80:20 would ruin me. I can do a lot of damage 20 percent of the time.

Thank you for that, Teaser. I think the same when I read that advice....then I feel like Im abnormal.

Dr Atkins view was up lifting, and right on.

Same here. I can handle 98:02 averaged over a week with no lasting problems, but more than that can easily trigger a day or more fighting inflammation, hunger, cravings. And I'm already avoiding all grains, legumes and dairy proteins that Malhotra would consider to be OK in moderation.

I have a lot of resoect for dr Malhoutra but many of us would benefit from a stricter carb count, hence the DrAtkins advocates. And addressing foods that cause negative reactions for each of us individually. Dr Malhoutras angle makes me think aspects like fasting have value as that would be more corrective and balance the higher carb diet Dr M advocates.

My brain spins, trying to understand what low carb fixes and what it doesnot. Many here maintain at very low carb yet Atkins mentions how many can move to 60 carbs. This is baffling. Are we more IR challenged than 20 years ago ( last ed DANDR 2002 ?) but that means DrM program is less effective than DANDR as it SEEMS (not having read his book yet) to be much higher carbs. That bring in fasting as potentially more curative than either program.

Obviously anyone changing their diet to whole foods could have positive health changes, but we have seen how many cannot move fat deposits with out vlc.....

Again, fasting may need to be combined with DrM's 21 day program.

When it comes to Atkins, I've decided to go with the book version that came out around 2002/2003. His program back then got results for the patients under his care and whilst he does talk about people in maintenance adding back in incremental amounts of carbs, he stresses the importance of tinkering with those amounts until each individual finds their CCLM. It'll be different for everyone, depending on factors such as age, gender, level of activity, other health issues, meds, hormones, level of carb sensitivity etc. Having just reread it all recently, it seems that we are all going to be have been hyperinsulinaemic at some point, so the plan, via all stages will hopefully help to reset our bodies ability to handle carbs with the right insulin response, once the plan has helped to stabilise it. I have no idea what my CCLM will be but I'll be going with induction levels for quite a long time before I even think about upping the carb allowance.

I've only just started looking into IF recently and I like what Dr Fung has to say about it. But I think for me, I'll probably do better if I just try to do the Atkins plan as strictly as I can for as long as I can. If I try to add in any other elements I just know it'll overwhelm me and that'll just make me less likely to be able to stick to it. I want to keep things as simple as possible until my body and brain get properly adjusted to this WOE. I have quite a lot of weight to lose though, so it's good to know that I can look into IF at some point in the future, because I prefer the idea of eating less frequently and not have to worry about prepping/making food more than I have to. Plus it seems like quite a few people on here use it to successfully navigate their way out of stalls/plateaus, which is also really good news.

As for the newer Atkins book, I have it, but I haven't read it; I've just browsed the newer site. I get the feeling that they're not so much about the way of life that Dr. Atkins intended and more about being a company with a bottom line to worry about. I know Dr. Atkins' original plan worked for a lot of people. In the book I have he mentions the occasional use of shakes or low-carb bars that were just starting to hit the market, but nowadays there are LC products everywhere and I'm somewhat wary of most of them. I know they can make a lot of people stall and I don't want to clutter up my food intake with a bunch of stuff that may or may not be working against my best efforts.

Obviously this is just my personal opinion, but I have more faith in the original plan than the more recent adjustments that seem to be trying to keep pace with the other keto style diets and whatnot that are out there right now. Maybe I'm just old and set in my ways, but only time will tell as to whether or not the old-school plan will work for me. I just gotta give it my best shot I guess? Here's hoping!

Blue

When I go by satiety, my body doesn't react to all carbs the same way. I get the same sense of long lasting fullness from a meal that's only meat and zero carb, and my whey protein smoothie with sour cream and fruit. I'm hitting between 20-30 carbs on a daily basis, like I always have since 2003, but my macros and food list have radically changed.

And if anything, I've gained sensitivity. Lectins can make me feel outright poisoned. Gluten sets my stomach on fire.

I think the hardest thing is to figure out what foods do what, but as we pursue it, the feedback gets better and better. Lots of people have reported cutting back on protein breaks a stall, but I get in trouble when I try to skimp on it

Death by Food Pyramid is a great book for understanding our individual genetic differences. My present diet makes sense for a herder who lives in a place with a short growing season.

It's not just our family heritage. It's what enzymes we, as individuals, inherited from that.

