what is the deal with the carb counting today. every thing is carb free now. is it cause of the fact that like one in 3 kids are overwieght? can someone elaborate please?

wrong forum, but...

Sans carbs is the latesy fad diet. It's based on a book called the Atkins Diet which was originally released in the 80s but is making a huge comeback because, amazingly, people are still getting fatter. Imagine that.

I'm writing my own diet book called "The Why Don't You Stop Counting Carbs and Put Down The Fried Chicken, Dumbass Diet." I expect to make millions.

http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/24/atkins.htm

He says researchers don't know if the benefits of losing weight outweigh the drawbacks of eating a diet high in saturated fat. There is nothing miraculous about the Atkins diet, but if you put people on a low-calorie diet, they lose weight, says Keith Ayoob, a spokesman for the American Dietetic Association. "It's the number of calories, not where they come from." Foster and fellow researchers are going to continue to investigate the Atkins diet with a longer-term study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

basiclly it will make your skinnier, but may also be unhealthy at the same time, look good, die soon... isn't life a bitch?

mod note: by the way I move this to Biology from Politics

Well, it depends. If you're obese then the health benefits of losing a significant amount of weight could easily outweigh the risks associated with increased saturated fat intake.

Although the only really effective way to lose weight is to combine diet and exercise. If you just start eating a lot less without also increasing your exercise, you really aren't doing yourself any favors. Yeah, you'll lose fat – but you'll also lose muscle, so your BMR will be lower and you will be likely to quickly regain the weight. Exercise, people, exercise...

The first time I heard about the Atkins thing, the guy was telling me how he can still eat the steak dinner, just not the baked potato or the fries or drink a soda or a beer with it. "Gee, smart guy. You just cut out half your meal. Of course you'll lose weight." In addition to that, aside from simple sugars in candy and sodas, people rarley eat JUST carbs. How many people do you know eat a plain baked potato with their dinner? Most people eat the potato loaded with butter, sour cream, cheese and bacon bits. There are more calories in the toppings on a loaded baked potato than are in the potato. Same with the oils in fries and chips. Same with the creamy or meaty sauces poured all over pasta. Butter or oil on the bread, etc. So, if people cut out carbs the way they normally eat carbs (fried or smothered in some sort of fatty sauce or butter) they are also cutting out a lot of associated fat and a ton of calories from a given meal.

What low carb diets are basically saying is, "My car doesn't get good gas mileage like it used to, so in order to remedy that I'll stop driving so much and so far. That way, I'll spend just as much on gas in a given time." An intelligent person with good reasoning and understanding would think, "Perhaps I should get a tune up ... new spark plugs, fuel filter, air filter, etc. and make my car run more efficiently, like it should."
Exercise is the only way to healthfully lose fat and it is also the only way to make your body more efficient at metabolizing fat.

But, to answer your question, remember back in the 80s when everything was "Low Cholesterol" and in the 90s when everything was "Low Fat"? Same deal. Marketing. Buzz words. Catch phrases. There are people out there who have no clue what it means to be on a low carb diet, but they have heard that it's good (Granted, if you're diabetic or otherwise have insulin issues, it's pretty much your only hope. Otherwise, the rest of us don't need to do to our bodies what low carb does to our bodies), so marketers can take a 3/4lb slab of ground beef with 38 grams of fat and throw out the bun, wrap it in lettuce, and call it "Low Carb" and people will think it's GOOD for them!

As for the health benefits of losing weight outweighing the risks of increased intake of fats- I've seen studies indicating that if you are overweight, you'd be better off staying that way than you would be if you were to lose significant amounts of weight quickly on a fad diet with little or no exercise. Most importantly because of the abovementioned factor of gaining the weight back after going off the diet. Way too much stress on the heart. Slow, moderate exercise-type activity, sustained over a long period of time is the best way. Severely obese people sometimes are started on programs where they just sit in a chair listening to classical music and pretending to conduct the orchestra with a baton. For them, just moving their arms like that for several minutes is just the level of activity needed to raise their heart rates to an aerobic zone without putting too much stress on their bodies.

And Nebula, I guess we'll have to race to the book publisher, because I'm writing, "Eat Less and Exercize More, You Fat Bastard!" ;)

then again maybe this diet is a load of BS read this:
http://www.thedailyfarce.com/health.cfm?story=2004/02/health_atkinsandpasta_02200400019
:eek:

It quite clearly implied that he himself did not follow his diet because he loved pasta and bread too much. Doesn't mean the diet is BS.

Nor to a beleive the validity of the link I provided. (its a joke news, I doubt its real)

No apparently he did die obese (or at least fat) didn't he? I heard that ages ago!

3 tests to see if a diet is BS.

1. Commone sense - Fail: the Atkins diet is calorie restrictive. See above re: cutting carbs typically equals cutting fat. Basic law of physics. More input than output = surplus. More output than input = deficit. Eat fewer calories than you need, lose weight. That simple.

2. Science - Fail: for people with normal reactions to insulin (not diabetic, hypoglycemic, etc.... the majority of us) this is not a healthy diet. It leads to a loss of important fat-burning muscle mass, puts stress on the liver and kidneys, puts the body in the state of consuming itself (ketosis), increases the levels of toxins such as urea into the system, causing dehydration (water loss from the cells to help expel these toxins in the urine), limits intake of ever so important fiber and fruit, and so on and so on.

3. Cynicism - Fail: Any diet that says, "DON'T eat ...." (one particular food, one whole category of foods, etc) and then says, "By the way, since you're not eating ...., then you're not getting certain nutrients your body needs. To that end, you should take these supplements for the rest of your life, which by the way, we happen to sell."

Losing weight and getting fit is the easiest thing in the world. Our bodies crave to be fit. Eating right (low fat, high fiber, lots of fruits and vegetables, plenty of water and juices) and regular aerobic exercise (20-30 minutes a day, 4-6 days a week at 65-80% maximum heart rate sustained over the exercise period [maximum heart rate is 220-your age]). No magic. No special diet or pills. It takes time and patience. You cannot physically lose more than 2 lbs of body fat in a week. Any diet that promises more than 2-3 lbs of weight loss a week is causing you to lose water and muscle mass. Bad.

So, if you have 50lbs to lose, in a matter of 6 months it can alll be gone, you'll be fit, trim, healthy and strong. "Six Months!" That's FOREVER!" you might say. Six months to get fit in the proper way, which tunes your body to stay fit and keep burning calories even when you're not exercising, is a lot better than losing 50lbs in 6 weeks, being unhealthy, unfit, and have the potential to gain it all back once the fad diet has ended. bEsides, whether you make an effort to get fit or not, those 6 months will pass regardless. Better to look back after that time and say, "Gee...look at me. I look so good and my clothes are just falling off of mee and I feel and look better than I ever did," than to look back and say, "Damn...I'm still fat. I wish I could do something about that."

No this is the truth:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/02/10/atkins.widow/

The Atkins' diet dates from the 60's and Atkins was not obese when admitted to the hospital after falling on the ice and hitting his head. The weight increase was the result of swelling from the efforts made to save his life. He was never really skinny either though he had been obese when he did the research for his diet plan.

3 tests to see if a diet is BS.

1. Commone sense - Fail: the Atkins diet is calorie restrictive. See above re: cutting carbs typically equals cutting fat. Basic law of physics. More input than output = surplus. More output than input = deficit. Eat fewer calories than you need, lose weight. That simple.

No, eating the same amount of calories comprosong of protein and fat leads to less fat storage (apparently).

It leads to a loss of important fat-burning muscle mass,

It actually leads to an increased potential for muscle mass!

puts stress on the liver and kidneys,

Its highly doubtful now that there is a significant stress on the kidneys from a high protein diet.

puts the body in the state of consuming itself (ketosis), increases the levels of toxins such as urea into the system, causing dehydration (water loss from the cells to help expel these toxins in the urine), limits intake of ever so important fiber and fruit, and so on and so on.

Dehydration is a problem alright but did u know that urea is an antioxidant?! It helped sharks survive all these millions of years!

3. Cynicism - Fail: Any diet that says, "DON'T eat ...." (one particular food, one whole category of foods, etc) and then says, "By the way, since you're not eating ...., then you're not getting certain nutrients your body needs. To that end, you should take these supplements for the rest of your life, which by the way, we happen to sell."

I'm sure, like all diets, it provides certain nutrients in alternative ways.

So, if you have 50lbs to lose, in a matter of 6 months it can alll be gone, you'll be fit, trim, healthy and strong. "Six Months!" That's FOREVER!" you might say. Six months to get fit in the proper way, which tunes your body to stay fit and keep burning calories even when you're not exercising, is a lot better than losing 50lbs in 6 weeks, being unhealthy, unfit, and have the potential to gain it all back once the fad diet has ended. bEsides, whether you make an effort to get fit or not, those 6 months will pass regardless. Better to look back after that time and say, "Gee...look at me. I look so good and my clothes are just falling off of mee and I feel and look better than I ever did," than to look back and say, "Damn...I'm still fat. I wish I could do something about that."

