 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 200610% of weight in 2 weeks of Induction?
Ive been reading the Atkins book, and I recall him saying that people with a lot to lose can lose 10% of their weight in the first 2 weeks! One of his 'typical cases' is a 315 lb man who loses 23 lbs in the first 2 weeks! Ive been at it for a little more than 2 weeks, ive lost 7 lbs,which isnt bad, considering i havent been hungry at all. And im losing a lot of my carb cravings so it should be easy to stick with. Plus,I havent been doing much exercise,so once I get going on that,it should help. Has anyone tried this "Fat Fast" he talks about in his book? Im tempted to try a 1,200 cal/day fat fast, if it will cause dramatic weight loss. Phoenix 289/282/200 :: Ive been reading the Atkins book, and I recall him saying that people :: with a lot to lose can lose 10% of their weight in the first 2 weeks! :: One of his 'typical cases' is a 315 lb man who loses 23 lbs in the :: first 2 weeks! Most of this will be water weight, so the question is: so what? :: Ive been at it for a little more than 2 weeks, ive lost 7 lbs,which :: isnt bad, considering i havent been hungry at all. And im losing a :: lot of my carb cravings so it should be easy to stick with. Plus,I :: havent been doing much exercise,so once I get going on that,it :: should help. Good. :: Has anyone tried this "Fat Fast" he talks about in his book? Im :: tempted to try a 1,200 cal/day fat fast, if it will cause dramatic :: weight loss. IMO, forget dramatic weight loss. Without the discipline it takes to lose it, it very likely won't be permanent weight loss. You'll likely end up a yo-yo dieter. Of course, you can ignore me and go for it anyway. However, at your side, you can induce quick weight loss without using a fat fast. Just start walking a lot (if you are able). Oh, are you a man or a woman? :: Phoenix :: 289/282/200 > Ive been reading the Atkins book, and I recall him saying that people > with a lot to lose can lose 10% of their weight in the first 2 weeks! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Phoenix > 289/282/200 Congratulations on your good start! Now, why do you want to screw it up? A fat fast is the last resort for someone who is stalled, that is to say that they haven't been able to lose any weight or inchs for a month, despite doing everything right. You are losing weight perfectly fine. If you want to lose even faster, why not get going on the exercise now? The big danger I see here is it looks like you are viewing LC as just a quick diet solution that you want to get over quickly so you can go back to your old ways. The only people I know that have succeeded in keeping the weight off have changed the way they eat permanently. And if you're gonna do that, then there should be no great hurry, unless you have a wedding suit to get into next month. :) > Ive been reading the Atkins book, and I recall him saying that people > with a lot to lose can lose 10% of their weight in the first 2 weeks! > One of his 'typical cases' is a 315 lb man who loses 23 lbs in the > first 2 weeks! 10% would be an extreme case. It might apply to someone who was eating nothing but carbs and is carrying a lot of surplus water because of it and/or some other reason(s) that just so happen to respond favorably to the change in the diet. 5-15 pounds could be considered a typical range. 23 pounds is around 7% of 315. I started at 400 pounds and lost 15 (3.75%) in the first 2 weeks. Don't get off on the wrong foot by deluding yourself with overblown expectations. Atkins isn't magic. The initial loss is mostly water due to the carb restriction. From then on it's about energy balance like any other diet. Take in less and put out more. That's easier to do with a low carb diet because hunger and cravings are reduced if not eliminated. If there is any magic, that's it. Low carb gives you the best shot at long term compliance. And long term compliance is the name of this game. > Ive been at it for a little more than 2 weeks, ive lost 7 lbs,which > isnt bad, considering i havent been hungry at all. And im losing a lot > of my carb cravings so it should be easy to stick with. Sticking with it is the big deal. If, as you go along, this doesn't feel more and more like it was the way you were always meant to eat, doubt will creep in and then problems with compliance will follow. You need to stick with the standard plan for a significant period of time. I've been doing this for 6 months or so. The weight loss has slowed to 1/10 of what it was to begin with and I'm still nearly 300 pounds, but I've developed the strong feeling that this is the way I was meant to eat. I'd say that it took 2-3 months to figure it out. You should give the standard plan at least that much time before you even begin to consider anything more extreme. Use the time to read all the low carb books you can lay your hands on. Each one has it's share of unique little tricks that can be added to your list of tricks and can be prioritized ahead of radical fat fasting. Read the diabetes control books that feature a low carb diet too. They explain the health reasons for employing a low carb diet which tends to remove any doubt and solidify your belief in what you're doing. Begin developing your exercise and supplement programs. There's a lot to learn and a lot to do--but you have the rest of your life to learn and progress. > Plus,I havent > been doing much exercise,so once I get going on that,it should help. Keeping a journal helps. An exercise goal can be as simple as a column in your journal labeled "minutes spent exercising" (on a daily basis). That simplifies it as much as possible. Any exercise is valid and can be utilized. And the old saying applies: the best exercise is the exercise that you will do. The only goal that you'll need to set is a time (minutes per day) goal. And as with the diet, as time goes by, your exercise program will develop into a good fit that will feel like a natural part of your life. At first if the goal is arbitrary it doesn't really matter. 