For a lot of people - those who are simply overweight, perhaps just barely clinically obese, it's entirely possible that his plan will work just fine. It'll probably still improve things for those who are morbidly obese - assuming that they're currently eating SAD (or whatever the equivalent would be called in the UK), which is full of lots of starches and sugars, because this plan drastically cuts back on those. Even the diabetic who's been eating 300+ g carbs daily, if they cut back to 100ish grams carbs, that will improve things significantly. They'll still be on insulin, their blood sugar will still be higher than ideal, but at least their blood sugar would be under somewhat better control. (some article on here mentioned that good blood sugar control was 140 to 180 - still quite high, but not totally out of control, such as if it was 350 or 400) It appears that's the kind of situations he's really trying to help. It will likely seem like a drastic change to those people, so I can't imagine too many with diabetes or metabolic syndrome going directly to 20-30 g/day - the induction flu would be awful.

So in that way, his plan makes sense, even if still too many carbs for a lot of us on here.

However, I keep reading his plan, and I have a problem with it.

Actually a few problems.

Eat only until you feel full. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one on here who has an extremely delayed feeling of satiety. He says to take your time eating meals, apparently so that you sense fullness and know to stop eating. I'm afraid I'd need to stretch a meal out to about 1-1/2 to 2 hours to feel properly full. And that might not work - I've never tried it. But there are times when I eat what seems like a proper amount of food, and still feel very hungry, but stop anyway. But then rather suddenly a couple of hours later feel excessively full.

One small handful of tree nuts daily. Ah, if only I could stop at a small handful - for me, tree nuts are incredibly addictive, and I just don't have an off button until they're all gone. The only way that's going to happen is if I only have that one small handful available, period, which would mean going to the store daily to buy one small handful of nuts, and while there, resisting buying enough to last week... and end up with it only lasting a day.

Fibrous foods make you feel full longer. Maybe this goes back to my delayed feeling of fullness, but I don't see a bit of difference in how long I feel full on fibrous foods, as compared to protein and fat, unless it's that the fibrous foods don't seem to last quite as long as protein and fat. It's not that I don't eat veggies, I just don't see that they help me feel full longer.

Oily fish at least 3 times a week. This makes some sense for the UK, a relatively small island kingdom, surrounded by the sea, where fish are going to be a readily available part of the diet, but not so much if you live in a landlocked area, where fish and seafood need to be shipped 1,000 miles. If they're all canned, it can still be a problem obtaining enough to have it that often (depends on where you live, and what's available)

There's also the issue of mercury in seafood - in the US, we're being told to eat no more than 2-3 servings of fish and seafood weekly, and stick to the ones lower in mercury, where as he's recommending at least 3 servings/week.

But the biggest problem I have with that part of his diet is... where's the meat? What about eggs? Chicken? Lamb, Pork, Beef? Is he only allowing fish as a protein source? And if he's only allowing fish, does that mean he's only allowing 3 servings of protein weekly?

I'm hoping that he encourages other protein sources in his book - for that matter, I hope he's allowing some other dietary fats beyond the 2-4 T olive oil daily, because some butter or cream would certainly help those veggies be more satisfying for a longer time. I'm hoping that whoever wrote that article was simply (and unfortunately, very typically) showing an anti-meat bias by leaving out any reference to animal foods other than fish.

I read a book based on blood type. Which is another way of saying, know your family tree to choose your foods. Funny how it fit for me on some level.

Calianna.
I fully realize MANY struggle with feeling full and satiety.

I too struggle most of the time. A coulple times satiety became a reality. Once was during a 30 day OMAD fest. And now, while fasting 36 hrs. I have no explanation. Just that wanting to eat dropped like a rock, and I cant eat a big bowl of greens and meat like I was a few weeks ago. Its a refreshing change. Again, no understanding of why.

I totally get the 'not feeling full' thing. I'm very much an 'all or nothing person'. I can go ages without eating, but once I start, it's as if there is no switch to tell me that I've had enough, until I'm literally physically uncomfortable from eating. I'm convinced it's some kind of early years programming, where my family would give me huge plates of food (I'm talking the kind you'd feed a man doing a hard day's physical work) thinking that they were 'nourishing' me to grow up big and strong. They insisted I finish everything on the plate. Ever since I've found it really hard to not eat every morsel put in front of me, even if I've gone past the point of being stuffed.

After years of calorie-restricted and low-fat dieting, I was in constant 2-3 hour cycles of eating, feeling full for no more than an hour, then fighting off hunger until I gave in. I was sick of thinking about food!

Now I'm very comfortable with 2 meals in a six hour window. My first meal is usually quite large, but I'm hungry again mid-afternoon. Lately, that's when I have a smoothie, which lasts me into the next morning.

It's amazing. For me, the key is enough protein, but I'm sure others have different switches.

Yup, Once I eat ,its eat all day. But like I said above, its physiological. Seems to be driven by too many carbs.

Top doc says "Food should be considered as a part of healthcare."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ast...eature=youtu.be

Forgot to include, eating high quality whole foods.

Me as well. I do best when consuming enough healthy protein. That is the key to go with the highest nutrient density. Fill in with VLC side dishes and you've got a healthy meal that is satisfying and satiating.