Your definitely right here. Exercise is still the best form of weight loss :)

Get a biochemistry textbook, a biology textbook and a human physiology textbook and read read read......

I say that because just about all of your comments above are qualified with "apparently" or "it seems" or the like. This is your body and the only one you have. Would be a good idea to get a real picture as to how it works.

Are u talking to me? If u are then I am pretty sure I know a lot more about the human body than u do by the look of your last post and all the corrections i had to make to it.

Also, only point 5 I was a bit unsure of because I am not an avid fan of the diet so even that reply is wrong.

Your brain utilize nearly 2/3 of the glucose your body metabolizes from the food you eat when you're at rest. Glucose is very quickly and easily metabolized from carbohydrates. Your body uses protein to build muscle mass and to produce enzymes. Your muscles can do without glucose for a given period of time, but your brain cannot. When you deprive your body and brain of easily accessible glucose from carbohydrates, it shifts its focus on metabolizing protein to glucose, which it can do, but at a cost in overall efficiency along with the production of toxic waste products. For extended periods of time, your body then becomes a machine that uses protein for energy instead of carbohydrates. This leads to the inability of the body to rebuild muscle mass that is used and broken down on a daily basis, not to mention the muscle mass that was depleted when your body needed to pull extra protein to make the extra glucose. This becomes a very vicious cycle. Over time, this leads to overall loss of muscle mass. Your muscles are your biggest fat burners when you move. Have low muscle mass, have low ability to burn fat. Yet another vicious cycle.

As for urea being good for sharks. So what? Chocolate can kill a dog and cows can digest insoluble fiber. You can't compare species to species when it comes to the physiology of metabolism

http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article/0,2823,s1-6-0-0-1303,00.html

Other ideas on the low carb craze ^^

Atkins is not the only diet that recommends low carb. The Zone and Pellicione also favor limiting carbs.

Yep. There are tons of them out there.

One thing, I'm not saying that the notion of "low carb" is entirely bad. I try to avoid refined carbs like white flour, white rice, refined white sugar, etc. I eat tons of whole wheat pasta, whole wheat bread, brown rice, beans, and so forth. I get 60-65% of my daily caloric intake from carbs, but just in their whole, natural form. (The other 35-40% is split evenly between protein and fat).

When I first started to get on a fitness kick, my first step was to cut out sodas. At 6 or 7 12oz. cans a day, I was basically taking in an extra 1000 calories of nonnutrition. That's the main reason for cutting back on this particular categoty of carbs. They're empty calories. (I lost 25lbs in one month doing nothing but cutting out sodas.) With whole grains you get a source of carbohydrates that take longer to digest because they are more complex, leading to a much longer sense of fullness. They also provide fiber, which is a form of carbohydrate that is extremely important to a person's diet and most people get little if any during the day, and people going low carb often get even less.

So, I guess, ultimately, my big beef with these diets is that "carb" is not defined well enough to most people. I understand that the Atkins diet and others have adjusted their systems to include information about "net carbs" and have allowed more complex carbs here and there because of the aforemtioned deficiency of fiber in these diets. But, as I said, when Hardee's is taking a big slab of fatty meat, wrapping a piece of lettuce around it in lieu of a bun, and calling it "Low Carb," as if it's suddenly good for you, well, that's just asinine. But people who don't know any better are falling for it and are putting way too much saturated fat and cholesterol into their bodies, thinking that somehow the fact that there are no carbs going along for the ride that it all somehow evens out.

The thing is, when you lose weight by diet alone, you basically become just a smaller version of your dumpy, flabby old self. When you exercise, you not only change the way your body looks, but the way your body metabolizes food and burns fat as well. It becomes more efficient because you have the muscle mass to burn fat 24/7.

Having read a couple of these diet books I know that they also advocate exercise.
Fast food marketing is not the best souce of diet information.

Your brain utilize nearly 2/3 of the glucose your body metabolizes from the food you eat when you're at rest. Glucose is very quickly and easily metabolized from carbohydrates. Your body uses protein to build muscle mass and to produce enzymes. Your muscles can do without glucose for a given period of time, but your brain cannot. When you deprive your body and brain of easily accessible glucose from carbohydrates, it shifts its focus on metabolizing protein to glucose, which it can do, but at a cost in overall efficiency along with the production of toxic waste products. For extended periods of time, your body then becomes a machine that uses protein for energy instead of carbohydrates. This leads to the inability of the body to rebuild muscle mass that is used and broken down on a daily basis, not to mention the muscle mass that was depleted when your body needed to pull extra protein to make the extra glucose. This becomes a very vicious cycle. Over time, this leads to overall loss of muscle mass. Your muscles are your biggest fat burners when you move. Have low muscle mass, have low ability to burn fat. Yet another vicious cycle.

As for urea being good for sharks. So what? Chocolate can kill a dog and cows can digest insoluble fiber. You can't compare species to species when it comes to the physiology of metabolism

Chunky: Why do u think I am a supporter of this diet when i clearly told u NOT to think of me like that in my last post?

I was merely explaining where u were wrong in your misconceptions of the Atkins diet. Therefore, its probably a little less dangerous than u thought it was!

Where in that post do I make any assumption that you are in favor of the diet?

I was just pointing out more evidednce as to why it's not a paricularly healthy way to lose weight, and it is in no way a means to get physically fit.

In the quote I mentioned in my last post. Indirectly u were telling me stuff I already know. The only reason u would do that is to show me that it is a bad diet for those reasons. I ALREADY KNOW its a bad diet for those reasons!

Anyway, exercise is the way to go :D

I say in the earlier post that low carb diets can lead to a depletion of muscle mass, you counter with, "It actually increases potential for more muscle mass." I come back with a factual, scientifically based explanation of exactly how it leads to the depletion of muscle mass, and you come back with, "You're telling me something I already know."

Just how does that work, exactly?

I say in the earlier post that low carb diets can lead to a depletion of muscle mass

This is where u are wrong. U said the ATKINS diet leads to muscle wastage and that is not a complete statement. It should lead to a greater potential for muscle building.

Any of my other corrections u care to discuss?

I explained how low carb leads to muscle wastage fairly thoroughly. You basically come back and say, "No it doesn't" with no factual information to back it up. Where is your scientific, physiological backup for that statement?

Didn't u just read what i said? U said that the ATKINS diet leads to muscle wastage.

Do u agree on that before I continue?

Is Atkins not a low carb diet. Hell, is it not THE low carb diet?

Not just that. It is a high protein diet.

Right. It has to be. Because, as I said, your body has to use that less efficient source of energy for glucose production instead of muscle building, since there are so few carbs available. Trouble is, it just doesn't last as long and not as much energy comes from protein as from carbs. So, your body uses protein, which, as I said, leads to depletion of muscle mass because your body needs the protein it pulls from the muscle production to make glucose for energy. Once that cycle is started, it's difficult for it to go back the other way. This is one reason why people who go off the diet regain the weight, plus some. Their bodies are used to using protein for energy, so when they do start eating more carbs again, it's just stored as glycogen and eventually converted to fat ... fat that can't be metabolized as easily because of less muscle mass. Again, the vicious cycle.

Carbs to start the fire, fat to keep the fire going, protein for muscle building and enzyme production. Just not good to rely on protein for glucose production.

Right. It has to be. Because, as I said, your body has to use that less efficient source of energy for glucose production instead of muscle building, since there are so few carbs available. Trouble is, it just doesn't last as long and not as much energy comes from protein as from carbs. So, your body uses protein, which, as I said, leads to depletion of muscle mass because your body needs the protein it pulls from the muscle production to make glucose for energy. Once that cycle is started, it's difficult for it to go back the other way. This is one reason why people who go off the diet regain the weight, plus some. Their bodies are used to using protein for energy, so when they do start eating more carbs again, it's just stored as glycogen and eventually converted to fat ... fat that can't be metabolized as easily because of less muscle mass. Again, the vicious cycle.

Carbs to start the fire, fat to keep the fire going, protein for muscle building and enzyme production. Just not good to rely on protein for glucose production.

Sounds quite good except for one contradiction:

not as much energy comes from protein as from carbs. So, your body uses protein,

How do u explain this?

Maybe I should have put it this way:

Your body uses carbs for one thing: Energy.
Your body uses fat for mutliple things: Long term storage of energy, fat soluable vitamin storage, and creation of hormones and neurotransmitters.
It uses protein for muscle building, general structural stuff, and production of enzymes.

