Fri, Aug-03-07, 11:45
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 200
|
|
Plan: Atkins fatfast->induction
Stats: 147/145/125
BF:
Progress: 9%
Location: USA
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel
No. Not me. I like eating carbs and cannot stay without them for long! However, I know that if I reduce my net carbs to 7 per day, I can stay easily 2 weeks or more without any bad feeling. My calorie intake would be around 1000 a day naturally without intended reduction and my ability to lift weights would only be reduced slightly.
In the past, when I have been doing high carb, low calorie dieting, reducing my calorie intake to 1000 used to mean hunger and dizziness. My face used to look pale enough to make people think I'm sick and exercising has been impossible.
Dr. Atkins has also mentioned that there is a metabolic advantage in low carb dieting. This meant to him that if 2 persons ate 1000 calories a day for a period of time, one of them ate high carb food and the other ate low carb food during that period, the one who ate low carb food will lose more weight. The important point which I like to make here is that losing more weight means getting more energy from the body fat to perform body functions with which in turn means less risk to the person's health.
When a person eats 1000 calorie a day, he is not disallowing his body from getting all the energy it needs since his body has a mountain of body fat which it can tab into and get all the missing calories. The problem is that for some reason, his body fails to get all the amount it needs from its fat. It only gets a fraction of it leaving him with less energy. Under low carb dieting the amount of energy obtained from body fat is higher, so energy available to perform body functions with is also higher and this means that health risk is less.
Let us now get into the main subject. I know everybody here is mad at the Kimkins diet. They say that Kimkins dieters are told to eat as low as 300 calories a day and exercise on the top of that which is obviously awful. However all I wanted to say is that it's not as deadly as it could have been if they have not been asked to eat very low carb.
|
I just feel the need to say that I think those three conclusions aren't really right, for a few reasons. 
The first two are just iffy, but while we have more steady energy/resources available, and that's good, as you say, the difference and damage to our bodies is not so big or so much due to a lack of energy as a lack of the right types of nutrients and a dangerous balance.
Those aren't a big deal, but the last one -- the idea that a 300 calorie diet is "not as deadly as it could have been if they have not been asked to eat very low carb" -- could cause a dangerous misperception IMO. Because of the dehydration (=loss of critical electrolytes that can cause a person to go into cardiac arrest with very little warning) and the poisoning of the system with nitrogen, 300 low-carb/low fat calories a day is actually much more deadly than 300 high carb calories a day would be.
I'd also say that the fact that a 300 cal/day low-carb/low fat diet is much more dangerous to the extent that the person's inner alarms don't go off. The fact that they aren't as hungry as they should be is actually hazardous. So not "feeling bad" isn't necessarily a good thing.
Last edited by Kaylee : Fri, Aug-03-07 at 11:52.
|
Linear Mode
