The Atkins Diet

[Wile E. Coyote]

I know there has already been a lot of discussion about this in other threads, but I just wanted to relate my personal experience and perhaps get some other personal accounts.

I have been on the diet for two weeks now and here are a couple of the things I have noticed:

1. I have perhaps 1/2 the appetite that I used to.
2. I no longer feel drowsy after meals.
3. When I am hungry, it is because my stomach says so, not because my blood-suger levels are so low that I am tired and irritable.
4. I feel I have more energy overall. In fact, I have been able to stay up later at night because I am not getting tired so quickly.
5. I sleep incredibly well, seldom waking up in the middle of the night.

Now, I have been excercising every week-day for the past 7 months and I was able to drop about 20 pounds, but it leveled off at an unacceptable level since about a month ago and I decided that my diet was to blame.

I broke that barrier in the first few weeks with this diet.

Of course, I'm not saying this is the end-all diet for everyone; after all, it may turn out to not work after all. However, I have to admit, after having been very skeptical at first, that the effects of this diet are noticeable and positive.

I have read and been reading many articles from both sides of the diet debate and have determined that maybe this one quack was actually right. My wife lost 15 pounds on Weight Watchers, starving herself and generally feeling irritable all the time. She later discovered that she had not gone down in size at all; she had burned only muscle mass. Lately her face has become slimmer, among other improvements.

I know a lot of people are critical of this diet, but I think it has been presented very poorly by the Atkins people. It wasn't until I witnessed several friends doing well on this diet and being happy with the lifestyle that I began to take an interest.

I would like to hear some criticism or affirmation of my experience. Perhaps I can address some of them with information I have found around the Internet, both from Atkins and non-Atkins communities.

[Genghis Pwn]

Give us examples of your current diet, so we can see how it works.

[Diogenes]

I know a lot of people are critical of this diet, but I think it has been presented very poorly by the Atkins people. It wasn't until I witnessed several friends doing well on this diet and being happy with the lifestyle that I began to take an interest.

From where do you get your guidelines.?

A particular book?

[Wile E. Coyote]

For the first two weeks I have to stay below 20 gms of carbs per day. So ...

Breakfast :
Eggs, any way I like them. (usually 2) No milk.
Some kind of meat (bacon, sausage, ham, etc.)

Lunch:
Tuna fish without the bread.
A cheese stick.
Pork rinds.

Dinner: (for example, tonight)
Cornish hen.
French onion soup.
Broccoli.

I have to admit I was pretty sick of eggs after the first few days, but I got over that. The diet is more complicated than most people think and I have heard of a few people who go on it by word of mouth instead of by reading the book. They tend to fail when they see some of the symptons as proof that it is not working.

For example, having headaches, fatigue, and dizziness at first can lead people to believe that the diet is not for them, when in reality they are suffering from sugar/carbohydrate addiction withdrawal symptoms. Toughing it out will reduce the desire for sweets. It has for me.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Diogenes


From where do you get your guidelines..

A particular book?

Dr. Atkin's "New Diet Revolution" has all of the rules for the diet and what you will experience.

I try to back up what I see in there from non-affiliated sources, such as low-carb diet websites. I realize that this is not getting the full spectrum of views, but the low-fat/high-carb pushers are, of course, going to blast the diet.

Everyone is trying to sell something.

[apoger]

My Atkins experience:

Have been overweight most of my life.
Have tried every diet to no avail.
Tried Atkins, lost 100 pounds. Felt great. Lower blood pressure. Lower cholesterol. Able to stop eating when full (like a normal human).

About a year ago while stressed out I started eating carbs again and it got out of hand. I put back almost all the weight, and I felt like in idiot. About two months ago I got back on Atkins. Feel better again as the weight is dripping off.

I have seen many try Atkins. It works for some and not others. Some for whom it works for can't tolerate the lifestyle change.

What I can state is that a low carb lifestyle seems to be a healthy balance for my particular body. It's possible that it may work for others, but also possible that it won't.

My suggestion is to try diets until you find one that works, and one that you can tolerate. Stick with that one, discard the failures.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote

I try to back up what I see in there from non-affiliated sources, such as low-carb diet websites. I realize that this is not getting the full spectrum of views, but the low-fat/high-carb pushers are, of course, going to blast the diet.


I will point out that you don't actually seem to be eating a whole lot of calories. Not that that is a bad thing, just a major factor in amny Atkin's diet success stories is a hidden fact that apparently many Atkins advocates actually consume about 1,400 calories per day.

Stepehn Barrett notes this (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/lcd.html) :


Another study was done by researchers at the Bassett Research Institute in Cooperstown, New York, who followed 18 Atkins dieters for a month. During the 2-week induction period, the dieters consumed 1,419 calories a day, compared with 2,481 calories a day before starting the diet, and lost an average of about 8 pounds. In the next phase, dieters averaged 1,500 calories a day and lost an additional 3 pounds in two weeks. Dieters in both phases cut back on carbohydrates by more than 90%, but the actual amounts of fat and protein they ate changed little. [5].


Thing is, Atkins diet is sold as a "this is the way we were meant to eat" bit. The idea that Carbs are somehow foriegn to our body and diet is absurd.

Barrett also points out there is a lack of long term documented succes in the Atkin's diet.

[Hazelip]

Removing nearly an entire food group is asinine.

If you plateau, change your routine. Reduce your overall caloric intake. Increase your fruits and vegetables. Take the stairs at work. Run longer, harder, or just plain do something different.

Lift weights and gain muscle mass. While the muscle weighs more, it actually uses fuel (read: food in your stomach and fat stores) overnight as your muscles repair. A lean, trim and fit 300 pounds is a hell of a lot better than a couch potato 300 pounds.

Don't be an idiot.

While cutting out candy bars, cakes, chips, sodas, ice cream, etc. is just plain good sense, tearing apart a burrito, or removing the bun from a hamburger is f*cking stupid.

[Fade]

Removing nearly an entire food group is asinine.

I haven't seen any bread trees around lately, have you?

While cutting out candy bars, cakes, chips, sodas, ice cream, etc. is just plain good sense, tearing apart a burrito, or removing the bun from a hamburger is f*cking stupid.

Why? Atkins mentality (Very little carbohydrate, lots of fruits/veggies/proteins, ongoing) is part of what allowed me to lose over 100 pounds, and keep it off for a little over 11 years now.

[rustypouch]

For the last week I've been on a similar plan from the book "lean for life."(I cannot recall the author at the moment.) The idea is a diet low in overall calories, with most of the energy coming from protein and minimal fats and carbs. So far I've lost about four pounds.

[Genghis Pwn]

If Atkins´idea is to eat lots of meats, plus fruits and veggies, while avoiding processed breads and pastas and sugars, etc, that makes perfect sense to me. That diet mimicks the diet of hunter gatherers and early humans over hundreds of thousands of years. Bread and grains only came along recently.

[kookbreaker]

There's no magic bullet of food groups that cause people to be any more fat. A calorie is a calorie. Fats have more calories per gram than Carbs and Protiens, but that's about the only factor going on.

Atkins is basicly a low-calorie diet in disguise. There's no evil mojo associated with carbs that makes them any better or worse.

The advantage of Atkins is that some folks get filled up on meat/proteins and end up eating a lot fewer calories. This works fine when it works, but a lot of people really get sick of the Protein monotony. The recent case the Atkin's proponents used to try and add respect to the diet, some 60% of people dropped out of the plan, as opposed to 25% of the low-fat diet.

"Diet" should be a lifestyle, not a fad you try for a while.

[apoger]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
There's no magic bullet of food groups that cause people to be any more fat. A calorie is a calorie. Fats have more calories per gram than Carbs and Protiens, but that's about the only factor going on.


I have seen this said over and over again. I must tell you that as far as I can tell, from my personal perspective, this is wrong.