The amazing thing about the body is it can turn any of those things into glucose if it needs to. Say you're stranded on a desert island and can't get any food. Your body can subsist on stored fat and muscle if it needs to. Now, of course, the "Desert Island Diet" would not be healthy, but it would get you by for a few weeks (as long as you have water) and you'd lose a lot of weight.

The problem with high protein, low carb and diets, is the fact that being a diet intended to help one lose weight, they are (obvioulsy) overall low in calories. Low calorie means not a lot of energy. This means that protein is forced to take upon itself the extra duty of being a source of glucose, in addition to its structural duties. However, it simply is not as efficient at making glucose as carbohydrate is, and it takes more protein to make the energy you need to get along than what is needed to make muscle. So, since it expends so much of its substance to make glucose, there isn't enough left over to build muscle properly.

Simply put, since the sole purpose of carbohydrates is to make energy, why not USE that for energy. Let your body use the protein for what it needs the protein for, and let it use the fat for what it needs it for?

Now, bodybuilders who need more protein to build their muscles will eat a lot more protein than the average person. A LOT more. And this WILL lead to added muscle mass. However, the typical bodybuilder may have a daily intake of 3500 to 5000 calories! Not a very good plan to be on if you're not weightlifting and trying to lose weight.

I thought the idea of a weight loss diet was to get your body to burn stored fat for energy.

Think of fat as a pile of charcoal briquets. Throw a match on them...nothing. Then, soak them in lighter fluid. Match... POOF. Lighter fluid burns a nice pretty yellow and blue flame for about 20 minutes. However, you can't cook on that flame. It's not hot enough and doesn't last very long. After that flame dies out, the charcoal has built up a considerable amount of internal heat and can burn for hours.

During exercise, Carbs (glucose) = lighetr fluid, Fat = charcoal.

When you eat carbs, they are stored in your body as glycogen for 24-36 hours. If it's not used, it is converted to fat. If it's used (exercise) it is converted to energy. That energy doesn't last long, because sugar burns fast. Your body then starts to release fatty acids from their various storage areas to be used as energy. This is when you really start to lose punds. The trick is, this doesn't really start to happen until you have been exercising for a good amount of time (12-15 miuntes at target heart rate). Your body will, at first, want to use whatever available (non stored) sugars it has at its disposal. It wants to hoard that glycogen. Once that is burned up, it goes to deeper stores. Eventually, you start to burn fat. The cool thing is, the more you exercise and build muscle, the more fat burning capacity you have. You get to where you're burning fat even in your sleep. Your muscles need that energy.

What this all boils down to is that you want to burn fat through aerobic exercise. It's how our bodies are set up. It is the best and healthiest way to lose fat. Trying to fool the body and make it do something it wasn't set up to do (use protein to for glucose production while also being low cal) simply is not healthy, and certainly not something to do for a long period of time.

If you see any diet that promises 5, 10, 15lbs of weight loss a week, it is most certainly unhealthy. It is not physically possible to lose more than 2-3 lbs of fat in a week's time. If you lose more weight than that, you are mostly losing water (which will come right back) and likely muscle mass as well.

So yes, the whole idea is to burn fat. You just can't do that without exercising.

Maybe I should have put it this way:

The problem with high protein, low carb and diets, is the fact that being a diet intended to help one lose weight, they are (obvioulsy) overall low in calories.

No, this is the key. Apparently Atkins is not a low cal diet. U can eat the same or even more calories in protein rather than carbs and still lose weight I believe! If I am wrong then ok but this has been the problem all along then!

Again...the point is not to lose weight. Any diet (low carb included) will make you lose weight. (As will cancer, starvation, AIDS, etc.) You want to lose fat and become fit.

I knew u would pick on that! I meant weight as in fat. The word diet I am using in the biological sense whereby it doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in calories.

Typically, people on Atkins and its ilk eat fewer calories, whether or not it's intrinsic to the program itself, simply because the types of fatty/protein rich foods make them feel fuller faster, so they just end up eating less food overall.

The diet does propose that u lose weight(fat) when eating the same amount of calories on the diet as u would off it. Do u think THAT is true?

I'm not saying that you don't lose any fat at all on these diets, I'm saying that you lose some fat, but the bulk of the total weight that is lost is water (easily and quickly regainable) and muscle mass (to your detriment in the longterm scheme of things, as previously stated). This is how people lose so much weight so quickly in the beginning stages. It's been shown that it'sphysically impossible to lose more than 2-3 lbs of body fat in a week's time. Many people are reporting 5-10lbs per week or more. So, if it is impossible to lose more than 3 lbs a week and you lose 10, where does the other 7lbs come from? The bulk of that is water and muscle. Has to be...sure aren't losing bones or organs or limbs.

So, yes, you can and do lose some fat on diets such as Atkins, but the danger I see is the cost in muscle mass that tends to go along with it, in addition to the false hope that's garnered from the water weight that's lost, which will quickly be regained. Not to mention the potential for diminishment of vital nutrients. Longterm is what I'm looking at. Unfortunately, there are few studies regarding the longterm effects because few people stay on these diets for long enough to perform those studies. It's too complicated with all the stages and stuff (which can be a draw at the beginning..."weight loss surely can't be simple because so many people have a hard time with it. If a program is complex with many stages, it should work"). The early part of the diet is boring and hard to maintain as well as being inconvenient.

I went to Atkins' website and looked at their FAQ. There were a number of questions regarding constipation, diarrhea, etc. This is because of the low level of fiber in the early stages of the diet. Their answer? Take supplements! Hell...why not just eat some damned fiber! Or, "I worry about not getting enough vitamins because I'm not eating fruits and vegetables." Answer? Take supplements! ("Which, we happen to sell, by the way....") Why not just eat some damn fruits and vegetables and get your vitamins?

In general, if you eat right (whole grains, lean protein sources, low amounts of poly and mono unsaturated fats, lots of fruits and vegetables) you should never have to take any supplements. You should get all the fiber, vitamins, minerals and essential amino acids your body needs. If you exercise regularly, you will burn fat. It's a longer, slower process, but will be much more beneficial in the long run.

People like these diets for many reasons. They can eat foods they previously believed to be verboten like steak and eggs and cheese, it's different and goes against long standing ideals of nutrition and weight loss, so being such a radical idea and "outside the box", it must be good (people like it when an idea is "outside the box") ... same goes for the fact that, as mentioned before, it's complicated and justifies itself with lots of fancy medical talk, and, most importantly, the number on the scale goes down, so whether it's fat, muscle, or water they're losing, they don't care because they've lost weight...so it's good.

I'm not saying that you don't lose any fat at all on these diets, I'm saying that you lose some fat, but the bulk of the total weight that is lost is water (easily and quickly regainable) and muscle mass (to your detriment in the longterm scheme of things, as previously stated). This is how people lose so much weight so quickly in the beginning stages. It's been shown that it'sphysically impossible to lose more than 2-3 lbs of body fat in a week's time. Many people are reporting 5-10lbs per week or more. So, if it is impossible to lose more than 3 lbs a week and you lose 10, where does the other 7lbs come from? The bulk of that is water and muscle. Has to be...sure aren't losing bones or organs or limbs.

Are people still talking about dietin by trying to lose weight? I thought that was all over now and it is more about fat loss and waistline measurements?!

So, yes, you can and do lose some fat on diets such as Atkins, but the danger I see is the cost in muscle mass that tends to go along with it, in addition to the false hope that's garnered from the water weight that's lost, which will quickly be regained.

I thought I established that on a proper Atkins diet, u might gain muscle mass rather than lose it :confused:

Not to mention the potential for diminishment of vital nutrients. Longterm is what I'm looking at. Unfortunately, there are few studies regarding the longterm effects because few people stay on these diets for long enough to perform those studies.

Possibly but most nutrients come from animal matter anyway don't they?

It's too complicated with all the stages and stuff (which can be a draw at the beginning..."weight loss surely can't be simple because so many people have a hard time with it. If a program is complex with many stages, it should work"). The early part of the diet is boring and hard to maintain as well as being inconvenient.

U could be right here.

I went to Atkins' website and looked at their FAQ. There were a number of questions regarding constipation, diarrhea, etc. This is because of the low level of fiber in the early stages of the diet. Their answer? Take supplements! Hell...why not just eat some damned fiber! Or, "I worry about not getting enough vitamins because I'm not eating fruits and vegetables." Answer? Take supplements! ("Which, we happen to sell, by the way....") Why not just eat some damn fruits and vegetables and get your vitamins?

Definitely a problem for carnivores :D

the number on the scale goes down, so whether it's fat, muscle, or water they're losing, they don't care because they've lost weight...so it's good.

Yes, a terrible attitude eh?!

I thought I established that on a proper Atkins diet, u might gain muscle mass rather than lose it

If you consider simply stating "No, it actually does" with no scientific explanation to back it up as establishing anything, then I suppose you did.

