I haven't been on this board a long time. I admit I mostly stayed for the politics and have been mourning the demise of the Current Affairs Forum. No do I have 100 pounds to lose. However, I have read many posts, and while I wouldn't want to label anyone disfunctional, I have seen some pretty strange obsessive attitudes. You all can comment or not on whether these signal ED.

1. People who weight 110 and want to lose 10 more pounds.

2. People who go on drinking significant quantities of alcohol yet claim they are doing induction.

3. People who use induction as a way of life.

4. People who think calories don't count.

5. People who think the PETA people are THE ENEMY.

6. People describe what they are eating and ignore the fact that they are consuming great quantities of fat.

7. People who regard in attack on Atkins as a form of terrorism.

9. People who seem to have no life beyond their food restriction/consumption.

10. People who think all fats are created equal or all carbs are created equal.

I don't know about ED, but, hey, denial sure does exist here.

The Atkins book says there is nothing wrong with this and it's not dangerous in the least. Why do you think it is a problem? I'm curious.



This probably isn't a problem though. Remember, on Atkins, fat is not the enemy. In fact, a suggested ration is 70/20/5 of fat/protein/carbs. When you cut out carbs, your body has to use something for energy, and breaking down strands of protein takes a lot of work, so fat becomes the fuel of choice. We've been told for the past 25 years that fat is bad for us, but if they're eating the food that's on the "safe list" than there shouldn't be a problem.

These points could certainly indicate dysfunctional behaivor, but I'm not sure why you think they do. Can you expound on your thoughts?

After trying repeatedly and failing to lose weight (actually gained and my cholesterol went way up) on the Paleo diet I realized that all my problems with food are psychological. I don't know whether I truly have an ED or am on the verge of one but I discovered that my emotional eating has caused all of my problems.

For me it's not a physical addiction to carbs. It's all emotional.

-J

From the website:

How long can I stay on Induction?

The longer you consume no more than 20 grams of carbs daily, the more body fat you will burn. Depending on how much weight you need to lose, you can safely continue with Induction as long as the following three conditions are met:

• Your blood chemistries, lipid values, blood pressure or blood sugar levels continue to improve or remain stable and within normal limits.
• You feel well and are experiencing a high energy level, normal sleep patterns and stable moods.
• You are not bored. Boredom could lead to cheating and undermine your efforts.

However, it is important to understand the entire Atkins Nutritional ApproachTM. The ultimate goal of the program is to advance from the Induction phase through Ongoing Weight Loss and Pre-Maintenance, culminating in Lifetime Maintenance, which should become your permanent way eating. By following these steps, you can find your Critical Carbohydrate Level for Losing (CCLL), also known as your carbohydrate threshold for losing, and ultimately your Atkins Carbohydrate Equilibrium (ACE), also known as your carbohydrate threshold for maintaining. Segueing from one phase to another will help you maintain a healthful weight, feel good and decrease your risk factors for chronic diseases such as heart disease, hypertension and diabetes.

That being said, if you have a great deal of weight to lose, you can certainly stay on Induction for six months or even more. When you switch to Ongoing Weight Loss, your rate of loss will naturally diminish. On the other hand, if you have a modest weight loss goal, say 20 pounds, and lose the first pounds rapidly, it is important to move through the more liberal phases so you can establish the good eating habits that will become part of your ongoing lifestyle and end yo-yo dieting.

While not dissing Atkins, at the same time you can't argue Atkins by simply quoting Atkins. In order to present a logical arugument for Atkins or anything else, you must quote an outside unbiased source.

Umm...Fluffy can I point out that most outside supposedly unbiased sources tell us that anything less than 45% of our caloric intake from carb sources is unhealthy?
The topic in question is whether or not a person can stay at induction levels of carb for a prolonged period of time or indefinitely. Since Atkins is one of the few plans that requires an induction phase (South Beach being the other that I know of), it seems only fair and reasonable to refer back to the guidelines of that plan for an answer.
While I don't think staying at induction levels of carb for prolonged periods is a good strategy and would definitely become boring after a prolonged period of time, I don't believe that it's physically harmful to do so and it seems that Dr. Atkins agreed.
Can doing that be a sign of an ED? Sure. But it's not an automatic sign of one.

I think the issue here is that our messages are getting lost in translation.

I don't think anyone is trying to say induction, forever, is harmful in the way someone might traditionally define harm.

We are arguing that it is not an optimal way to eat, and your health and well being will be relatively less good than if you ate a more balanced, liberalized diet with fruits and lots of veggies... and with less lower nutrient pure fats like cream and butter and mayo.