If I eat 500 calories of protein or 500 calories of carbs, I get vastly different results. Protein makes me feel full and balanced. Carbs send me into a frenzied tailspin of eating.

If protein and carbs seem to do the same thing to you, well that's nice. I'm telling you straight up, that is not the way it works for me.



Atkins is basicly a low-calorie diet in disguise. There's no evil mojo associated with carbs that makes them any better or worse.

Carbs/sugars set off your insulin cycle. Protiens do not. They are processed differently. A calorie is a calorie is only true once the foods have been broken down to that level. Different foods are digested in different ways. Thinking that different processes cannot produce different results is closed minded.



The advantage of Atkins is that some folks get filled up on meat/proteins and end up eating a lot fewer calories.

And since eating fewer calories leads to weight loss, what would be the problem?

This is exactly the effect I get. It deserves praise, not derision.



This works fine when it works, but a lot of people really get sick of the Protein monotony. The recent case the Atkin's proponents used to try and add respect to the diet, some 60% of people dropped out of the plan, as opposed to 25% of the low-fat diet.

Nobody claims that low carb is the diet that everyone should be on. If it works for some, why complain? Particularly considering the difficulty of weight loss.



"Diet" should be a lifestyle, not a fad you try for a while.

To whom are you telling this?
Have you found people that claim that diet should be a fad?
Certainly not Atkins, who makes it extremely clear that the diet involves a lifestyle change.

The low carb diet seems to have value for some that are otherwise having trouble with a very intense health issue. Why do you seem bent on knocking it?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by apoger



I have seen this said over and over again. I must tell you that as far as I can tell, from my personal perspective, this is wrong.

If I eat 500 calories of protein or 500 calories of carbs, I get vastly different results. Protein makes me feel full and balanced. Carbs send me into a frenzied tailspin of eating.

If protein and carbs seem to do the same thing to you, well that's nice. I'm telling you straight up, that is not the way it works for me.


Nothing I said was wrong. Protein can be more filling as you said, but 500 calories of protien is still the same on your body as 500 cals. of Carbs. The fact that some folks eat another 1000 calories afterwards does notmake what I said illegtimate.


Carbs/sugars set off your insulin cycle. Protiens do not. They are processed differently. A calorie is a calorie is only true once the foods have been broken down to that level. Different foods are digested in different ways. Thinking that different processes cannot produce different results is closed minded.


You say that a calorie is just a calorie, except when it isn't? What are you trying to say here?


And since eating fewer calories leads to weight loss, what would be the problem?

This is exactly the effect I get. It deserves praise, not derision.


It needs to be realisticly looked at, nothing more. People are talking about law-carb diets as if they are some miracle of human digestion, they are not, and low carb diets can have some very harsh side effects (as do many diets)


Nobody claims that low carb is the diet that everyone should be on. If it works for some, why complain? Particularly considering the difficulty of weight loss.


I'm not complaining, I'm being realistic. If you cut out an entire food group from your diet you are going to have some long term consquences, the most common of which is falling of the diet wagon.



To whom are you telling this?
Have you found people that claim that diet should be a fad?
Certainly not Atkins, who makes it extremely clear that the diet involves a lifestyle change.


And a very, very drastic one at that. You're asking a lot from people when you drop an entire calorie source.

What worse is that Atkin's advocates sometimes border on cultish. I have a very wary eye for this kind of behavior.


The low carb diet seems to have value for some that are otherwise having trouble with a very intense health issue. Why do you seem bent on knocking it?

Why are you so bent on picking a fight with me for stating simple facts.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
[Atkins'] diet mimicks the diet of hunter gatherers and early humans over hundreds of thousands of years.You do not state it explicitly, so I presume your point is that evolution has produced a diet that endows our species with survival. Problem is that evolution is only interested in survival for procreation. So if you want to live beyond forty or so, the diet provided by evolution may not necessarily be the winner.

regards,
BillyJoe
[excuse the loose language in describing evolution]

[DogB]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
A calorie is a calorie.

Bleeert......Wrong...try again.

Lots of Calories in Gasoline. Are you suggesting that I'll get fat on it. What about cellulose, cows do pretty well on it but just you try.

Our bodies are not furnaces, all foods are not made equal. Our bodies treat different energy sources in different ways (obviously).

Carbs are a more accessible energy source. Do they necessarily make you fat? Dunno, I think the jury is still out on this one but I've yet to read about someone who failed to loose at least some weight on such a diet.

What about it folks, anybody tried and failed? I'm curious.

Dog.

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by DogB


Bleeert......Wrong...try again.

Lots of Calories in Gasoline. Are you suggesting that I'll get fat on it. What about cellulose, cows do pretty well on it but just you try.

Our bodies are not furnaces, all foods are not made equal. Our bodies treat different energy sources in different ways (obviously).

Carbs are a more accessible energy source. Do they necessarily make you fat? Dunno, I think the jury is still out on this one but I've yet to read about someone who failed to loose at least some weight on such a diet.

What about it folks, anybody tried and failed? I'm curious.

Dog.

Hi,

I lost around 50 pounds on it four years ago. It works well from the standpoint of losing weight but I always craved spaghetti and pizza. I gained all that back :( so I guess I didn't fail on the diet but failed at keeping off the weight - it is way too easy to do nothing and eat lots. I've had better success with "Body for Life" but I think that is mostly because it involves a physical routine that I frankly didn't engage in while on Atkins.

Another negative (for me) was that on Atkins, I simply got sick of eating meat and eggs and things such as that.

The key, I think, is not eating like a pig and getting up and doing something.

Just my two cents.

Take care,
Sort:)

[DogB]

Originally posted by SortingItAllOut


Hi,

I lost around 50 pounds on it four years ago. It works well from the standpoint of losing weight but I always craved spaghetti and pizza. I gained all that back :( so I guess I didn't fail on the diet but failed at keeping off the weight - it is way too easy to do nothing and eat lots. I've had better success with "Body for Life" but I think that is mostly because it involves a physical routine that I frankly didn't engage in while on Atkins.

Another negative (for me) was that on Atkins, I simply got sick of eating meat and eggs and things such as that.

The key, I think, is not eating like a pig and getting up and doing something.

Just my two cents.

Take care,
Sort:)

Thanks...this is interesting. I'm curious...have you tried other diets? Did they work?

Dog.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by DogB


Bleeert......Wrong...try again.

Lots of Calories in Gasoline. Are you suggesting that I'll get fat on it.

Any more absurd comparisons? I think my point got across without needing to disqualify non-food items.

So if someone suggests eating fiber, do you say "Bleet wrong, are you suggesting I eat a 2x4? Lotsa fiber there??!"


Our bodies are not furnaces, all foods are not made equal. Our bodies treat different energy sources in different ways (obviously).


It either burns them or it doesn't. If fat is burned in a different manner than carbs, that must either be reflected in the calories per gram (8 vs 4). There are variations, to be sure, but none as dramatic as soe poeple make it out to be. The only seriously dramatic metablosim change is starvation mode, which is why fasting doesn't work.


Carbs are a more accessible energy source. Do they necessarily make you fat?


If not burned by activities, it will all become fat. Fats are a bit harder to access for energy. Most workout books will tell you tat fat doesn't start to get burned until at least 20 minutes into an exercise.

[Brown]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Atkins is basicly a low-calorie diet in disguise. This is true, I think, to an extent. And it is also one of the problems in the Atkins diet.

I tried this diet for a year. And it worked, at first. After about six months, though, my weight would not change, even though I was sticking to the diet. Why?

A friend suggested that I see how many calories I was consuming in a typical day. To my astonishment, I found I was consuming enough calories to maintain my weight.

Atkins didn't recommend counting calories. Basically, he was saying that if you stick to the diet, the calories will take care of themselves. I don't think that's quite true.

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by DogB


Thanks...this is interesting. I'm curious...have you tried other diets? Did they work?

Dog.