The explanation is that to gain a lot of muscle weight, u need a high protein intake.

muscle mass will only increase with excises. Sure eating high protein might help but you have toe be working out as well if you want any results.

Real life example:

Morgan Spurlock of "Super Size Me" fame.

From Week 1 to Week 2 on the "Nothing But McDonald's" Diet he gained 10lbs. From Week 2 to Week 3, he LOST a pound. Why? As the nutritionist confirmed, he was losing muscle as quickly as he was gaining fat. In the first couple of weeks, this process sort of evened out that gain vs loss. He was basically eating a couple of Egg McMuffins each morning for breakfast, a Double 1/4lber with cheese for lunch, and another for dinner (it was more varied than that, but you get the picture. The only thing he ate for 30 days was what was on the McD's menu). The McMuffins have about 10g of protein each, the DQPwC have about 45g each. Add to that the fries, the occasional shake, maybe some McNuggets (50g of protein for a 20 piece meal) he was getting more than the RDA of protein for even an active person. Yes, he was eating lots of fat and simple carbohydrates as well, but the fact is, he was losing muscle mass in addition to gaining weight, despite the fact that he was eating huge amounts of protein.

muscle mass will only increase with excises. Sure eating high protein might help but you have toe be working out as well if you want any results.

Yes! Thats all I said :)

Do u agree now with this Chunky? That its possible to gain more muscle mass on these diets than on others?

its possible if exercising. And I would not call it a diet, as you would need 3000-5000 calories everyday from pumping iron.

I like thos comerical the say low carbs with alchholic drinks, ethanol from the drink is eventually coverted into acetyl-CoA (so it glucose, all carbohydrates, fatts, well everything) and ends up as fatt and glucose and glucose is the central carb!

WCF said what I said earlier. The people who are gaining muscle mass on high protein diets are also consuming huuuuge amounts of calories (3000-5000 calories per day, as I indicated in a previous post). These are bodybuilders who have enough extra protein in their diets to build muscle AND be used as energy.

The average person on Atkins consumes 1400 calories a day (From their website). This is considerably less than what the average height/weight person needs to maintain weight (~2000 calories). So, what I said still stands. A low carb/high protein/low calorie diet (which is what "these diets" are which we are talking about) will NOT lead to an increase of muscle mass.

Even with exercise ... Your body needs energy to perform the exercise. If it's using all the protein it takes in (because there are too few carbs) then there is less available for muscle growth. Yes, you get energy from fat as well, but since most muscle-building exercises are primarily anaerobic, fat doesn't really come into play. Your body can't fully metabolize fat in the absence of oxygen. Muscle can burn sugar whether there's oxygen present or not, but fat never really gets fully metabolized unless there is oxygen present. So, if you're exercising and you can't burn fat, and there's no carbs available, you will burn amino acids....protein.

its possible if exercising. And I would not call it a diet, as you would need 3000-5000 calories everyday from pumping iron.

That would be called a low calorie diet which is not what I believed Atkins to necessarily believe. You're misunderstanding how I'm using the word diet. I'm using it properly.

I like thos comerical the say low carbs with alchholic drinks, ethanol from the drink is eventually coverted into acetyl-CoA (so it glucose, all carbohydrates, fatts, well everything) and ends up as fatt and glucose and glucose is the central carb!

Are there really diets which recommend alcohol?! :D Whoaa, that one's for me!

WCF said what I said earlier. The people who are gaining muscle mass on high protein diets are also consuming huuuuge amounts of calories (3000-5000 calories per day, as I indicated in a previous post). These are bodybuilders who have enough extra protein in their diets to build muscle AND be used as energy.

Yes.

The average person on Atkins consumes 1400 calories a day (From their website). This is considerably less than what the average height/weight person needs to maintain weight (~2000 calories). So, what I said still stands. A low carb/high protein/low calorie diet (which is what "these diets" are which we are talking about) will NOT lead to an increase of muscle mass.

Yes but I heard somewhere that u can take more calories than usual on an Atkins diet and lose fat while keeping/gainig muscle at the same time. Is there ANY scientific reason why this couldn't be the case?

Even with exercise ... Your body needs energy to perform the exercise. If it's using all the protein it takes in (because there are too few carbs) then there is less available for muscle growth. Yes, you get energy from fat as well, but since most muscle-building exercises are primarily anaerobic, fat doesn't really come into play. Your body can't fully metabolize fat in the absence of oxygen. Muscle can burn sugar whether there's oxygen present or not, but fat never really gets fully metabolized unless there is oxygen present. So, if you're exercising and you can't burn fat, and there's no carbs available, you will burn amino acids....protein.

Ok this is one good point showing how a higher than u would think intake of protein is necessary for keeping muscle mass.

BTW, I fully believe the reason I am so thin (and always have been) might be because I am a true carnivore :) that is why I would love u to explain yourself a bit further if there's some info ur hiding :D

I have given you many many pieces of evidence and physiological explanations. All you have given me is, "I heard somewhere" and "I believe" and "it would seem."

I am fully aware of the proper use of the word "diet." I have referred to low cal AND high cal "diets." So, I'm not using the word "diet" to indicate solely a weight loss program, if that's what you are implying.

Whether or not you "believe" Atkins to be "necessarily" low calorie in design, it usually ends up so by default because so much fat in the diet tends to assuage appetite, and the person on the program eats less overall. Again, on average, 1400 or so calories per day consumed by the average Atkinser. That's a major reason why people do lose weight on it.

As for why you are thin on a mostly carnivorous diet: As I've mentioned in another thread, and perhaps here, you can be thin and still have a low percentage of lean muscle mass and a high percentage of fat. The fat can be marbling in your muscles (like in a steak). Since fat is less dense and lighter than muscle, you can have "muscles" equal in size to a fit athlete, but you would be as thin and weigh less because those muscles are saturated with fat. (A lean steak about the size of a VHS tape would weigh more than the same sized piece of steak with considerable marbling). As you get older and if you are not very active, eventually those fatty muscles will get over saturated. Then, the fat that you would normally deposit there, would manifest itself as subcutaneous fat, and you'll get tubby.

I have given you many many pieces of evidence and physiological explanations. All you have given me is, "I heard somewhere" and "I believe" and "it would seem."

I have just counter argued your claims. What u have given cannot explain everything. High protein diets with exercise increase muscle mass. Eating more than enough calories in protein rather than carbs can make u lose fat. On the very first page of this thread I also showed how u were wrong in some of your other assumptions of the Atkins diet.

I am fully aware of the proper use of the word "diet." I have referred to low cal AND high cal "diets." So, I'm not using the word "diet" to indicate solely a weight loss program, if that's what you are implying.

Why do u think I am implying that? Lets get back to the argument and not get side-tracked here!

Whether or not you "believe" Atkins to be "necessarily" low calorie in design, it usually ends up so by default because so much fat in the diet tends to assuage appetite, and the person on the program eats less overall. Again, on average, 1400 or so calories per day consumed by the average Atkinser. That's a major reason why people do lose weight on it.

I don't care what actually happens and why really. We just need to find out if the diet will intrinsically make u lose fat whether u feel hungry or not. I still believe it does. It is not tricking u into losing fat in any way - it actually WILL do that.

As for why you are thin on a mostly carnivorous diet: As I've mentioned in another thread, and perhaps here, you can be thin and still have a low percentage of lean muscle mass and a high percentage of fat. The fat can be marbling in your muscles (like in a steak). Since fat is less dense and lighter than muscle, you can have "muscles" equal in size to a fit athlete, but you would be as thin and weigh less because those muscles are saturated with fat. (A lean steak about the size of a VHS tape would weigh more than the same sized piece of steak with considerable marbling). As you get older and if you are not very active, eventually those fatty muscles will get over saturated. Then, the fat that you would normally deposit there, would manifest itself as subcutaneous fat, and you'll get tubby.

Interesting. So does this mean that (at least in my case) fat tends to deposit in my muscles first?

I think we need a nutritionist on this forum.

The best scientifically backed diet is one high in complex carbohydrates, low-saturated fats, plant protein as opposed to animal protein because of all the saturated fat that comes with animal meat. The most healthiest diet on earth was found to be the diet of the people of Crete: high in olive oil (unsaturated fat) whole grain wheat (complex carbs) some fish and goats. They had the lowest rates of heart disease and colon cancer. The problem is healthy and thin are not always one in the same, by this diet would you be skinny? Hey at least you would be healthy.

I don't care what actually happens and why really. We just need to find out if the diet will intrinsically make u lose fat whether u feel hungry or not. I still believe it does. It is not tricking u into losing fat in any way - it actually WILL do that.

Explain the process?


Interesting. So does this mean that (at least in my case) fat tends to deposit in my muscles first?