Dr. Bernstein's recommended diet for diabetics is 30 grams of carb daily. He has been following this eating plan for 30 years, has not had any fruit in 30 years, and has had no ill effects. In fact, this diet actually has reversed diabetic complications in both himself and many of his patients. And none of them have suffered from any vitamin/mineral deficiencies as long as they enjoy a variet diet.

There are no nutrients in breads/rice/potatoes and fruits that you can't obtain with a well-rounded diet that includes lots of vegetables and various types of proteins.

So I'm not sure I agree with you on this.

Agreed. I don't think people should use Induction as a crutch. We are all different. I have found that I can have carrots and oats without craving chocolate and white bread (Oh I do miss a nice crisp, crumbly French loaf!), but I cannot eat too much chocolate or white bread without starting a binge. Every morning I have dried cherries in my smoothie. I find that this satifies me for most of the morning.

I don't feel I have to be religious about food. I just need to be sensible.

Because it is likely unbalanced and unhealthy.
Even atkins computer generated induction menus - designed for caloric levels which are too high for most people mind you - were still deficient in the RDA of nutrients.

Besides, lets be honest. A healthy diet is comprised of more than butter cream and some eggs for breakfast (with a few bits of garlic and onion), an 8 ounce steak and a few asparagus stalks for lunch, and some salmon with a green salad for dinner. Now these are fine foods, but eating so much of them and so little of everything else is not. You need to eat stuff like peas and carrots and melons and berries and all that healthy vegetation, too.
Fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and even grains contain numerous nutritional factors which you just can't get by eating only meat and dairy.

Now I know LOTS of people are going to disagree with this, but I firmly believe eating almost no carbs doesn't allow for enough variety to be healthy. Also, in the book Atkins gives a wink/nod approval of using induction for extended periods of time... he allows it if you are really bad off (really obese, or have diabetes or some other extreme issue). I don't think Atkins intended on people living on induction forever, nor do I think he intended for highschool girls who want to drop 5 lbs to abuse it as a crash diet, nor did I think he intended for there to be this internet subculture which would thrive that champions a 70% fat diet as a way of life!

He made it pretty clear, to me at least, that he expects you to progress through the stages and eat like a normal/healthy person eventually.
He expects you to liberalize your diet and to learn to eat in moderation.


I hope you don't mean as a way of life!
If you have a serious health condition which would necessitate that sort of diet (eg diabetes, epilepsy) I can understand... but if not please be aware that by eating so little other than fat you are missing out on lots of nutrients.

True, but that doesn't mean you have to eat almost no carbs.
My fat metabolism is just fine and I eat 45-50 % fat I'd reckon.

1) There's no such thing as "safe food" and "unsafe food"... thats diet/ED think.

2) It really makes no sense in objective reality that some foods are "dangerous" when eaten with other foods, like many diets have you believe. That's just bunk. if you are talking portion size, fine, but when portion sizes are equal it doesn't make any sense to belief fat becomes "safe" or "dangerous" depending on what else is consumed with it. It's all metabolized the same way, and the effects of food will be the same only less or greater depending on quantity of food.
In other words, the metabolic effects of food are mostly dependant upon quantity and type of food... not so much the combinations or vitamin status or position of the moon or any other nonsense.

3) Food exclusion rules in diets (banning whole food groups/types) is designed to limit choices, which leaves the user to be less "entertained" with eating, and therefore more likely to eat to his or her true hunger.
This is also the basis behind the "forcing liquids" rule of all diets. Forcing liquids unnaturally dampens (pun intended) appetite and gives a new focus for oral fixations. It's basically as if they told you to chew 8 pieces of trident gum a day. You'd find yourself snacking mindlessly less often because you were chewing gum so much.

4) Of course, it goes without saying that the "fat is bad" advice was stupid and wrong. People being as extreme and illogical as they are expounded on the advice to limit fat, and went and ate as little fat as possible, some eating almost no fat. Unsurprisingly these people didn't do too well. Some then blamed the low fat advice, and did a complete 180.
Sound familiar? It's equally as silly (ok moreso ) as the advice to eat almost no carbs and all fat.
You may do it for awhile but sooner or later you're gonna get tired of eating such a restricted diet. If that doesn't get you, your health will. The human body is very resilient and can withstand all sorts of punishment... look how long vegans thrive eating the way they do.