I consider a diet to "work" when I can stick to it indefinitely, feel good and maintain my desired weight. I've been on dozens of diets in the past, most of the popular ones, and none has "worked" yet.

Without fail, I end up being unable to stick to the diet.

The sad thing is that while I've been able to avoid alcohol for over 12 years now (completely without anyone's help, no 12-step programs or anything like that), I can't seem to mimic that behavior with the food. I'm a real product of the fast food, kraft macaroni and cheese, pizza, chinese take-out, subs and candy bars that I consume. For a few weeks I can stomach the salads and the grilled chicken breast but in the end, I end up wanting an order of General Tso's chicken and an egg roll. Sheesh.

Take care,
Sort:)

[JeffR]

Originally posted by Brown
Atkins didn't recommend counting calories. Basically, he was saying that if you stick to the diet, the calories will take care of themselves. I don't think that's quite true. That sounds like a fair interpretation of Atkins.

Though they don't stress it, the Protein Power advocates do say in one of their books that you won't lose weight unless you run a calorie deficit. They go on to say that once you've lost the weight you want to, it is harder to gain it back even if you eat too much provided you continue to eat low carb (actually controlled carb seems to be their preferred term). This, they say, is because you can't store fat easily unless you raise your insulin levels by eating too many carbs.

Anyway, I've had the same experience as many others. It worked pretty well and I felt good as long as I stuck with it, but sticking with it was difficult. I don't consider that a knock on low carb diets, it's just really hard to change eating habits. It's very rare for anyone to succeed at losing weight and keeping it off.

[DogB]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Any more absurd comparisons? I think my point got across without needing to disqualify non-food items.

So if someone suggests eating fiber, do you say "Bleet wrong, are you suggesting I eat a 2x4? Lotsa fiber there??!"

It either burns them or it doesn't. If fat is burned in a different manner than carbs, that must either be reflected in the calories per gram (8 vs 4). There are variations, to be sure, but none as dramatic as so people make it out to be. The only seriously dramatic metabolism change is starvation mode, which is why fasting doesn't work.


Ahhh but this is exactly my point. We measure calories in food by combustion. We have no way to specify the efficiency of food. If I eat an amount of sugar containing 1kCal how much energy does my body extract? What about 1 kCal of fat or protein or (absurdly) polystyrene? They are broken down (or not) by completely different pathways. Stands to reason that the efficiency will be wildly different. Right?

To use another 'absurd comparison'. Are you really saying that I'll get just as fat on 4000kCal worth of celery vs 4000kCal worth of chocolate cake every day*?

Dog.

*1.2kg of cake vs 800 stalks of celery!

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Fade


I haven't seen any bread trees around lately, have you?

Seen any amber waves of grain? How about an apple tree?

Why? Atkins mentality (Very little carbohydrate, lots of fruits/veggies/proteins, ongoing) is part of what allowed me to lose over 100 pounds, and keep it off for a little over 11 years now.

Plenty of fruits? Do you even know anything about the diet you're advocating? Here's a list of acceptable foods: http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/12/15-464579.html Not even a fruit category. To get plenty of fiber, it is even suggested elsewhere on the site to use supplemental fiber (as long as it's sugar free).

If you're not getting enough fiber in your diet, you are not eating correctly.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by DogB


Bleeert......Wrong...try again.

Lots of Calories in Gasoline. Are you suggesting that I'll get fat on it. What about cellulose, cows do pretty well on it but just you try.

Actually, you're wrong. Oh, and comparing a danish to gasoline is really one of the dumbest things I've read on these forums that's not been written by Ian...

Our bodies are not furnaces, all foods are not made equal. Our bodies treat different energy sources in different ways (obviously).

Carbs are a more accessible energy source. Do they necessarily make you fat? Dunno, I think the jury is still out on this one but I've yet to read about someone who failed to loose at least some weight on such a diet.

What about it folks, anybody tried and failed? I'm curious.

Dog.

This (http://www.childrenwithdiabetes.com/dictionary/d.htm#Diabetic%20Ketoacidosis) (Ketoacidosis) is what makes people lose weight on Atkins. It is not healthy, it is not right, it is actually something that can do harm.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I think one of the key points to look at is that Atkins is a lifetime diet that allows your body's natural mechanisms to work as designed. The diet does not advocate cutting out all carbs, and in fact later on in the diet you add more until you are at a reasonable intake.

The problem with most low-fat or calorie-moderation diets is that they leave you hungry and they mess with your blood-sugar levels. By eating mostly protein, your body is not getting the rush of simple sugars or complex sugars (carbohydrates), that is so easily processed by the digestive system.

I have to admit that even if I do not lose a lot of weight on this diet, I will probably focus most of my meals on protein. My energy levels are high and I do not have the cranky, tired lows that I used to.

My next door neighbor lost 50 lbs. on Atkins ten years ago, and she is still maintaining that diet successfully. My mother-in-law failed the diet; it did not work for her. So the diet is not for everyone.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
The recent case the Atkin's proponents used to try and add respect to the diet, some 60% of people dropped out of the plan, as opposed to 25% of the low-fat diet.

"Diet" should be a lifestyle, not a fad you try for a while.

The Atkins diet is actually very difficult to stay on. However, you have to realize a few points:

1. Low-fat diets are the most popular. What does this mean? It means that food companies produce low-fat varieties of most foods.

2. Low-fat foods contain more sugars and carbs than regular foods. Sugars and carbs are quickly digested, whereas proteins and fat take a more energy-intensive process.

3. Carbohydrates and other sugars are addictive. This means that by putting sugars and carbs in "diet" foods, you are actually encouraging the dieters to eat more, because their cravings will increase. Isn't that convenient for the food producers?

If more people started doing low-carb diets, then the industry would respond my making low-carb varieties of common foods. People would be able to eat somewhat normally and stick with the diet.

Also, your survey results did not indicate the amount of fat lost by those who participated in the diet. That would be a better indicator than how many dropped out. Typically, low-fat dieters lose muscle mass because they are not eating enough protein the maintain it. Muscle burns calories, so this actually hinders the diet.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Hazelip

This (http://www.childrenwithdiabetes.com/dictionary/d.htm#Diabetic%20Ketoacidosis) (Ketoacidosis) is what makes people lose weight on Atkins. It is not healthy, it is not right, it is actually something that can do harm.

Wrong. Ketoacidosis is a symptom of not getting the ketones out of the body. True, this diet could cause ketoacidosis to occur, but it is very unlikely. That is why the diet recommends drinking a lot of water. A low-fat diet is much more likely to cause diabetes as it messes with insulin production.

In fact, the definition on the page claims that it is caused by a severe imbalance with insulin and blood-sugar. Extreme amounts of sugar intake (including carbs) are what mess with blood-sugar levels. A lot of diabetics actually go on a less extreme version of a low-carb diet.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Hazelip

Seen any amber waves of grain? How about an apple tree?

Plenty of fruits? Do you even know anything about the diet you're advocating? Here's a list of acceptable foods: http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/12/15-464579.html Not even a fruit category. To get plenty of fiber, it is even suggested elsewhere on the site to use supplemental fiber (as long as it's sugar free).

If you're not getting enough fiber in your diet, you are not eating correctly.

You are very right. I am actually having a hard time with fiber intake right now. I will have to change my diet a little to include high-in-fiber foods.

And yes, fruits are to be used with caution, as they are mostly comprised of simple sugars. However, the sugar in them is much better than processed sugars in lots of other foods, so I plan on eating fruits moderately.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote

The Atkins diet is actually very difficult to stay on. However, you have to realize a few points:

1. Low-fat diets are the most popular. What does this mean? It means that food companies produce low-fat varieties of most foods.


Its true, but hardly conclusive of anything.


2. Low-fat foods contain more sugars and carbs than regular foods. Sugars and carbs are quickly digested, whereas proteins and fat take a more energy-intensive process.


Complex carbs can have quite the process for breakdown too. Making potato into sugar is not easy for your body.