30 minutes per day is as good an initial goal as any. The key is to get in some activity that is above and beyond your normal routine every day or at least every other day if you are badly out of shape and need additional recovery time to prevent injury or chronic exhaustion. > Has anyone tried this "Fat Fast" he talks about in his book? Im tempted > to try a 1,200 cal/day fat fast, if it will cause dramatic weight loss. Save it for when you get stuck at say 220 or 230 for a solid month--if that actually happens. That's what it's for. It's an extreme technique that isn't really all that healthy. A study was done in 1965 at the Oakland Naval Hospital in California (I'm about 30 miles from there). It compared total weight loss and composition of the weight lost between a total fast and a 1000 calorie diet that was something like 90% fat. That study was the genesis for the Atkins diet. The findings of the study were that the fasting participants lost more weight than the ones on the low calorie high fat diet, but that the ones on the low calorie high fat diet lost more actual fat. That impressed Dr. Atkins and got him started researching and developing his diet. The "fat fast" was part of an extreme experiment comparable to total fasting. I think you know that total fasting isn't smart. In most situations the fat fast isn't smart either. There are many less drastic tricks that you can discover through additional study. Exercise, supplementation, sleep optimization, stress reduction, journaling--the list of things to optimize is extensive. With every area optimized, good compliance and patience, you'll probably reach your goal (if your goal is realistic) without having to employ anything so extreme. -- Nice post, Bill. Your comment: "That's easier to do with a low carb diet because hunger and cravings are reduced if not eliminated. If there is any magic, that's it. Low carb gives you the best shot at long term compliance. And long term compliance is the name of this game." really does translate to magic in the real world. > Has anyone tried this "Fat Fast" he talks about in his book? Im tempted > to try a 1,200 cal/day fat fast, if it will cause dramatic weight loss. It's for people who can't get into ketosis at 20 grams per day and there is a warning that it may be dangerous for folks who can. Consider that reference to it was removed in the 2002 edition of the book; I think because it's too tempting for newbies. Since you lost fine during Induction it would be a bad idea for you to take this extreme step. Folks occasionally use the fat fast to break a stall and while that's technically an abuse it often works. But consider how Dr A defined a stall - 4+ weeks in ketosis without a new low without a lost inch. You're so far from that definition ... Please, view Induction as being as extreme as you'll get. You're successfull from following the directions, so why exit from that strategy? > > Has anyone tried this "Fat Fast" he talks about in his book? Im tempted > > to try a 1,200 cal/day fat fast, if it will cause dramatic weight loss. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > edition of the book; I think because it's too tempting for > newbies. The fat fast is in my copy of DANDR 2002. Once again, Doug is spreading misinformation and even going on to speculate on why it was removed. Since you lost fine during Induction it would be a > bad idea for you to take this extreme step. > > Folks occasionally use the fat fast to break a stall and while > that's technically an abuse it often works. But consider how > Dr A defined a stall - 4+ weeks in ketosis without a new low > without a lost inch. You're so far from that definition ... In that very same book, Atkins defined a stall as no weight/inchs lost for a month no new medication/lifestyle changes no symptoms of a diet related disorder/thyroid problems continued to follow LC plan that worked so far I see nothing about a requirement to be in ketosis. Maybe Atkins did state that and Doug can provide us the reference. When I see something so authoritatively stated and attributed to Atkins, I like to know if it's true or not. > Please, view Induction as being as extreme as you'll get. > You're successfull from following the directions, so why exit > from that strategy? >In that very same book, Atkins defined a stall as > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >so authoritatively stated and attributed to Atkins, I like to know if >it's true or not. I think the assumption that the person be in ketosis is a fair one, Trader. The basic premise of the whole Atkins plan is that you eat at ketotic levels through induction and OWL. He wanted you to stay on the cusp of ketonuria during OWL, which is actually a lower carb level than just