There's the extreme and irrational assignment of moral worth to food, for one.
The obsessive purifying and compulsive fear of food, second. (counting carbs out in GRAMS is pretty obsessive!)
Theres the extreme reactions to/behavior with eating (today I'm "on the wagon" and will be perfect; tomorrow I will fall "off the wagon" and will eat everything in sight).
There's the imbuing of food with almost "mystical powers" (eg olive oil will heal you, canola oil will make you sick and die... low carb diets cure all diseases, high carb diets cause all diseases)
There's the irrational pseudoscience that numerous obvious ED people use to justify their bizarre beliefs and eating rituals (eg the silly CAD diet and it's ban on fiber... or the belief that fat is "safe" if one eats no carbs... or the belief that fat and/or carbs is "dangerous" at all! I could go on for hours about the neurotic things I see people say/believe/do here when it comes to food.)

Sorry but none of it's normal. And by normal I mean healthy. None of it.
Sadly, we all do it.

Sorry, but I think the problem is that he made no such thing clear. I have long been annoyed by Atkins' wink and a nod style of writing and the mixture of science with blatant hard sell.

There's the rub! Atkins had this great idea. He questioned the status quo thinking on food and heart disease and we will all be better off because he did only if we continue to question. And this includes questioning Atkins' thinking as well.

Certainly we should also question the segments of his writing that use sales tactics to convince people to choose his way of eating.

For example, pick up any fashion magazine and you will see page after page of advertisements for cosmetics. They all offer extravagant claims. But we are really fools if we think buying the latest Lancome product is going to make us look 15 years younger and solve our romantic problems to boot.

The problem with Atkins' approach is that while he explicitly encouraged people to move from Induction to more varied ways of eating, he implicitly makes weight loss the end all and be all of success. If he had just said: "Don't eat too much white flour and sugar because it isn't good for your heart," we never would have had the Atkins' phenomenon. I am glad he published. I am glad he was a success. I am glad I have found a different approach to weight loss, but I have to agree with Wooo. The way some people approach food and weight loss just isn't healthy. Some posts on this site rise to the level religious fervor about food. I don't think our health is served when we become true believers. We serve ourselves best when we continue to question and continue to learn.

um, what is ED? the only ED I know of is from the TV commercials featuring loving couples in bathtubs or Bob Dole or.. you know what I mean, heh heh...

and by the way, PETA IS the enemy!

Hee!

Here ED means Eating Disorder.

-J

1. People who weight 110 and want to lose 10 more pounds.

assuming they are not 4 foot then yes ED

2. People who go on drinking significant quantities of alcohol yet claim they are doing induction.

maybe more of a alchohol problem rather than ED

3. People who use induction as a way of life.

erm difficult after getting near goal it may be ED

4. People who think calories don't count.

not ED

5. People who think the PETA people are THE ENEMY.

The way I see it PETA are making themselves the enemy of not only the low carb groups but others too. I happen to believe in some of their aims I signed the petition to ban fox hunting but also believe the numbers have to be kept in check, I just dont think hunting them down with a pack of dogs is the way to do it. I detest cruelty to animals and hate the fur coat wearing brigade but I think that sheepskin and leather are fine as we eat most of the rest of these creatures. I hate battery farming but have kept and killed chicken for food. so not ED

6. People describe what they are eating and ignore the fact that they are consuming great quantities of fat.

I truely believe that fat is not a problem while low carbing. not ED

7. People who regard in attack on Atkins as a form of terrorism.

not ED most of these people are so pleased to have found a way of eating that works and believe it will help many people also and so get a little miffed when other knock it down without any form of proof.

9. People who seem to have no life beyond their food restriction/consumption.

Maybe ED if they have no other aims.

10. People who think all fats are created equal or all carbs are created equal.

I think misinformed is more likely than ED

Interesting the only solid affirmation of ED you gave was for the thin girl.

I don't think people understand that EDs are so, so much more than weight. EDs are more than wanting to be thin. You can be 350 lbs and have a serious ED - one that affects your quality of life and creates tempest in your soul and heart. You can appear quite physically normal.
An ED is about a dysfunctional way of coping in which food plays a chief part, above all else. You can have an ED and never have tried to lose weight.

I remember vividly, sitting and forcing myself to eat snack cakes. While I was eating them, I was thinking "I'm not hungry. I don't like the way these taste. For some reason though, I just have to eat them. I have to fill myself with this food."
Eating was something I did just to cope. I ate the way normal people socialize and live life.
I had never tried to diet. I didn't care about the way I looked.
I didn't binge manically, either.

I fit absolutely no criteria for eating disorder.

Can you still honestly say the way I ate sounds "normal and healthy"? It sounds pretty freaking disordered to me. To eat like that, to allow yourself to become almost 300 lbs, caring so little about anything but consuming food... that's not disordered?
The damage I did to myself by living that way for so long is permanent and severe (pcos, stretched out skin, a carbohydrate metabolism that is like a 45 year olds, etc).
That's not disordered?
I'd say it's pretty freaking disordered.