3. Carbohydrates and other sugars are addictive. This means that by putting sugars and carbs in "diet" foods, you are actually encouraging the dieters to eat more, because their cravings will increase. Isn't that convenient for the food producers?


Just a little paranoia there? It can also be that lowfat foods can have fewer calories.


If more people started doing low-carb diets, then the industry would respond my making low-carb varieties of common foods. People would be able to eat somewhat normally and stick with the diet.


Why isn't the Atkins institute doing this already? They don't seem to be lacking funds to start up a line of easy-prep foods. What is stopping them?


Also, your survey results did not indicate the amount of fat lost by those who participated in the diet. That would be a better indicator than how many dropped out. Typically, low-fat dieters lose muscle mass because they are not eating enough protein the maintain it. Muscle burns calories, so this actually hinders the diet. [/B]

Dieting without exercsie is going to result in muscle loss, along with fat-loss. It doesn't matter what your method is.

Also, "my survey" was the one that the Atkin's instutute bought and paid for. Don't blame me for its shortcomings.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by DogB


Ahhh but this is exactly my point. We measure calories in food by combustion. We have no way to specify the efficiency of food. If I eat an amount of sugar containing 1kCal how much energy does my body extract? What about 1 kCal of fat or protein or (absurdly) polystyrene? They are broken down (or not) by completely different pathways. Stands to reason that the efficiency will be wildly different. Right?


The differences in breakdown are not that dramatic. Certainly not to the point where 1 calorie of protien is going to take any more efffort than 1 calorie of carbs. Sorry bud, but that's the way the body is. There's no magic food that gets digested easier or harder. There are food that don't get absorbed at all (Olestra, thick fiberous food) but that is reflected in their calorie totals.


To use another 'absurd comparison'. Are you really saying that I'll get just as fat on 4000kCal worth of celery vs 4000kCal worth of chocolate cake every day*?

Dog.

*1.2kg of cake vs 800 stalks of celery!

Yes. Your assuming the higher, errr. 'transience' of the fiberour celery means that the calories are slipping out of you. But that is simply not true.

Everything gets broken down into your body, its not like Fat is just nabbed from your intestines and shoves into the double-chin. It is also broken down and rebuilt as fat when not burned. This process is damands no more, or less energy that breaking of protiens and carbs.

[DogB]

Originally posted by Hazelip


Actually, you're wrong. Oh, and comparing a danish to gasoline is really one of the dumbest things I've read on these forums that's not been written by Ian...



I'm wrong? About? I am starting to see why Ian gets worked up about some things.

Once and for all. A calorie is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of a gram of water one degree. That's it...nothing more.

I agree my comparison was stupid, but so is the statement "a calorie is a calorie". (Which is all I was arguing about in the first place)

Once again for the hard of hearing......
There are 31,000,000 calories in a gallon of gasoline. We cannot digest gasoline. It is not available to us as a food source. Therefore these are empty calories. Drinking gasoline will not make you fat...it will make you dead (gasoline is also toxic).

The calorific value of vulcanized rubber is also high. Eating rubber probably won't kill you (immediately) but once again we can't digest it. Eating rubber will not make you fat.

The body treats different foods in different ways. Enzymes break the carbohydrates into glucose and other sugars, the fats into glycerol and fatty acids and the proteins into amino acids. These are wildly different processes and I thinks it's fairly safe to assume that they have wildly different efficiencies. Right?

That was all I was saying. I have yet to be convinced about the merit of low carb diets. I make no claims about their efficacies.

Dog.

[DogB]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


The differences in breakdown are not that dramatic. Certainly not to the point where 1 calorie of protien is going to take any more efffort than 1 calorie of carbs. Sorry bud, but that's the way the body is. There's no magic food that gets digested easier or harder. There are food that don't get absorbed at all (Olestra, thick fiberous food) but that is reflected in their calorie totals.


Ok. I'm prepared to accept this and say I was an idiot. But just humor me a little. Give me a reference.

Originally posted by kookbreaker

Yes. Your assuming the higher, errr. 'transience' of the fiberour celery means that the calories are slipping out of you. But that is simply not true.

That's not what I meant but we'll continue.

Originally posted by kookbreaker

Everything gets broken down into your body,

No...you just said thick fibrous foods don't ??

Originally posted by kookbreaker

its not like Fat is just nabbed from your intestines and shoves into the double-chin. It is also broken down and rebuilt as fat when not burned.

No argument.

Originally posted by kookbreaker

This process is damands no more, or less energy that breaking of protiens and carbs.

Once again, I have trouble accepting this. Reference please.

Dog.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by DogB

Ok. I'm prepared to accept this and say I was an idiot. But just humor me a little. Give me a reference.


See below.


That's not what I meant but we'll continue.

No...you just said thick fibrous foods don't ??


I should qualify that then: Anything considered and energy source by the human body (i.e. proteins, Carbs, and fats) will be broken down.)


No argument.

Once again, I have trouble accepting this. Reference please.

Dog.

OK, I'll start with an explanation: Take two vats of acid, put a loaf of bread in one and a steak in the other. Watch them dissolve. Fun Fun. What you now have is what is called "chyme" (note: this is a gross oversimplification) had this taken place in your body. It didn't take much more, or less energy to break down the food. The acid does not really care much. Creation of this acid does burn calories, but it is considered part of you basal calric consumption rate. Your body will produce pretty much an even amount, whatever you swallow. The stomach has pretty good safety ranges for acid production.. Think of it as a military unit that requisisitons the same amount of ammunition each day, no matter what kind of combat it is in, if you like.

This chyme is now a mixture of enzymes, protiens, vitamins, whatnot. There is no difference at this point as far as the small intestines are concerned, its all just stuff to be absorbed. The intenstine's ability to absorb nutrients may vary from person to person, but not to any major degree. Some nutrients are absorbed faster, or are at least easier to convert, but not to any degree where it matters between what was put in the body int eh first place.

I again remind you that this is a gross oversimplification.

Now, for energy, the body needs a certain amount of calories to make ADP's in to ATP's. The main source of the body's energy. Any energy not burned becomes fat, some 3500 kC are required per pound of fat.

Now some food will slip through. Swallow peanuts whole and you'll later see the joy of food undigested by the body, same as corn when not overcooked. If you were to swallow who chunks of solid food, they would aslo avoid being broken down. But the consequences could be very nasty indeed. (Chronic constipation anyone?)

The bottom line is there is no magic food. Look at any article on the web that covers nutrition without a book to sell and they'll pretty much tell you the same thing: Calories eaten vs. Calories burned.

Here's a good start. (http://home.howstuffworks.com/food.htm)

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote


Wrong. Ketoacidosis is a symptom of not getting the ketones out of the body. True, this diet could cause ketoacidosis to occur, but it is very unlikely. That is why the diet recommends drinking a lot of water. A low-fat diet is much more likely to cause diabetes as it messes with insulin production.

In fact, the definition on the page claims that it is caused by a severe imbalance with insulin and blood-sugar. Extreme amounts of sugar intake (including carbs) are what mess with blood-sugar levels. A lot of diabetics actually go on a less extreme version of a low-carb diet.

You are wrong. From the link:

DKA is caused by a profound lack of circulating insulin.


You claim that a diet containing high carbs produces high insulin. You claim that eating high protein lowers your insulin. You claim that the beginning of the Atkins diet is an almost total abstinence of sugar and carbs, but high in protein. High intake of a food that does not require insulin for digestion, while nearly completely removing the food that does require insulin, results in a profound lack of circulating insulin.

Carbs do not mess with blood sugar levels at all unless you are diabetic. If your pancreas is functioning properly, it dumps insulin to maintain normal blood sugar levels.

Ketoacidosis is NOT a symptom of not getting ketones out of the body, but the direct opposite. Ketones leaving the body in large quantities is indicative of Ketoacidosis. A diabetic will hold a testing strip in his or her urine stream to test for the presence and the amount of ketones present. This is commonly referred to as "spilling ketones". As a matter of fact, the strips are also marketed as a weight loss monitoring tool.