Essentially, yes. Think about really overfat people. Did they get that way overnight? Did they wake up one morning and look in the mirror and say, "Ah...no...." No. It takes quite awhile to put on a lot of fat. If a person is starting to get a gut, chances are their muscles have been full of fat for awhile. Basically, people who are starting to become overweight have already been overfat for quite awhile. This is also why many people get frustrated with workout and diet regimens, because the opposite happens. You may be losing fat during the regimen, but it may not be so easily noticeable because most of the fat you lose at first is from the muscles. Your body wants to hold onto the other...mostly the gut for guys and the butt and thighs in women... the toughest chunks of fat for people to lose. So, since the results aren't readily noticeable, they often quit from that frustration.

Again, this is how some people can leave college being slim and continue to be so for many years, even though they are more sedentary now (no more walking to class, outdoor activities and so forth ... they work now) and eat the same fatty foods they used to and still look slim. "I just have a fast metabolism," they'd say. Then, as time moves along, they start to notice their "metabolism slowing down" as they get older. That's likely not what is happening. What's likely happening is the fat has caught up with them and it is beginning to be stored subcutaneously instead of intramuscularly. Intramuscular fat replaces muscle that has atrophied, so weight gain is not all that noticeable (and size change is not really noticeable at all). Subcutaneous fat is just additional fat, replacing nothing. So it just becomes extra weight and tubbiness.

I think we need a nutritionist on this forum.

The best scientifically backed diet is one high in complex carbohydrates, low-saturated fats, plant protein as opposed to animal protein because of all the saturated fat that comes with animal meat. The most healthiest diet on earth was found to be the diet of the people of Crete: high in olive oil (unsaturated fat) whole grain wheat (complex carbs) some fish and goats. They had the lowest rates of heart disease and colon cancer. The problem is healthy and thin are not always one in the same, by this diet would you be skinny? Hey at least you would be healthy.


Exaclty. :)

I can certainly understand the frustration held by many people. So many "experts" giving conflicting advice everywhere.... "Don't eat carbs....EAT CARBS....Eat grapefruit....NEVER EAT GRAPEFRUIT.....You need vegetables....VEGETABLES ARE BAD....Never eat dairy ... ONLY EAT DAIRY, etc." Really hard to know where the truth really lies. Further frustration arises from the notion that what works for some doesn't seem to work for others. However, I would have to say that the basic "eat less and exercise more" would work for anyone. It's only within the last 3/4 of a century that we have become so dependent on cars and have, therefore, become more sedentary, and it's also within the last half century or less that food is readily available everywhere. Added to that, TV and internet leading to even more sedentary people. We no longer have to wait til harvest to get our grains, we no longer have to wait til the piggies and moocows are ready to be slaughtered before we can have meat. We don't have to go out and hunt our food. We don't have to wait for any particular season to get our fruits and vegetables. Everything is readily available and everywhere and cheap. We go to restaurants where they give you 2 to 3 times the proper serving size (I have taken home half my restaurant meal in a doggie bag and find, when I pour it out on an average sized dinner plate, it fills the plate and then some....waaay more than I would normally make for myself when I cook at home.) No wonder 65% of Americans are fat.

So...eat less, exercise more, lose weight. Nothing fancy. No magic pill, no magic diet. No elimination of particular foods or entire food categories. No need for supplements or vitamins or anything else. Simple.

Explain the process?

Basically, when u look at it, I am saying u will more lose/gain less fat on a high protein diet than a high carb diet. What happens is, if u are overweight and limit your carb intake, your body will start breaking down its fat reserves at the same time it is trying to metabolise the protein inake (or even earlier). The body finds it easier to obtain energy from fatty acids than proteins. There is also an insulin connection. Reducing the carbs generally reduces blood sugar levels which increases insulin sensitivity and prevents the abdominal type obesity seen in Insulin Resistant people.

This is just a few facts :)

Everything is readily available and everywhere and cheap. We go to restaurants where they give you 2 to 3 times the proper serving size (I have taken home half my restaurant meal in a doggie bag and find, when I pour it out on an average sized dinner plate, it fills the plate and then some....waaay more than I would normally make for myself when I cook at home.) No wonder 65% of Americans are fat.

So...eat less, exercise more, lose weight. Nothing fancy. No magic pill, no magic diet.

And remember, caloric restriction is the only scientifically proven way of extending your life :)

Basically, when u look at it, I am saying u will more lose/gain less fat on a high protein diet than a high carb diet.

This is just a few facts :)

Well, which is it? Lose or gain?

I understand the problem with the insulin spikes from eating carbs, but this is primarily from simple carbs (though, even that is a controversial notion)*. I have no problem with the idea of avoidance of simple sugars, white rice and regular pasta - any processed grains. They're empty calories. It has been shown, however, that more complex carbohydrates like those found in whole grains and legumes don't cause that reaction because they take more time to be broken down. Insulin release is slower and to a lesser degree.

The only way to build muscle is through exercise. Muscle building is an anaerobic activity. Fat can't be completely metabolized in the absence of oxygen. It never makes it past pyruvate stage and never enters the Krebs Cycle. Fat is burned only after a period of sustained aerobic activity over a given period of time (typically 65-80% of max heart rate for 15-20 minutes). Until then, most of what's being burned is sugar. This is like the example I often give of carbs being like lighter fluid (quick burn, low heat, but readily useable) while fat is like charcoal (once the lighter fluid has done its job, the heat built up in the coals allows them to burn very hot for a very long time). Your body may find it easier to get the energy it needs from fatty acids than from protein (I'm not really sure that's the case. Everything I've read on the subject indicates otherwise...the chain of command for ease of energy release is carb, protein, fat, which is why it takes so much effort to lose fat, and just sitting around all day doing nothing will cause a loss of muscle mass). Nevertheless, it's MUCH easier to get that energy from carbs. The carbs stoke the fire and allow for the fat burning to go on for much longer. Plus, the muscle that's built will continue to burn fat to some degree even when in rest.

Basically, I'm reiterating a very simple concept: Use your food for what it was intended for: Carbs for energy and brain food; protein for muscle building, tissue repair, and enzyme synthesis; fat for stored energy, hormone and neurotransmitter synthesis, and a home for fat-soluable vitamins.This is the way our bodies are set up to work. Why try to change that? Why risk messing with your body? Why have to worry about supplements and constant check ups and doctor care and potential muscle loss and keeping tabs of every thing you eat and eliminating so much from your diet, especially considering that just about every single report regarding the program, even the ones that have come out saying there might be something to it, always ends with the caveat of "Due to lack of longterm studies, it is not known the longterm effects or risks of this diet." Few people stay on it long enough to get good studies of longterm reports. (Many of the elements that are tested for to test for kidney failure/damage, for example, aren't even really detectable until the damage is nearly 80%. Way too late to do anything about it. So, people who say, "I've been on it for 6 months and my kidneys are fine" may possibly need to be ready for a rude awakening a few years down the road...if they end up staying on the diet).

Some info from independent sources:

http://www.eatright.org/Public/Media/PublicMedia_16442.cfm
http://216.185.112.5/presenter.jhtml?identifier=11234
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/53/60634.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

.......................

*A lot of Atkins followers swear that eating no carbs will keep your insulin under control. Well, that isn’t necessarily the truth. According to Dr. Gerald Raven from Stanford University. "Protein--when eaten alone--increases insulin secretion. I see no reason in the world why it would be any different if protein were eaten with carbohydrate" (Nutrition Action Newsletter Jul/Aug 1996).

Clinical studies indicate that beef and cheese cause a bigger insulin release than pasta, and fish produces a bigger insulin release than popcorn. (Holt SHA, Brand Miller JC, Petocz P. An insulin index of foods; the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;66:1264-76.)

Well, which is it? Lose or gain?

That was a typo. Should have read:

u will lose more/gain less fat on a high protein diet than a high carb diet.

Just swap the "lose" and the "more" around :)

Heh....

Lionel Hutz: Now don't you worry, Mrs. Simpson, I - uh-oh. We've drawn Judge Snyder.
Marge Simpson: Is that bad?
Hutz: Well, he's kind of had it in for me, since I accidently ran over his dog. Actually, replace `accidently' with `repeatedly', and replace `dog' with `son'.

well actually my sentence didn't make any sense (even if u assumed I was foreign or something) the way it was so............. :D

I guess what I'm looking at is this (assuming an RDA of~ 2000 calories):

The RDA for protein for most people is around 60grams a day. 60 x 4cal/gram = 240 calories
The RDA for fat is around 60grams. 60g x 9cal/gram = 540 calories
The rest comes from carbs, ~ 295 grams. 295g x 4cal/gram = 1180 calories
Total = 1960 calories a day.