being in ketosis. So even if he didn't list that as a requirement for diagnosing a "stall," ketosis is pretty much a given. HG > >In that very same book, Atkins defined a stall as > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I think the assumption that the person be in ketosis is a fair one, > Trader. Once again, it's not an issue of making an assmption. The issue is posting a list of criteria as hard fact and claiming that Atkins listed ketosis as a requirement, when clearly in DANDR 2002 he did not. And I'm not so sure that it is a reasonable assumption either. The whole fat fast concept was for someone who is has a high metabolic resistance to weight loss. That is exactly the kind of person who is going to have the most difficulty getting into ketosis to begin with. So, why should Atkins have required them to be in ketosis for a month? Plus, the average person has no way of knowing for sure if they are in ketosis or not. If the ketostix show positive, then you know that you are. But for someone with a high metabolic resistance to weight loss, I would think it could be quite likely that they could have some small amount of ketones and it not be enough to show on the sticks. And I guess that raises the final problem with this. The fat fast is precisely for those that can't lose weight. Assuming they meet the criteria that Atkins actually listed, then if they are also required to be in ketosis, but aren't, then what else is left? What are they supposed to do? The basic premise of the whole Atkins plan is that you eat at > ketotic levels through induction and OWL. He wanted you to stay on the > cusp of ketonuria during OWL, which is actually a lower carb level > than just being in ketosis. So even if he didn't list that as a > requirement for diagnosing a "stall," ketosis is pretty much a given. > > HG :: And I guess that raises the final problem with this. The fat fast is :: precisely for those that can't lose weight. Assuming they meet the :: criteria that Atkins actually listed, then if they are also required :: to be in ketosis, but aren't, then what else is left? What are they :: supposed to do? Eat less and exercise more. > And I guess that raises the final problem with this. The fat fast is > precisely for those that can't lose weight. Assuming they meet the > criteria that Atkins actually listed, then if they are also required to > be in ketosis, but aren't, then what else is left? What are they > supposed to do? No plan works for everyone. If you can't get into ketosis at 20, try dropping the veggies, then the salad. Then retreat to meat fast. Then try the cycle of a week on fat fast three on Induction. Going to that extreme should work for nearly all people, but no plan works for literally everyone. With low carbing there's only just so low you can get. Beyond that there's using the appetite suppression of ketosis to make it comparatively painless to cut calories farther and farther until loss does occur. Heck, lot's of new folks who don't believe that low carbing works without starvation do that spontaneously and have to be urged to eat reasonable portions. Low fatting and low carbing may not work for everyone, but concentration camp level low calorie does. There's only so low the metabolism can push itself. There's also the fact that people do lose without being in ketoneuria. In the 1972 edition it's clear that the process hinges on being in or out of ketosis, but in later versions he appeared to use loss and ketosis interchangibly. This inexact phrasing is a part of his writing style, but it also fits with the fact that people do lose with the sticks showing biege. > So, why > should Atkins have required them to be in ketosis for a month? Speculation - Because if you've been cheating and out of ketosis for that reason you need to focus on getting back on the wagon not on the current scale reading - behavior over weight. And if you've fallen out of ketosis Eskimo style the problem is somthing else. And if you're less than a month in and talking about stalls your expectations need to be set. Those are the ones I can think of. > Plus, > the average person has no way of knowing for sure if they are in > ketosis or not. If the ketostix show positive, then you know that you > are. Dr A may have had an expensive accurate instument in his office but he knew his patients only had the sticks if them. I have long been convinced that any reference in the book to ketosis, as well as nearly all references to "loss" meant ketoneuria - trace or darker positive on the sticks or detectable on the breath for folks who can tell. > But for someone with a high metabolic resistance to weight loss, > I would think it could be quite likely that they could have some small > amount of ketones and it not be enough to show on the sticks. Agreed, but having no way to tell without expensive equipment ... > And I guess that raises the final problem with this. The fat fast is > precisely for those that can't lose weight. Assuming they meet the > criteria that Atkins actually listed, then if they are also required to > be in ketosis, but aren't, then what else is left? What are they > supposed to do? Dr A may have claimed his process works for everyone, but I take that as an exageration. The level of 20 grams per day was chosen so well over 90% get into ketoneuria. The fall back level of 15 seems to work for far more than 90% but still it is't going to be 100%. What's farther than dropping the veggies and salad? Going further to meat fast, then fat fast. No matter how low there are likely to be some people who don't go into ketoneuria. > > So, why > > should Atkins have required them to be in ketosis for a month? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about stalls your expectations need to be set. Those are the > ones I can think of. Doug, you see I still have a problem with you and the truth. You made a post listing as fact 4 criteria that you said Dr. Atkins listed as a requirement prior to doing a fat fast. One of them was to be in ketosis. I pointed out that in DANDR 2002 he specifically lists the criteria and being in ketosis is not one of them. I asked if you had a reference where he had stated this requirement because it's possible he stated it somewhere else, in another book perhaps. That's how we learn. Now, instead of addressing this, or simply admitting that what you posted is inacurrate and not attributable to Atkins, instead you selectively excerpt pieces of the ensuing discussion. And what you've done is once again very misleading. Someone looking at the above woud likely assume the speculation part is on why Atkins listed ketosis as a requirement, when I believe the truth is, he never listed it to begin with, because I can't find it anywhere. So, instead of speculating, either tell us where Atkins said being in ketosis is a requirement for doing a fat fast, or simply retract the statement as being incorrect.. > > Plus, > > the average person has no way of knowing for sure if they are in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ketoneuria - trace or darker positive on the sticks or detectable > on the breath for folks who can tell. More speculation on what might have lead Atkins to have made a requirement that there is no evidence he made to begin with. > > But for someone with a high metabolic resistance to weight loss, > > I would think it could be quite likely that they could have some small > > amount of ketones and it not be enough to show on the sticks. > > Agreed, but having no way to tell without expensive > equipment ... Gee, you really think so? That was precisely why I raised this issue, to show that an Atkins reqt to be in ketosis prior to a fat fast was illogical. How is the avg person reading the book gonna do the test? > > And I guess that raises the final problem with this. The fat fast is > > precisely for those that can't lose weight. Assuming they meet the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > further to meat fast, then fat fast. No matter how low there > are likely to be some people who don't go into ketoneuria. >>>So, why >>>should Atkins have required them to be in ketosis for a month? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > ketosis is a requirement for doing a fat fast, or simply retract the > statement as being incorrect.. Yes, Doug. You "Know" much more than is actually ture. Please at least admit to others what you can't admit to yourself. You "misremember" of "embellish" what you think you read. To avoid this is to further reduce your credibility. Then all of your studying is for naught. NOBODY WILL PAY ATTENTION TO YOU  Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) >Once again, it's not an issue of making an assmption. The issue is >posting a list of criteria as hard fact and claiming that Atkins listed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >have the most difficulty getting into ketosis to begin with. So, why >should Atkins have required them to be in ketosis for a month? I'll tend to agree with you here. the criteria given for a stall are given at the beginning of Chapter 15, in the 2002 edition, and don't mention ketosis. The purpose for setting forth those criteria was to allow folks to determine whether they needed to take further measures to "get past a plateau." This chapter goes through a list of possible plateau causes - carb creep, food intolerances, yeast, medications, etc. If correction of those conditions still didn't result in weight loss, the person was directed to Chapter 20, re metabolic resistance. In Chapter 20, Atkins again ran through a number of factors that could cause metabolic resistance, mainly medications and yeast. Only when all of those were ruled out or corrected, and weight loss did not occur, did Atkins advise the fat fast, as a method of driving one's metabolism into fat burning. I'd say that the stall criteria are pretty distant from the fat fast advice, but still whether or not to do a fat fast is a function of whether or not an actual "plateau" exists. So I hereby revise my opinion. > Plus, >the average person has no way of knowing for sure if they are in >ketosis or not. If the ketostix show positive, then you know that you >are. But for someone with a high metabolic resistance to weight loss, >I would think it could be quite likely that they could have some small >amount of ketones and it not be enough to show on the sticks. Of course. In the past, even at induction level I didn't usually show positive on a ketostick. And yet, my breath pegged the meter on an expensive organic vapor analyzer, which I used at work for other purposes. So I was putting out some kind of ketones, but they weren't usually spilling over into urine even though they were going out through my lungs. I don't even use the ketosticks any more, for that reason among others. >And I guess that raises the final problem with this. The fat fast is >precisely for those that can't lose weight. Assuming they meet the >criteria that Atkins actually listed, then if they are also required to >be in ketosis, but aren't, then what else is left? What are they >supposed to do? Yes, having looked at the book I now agree with you that requiring ketosis as part of the criteria for a stall is not in accord with Atkins. HG > Ive been reading the Atkins book, and I recall him saying that people > with a lot to lose can lose 10% of their weight in the first 2 weeks! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Phoenix > 289/282/200 7 in two weeks is great. Don;t mess with success. Signature******************** Wayne Crannell Atkins+ 10/21/01 249/142 (9/10/02) ******************** > Ive been reading the Atkins book, and I recall him saying that people > with a lot to lose can lose 10% of their weight in the first 2 weeks! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Phoenix > 289/282/200 Arithmetic: 10% of 315 lbs is 35 lbs. This is almost twice the 23 pounds you quote above... well it is 1.52 time the 23 pounds, but that does round up to 2. Maybe the whole alleged Atkins statement is arithmetically wrong? Keep up the good work.... and don't expect to have wild rapid weight loss. That only really happens in TV infomercials. Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) > > Ive been reading the Atkins book, and I recall him saying that people > > with a lot to lose can lose 10% of their weight in the first 2 weeks! > > One of his 'typical cases' is a 315 lb man who loses 23 lbs in the > > first 2 weeks! If someone loses 23 pounds during Induction, I start to wonder what food intollerance it was that was triggering so much bloating. If an intollerance was the reason for that much loss, then adding that one food back would cause super-rapid bloating again. > Arithmetic: > > 10% of 315 lbs is 35 lbs. This is almost twice the 23 pounds you quote > above... well it is 1.52 time the 23 pounds, but that does round up to 2. > > Maybe the whole alleged Atkins statement is arithmetically wrong? I suspect that it was aimed at what Dr A believed to be "most" folks who try Atkins. If so then the bit about "a lot to lose" wouldn't fit right. The water loss does grow some with amount to lose but the correlation isn't strong enough and it appears to break down at the top end of amount to lose. I'd need to gather a lot more data on loss during Induction vs amount to lose to be able to tell for sure and I don't get the impression Dr A gathered that bit of data even back in the days he gathered any data at all. The statement has the feel of being eyeballed. On the other hand the statement has the feel of really good marketing, and good marketing was one of the topics Dr A focused on. There are some folks who claim that Dr Atkins didn't invent anything, that he consumed low carb science and popularized it. I've never agreed with that assessment but it does have its points. Dr A's two tales of how he got into low carb are both him consuming science on the topic - the "fat fast" study and applying it to himself, his reports of prescribing low fat to his heart patients and his efforts to deal with what usually happened. Also in his last few years he bragged about being a clinician not a scientist. My problem with that stance is the design that went into the process that appears in the directions. There's more to that proces sthan I've ever seen in any study or other low carb plan. It's got a simplicity in exectuation that I find brilliant and that I researched for years to even figure out why the non-obvious parts work as they do. Anyways, I give Dr A credit for a lot more advance in low carbing than some others but I also get that he made mistakes and/or bent the facts for marketing purposes. I think this statement about the 10% is one of those mistakes or marketing ploys. Rather like his late life switch to stating that extending Induction works better for loss, which it only does for folks with 100+ to lose. :: jbuch wrote: ::: Phoenix wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] :: I suspect that it was aimed at what Dr A believed to be "most" :: folks who try Atkins. And it could have been this thinking based on how big has patients generally were when he wrote that. These days, we have more superheavy weights than ever before, I think. If so then the bit about "a lot to lose" :: wouldn't fit right. The water loss does grow some with amount :: to lose but the correlation isn't strong enough and it appears :: to break down at the top end of amount to lose. In my experience (personal and observation), the more muscle mass one has when starting, the more you can expect to lose assuming you've been eating a carb heavy diet before starting induction. Hence, large active men can drop big weight very quickly whereas large women don't drop as much. So, those how are really big and have a goodly amount of lowerbody muscle (and upperbody too) would fit that catagory of "having a lot to lose". Of course, it varies more than that because some people can lose fat during induction depending on how quickly appetite suppression kicks in whereas other may lose only water and still others (fewer) lose nothing. I'd need to :: gather a lot more data on loss during Induction vs amount to :: lose to be able to