Water has nothing to do with Ketoacidosis. Nothing. Low-fat diets have not been directly linked with diabetes. Quite the opposite, in fact. Poor diets resulting in obesity have been directly linked to both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.


What you're spouting is pseudo-science quackery.

[DogB]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


I should qualify that then: Anything considered and energy source by the human body (i.e. proteins, Carbs, and fats) will be broken down.)



Okey dokey. I'll let go with the Gasoline example then.

Originally posted by kookbreaker

OK, I'll start with an explanation: Take two vats of acid, put a loaf of bread in one and a steak in the other. Watch them dissolve. Fun Fun. What you now have is what is called "chyme" (note: this is a gross oversimplification) had this taken place in your body. It didn't take much more, or less energy to break down the food. The acid does not really care much. Creation of this acid does burn calories, but it is considered part of you basal calric consumption rate. Your body will produce pretty much an even amount, whatever you swallow. The stomach has pretty good safety ranges for acid production.. Think of it as a military unit that requisisitons the same amount of ammunition each day, no matter what kind of combat it is in, if you like.

This chyme is now a mixture of enzymes, protiens, vitamins, whatnot. There is no difference at this point as far as the small intestines are concerned, its all just stuff to be absorbed. The intenstine's ability to absorb nutrients may vary from person to person, but not to any major degree. Some nutrients are absorbed faster, or are at least easier to convert, but not to any degree where it matters between what was put in the body int eh first place.

I again remind you that this is a gross oversimplification.


Now, for energy, the body needs a certain amount of calories to make ADP's in to ATP's. The main source of the body's energy. Any energy not burned becomes fat, some 3500 kC are required per pound of fat.

Now some food will slip through. Swallow peanuts whole and you'll later see the joy of food undigested by the body, same as corn when not overcooked. If you were to swallow who chunks of solid food, they would aslo avoid being broken down. But the consequences could be very nasty indeed. (Chronic constipation anyone?)



With you here, no arguments.


Originally posted by kookbreaker



The bottom line is there is no magic food. Look at any article on the web that covers nutrition without a book to sell and they'll pretty much tell you the same thing: Calories eaten vs. Calories burned.

Here's a good start. (http://home.howstuffworks.com/food.htm)

See now, here is where I have a problem. The site you referenced states that we calculate the calorific value of foods by total combustion. Our stomachs are not high temperature furnaces. Are you really saying that the in vivo efficiency of energy exploitation of various foods approaches 100%, regardless of the food type? (even assuming equivalent absorption rates)

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong (I've been wrong before). I just can't find any information about calories in foods expressed as energy available to the body.

D.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by DogB
See now, here is where I have a problem. The site you referenced states that we calculate the calorific value of foods by total combustion. Our stomachs are not high temperature furnaces. Are you really saying that the in vivo efficiency of energy exploitation of various foods approaches 100%, regardless of the food type? (even assuming equivalent absorption rates)


A chemical breakdown may not be as dramatic as a furnace, but the net result is pretty much going to be the same: You are releasing chemical bonds that are used to store energy. The action invovled is acidic in nature, so its not teribly discriminating between food types. In short the apple and chunk of steak in acid example I gave above.

[Hazelip]

DogB, I think I just realized what part of your problem is in this discussion. Calorie, as the word is used in reference to food is actually not a calorie in chemistry. It is actually a kilo-calorie. It takes approximately 1000 (chemistry definition) calories to make up one (dietary) calorie.

It's simply the confusing, and typical result, of the bastardized English language at work...

[DogB]

Originally posted by Hazelip
DogB, I think I just realized what part of your problem is in this discussion. Calorie, as the word is used in reference to food is actually not a calorie in chemistry. It is actually a kilo-calorie. It takes approximately 1000 (chemistry definition) calories to make up one (dietary) calorie.

It's simply the confusing, and typical result, of the bastardized English language at work...

I know. You will note that in my celery vs chocolate cake example I used kCal as the unit. After that I gave up and started using the common (but incorrect) terminology. My bad.

Doesn't change my point however. It's just a measure of energy released by combustion. As far as I can tell a dietary calorie (kCal) is determined in precisely the same way as a chemistry calorie.

I'd love a reference which states otherwise.

Dog.

[DogB]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


A chemical breakdown may not be as dramatic as a furnace, but the net result is pretty much going to be the same: You are releasing chemical bonds that are used to store energy. The action invovled is acidic in nature, so its not teribly discriminating between food types. In short the apple and chunk of steak in acid example I gave above.

http://icg.harvard.edu/~ext12057/LectureNotes/diabetes_lecture_notes.doc

From this site


Scenario #1: Meal = bagel with jam on it (only carbohydrates) (300 calories)

-Meal is digested and there is a large increase in blood glucose (since the whole meal was carbohydrates)
-Glucose stimulates insulin release, a large increase in glucoses stimulates a large increase insulin
-Insulin 1) stimulates uptake of blood glucose into cells, 2) stimulates conversion in liver and adipocytes to glycogen, amino acids, and fat; and 3) inhibits lipolysis
-Blood glucose starts to fall and continues to fall
-If increase in insulin is large enough, glucose may fall below set point
-Hunger ensues.

Scenario #2: Meal = Grilled chicken (no skin), carrots, apple (carbohydrates and protein) (300 calories)

-Meal is digested and there is an increase in blood glucose (from the carbohydrate) and in blood amino acids (from the protein). The increase in blood glucose is not as great as in scenario #1 because there isn't as much carbohydrate in the meal
-Glucose and amino acids stimulate insulin release but the release is not as great as in scenario #1 because the increase in blood glucose is not as great, and amino acids are not as good at stimulating insulin release as glucose; amino acids also stimulate glucagon release
-Blood glucose starts to fall but not as much because there¡¦s less insulin (it also didn't go up as high). Glucagon also stimulates glucose synthesis and promotes fatty acid breakdown.
-You don't get hungry as fast and you don't store as much fat because some gets broken down and utilized to make ATP in the period before you eat again.

Scenario #3: Meal = T-bone steak (protein and fat) (300 calories)

-Meal is digested and there is an increase in blood amino acids (from the protein) and in fatty acids. Blood glucose doesn't increase.
-The amino acids stimulate release of insulin and glucagons. There is little hormonal impact from the fat.
-Blood glucose starts to fall (from the insulin) but glucagon causes gluconeogenesis in the liver, so it doesn't fall too much. End result is that glucose doesn't fall too much. Not much fat stored because insulin doesn't increase. Fatty acids can be used to make ATP by cells other than the brain.


Note all meals are 300 calories (kCal)

This says it better than I ever could.

D.

[spoonhandler]

Hazelip wrote: Carbs do not mess with blood sugar levels at all unless you are diabetic. If your pancreas is functioning properly, it dumps insulin to maintain normal blood sugar levels. Carbohydrates do not affect blood sugar levels unless you are diabetic? As far as I understand it, insulin is released in response to rising blood glucose and carbohydrates contribute to blood glucose. Type II diabetics produce plenty of insulin and have normal pancreatic activity, but the insulin is ineffective in reducing blood sugar levels because the cells do not respond to the insulin (that is, cells resist uptake of glucose as stimulated by insulin). It would seem this is a progressive disorder that may be reversible in the early stages by reducing carbohydrate intake and increasing physical activity. However, it is not yet clear whether weight gain leads to insulin-resistance or if insulin-resistance contributes to weight gain.

