John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
well actually my sentence didn't make any sense (even if u assumed I was foreign or something) the way it was so............. 
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 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....
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
chunkylover58 said:
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.
John Connellan said:
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/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14988451
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15192454
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14988451
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15192454
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&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.
Last edited:
WellCookedFetus said:
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 ..."
"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.
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.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Princess said:
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?
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 ....
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
WellCookedFetus said:
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
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!
"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.
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.
Last edited:
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!"
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!"
Last edited:
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.
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.
Last edited:
Chunky,
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.
chunkylover58 said:
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.