Let's say you go on Atkins and up the protein count to 100 grams. This is at or above the amount even trained atheletes consume, yet it's only 400 calories. You've eliminated 1180 calories worth of high-energy carbs and are left with stubborn fat for energy. Again, fat isn't burned at highest efficiency unless in an aerobic state. So, that energy is somewhat latent until it is called upon by the muscles and isn't REALLY used until exercise becomes heavily aerobic for a decent period of time. That leaves the remaining energy source the 400 calories worth of protein. Given that 65% of your glucose goes to brain function and the rest goes to just moving around and stuff, I'm not seeing where there is near enough protein leftover to successfully build/rebuild muscle and other bodily tissues, produce enzymes, etc....

I guess what I'm looking at is this (assuming an RDA of~ 2000 calories):

The RDA for protein for most people is around 60grams a day. 60 x 4cal/gram = 240 calories
The RDA for fat is around 60grams. 60g x 9cal/gram = 540 calories
The rest comes from carbs, ~ 295 grams. 295g x 4cal/gram = 1180 calories
Total = 1960 calories a day.

Let's say you go on Atkins and up the protein count to 100 grams. This is at or above the amount even trained atheletes consume, yet it's only 400 calories. You've eliminated 1180 calories worth of high-energy carbs and are left with stubborn fat for energy. Again, fat isn't burned at highest efficiency unless in an aerobic state. So, that energy is somewhat latent until it is called upon by the muscles and isn't REALLY used until exercise becomes heavily aerobic for a decent period of time. That leaves the remaining energy source the 400 calories worth of protein. Given that 65% of your glucose goes to brain function and the rest goes to just moving around and stuff, I'm not seeing where there is near enough protein leftover to successfully build/rebuild muscle and other bodily tissues, produce enzymes, etc....

The interesting thing here is that protein and carbs have the same intrinsic energy yield.

Now I highly doubt that Atkins tell people to cut out carbs completely since it is only a LOW-carb diet. Even if u did however, what it should then recommend is that u consume more like 200-300 g of protein a day. Athletes will consume a lot less because they are eating carbs. Bodybuilders might actually consume this amount though eh?!

Many bodybuilders typically follow the rule of thumb of 1 to 1.5 grams of protein per kg of body weight. Even the high end of that equation wouldn't be anywhere near 200-300 grams of protein, unless he was huuuuuge. :eek:

Now I highly doubt that Atkins tell people to cut out carbs completely since it is only a LOW-carb diet.

Are you fucking kidding me? I've read all four pages of this thread and read every bit of your circular logic and with that simple sentence you've admitted that you don't know anything about the Atkins diet. Atkins DOES tell people to cut out carbs for the first two weeks because it kicks your body into burning fat. Have you read the book? Perhaps before you continue this thread you should do that.

How about we drop pure medical science down then:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14988451
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15192454
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14656042

The summation is that Atkins diets works, by way of calorie restriction, so does any other diet. Being protein though one feels more full or satified after eating then with carbs. Also evidence does not show a major increase in cholesteral and levels.

Also to reduce fat intake were talking about eating soybeans and nuts, not stake and hotdogs. Very low calorie diets like vegan can also by every high in protein, all you would eat is salads, nuts and beans. Very Low calorie diets can promote longer life spans, the side effect is that you'll be very hungery.

Also to reduce fat intake were talking about eating soybeans and nuts, not stake and hotdogs. Very low calorie diets like vegan can also by every high in protein, all you would eat is salads, nuts and beans. Very Low calorie diets can promote longer life spans, the side effect is that you'll be very hungery.

Yep. Note also that beans and nuts are good sources of fiber - a carbohydrate.

Cellulose is indigestible. Any carbohydrate with beta 1,4 glycosidic bonds we can't break down into monosaccharides and thus goes right through us, good for the colon though :) "bean beans the more you eat, the more you ..."

Yes, I realize that, but there are also nonfibrous carbs in them, too.

There carbs in muscle to whets your point? You can't just remove all carbohydrates from your diet there’s nothing that we eat that does not have some in it.

yep. I don't think you and I are on different pages on this topic.
I was just keeping with the topic of the thread, as to whether or not the low carb diets are good or necessary. It's obvious my stance. So, I was agreeing with you about the nuts and beans thing, and reiterating the fact that carbs are part of an overall healthy diet. That's all.

Are you fucking kidding me? I've read all four pages of this thread and read every bit of your circular logic and with that simple sentence you've admitted that you don't know anything about the Atkins diet. Atkins DOES tell people to cut out carbs for the first two weeks because it kicks your body into burning fat. Have you read the book? Perhaps before you continue this thread you should do that.

Go on, tell me where my circular logic is then. Maybe I can learn from u. This isn't a ranting forum so be productive.

I haven't read much of the book since why would I? I don't believe its the best way to diet.

The Atkins diet is supoosed to last longer than 2 weeks u know Princess. Do u think thats why u are still obese? Coz u read the first page which told u to cut carbs for 2 weeks and then u thought that alone would work? :D

It seems I don't need to read the book. We are talking about low carb - high protein diets in general here and how they SHOULD affect the body. If u don't know too much biology and have to resort to reading diet books then ....

How about we drop pure medical science down then:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14988451
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15192454
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14656042

The summation is that Atkins diets works, by way of calorie restriction, so does any other diet. Being protein though one feels more full or satified after eating then with carbs. Also evidence does not show a major increase in cholesteral and levels.

Also to reduce fat intake were talking about eating soybeans and nuts, not stake and hotdogs. Very low calorie diets like vegan can also by every high in protein, all you would eat is salads, nuts and beans. Very Low calorie diets can promote longer life spans, the side effect is that you'll be very hungery.

Not quite. Thats one opiniion and I agree than most dieters on Atkins are losing weight through this means. however, if we take a look at the diet itself, can we see that we will lose some fat based on the TYPE of diet alone. Can we keep the same calorie intake and reduce fat with it. This is what Mr. Atkins is proposing.

Now apparently, simple carbs give a much greater insulin response than either fats or proteins. This insulin response causes fat to stay stored (among other things).

Now one big thing I agree with Chunky about, is that complex carbs may be the key here. Hopefully some research will be done soon to compare these two molecules and their effects on the insulin response.

Perhaps complex carbs is the way to go!

If you have not read the books you have no basis to comment on the whole of the Atkins approach which has 3 phases and does recommend exercise as part of your lifestyle changes.
If you think I am obese you are assuming a fact not in evidence and you are wrong. I have naturally chosen a diet close to the Atkins maintenance diet most of my life which might be way I have never had weight problem. 5'5" 125

I love this quote from Atkins.com:

"Stick with the fourth and final phase of the Atkins Nutritional Approach™ and your weight problems are history—but digress, and you're headed for trouble."

Do NOT taunt the Atkins diet. Deviate....and fail!

First off, and this is a real pet peeve, ‘u’ is a letter. The word is ‘you’. Perhaps you have yet to cover this in your high school English class but it is very important. I realize that we are on a somewhat informal forum but for fuck’s sake you need to use correct grammar if you want your point to be respected and understood.

I am perfectly aware of how long the diet lasts since I have read the book. You clearly have not, and yet you are arguing in support of it and against it at the same time. As for me being obese, let me disabuse you of that notion. I am 5’6” tall and weigh 117 pounds. I am underweight not overweight.

You are correct in that this is not a ranting forum. It’s called sciforums for a reason. I think the notion was that people would discuss the sciences. You haven’t linked a single article or cited a single reference to back up any of your points. Chunky is telling you what he’s read in biology/biochemistry texts. WellCookedFetus has linked web pages. You have offered supposition and opinion and get annoyed when others don’t’ take it as fact. There is no place for a simple contrarian in a debate about science. Either come up with some facts and references or shut up.

Brava, Princess!

It's nice to see someone champion proper language use. Even Hawking sounds like a mook if he couches his opinions in semi-literate jabbering!

For the record, I think Chunky's spot-on. An old coworker of mine dared to deviate from the Atkins Hive-mind and ballooned with astonishing speed to her pre-Atkins weight.

I'm also suspicious of the prominently-displayed "Meet our Partners" area at Atkins.com.

"In the market for some lo-carb treats that line our pockets...er, I mean, taste great, too? Try these fine restaurants!"

On a personal note, when I first decided to cut out some flab (I was 6 feet tall, 230lbs), I went low fat, high complex carbs, lots of fruits and vegetables, daily exercise. Lost 40-45lbs in about 8 months. Was really fit. Had muscle tone, tons of energy. Completely changed the shape of my body from round and lumpy to triangular and lean. Stayed that way for a few years. The last couple of years, I slacked. I kind of went on a post-breakup binge and lost some respect for my body. Didn't exercise anywhere near as much, started eating more fat (nowhere near as much as when I was truly "chunky," but still more than I had been.) Did I "balloon" to my old weight and then some like so many people who deviate from low carb plans? No. In about two years I gained only about 15 of the 45lbs back. 15lbs in 2 years of slacking. My diet still consisted of a higher percentage of carbs than fat. Now, in a little over 3 weeks of reestablishing my old ways (daily cardio, semi daily strength training, low fat, lots of high complex carb, lots of ruits and vegetables) I've lost about 8lbs and am starting to notice more definition and muscle tone, and the shape of my body is reverting back to when I was truly fit.