With regard to earlier statements about ketoacidosis and water intake: people attempting low-carb diets are advised to increase the amount of water they drink in order to assist the kidneys with the increase in the amount of protein in the diet. High protein diets can be detrimental to kidney function and, as most people with poor diets also do not drink enough water for healthy kidney function, the advice to drink more water is an attempt to protect renal function. High protein in the diet can mean more work for the kidneys so it's better to keep them in good nick.
Ketoacidosis (Diabetic Ketoacidosis: severe, out-of-control diabetes (high blood sugar) that needs emergency treatment. DKA happens when blood sugar levels get too high. This may happen because of illness, taking too little insulin, or getting too little exercise. The body starts using stored fat for energy, and ketone bodies (acids) build up in the blood. From http://www.diabetes.org.au/glossary.htm)
In type I diabetes, it occurs when insulin levels are so low that the body begins to break down fat for energy, producing ketones. Any diet that advocates inducing this situation as a means of losing weight is dangerous and irresponsible. Drinking more water will not prevent ketoacidosis from happening as far as I can see.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by DogB


http://icg.harvard.edu/~ext12057/LectureNotes/diabetes_lecture_notes.doc

From this site

Note all meals are 300 calories (kCal)

This says it better than I ever could.

D.

OK, I see what you're getting at. These are secondary effects and they will vary from person to person. Still, my point about calories still stands. Those 300 calories will become nearly 1/10 a pound of fat if not burned, no matter how they started off or what secondary effects they had on your appettite.

[DogB]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


OK, I see what you're getting at. These are secondary effects and they will vary from person to person. Still, my point about calories still stands. Those 300 calories will become nearly 1/10 a pound of fat if not burned, no matter how they started off or what secondary effects they had on your appettite.

I still disagree but I think we're starting to argue in circles so I'm happy to leave it there.

Be well.

P.

[Wile E. Coyote]

From the Atkins Center website
Ketosis is really a shortening of the term lipolysis/ketosis. Lipolysis simply means that you're burning your fat stores and using them as the source of fuel they were meant to be. The by-products of burning fat are ketones, so ketosis is a secondary process of lipolysis. When your body releases ketones in your urine, it is chemical proof that you’re consuming your own stored fat. And the more ketones you release, the more fat you have dissolved.

If you are restricting the amount of carbohydrates you eat, your body turns to fat as its alternative source of energy. In effect, lipolysis/ketosis has replaced the alternative of burning glucose for energy. Both are perfectly normal processes.

People (and even some ill-informed doctors) often confuse ketosis, which is a perfectly normal metabolic process, with ketoacidosis, which is a life-threatening condition. The latter is the consequence of insulin-deficient subjects having out-of-control blood sugar levels, a condition that can occur as well in alcoholics and people in a state of extreme starvation. Ketosis and ketoacidosis may sound vaguely alike, but the two conditions are virtually polar opposites and can always be distinguished from each other by the fact that the diabetic has been consuming excessive carbohydrates and has high blood sugar, in sharp contrast to the fortunate person who is doing Atkins.


Here is the link. (http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqlipolysis/index.html)

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Those 300 calories will become nearly 1/10 a pound of fat if not burned, no matter how they started off or what secondary effects they had on your appettite.


If they are converted to fat. If they aren't, they won't.

What information do you have that proves they will be?(converted to fat)

P.S.
The reason I ask this, is the development of the Atkins plan, was encouraged by some studies that showed ,while some obese subjects who were on a 1,000 calorie diet, high in carbohydrates actually gained weight, similar subjects on a diet of 2,600 calories high in fat and protein lost weight.

These studies were documented, and they are borne out by the success that thousands of people have had with the Atkins plan.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Diogenes

If they are converted to fat. If they aren't, they won't.

What information do you have that proves they will be?(converted to fat)


Where else will they go? There's no magic pixie in your body zapping away calories.


P.S.
The reason I ask this, is the development of the Atkins plan, was encouraged by some studies that showed ,while some obese subjects who were on a 1,000 calorie diet, high in carbohydrates actually gained weight, similar subjects on a diet of 2,600 calories high in fat and protein lost weight.

These studies were documented, and they are born out by the success that thousands of people have had with the Atkins plan.

I'd like a reference on that. Atkins has had no long term success studies TTBOMK.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Where else will they go? There's no magic pixie in your body zapping away calories.

Hint: A calorie is a unit of measure.

I'd like a reference on that. Atkins has had no long term success studies TTBOMK.

I don't have one. I'll see what I can find though.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Hint: A calorie is a unit of measure.


I just went through this with the dog, m'kay? Its a unit of measure, but so is a foot. Move enough feet and you've walked a mile. Enough calories and you've got a pound of fat.


I don't have one. I'll see what I can find though. [/B]

[Genghis Pwn]

I'm almost positive that breads and pastas are broken down mainly into blood sugars and used by the body that away, so yeah, you can assume they trigger insulin release. That is why marathon runners and moutain climbers no longer "carbo load" the night before races... because by the time you wake up, your blood sugar levels have crashed.

Protien and fat, of course, are processed in different ways, not as sugars.

Two things...

1. Like someone else said, often when I start eating carbohydrates, it sends me into a frenzy of scarfing down more carbdohydrates. If I start eating Chips Ahoy cookies, for instance, I might eat the entire bag! Or Doritos, or whatever. But if I start eating deviled eggs, or cans of tuna, or steak, I never really eat than much.

2. I like to eat tuna straight from the can, mixed with olive oil. As far as I know, this extremely healthy, because olive oil is monounsaturated fat, the "good" kind. However, after I eat a can of tuna, my body seems to want some carbs too. And not fruits or wimpy veggies. What are some good suggestions? Potatoes? Hit me with some ideas for a tasty little dose of carbs after my tuna, Atkins worshipers!

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Enough calories and you've got a pound of fat.



Wrong. And a good example of why there is so much misunderstanding about the metabolic process and why counting calories, accounts for the failure of virtually all diet plans.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
[B]I'm almost positive that breads and pastas are broken down mainly into blood sugars and used by the body that away, so yeah, you can assume they trigger insulin release. That is why marathon runners and moutain climbers no longer "carbo load" the night before races... because by the time you wake up, your blood sugar levels have crashed.

Protien and fat, of course, are processed in different ways, not as sugars.

Two things...

1. Like someone else said, often when I start eating carbohydrates, it sends me into a frenzy of scarfing down more carbdohydrates. If I start eating Chips Ahoy cookies, for instance, I might eat the entire bag! Or Doritos, or whatever. But if I start eating deviled eggs, or cans of tuna, or steak, I never really eat than much.


Does pasta do the same thing? It might not be the carbs causing this to happen. Cookies and chips do have a goodly amoutn of fat in them as well, and theres the salt (Which your body also can 'crave')

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Wrong. And a good example of why there is so much misunderstanding about the metabolic process and why counting calories, accounts for the failure of virtually all diet plans.

Really? Is that why so many dietetic groups tell us that calories are what should be counted? They are wrong and you are right?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Really? Is that why so many dietetic groups tell us that calories are what should be counted? They are wrong and you are right?


Really.

Show me one of these ' dietetic groups ', that counts calories, and has demonstrated a high rate of success, regarding long term weight control, for the people who participate in their programs.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Does pasta do the same thing? It might not be the carbs causing this to happen. Cookies and chips do have a goodly amoutn of fat in them as well, and theres the salt (Which your body also can 'crave')

Pasta will do the same thing, but not as noticeably. People tend to eat much more pasta than they need because they do not feel satisfied as quickly.

Your body may crave salt at times, but usually this craving is completely satisfied by having a little salt. After that, the cravings should not appear for at least the rest of the day.

Sugar and carbohydrates are addictive because they give the body an energy rush. Unfortunately, that rush is followed by a blood-sugar crash and the need for more energy, thus hunger.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Really? Is that why so many dietetic groups tell us that calories are what should be counted? They are wrong and you are right?

Why is it that the diet industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, a large number of people are trying low-fat or calorie-counting diets, and the majority of Americans are overweight and obese?

The dietetic groups are wrong. Humans evolved to eat whenever possible and whatever possible. When a primitive human consumed sugar, his body would tell him to hold onto this source of energy and store it as fat for leaner times. The insulin management system in the body is still faulty in this aspect.