tell for sure and I don't get the impression [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: marketing, and good marketing was one of the topics Dr A :: focused on. I think the statement has some basis is science, to the degree that muscle hold gylcogen and water, and that can get dropped quickly during induction. AGain, a precise prediction wouldn't be possible as there are other issues at work. Of course, it is good marketing and in reality, it leads to good results as the user becomes motivated to continue. :: There are some folks who claim that Dr Atkins didn't invent :: anything, that he consumed low carb science and popularized :: it. Anyone who has ever invented anything used what others did as a starting point. Those who make such claims are those who've never invented anything. I've never agreed with that assessment but it does have its :: points. Dr A's two tales of how he got into low carb are both :: him consuming science on the topic - the "fat fast" study and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: not a scientist. My problem with that stance is the design :: that went into the process that appears in the directions. Designing something doesn't necessarily make you a scientist. I think he just meant that he worked primarily as a clinican and didn't think of himself as a scientist. It's a lot harder for clinicians to truly engage in a lot of scientific endeavor because being a clinician gets in the way of that. :: There's more to that proces sthan I've ever seen in any study :: or other low carb plan. It's got a simplicity in exectuation :: that I find brilliant and that I researched for years to even figure :: out why the non-obvious parts work as they do. Anyways, I :: give Dr A credit for a lot more advance in low carbing than some :: others I do too. It took a lot of time and effort to design his process. That seems to be the real reason he should be consider an inventor....he didn't invent LC, but he did invent Atkins. That cannot be denied. but I also get that he made mistakes and/or bent :: the facts for marketing purposes. I think this statement about :: the 10% is one of those mistakes or marketing ploys. Rather :: like his late life switch to stating that extending Induction works :: better for loss, which it only does for folks with 100+ to lose. Well, look, the man knew that LF was the wrong way to most folks. So, how to you deal with that. Marketing. Marketing works in this world. Everyone whose ever been successful at getting things done and getting people to listen has to engage in Marketing. yeah, the 10% is BS for most folks, but I'd be that more than one person has come close enough to run up. I mean, 7% aint' too far off and 10% is easier to remember. Here's a good question which gets to the issue of facts. This thread has accepted the statement from the OP that Atkins said that those with a lot to lose can lose 10% of their weight during induction. And now there is debate as to it being a mistake, etc. Do we know for sure that he said that? Anyone have a reference? :: Here's a good question which gets to the issue of facts. This :: thread has accepted the statement from the OP that Atkins said that :: those with a lot to lose can lose 10% of their weight during :: induction. And now there is debate as to it being a mistake, etc. :: Do we know for sure that he said that? Anyone have a reference? I don't care enough to check. Doug, It seems likely that the original OP statement that: " I've been reading the Atkins book, and I recall him saying that people with a lot to lose can lose 10% of their weight in the first 2 weeks! " is not true. Therefore, this entire thread response is misdirected. The thread is a waste of time and effort if the original poster suffered a "diet moment", kind of like a "senior moment" except this involves a different memeory fault. OP has not responed to any of this, as I recall. However, I am quite convinced that this one is a waste of time. Unless someone can quote the edition and page that started this whole speculation. Bye bye. >>>Ive been reading the Atkins book, and I recall him saying that people >>>with a lot to lose can lose 10% of their weight in the first 2 weeks! [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > like his late life switch to stating that extending Induction works > better for loss, which it only does for folks with 100+ to lose. Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) "Phoenix" <scorpion.9698@yahoo.com> wrote in > Ive been at it for a little more than 2 weeks, ive lost 7 lbs,which > isnt bad, considering i havent been hungry at all. All of the posters have a good deal of experience and you should heed their excellent advice! I know you're excited about dropping pounds, but you have to take a mature approach to this whole process and be patient. Set small goals like getting out of the 80's by the 15th, and then getting out of the 70's by the end of April. The pounds will come off and you'll feel new results soon, even when you drop a pant size every 15 pounds. I just got back into my 38's after being in 42's all winter and it's a great feeling. I can't wait to get back into my 36's where I was two years ago, but these things take time. Stay the course mate and expect to be looking great by June! Cheers DB SignatureLC again since 1/14/06 6' 1", 277/252/220 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.