John Connellan,

not really as protein is metabolized into several different Krebs cycle intermediates depending on protein type, many will end up making glucose in glucogenesis, some will make Acetyl-CoA which is the building block for fat. The glucose can also be turned into Acetyl-CoA. the body can metabolize any carb, fatt, protein and can also turn carbs and protein into fatt with some ease, its more dependent on what the body needs does it need energy now or does it store its energy as fat, trust me only a low calorie diet which forces the body to burn rather then store will get you skinner.

By the way in the scientific comparision on one of those links provided Atkins faired the same in weight lose as other more conventional diets.

Chunky,

On a personal note, when I first decided to cut out some flab (I was 6 feet tall, 230lbs), I went low fat, high complex carbs, lots of fruits and vegetables, daily exercise. Lost 40-45lbs in about 8 months. Was really fit. Had muscle tone, tons of energy. Completely changed the shape of my body from round and lumpy to triangular and lean. Stayed that way for a few years. The last couple of years, I slacked. I kind of went on a post-breakup binge and lost some respect for my body. Didn't exercise anywhere near as much, started eating more fat (nowhere near as much as when I was truly "chunky," but still more than I had been.) Did I "balloon" to my old weight and then some like so many people who deviate from low carb plans? No. In about two years I gained only about 15 of the 45lbs back. 15lbs in 2 years of slacking. My diet still consisted of a higher percentage of carbs than fat. Now, in a little over 3 weeks of reestablishing my old ways (daily cardio, semi daily strength training, low fat, lots of high complex carb, lots of ruits and vegetables) I've lost about 8lbs and am starting to notice more definition and muscle tone, and the shape of my body is reverting back to when I was truly fit.

Would you say your lack of "ballooning" is due to the exercise regimen (of various degrees of intensity) that accompanied all of your eating phases? My friend who ballooned didn't really make exercise a priority, which is, in my opinion, why she ballooned in the first place. I know you've said elsewhere (although not in these exact words) that you're a champion of exercise AND sensible eating, which seems to work very well for you.

WCF...

What is your take on the notion promoted by Atkins and others that ketosis is a safe and effective way to lose weight? They say that the brain prefers to use ketones over glucose for energy after the body is forced to live on ketones, which frees protein for muscle building....after a certain period of time on a VERY STRICT low carb phase? (This, I presume, is why the early stages of the diet cause such a rapid weight loss. There IS a loss of muscle mass along with water during this time because your body is so used to glycogen for energy and has to get it from protein during this time).

This seems to be one of those sticky issues where proponents of the diet will say ketosis is perfectly benign and the only problem is bad breath and stinky pee, where nutritionists and physiologist warn about the potential detrimental effects of essentially putting your body in a mode similar to starvation. Also that ketosis produces such high acidity in the blood that the body must get rid of it, which is where much of the weight is lost...water. Not to mention the other risks involved such as gout and kidney stones. Then there's the potential for the slippery slope down to much more dangerous ketoacidosis....

ketones do not need to be made from fat, in fact they are made from acetyl-CoA, (precursor as well as product of fat) the brain cannot us fat as fatty acids do not pass though the blood-brain barrier but the water soluble ketones bodies do so fat must be converted to ketones for the brain, ketones are the only source of energy for the brain during starvation, though I don't know of much short or long term side effects of living of ketones, aside for persistent bad breath form the acetone that escapes from the lungs. protein/fat diets have been recommend for people with metabolic disorders in glucogensis and glucose metabolism such a diabetics, which I believe is how Dr. Atkins discover high protein diets could reduce body weight after working with diabetic patients. Even so I don’t believe there is anything magical about High protein diets as they work by reducing calorie intake like all other diets do. Metabolizing protein into glucose/fat/ketones requires a lot of water, mostly for getting ride of all the urea from the amines in the protein. This may give the appearance of sudden weigh lose, but that is not from lose of fat.

Also High-protein consisting of red meat will increase chances of heart disease and arterial sclerosis and stroke. The fat from the meat will build up as LDL and log them selves in your arteries! So I cannot recommend meat as the major source of protein.

I do beleive more studies in the long term side effects of this diet are needed. Very low calorie diets in some studies have been shown to increase life span, though well-being and general health may be reduced. Such diets do consist of a dramatic reduction of carbs and fat. living of salads though just dosen't seem satisfying.

Very low calorie diets in some studies have been shown to increase life span, though well-being and general health may be reduced. Such diets do consist of a dramatic reduction of carbs and fat. living of salads though just dosen't seem satisfying.

A salad-filled existence doesn't seem satisfying to me either. What's the point of living an extra 5-10 years if you don't get to enjoy good and sometimes fatty food? Like so many things in life it's all about moderation. You can have a slice of cheesecake just not every night. You can have a wonderful steak or bacon cheeseburger just not every day.

I have a co-worker that is diabetic. He checks his blood sugar but doesn't need to take insulin. His diet is basically lean meat, veggies and nuts. He doesn't eat white bread, potatoes, rice or refined sugar. He's a healthy weight and his insulin is under control.

I frequently work out of the office and often am forced to eat fast food or starve. The other day while at Hardee's I noticed a poster for their "Low Carb Breakfast Bowl" Eggs, sausage, bacon, ham and cheese in a bowl. 620 calories, 50 grams of fat but only 4 net carbs!

http://www.hardees.com/lowcarb.pdf

Based on my weight and activity level, my calorie intake is about 1800/day and of that about 40 grams should come from fat (~20%). So eating the low carb breakfast bowl means that I can eat no fat for the rest of the day. On the low carb diet you can eat this crap and as long as you don't eat a piece of white bread you won't get fat? W.C. Fields was right when he said "There's a sucker born every minute."

Princess,

In studies with rodents they were able to increase their life spans by 50-100%, so hypothetically living like that you could live to 150, hypothetically of course.

A healthy weight does not show any sign of internal damage from clogged arteries.

yes fast food is worse then starving trust me! I worked at a McDonalds back in High school, you would not want to know about the crap that happens to you food before we serve it to you, let alone is unhealthy nutritional value.

Heh...I haven't eaten at McDonald's ever since I saw "Super Size Me" about a month ago. Don't have any desire to do so anytime soon. :D

If you have not read the books you have no basis to comment on the whole of the Atkins approach which has 3 phases and does recommend exercise as part of your lifestyle changes.

I do. I have read some of the scientific articles and criticisms on it which are a lot more interesting than the book. The book will biased u know.

If you think I am obese you are assuming a fact not in evidence and you are wrong. I have naturally chosen a diet close to the Atkins maintenance diet most of my life which might be way I have never had weight problem. 5'5" 125

I clearly quoted Princess in the last post AS WELL AS mentioning her name in the post. In fact I didn't know u even posted on this thread until now did u?

First off, and this is a real pet peeve, ‘u’ is a letter. The word is ‘you’. Perhaps you have yet to cover this in your high school English class but it is very important. I realize that we are on a somewhat informal forum but for fuck’s sake you need to use correct grammar if you want your point to be respected and understood.


I aint gonna change my u's into you's right not Princess. Sorry if can't handle that! I'm reaally only interested in the science.

I am perfectly aware of how long the diet lasts since I have read the book. You clearly have not, and yet you are arguing in support of it and against it at the same time. As for me being obese, let me disabuse you of that notion. I am 5’6” tall and weigh 117 pounds. I am underweight not overweight.

Well then TALK about the DIET and stop telling me that it is proposing to cut out carbs for the duration of the diet. It is not. Even Atkins knows that is not recommended.

You are correct in that this is not a ranting forum. It’s called sciforums for a reason. I think the notion was that people would discuss the sciences. You haven’t linked a single article or cited a single reference to back up any of your points. Chunky is telling you what he’s read in biology/biochemistry texts. WellCookedFetus has linked web pages. You have offered supposition and opinion and get annoyed when others don’t’ take it as fact. There is no place for a simple contrarian in a debate about science. Either come up with some facts and references or shut up.

OK if thats what u really want, I'll try and see if I can track some of the articles down. Its been a long time though!

The Low Fat group better preserved lean body mass when compared with the Low Carbohydrate group; however, only the Low Carbohydrate group had a significant decrease in circulating insulin concentrations.

Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women.

Meckling KA, O'Sullivan C, Saari D.

Conclusions:

Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels, even after adjustment for the amount of weight lost.