Yes, carbohydrates should not be cut out. Nor should natural sugars like those found in fruits, but you have to feed the body what it was designed to handle in order to keep everything in balance.

There are flaws with the Atkins diet, for sure, but it is becoming more apparent that low-carb diets actually work and are better for your health.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn

2. I like to eat tuna straight from the can, mixed with olive oil. As far as I know, this extremely healthy, because olive oil is monounsaturated fat, the "good" kind. However, after I eat a can of tuna, my body seems to want some carbs too. And not fruits or wimpy veggies. What are some good suggestions? Potatoes? Hit me with some ideas for a tasty little dose of carbs after my tuna, Atkins worshipers!

Tuna is indeed very good for you, but potatoes are not. Potatoes are loaded with carbs without being very well packed with actual nutrients. You may actually be craving the salt in this case. A few pork rinds can take care of that, but you have to be careful about pork rinds to some extent.

I usually have a pickle with my tuna.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Really.

Show me one of these ' dietetic groups ', that counts calories, and has demonstrated a high rate of success, regarding long term weight control, for the people who participate in their programs.

*sigh*

Howstuff works (http://home.howstuffworks.com/diet7.htm)


The myth that some kinds of calories are different from others - A calorie is a calorie. If you consume 4,000 calories by eating 1,000 grams of white sugar or 4,000 calories by eating 444 grams of fat, it is still 4,000 calories.


lowfatlifestyle (http://lowfatlifestyle.com/calories.htm)

If you want to lose weight, CALORIES DO COUNT! If you want to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you consume. All physical activity burns calories, even activities like standing, sitting and sleeping. However, the more vigorous an activity, the more calories burned. To lose 1 pound, you must burn 3500 excess calories (500 calories per day over the course of a week).

Soyouwanna lose weight (http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/loseweight/loseweight.html)


A pound of fat represents approximately 3500 calories of stored energy. In order to lose a pound of fat, you have to use 3500 more calories than you consume.

MeadJohnson, nutritionists (http://www.meadjohnson.com/nutrition/basics/energy.html)


To lose one pound, you need to burn 3,500 more Calories than you consume. In other words, you need to create a 3,500-calorie deficit. The best way to do this is slowly — over time.


Medline plus (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007166.htm) part of our gov'ts health info.


The key to weight control is keeping energy intake (food) and energy output (physical activity) in balance. When you consume only as many calories as your body needs, your weight will usually remain constant. If you take in more calories than your body needs, you will put on excess fat. If you expend more energy than you take in you will burn excess fat.


Diet and Fitness resrouces (UK) (http://www.dietandfitnessresources.co.uk/caloriecounting/CCtoloseweight.htm)


Our bodies are very clever in their use and storage of calories. If the calories we consume on a daily basis are roughly equal to the calories we expend, our bodies will neither store any calories, nor use any from its stores, and we'll maintain our weight at its current level. If we consume more calories than we expend, our bodies will store the excess calories as fat, and we'll gain weight. If we consume fewer calories than we expend, our bodies will use their stores to make up the deficit, and we'll lose weight. It's that simple.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
[B]
Why is it that the diet industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, a large number of people are trying low-fat or calorie-counting diets, and the majority of Americans are overweight and obese?


Thre's a host of reasons why diets do not work. Mostly because peopel do not stay on them. A diet is a lifestyle, not something you try for a few months. Cutting out all fats, all protiens, or all carbs is a mistake and unhealthy.


The dietetic groups are wrong. Humans evolved to eat whenever possible and whatever possible. When a primitive human consumed sugar, his body would tell him to hold onto this source of energy and store it as fat for leaner times. The insulin management system in the body is still faulty in this aspect.


Sorry, but the medical evidence says otherwise. A calorie is a calorie. The only difference is what comes in with them.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Thre's a host of reasons why diets do not work. Mostly because peopel do not stay on them. A diet is a lifestyle, not something you try for a few months. Cutting out all fats, all protiens, or all carbs is a mistake and unhealthy.


I agree. The low-carb diets do not advocate cutting out carbs, or anything but sugar, for that matter.


Originally posted by kookbreaker

Sorry, but the medical evidence says otherwise. A calorie is a calorie. The only difference is what comes in with them.

You keep saying this, but we keep arguing that the effect different foods have on the body is different. Sugars and carbohydrates adversely effect blood-sugar levels. This causes hunger and cues the body to store additional calories as fat. It also puts additional strain on the pancreas.

Everyone is reluctant to give low-carb diets a chance because we have been told for decades that fat is the worst offender. Fat is not great for the body either (although it needs it), but the human body evolved to handle extreme quantities of it. Carbohydates and sugars are relatively new to the human digestive system.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote


You keep saying this, but we keep arguing that the effect
different foods have on the body is different.

I keep saying this becuase people keep telling me when I say:


Enough calories and you've got a pound of fat.


I get replies like:

Diogenes wrote
Wrong. And a good example of why there is so much misunderstanding about the metabolic process and why counting calories, accounts for the failure of virtually all diet plans.


Sorry folks, hunger patterns and other stuff are secondary effects. Your body will store excess calories as fat, PERIOD!!! Eat 3000 calores of beef jerky (for protein rich) and burn only 2000 a day, you'll have an extra pound of fat on your bod in 3.5 days.

Same as if you ate 3000 calories of shortening (fat fat fat)

Same as if you ate 3000 calories worth of sugar (carb carb carb).

You can point that this triggers that, but that does not make my initial point wrong.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

(edited 'cause I forgot a '0')

[Hazelip]

Kook, I hear ya, and I sympathize.

While carbs may be broken down faster, creating a less-full sensation, and thusly resulting in one eating more, that is not the same thing as blaming carbs for making one fat. It is the constant shoveling of said carbs into one's mouth that will make one fat unless one is running marathons every day.

The feeling of hunger is not an indication that you have burned your calories. It is an indication that your stomach is empty.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by kookbreaker

You can point that this triggers that, but that does not make my initial point wrong.


Well, I agree with that. But will you at least concede that sugars and carbs alter blood-sugar levels?

A low-carb diet is meant to keep one's blood-sugar level within a normal range. Low-fat/high-carb diets may reduce the calories, but they mess with the blood-sugar levels, which induces hunger.

It is harder to stay on low-fat diets because of this. Also, since most energy is taken from carbs, proteins get cast aside. This leads to muscle loss, which means you have to consume even less calories to lose the same amount of weight.

You are absolutely right in saying that the calorie counts make the biggest difference. However, all I am saying is that certain kinds of foods trigger a response in the body that discourages overeating.

Another thing I have noticed is that low-fat products do not have much fewer calories than the normal products. A lot of times the difference is only about 5%. All they have changed is the "calories from fat" line.

[JeffR]

Riddle me this, Batman. When is a calorie not a calorie?

OK, I don't have a good tag line for the riddle, but I do have a good example, I think.

If I am interpreting the controlled carb proponents correctly, when you read a food product label you'll see total carbs and fiber. Both are carbohydrates and both are included in the calorie count, but the fiber isn't digested. Most of the controlled carb plans have you subtract the grams of fiber from the total grams of carbohydrate for a food for this reason.

I will agree that when you eat food all the calories have to go somewhere, but there are other places for them to go than being burned for energy or converted to body fat. Some of the protein you eat is used to replace or build muscles. Some fat is needed for hormones and tissues. On top of that there are numerous ways for the body to eliminate stuff it doesn't need.

Eat a few cobs of fresh corn and you'll have proof the next day that your body doesn't utilize every calorie you put in your mouth.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Sorry folks, hunger patterns and other stuff are secondary effects. Your body will store excess calories as fat, PERIOD!!! Eat 3000 calores of beef jerky (for protein rich) and burn only 2000 a day, you'll have an extra pound of fat on your bod in 3.5 days.



