studies where folks were asked questions about how they use to eat as a child or given a food journal and told to track their meals. No, these types of studies are filled with errors, mainly because folks lie about how much they eat. No, I want studies that keep people in a metabolic ward, which they can't leave until the experiment is over, and weighs and measures their caloric intake that show conclusively that a person can eat ad libitum (all U can eat) on a low carb diet without considering calories and lose weight because of a metabolic advantage. The studies have been done already, so there is a definite answer out there, not something that I'm going to theorize about.

Also, I need a little more than a link to Dr. Eades's blog as evidence; btw, I loved Protein Power. It was much more scientifically based and sound than Atkins, South Beach, Sugar Busters, etc. Please give me links to actual studies, which you've read, that support your argument. Thanks pennilink for your post because I think these are very important concepts that needs to be discussed.

Perhaps you have done this before, Muata, but go to Pubmed (Medline) and search around. You'll find all journal articles published. Some have abstracts. Use the search tool just like any with advanced finds available.

However, after several years working on medical books and journals I can safely inform you that whatever you find to support a theory you will find an equal number to dispute it. Journal articles are not the be all and end all as they have at times been influenced by grants, editors, and peer review... and journal advertisers.

Thank you both for this discussion, but which kind of studies are you looking for? You have to specify the catogery.

Concerning low carbing, Medical field professionals can be divided into two categories. The ones who are for low carb dieting like Dr. Atkins, Dr. Eades, Dr. Heller and few others and the ones who are not for low carb dieting who actually make the majority. The ones who are not for low carb dieting call it all a pseudoscience and the ones who are for it call them idiots!

More than 95% of earth population eat over 100 carbs a day. For this reason the entire sience of medecine is based on high carb eating. Everything doctors have learned in their studies and mostly everything you can find in medical referencies have been based on high carb eating. This is why when you try to analyse low carb effects, you need to use logic.

Let me start with this paragraph from my previous post:

I like to know how you answer this question.

OK, I'll be very specific here. I would like for you to produce a study that shows when you consume below 1200 calories a day, while eating low carbs, that the stored body fat will give you the other calories that you need for your daily activities. This all sounds pretty interesting and even plausible. Hey, I even thought that if you eat fat you'll get fat was a plausible idea too.

Here's the thing. As long as you cut calories, it doesn't matter if you are LC or LF, you will lose bodyweight. Don't believe me? Look at all the weight loss success stories from Ornish, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, etc. However, the composition (body fat vs Lean Body Mass) of the weight loss is more of a telling story. If you cut calories below 1200 your percentage of LBM loss will be more than fat. The best you can hope for is 75% (fat) and 25% (LBM) loss on your journey to leaness eating sub 75 grams of carbs. In obese folks, since there is so much extra fat, you really don't worry too much about this ratio unless you cut your calories too low.

But, there's a simple way to settle this debate. All of you currently following KimKims, Stilllman, or any other low calorie and low carb diet, do me a favor. Go to www.mybodycomp.com and sign up for their FREE account. This will give you access to their body fat calculator, which I think is one of the best I've seen on the net, and it has the most body site measurements. Take your measurements and let the program determine what your body fat % is. OK, take these measurements once a week, the program will keep track of your previous measurements. The program will let you know ~ how much LBM you've lost versus fat mass. Track it for one month, and let's start a thread showing our results. I've been doing this for over two years, that's how I know my body fat % and how I've reduced it over the years versus my LBM losses.

So, what do you say? A one month, friendly challenge, not to see who can lose the most weight, but to see if your "theories" on whether doing low carb and low calorie has some sort of LBM sparing effect while making your body a fat burning machine are true, and I'm just a Big Meanie, like another person called me! LOL! Or, is their more truth to the Calorie is King argument that I'm making?

I can give you studies and quote from several books to prove my point about the body's fuel metabolism and the first study that used a 100% carb diet versus 0% carb diet in mice back in the early 1900, but that's boring. I like real-life, personal experiences that we can see and measure the results.

Let me know . . .

To pennink:

Did you really mean to reprint that in its entirety? Maybe because it's a blog it doesn't matter, but doesn't this site have any rules about copyright violations? I think it's more appropriate to post the link and print out a few key paragraphs.

But it's being done all over this website, not trying to single you out, just saying. The mods here don't seem bothered by it.

Whatever.

Thanks for the link, though!