A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity
Frederick F. Samaha, M.D., Nayyar Iqbal, M.D., Prakash Seshadri, M.D., Kathryn L. Chicano, C.R.N.P., Denise A. Daily, R.D., Joyce McGrory, C.R.N.P., Terrence Williams, B.S., Monica Williams, B.S., Edward J. Gracely, Ph.D., and Linda Stern, M.D.

The increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations and the decrease in triglyceride concentrations were greater among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet than among those on the conventional diet throughout most of the study. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease.

Low-carbohydrate, Atkins-type diets have been demonstrated to have positive effects on weight loss and biomarkers of cardiovascular risk, which has prompted some researchers to question the validity of present-day dietary guidelines.

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2004 Jul;7(4):485-92.

Wellcooked: It is without doubt, theoretically, that low carb intake should increase insulin sensitivity more than protein intake. Protein is KNOWN to have a much lower glycaemic index than carbs and so there will be less of an insulin "spike" associated with diabetes and obesity.


Having said all the above, I could give u even more links on why the diet is very bad for u. But the whole point of the argument I was trying to make is that a high protein diet CAN result in fat loss through the insulin metabolic pathway.

Perhaps you should have read all the posts to the thread as well as all the books.
Scientific papers are not without bias: studies usually produce the results the funder wants. Academia is one of the most ego driven places on the planet.

I aint gonna change my u's into you's right not Princess. Sorry if can't handle that! I'm reaally only interested in the science.


That's fine John but don't expect to get credibility for your point if you can't use correct grammar. I read a ton of scientific journal articles and I have yet to see one fraught with misspelled words and appalling grammar.

Thanks for posting some articles that basically agree with what WellCookedFetus and Chunky have been saying for 4 pages. Good to see we're all in agreement.

Perhaps you should have read all the posts to the thread as well as all the books.
Scientific papers are not without bias: studies usually produce the results the funder wants. Academia is one of the most ego driven places on the planet.

I have read the posts in this thread! Books will be more biased than papers by their very nature.

That's fine John but don't expect to get credibility for your point if you can't use correct grammar. I read a ton of scientific journal articles and I have yet to see one fraught with misspelled words and appalling grammar.

I am not writing a paper for a journal on this website Princess!

Thanks for posting some articles that basically agree with what WellCookedFetus and Chunky have been saying for 4 pages. Good to see we're all in agreement.

Exactly. If we all agree that a mechanism for fat reduction in Atkins is through a lowering of insulin then we DO all agree. Thats all I was trying to say in my latter posts :)

Actually low insulin levels or resistance to insulin is associated with diabetes.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press11202002b.html

Type I diabetes is associated with an inability to produce insulin. It is actually quite rare. The diet-induced diabetes is caused by too much insulin.

this article is about type 2.

Exactly. It says that mice lacking the gene (JNK) have higher sensitivity, lower insulin, less obesity and are more healthy than those with the gene. Low levels of insulin are associated with health.

the report was about insulin resistance, more insulin was needed because the mice could not detect the hormone as well as the controlled mice. If Insulin levels are low and glucose high it would emulate the same state as seen in the resistant mice.

Yes but insulin resistance is caused by over-production of insulin after many years. U don't get insulin resistance when your insulin levels are low all your life. You're reading this the wrong way I think!

Insulin resistance can also be genetic such as in this studies case.

Sugar with insulin is absorbed by cells. High blood sugar without insulin or resistance to insulin-induced absorption of glucose is a diabetic situation and they get fat. Dropping the blood sugar levels helps them hence low crabs. Constant absorption of glucose by insulin sensitivity did not cause obesity in the study mice, it cause them to grow thin. So the absorption of glucose or high glucose levels is not the cause of obesity, in diabetics the inability to absorb glucose cause them to grow fat.

Type I diabetes is associated with an inability to produce insulin. It is actually quite rare. The diet-induced diabetes is caused by too much insulin.



Don't you mean not enough insulin? Too high level of blood glucose?

Or are you saying that too much insulin leads to the eventual lack of production of insulin?

Sugar with insulin is absorbed by cells. High blood sugar without insulin or resistance to insulin-induced absorption of glucose is a diabetic situation and they get fat. Dropping the blood sugar levels helps them hence low crabs. Constant absorption of glucose by insulin sensitivity did not cause obesity in the study mice, it cause them to grow thin. So the absorption of glucose or high glucose levels is not the cause of obesity, in diabetics the inability to absorb glucose cause them to grow fat.

I never said high blood sugar causes obesity. I said Insulin resistance will. Most insulin resistance is cased by over-production of insulin through a bad diet.

Insulin resistance can also be genetic such as in this studies case.

Very rarely the sole cause. Even the genetic insulin resistance u might come across inarticles is generally a tendency to get insulin resistance when the receptors are subject to too much insulin (i.e. in these cases it is still caused by poor diet).

Don't you mean not enough insulin? Too high level of blood glucose?

No, we're not talking about type I here. Insulin resistance is caused by over-production of insulin.

Or are you saying that too much insulin leads to the eventual lack of production of insulin?

No, insulin is still being produced but a resistance to it develops.

From the diabetes council: In type 2 diabetes, either the body does not produce enough insulin or the cells ignore the insulin


I guess the confusion lies in the term "enough." Is it producing too little, leading to diabetes? Or is it producing what it always did, but that level is not "enough" to handle all the extra glucose Lardo is taking in? Is it a combination of both?

My understanding of Type 2 has been as such:

Your body is like a 2-bedroom rancher home. You have an HVAC unit (pancreas) that's produces just enough heat and air (insulin) for the home. If, however, you start to add on rooms and make the home bigger (get fat), the HVAC will have a much more difficult time heating and cooling the bigger house. It can pump and pump the same amount of air it used to all day long and not have any effect on the overall climate in the home. It can eventually just shut down from overuse.

John Connellan,

The final results here is that high glucose does not make you fat, its a problem do to insulin not glucose.

From the diabetes council:

I guess the confusion lies in the term "enough." Is it producing too little, leading to diabetes? Or is it producing what it always did, but that level is not "enough" to handle all the extra glucose Lardo is taking in? Is it a combination of both?

Actually there are two stages.

Firstly, high continuously blood glucose levels mean continuously high insulin levels. If it is like this for a very long time, cells become resistant to the effectsof insulin and u get symptoms of diabetes (as the previous amount is not enough for use). This stage is not permanent however and is reversible.

The second stage is where ur body tries to counteract the first stage by producing more and more insulin. Eventually the pancreas wears out and u get full blown irreversible diabetes. *In some lucky cases it is still reversible.

John Connellan,

The final results here is that high glucose does not make you fat, its a problem do to insulin not glucose.

Like I said, I never said glucose is a problem! I said insulin is the problem. Lower your insulin levels and u will be healthy!

well then diet does not need to been the answer then.

Ahh, I meant glucose is not the direct factor in obesity, but like I've said countless times, high glucose causes the release of insulin!

then we should stop eating refined carbohydrates, not carbohydrates in general.

then we should stop eating refined carbohydrates, not carbohydrates in general.


Exactly. Complex carbs with associated fiber should be an intricate and major part of the diet. They take longer to break down and do not cause the dreaded insulin spike so many fear.

Whole foods, whole grains, vegetables, etc.= Good. Refined flour, refined sugar, white rice, etc. =Bad.

Exactly! Thats the conclusion I came to (with Chunkys help) :)

As I mentioned in another thread in the Math and Physics forum re: Atkins Diet ...

We live in a society where if a little is good, a lot must be GREAT. If an extreme amount is bad, then even a little bit must be bad. "Bacteria = germs. Germs are bad. We need antibacterial everything!" (Despite the fact that there are good bacteria that live on and within us that are quite beneficial.)

"Vitamin A is good for vision. I have bad vision. I'll take LOTS of vitamin A." (Only to end up being poisend by the stuff later on.)

I think people are just too damned lazy to think for themselves and want to be told exactly what to eat, how to live, what medicines to take, etc. They don't want to read nutrition labels. They don't want to research and study and listen to their bodies. They hear that some people are having "success" on a low carb diet, so they decide to make sure everything they eat has no carbs. They will buy and eat anything that says "Low carb" on the label, many of them having no clue what a "carb" even is. Hence, the 48grams of fat Hardee's Thick Burger claiming to be "low carb, and therefore good for you."

Same was true in the 90s when everything was "Low Fat." We hear "fat is bad" so we eat low fat. I happened to be in the grocery the other day and was looking to buy some peanut butter. They had "Reduced Fat" and regular. The reduced fat had 190 calories per serving. The regular had, guess what, 190 calories per serving! They just added more sugar to make up for the missing fat and the calories are the same.

So, in general, I still say, "Eat less, exercise more."

And ironically, there might have been more chance of putting on fat from the sugary low-fat option!!!