You are still making the assumption, or are misinformed, that these molecules( fat, carbohydrate, protein) that have the potential to generate x number of calories ( unit of measure, remember) of heat, will all be transformed into fat, if they are not metabolized, and that all of these molecules, are equally susceptible to the processes that result in these transformations taking place.

You can take comfort, along with the people who make millions peddling ineffective diet plans, that thousands(millions, over the years) of people share those assumptions with you.

How did you do in biochemistry?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote


Well, I agree with that. But will you at least concede that sugars and carbs alter blood-sugar levels?

A low-carb diet is meant to keep one's blood-sugar level within a normal range. Low-fat/high-carb diets may reduce the calories, but they mess with the blood-sugar levels, which induces hunger.


Trouble is, if what you say is true, then the Atkins diet should be easy to stick to. But it isn't. In fact, in the Atkin's sponsored test, some 60% of low-carbers dropped out, as opposed to 25% of the low-fatters.


It is harder to stay on low-fat diets because of this. Also, since most energy is taken from carbs, proteins get cast aside. This leads to muscle loss, which means you have to consume even less calories to lose the same amount of weight.


I would disagree with that when the evidence is examined. For example The National Weight Control Registry has done several studies of peoplw who have lost 30 lbs. or more and kept it off for a year at leastTheir findings (http://www.lifespan.org/Services/BMed/Wt_loss/NWCR/Research/02.htm):

Both groups are meeting RDAs for most nutrients and, compared to the general population, are consuming less energy and a lower percentage of energy from fat. Among this sample of successful weight loss maintainers, maintenance of weight loss is associated with continued consumption of a healthy low-energy, low-fat diet.


Low-carb diets have a serious problem with almost no long-term success.


You are absolutely right in saying that the calorie counts make the biggest difference. However, all I am saying is that certain kinds of foods trigger a response in the body that discourages overeating.


Said same foods can also trigger monotony of diet much faster as well.


Another thing I have noticed is that low-fat products do not have much fewer calories than the normal products. A lot of times the difference is only about 5%. All they have changed is the "calories from fat" line.

Very true. Its also amusing when candy bars made with processed sugar (i.e. non-chocolate bars) put "No Fat!" on their labels.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Hazelip


The feeling of hunger is not an indication that you have burned your calories. It is an indication that your stomach is empty.

An empty stomach is one reason for feeling hungry.

But if you haven't been eating the things that your body needs, then your stomach doesn't need to be empty for you to feel hungry.

source: http://www.wsu.edu/DrUniverse/hungry.html

:)

[JeffR]

Here's some information about insulin resistance and insulin's role in body fat storage (http://health.discovery.com/newsbreak/focus/insulin.html) from someone who is definitely not a low-carber (read her dietary recommendations).

I had always wondered if the low-carbers were making up what they say about insulin, but at least one "outsider" (the first one I found when doing a search) appears to validate their views to some extent. Interesting.

[JeffR]

Originally posted by tamiO

source: http://www.wsu.edu/DrUniverse/hungry.html

Hey that's my alma mater. I don't think they had any cats on the faculty when I was there. :)

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by JeffR
Here's some information about insulin resistance and insulin's role in body fat storage (http://health.discovery.com/newsbreak/focus/insulin.html) from someone who is definitely not a low-carber (read her dietary recommendations).

I had always wondered if the low-carbers were making up what they say about insulin, but at least one "outsider" (the first one I found when doing a search) appears to validate their views to some extent. Interesting.

Hey!!! Don't start clouding the issue with scientific studies, chemistry or any of that stuff..:D

P.S. I was going to comment on your perception regarding corn-on-the-cob, but decided to let it pass for a bit. It is the type of rational insight that often gets lost in only five easy payments of $19.95..

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Trouble is, if what you say is true, then the Atkins diet should be easy to stick to. But it isn't. In fact, in the Atkin's sponsored test, some 60% of low-carbers dropped out, as opposed to 25% of the low-fatters.



The Atkins diet is definitely NOT easy to stick with. However, the reason is different from other diets. The Atkins diet encourages you to eat when you are hungry. This is because, with high protein consumption and blood-sugar regulation, your body accurately tells you when it needs more energy. If you can tolerate the monotony of food for the first two weeks, then you will probably succeed. You are gradually able to add more carbs until you reach your limit. The diet also suggests many foods that are very good for you, but maintains a focus on protein.

Like I said in an earlier post: If companies started making more reasonably-priced low-carb versions of popular foods, the success rate for the diet would be much better.

Right now it is the carbohydrate addiction that kills the diet. My wife is experiencing withdrawal symptoms whereas mine are diminishing. My body is telling me that the diet is right.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
....Right now it is the carbohydrate addiction that kills the diet. My wife is experiencing withdrawal symptoms whereas mine are diminishing. My body is telling me that the diet is right.

You piqued my curiosity with this thread, so I bought the book this weekend.

You have to agree, most of the book is anecdotal, but the scientific claims should be verifiable.
The bottom line, is whether or not it works and whether or not one's vitals improve or more important, do not deteriorate.

You really went out on a limb( sort of) by touting the plan early in your efforts. I will look forward to hearing how it works for you..

Make sure you tell us about the bad as well as the good..
It might be usefull in helping others in their decision to explore Atkins or a similar plan.


I would certainly think it would be a good idea to get some blood work done from time to time as you progress, to see how the indicators look.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I have sort of gone out on a limb. I am not claiming this diet is for everyone, but I will admit that my energy levels have increased.

I have not lost much weight lately, but I have noticed my muscle growth has increased.

I need to incorporate more fiber, if you know what I mean.

This diet may not work for me, but that does not mean that it does not work. It is hard to change a lifetime of eating habits. My neighbor did it, and I think I may be able to as well.

As for excercise, I have been riding my bike a lot lately and lifting weights 3 times a week. This is probably the most important factor in my weight loss.

[Genghis Pwn]

Is it true that if you eat 2000 calories a day, including lots of eggs, and burn 2500 calories a day, that your body won't have any adverse effects from the cholesterol in the eggs, because it all got used up, or "burned up"?

I guess this would apply to steak, or Bacon, whatever. The idea is you could live on Pizza Hut, as long as you were burning more calories than you were consuming, because no "bad fat" would get stored, or make it into your arteries, or whatever.

I can't remember where I heard that. Some whacky chiropractor I think.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
As for excercise, I have been riding my bike a lot lately and lifting weights 3 times a week. This is probably the most important factor in my weight loss.

Actually, since you're eating so much protein, and lifting three times a week (I've started this too, wanna be e-mail lifting buddies to nag each other on?), expect your weight to plateau for a while, then increase.

Muscle weighs more than fat, so as your diet progresses with fat loss and muscle gain, there will logically be a period of "stagnation" as far as your weight loss is concerned, followed by a weight gain as you add more mass. It's just lean mass, but gravity doesn't care what it is as long as it can pull on it. ;)

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Is it true that if you eat 2000 calories a day, including lots of eggs, and burn 2500 calories a day, that your body won't have any adverse effects from the cholesterol in the eggs, because it all got used up, or "burned up"?



If you don't consider ' disappearing' as ' adverse ', then; no...

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
.....the human body evolved to handle extreme quantities of [fat]. Evolution only wants to keep us alive till we are forty ir so. After that it doesn't care whether we live or die.

regards,
BillyJoe
[speaking figuratively]

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Evolution only wants to keep us alive till we are forty ir so. After that it doesn't care whether we live or die.


Good point. However, that does not mean that fat is bad for us. I think the main reasons we live longer now are a relatively complete vitamin and mineral supplement to our diets, the practice of hygene, medical cures for diseases, and less environmental stress on our bodies.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote


Good point. However, that does not mean that fat is bad for us. I think the main reasons we live longer now are a relatively complete vitamin and mineral supplement to our diets, the practice of hygene, medical cures for diseases, and less environmental stress on our bodies.

Plus less wars and lions eating us. :D