 |
 | 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 / August 2006Trolls
Can we please ignore the trolls. Kill file them, block sender or some other such thing. This is supposed to be a support group for people who know they can't lose weight any other way but by an Atkins type diet. Thanks, AK in PA > Can we please ignore the trolls. Kill file them, block sender Block sender? or some other > such thing. This is supposed to be a support group for people who know they > can't lose weight any other way but by an Atkins type diet. > Thanks, > AK in PA No it isn't, it is a low carb support group, not an Atkins support group. Many people eat low carb without doing anything like Atkins. Salty <snip> This is supposed to be a support group for people who know they >> can't lose weight any other way but by an Atkins type diet. >> Thanks, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Salty That's interesting. Please elaborate. I am interested in knowing what you are talking about. Pat in TX > <snip> This is supposed to be a support group for people who know they > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Pat in TX Many people, myself included, have reduced carbs from a previous high level(in my case 400-500 plus in my competitive days) to a recommended healthy level of 140-160gms per day. It isn't necessary to drop to the Atkins inductions levels that induce ketosis. You lose weight quite readily and relatively quickly while still keeping sufficient carbs for energy etc. I eat around 170gm average at the moment, spread over four or five meals per day. There are several people on here who are also on the diabetes groups and who do something similar, cut a lot of carbs but not to Atkins levels. I tried Atkins levels but found myself lacking energy and losing muscle weight so I increased to my current level and that allowed me to work out without fatigue and to drop body fat percentage below ten percent from about twelve-thirteen. It is very much a YMMV scenario, with many arguing for or against very low carb levels. I suspect that those that argue for the very low, induction type levels didn't give it a reasonable go on higher levels. Effectively I eat almost nothing from a packet, all my food is fresh and most of my carbs come from fruit and vegetables, with a very small quantity of whole grain, wholemeal bread, muesli or cereal. I avoid all refined carb products, as well as flour, sugar, rice, pasta, sodas or potatoes. Aside from that, I eat in a fairly normal fashion. I have no trouble eating in restaurants etc., and can on occasion eat something with carbs if it is too difficult to avoid, like sauces in restaurant meals etc. Salty > Many people, myself included, have reduced carbs from a previous high > level(in my case 400-500 plus in my competitive days) to a recommended [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > diabetes groups and who do something similar, cut a lot of carbs but not > to Atkins levels. That included myself. I am not doing Atkins, just low carbing and exercising. > Effectively I eat almost nothing from a packet, all my food is fresh and > most of my carbs come from fruit and vegetables, with a very small > quantity of whole grain, wholemeal bread, muesli or cereal. I avoid all > refined carb products, as well as flour, sugar, rice, pasta, sodas or > potatoes. We're on a very similar diet. :o) These diets do work. Atkins seemed a bit extreme for me, but appears to be the only thing that works for some other folks. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155.5 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== > We're on a very similar diet. :o) These diets do work. Atkins seemed a > bit extreme for me, but appears to be the only thing that works for some > other folks. > > LW Just wondering; did you read the Atkins book? Pat in TX >> We're on a very similar diet. :o) These diets do work. Atkins seemed a >> bit extreme for me, but appears to be the only thing that works for some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just wondering; did you read the Atkins book? Yes. I never did the induction and still lost 9 lbs the first 2 weeks. I just dropped useless carbs such as white bread, white rice, rolls, bagels, corn on the carb, potatoes etc. At first the weight just melted off like hot butter. But when I hit the 6th month it dragged to a near halt, then nothing at all. After maintaining for a year I'm now low-carbing again, but also limiting calories to 1200 a day. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155.5 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== >> Just wondering; did you read the Atkins book? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > LW I think the most important part of induction was showing me how much sugar I was eating. I think that's the major aim of induction--to let people know they have been "hooked" on sugar and lots of it. Once that sugar craving is broken, I have found it easier to stay away from sugar just by thinking how I felt--the cravings--on induction. Pat in TX >>> Just wondering; did you read the Atkins book? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > craving is broken, I have found it easier to stay away from sugar just by > thinking how I felt--the cravings--on induction. I was fortunate in not having cravings for these high-carb foods. As long as I wasn't hungry they didn't cross my mind. I was quite satisfied with green beans instead of corn, a second chop or chicken leg instead of a baked potato. I do miss nuts of all kinds but they are simply too fattening to eat. I've also given up cheese for the same reason. Keeping intake to around 1200c a day is no picnic. I'm not starving, but I do feel "empty" if that's the right word. I have to live with that though if I ever want to get these last 25 to 30 lbs off. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155.5 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== :: Pat in TX wrote: ::: <snip> This is supposed to be a support group for people who know [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: recommended healthy level of 140-160gms per day. It isn't necessary :: to drop to the Atkins inductions levels that induce ketosis. Atkins inductions levels only last for 2 weeks. So, someone actually doing Atkins will only spend 2 weeks of a lifetime at induction levels. After that, one is free to ramp carb levels in accord with activity & lifestyle. There is NO dictate that a certain carb level be met beyond induction. Most people can function find on less than 100g a day because they are INACTIVE (ie, most older Americans). You :: lose weight quite readily and relatively quickly while still keeping :: sufficient carbs for energy etc. I eat around 170gm average at the :: moment, spread over four or five meals per day. Certainly you can. Is that in question? That's why low fat diets work, too. There are several :: people on here who are also on the diabetes groups and who do :: something similar, cut a lot of carbs but not to Atkins levels. What are "Atkins levels" again? :: I tried Atkins levels but found myself lacking energy and losing :: muscle weight so I increased to my current level and that allowed me :: to work out without fatigue and to drop body fat percentage below :: ten percent from about twelve-thirteen. What does this mean? What are "Atkins levels" and how did you know you lost muscle weight? I didn't lose any noticable muscle weight while LCing at less than 100g per day. Of course, I was lifting while doing it. Most any diet that results in weight loss via calorie restriction will result in muscle loss if you don't attempt to minimize it by resistance training. It is very much a YMMV :: scenario, with many arguing for or against very low carb levels. I :: suspect that those that argue for the very low, induction type :: levels didn't give it a reasonable go on higher levels. Even Atkins doesn't argument for induction levels, Salty. It's just a two-week "detox" period. I agree that some don't follow the rules as written, but then they aren't typically doing Atkins. :: Effectively I eat almost nothing from a packet, all my food is fresh :: and most of my carbs come from fruit and vegetables, with a very [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: occasion eat something with carbs if it is too difficult to avoid, :: like sauces in restaurant meals etc. Sounds good to me. I call that low carb. > :: Pat in TX wrote: > ::: <snip> This is supposed to be a support group for people who know [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that, one is free to ramp carb levels in accord with activity & lifestyle. > There is NO dictate that a certain carb level be met beyond induction. There is. Atkins maintains that you must remain in ketosis, that you increase carbs until you begin to drop out of ketosis and then drop them a little. This has been raised here a year or so ago, I seem to recollect it was in a discussion with you. It might have been on a diabetic group. > Most people can function find on less than 100g a day because they are > INACTIVE (ie, most older Americans). Agreed. Not only older Americans, many kids spend more time seated than standing or sleeping. Scary. > You > :: lose weight quite readily and relatively quickly while still keeping [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Certainly you can. Is that in question? That's why low fat diets work, > too. Calories are what it all boils down to, the various diets affect the ease of calorie maintenance and nutritional values. > There are several > :: people on here who are also on the diabetes groups and who do > :: something similar, cut a lot of carbs but not to Atkins levels. > > What are "Atkins levels" again? Induction, then remaining in ketosis. > :: I tried Atkins levels but found myself lacking energy and losing > :: muscle weight so I increased to my current level and that allowed me [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What does this mean? What are "Atkins levels" and how did you know you lost > muscle weight? A tape measure and a mirror. I was already quite fit when I started and I use a program that tracks weight & Nutrition that includes muscle measurements. I was lifting the same weights but reaching failure earlier after trying Atkins recommendations. When I upped the carbs to the area generally recommended I was back to normal. I didn't lose any noticable muscle weight while LCing at > less than 100g per day. Of course, I was lifting while doing it. Most any > diet that results in weight loss via calorie restriction will result in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Even Atkins doesn't argument for induction levels, Salty. I know, I am familiar with his books, but although you may not have noticed it, many people run their own version of his diet and stay on induction for much longer than he recommends. Many also, after induction, keep to a level that maintains a deeper level of ketosis rather than a level that allows weight management as he suggests. He does recommend that, and it one area where I disagree. Why stay in ketosis if you are trying to build muscle mass? It's just a > two-week "detox" period. I agree that some don't follow the rules as > written, but then they aren't typically doing Atkins. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sounds good to me. I call that low carb. Salty <snip>>> There is NO dictate that a certain carb level be met beyond induction. > There is. Atkins maintains that you must remain in ketosis, that you > increase carbs until you begin to drop out of ketosis and then drop them a > little. This has been raised here a year or so ago, I seem to recollect it > was in a discussion with you. It might have been on a diabetic group. I cannot find support for this statement anywhere in Atkins' book. Please cite a page number or something. Dr. Atkins does NOT maintain that a person must remain in ketosis. >> What are "Atkins levels" again? > > Induction, then remaining in ketosis. Sorry, not found in his book. Pat in TX :: <snip>>> There is NO dictate that a certain carb level be met beyond :: induction. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: Please cite a page number or something. Dr. Atkins does NOT maintain :: that a person must remain in ketosis. I've heard that claim before. The page number was like 198 (a guess) or something. Point: it was buried deep down inside the book. From what I remember of reading the book (indeed, it has been a while now - I probably should refresh myself), you start off induction at 20 or less grams of carbs a day, for two weeks. Then you increase 5 g per week and monitor weight loss. Once you stop losing, you decrease by 5 g and that becomes your carb level for on-going weight loss. Someone please correct me if that's wrong. That process works, I believe, by finding the carb level that keeps the appetite supression working, so that a person can consume fewer calories due to elimination of BG swings. One might claim that the appetite supression thing is ketosis. I'm not convinced that one needs ketosis to normalize BG swings, though. I do think that being in ketosis would normalize BG swings. This claim about being in ketosis would be hard to confirm in practice because ketones can be hard to detect. Perhaps if you are J. David Anderson you might have a ketone meter, but I don't. I don't think most people do either. :::: What are "Atkins levels" again? ::: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: :: Pat in TX > :: <snip>>> There is NO dictate that a certain carb level be met beyond > :: induction. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > you might have a ketone meter, but I don't. I don't think most people do > either. Why go to the trouble and expense of a keytone meter? What is wrong with Ketostix? (if you must know when you are in ketosis.) When I tried Atkins I just used KetoStix, they worked fine. As I was increasing carbs I kept testing and they stopped showing color at just under 100grams of carb per day. I still don't think that reducing carbs to such low levels is really necessary, not unless you are diabetic. I noticed no difference as far as weight loss went between being in ketosis and consuming 150-160g carbs, but definitely experienced less fatigue when exercising at the higher level. I didn't increase calories at the higher carb level so a difference in weight loss was unlikely. Salty :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Pat in TX wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] :: Why go to the trouble and expense of a keytone meter? What is wrong :: with Ketostix? (if you must know when you are in ketosis.) They can be unreliable. You can be in ketosis but not have ketones show up in your urine at high enough levels to register. We've see that many times here - newbies posting about how they can't get in ketosis when following Atkins. If you drink a lot of fluid - and you know how people think about drinking water when dieting, they become fish-like - than it's more likely that ketones won't register. Personally, I used the sticks for about a week and chucked them. I don't think one needs to worry about ketosis or sticks *if* one is eating less and losing weight via carb restriction. That's the bottom line, IMO, for weight loss. :: When I tried Atkins I just used KetoStix, they worked fine. As I was :: increasing carbs I kept testing and they stopped showing color at :: just under 100grams of carb per day. That's about right, according to Lyle. :: I still don't think that reducing carbs to such low levels is really :: necessary, not unless you are diabetic. That gets more tricky. Some people don't get the appetite reduction at higher levels. They may be severely insulin resistant but not diabetic. Even diabetics (some) can get away with higher carb levels if they exercise enough (YMMV). I noticed no difference as :: far as weight loss went between being in ketosis and consuming :: 150-160g carbs, but definitely experienced less fatigue when :: exercising at the higher level. I didn't increase calories at the :: higher carb level so a difference in weight loss was unlikely. For you, carb restriction seems to be merely bringing them more in line with a heathly eating plan. Since you weren't severely overweight and sedentary to begin with, my guess is that you didn't have the screwed up metabolism that most overweight sedentary people have. For those people, severe carb restriction is a means to counteract (through imbalance) an out-of-balance metabolic profile. It actually gives them a way to manage eating less food without having their bodies freaking out on them. Those are the people for which 150-160g of carbs would put them on a BG roller-coster and they very likely would have failed at eating less food. Atkins works best, IMO, for those who are very overweight and/or have screwed up metabolisms for one reason or another. > :: I still don't think that reducing carbs to such low levels is really > :: necessary, not unless you are diabetic. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > which 150-160g of carbs would put them on a BG roller-coster and they very > likely would have failed at eating less food. Yes, you are probably correct, I found little difficulty in reducing carbs in that once I done so, my appetite almost disappeared. I would never get hungry until I could actually smell food, or until I had taken a mouthful. Probably for those carrying more weight it would require a somewhat more "brutal" reduction to achieve a similar effect. > Atkins works best, IMO, for those who are very overweight and/or have > screwed up metabolisms for one reason or another. Once again, I agree, this is more than likely so - for those who are just "fine tuning" their weight/body fat ratio, less could be more. I have found that although I was quite healthy initially, since switching to a permanent low carb lifestyle, I feel better, healthier, and have more energy than before. I'll not go back to eating non-nutritional carbs. Salty > <snip>>> There is NO dictate that a certain carb level be met beyond > induction. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cite a page number or something. Dr. Atkins does NOT maintain that a person > must remain in ketosis. Would you like to place a wager on that? He most certainly does, and this was a topic on either this or one of the diabetic groups not so long ago. Atkins, in his discussion on determining your CCLL, says very clearly that if you drop out of ketosis, then it will be necessary to start the induction diet again. As for your request for page numbers or something, I Googled this up in a few seconds: Quoting from Atkins "New Diet Revolution" Copyright 1999, 2000 Edition, regarding determining your CCLL (Critical Carbohydrate Level for Losing): This warning is at the foot of the instructions for determining your CCLL, second last paragraph, Page 220. ***** "The one thing we don't want is to get you out of ketosis/lipolysis and put an end to the hormone-like elaboration of FMS. If that happened we would have to resume the Induction diet again, or as I must chide so many of my patients, "It's back to square one." ***** He doesn't suggest getting out of ketosis until your target weight is reached. For some people that can be years. Salty > >>> There is NO dictate that a certain carb level be met beyond > >>> induction. > > >>There is. Atkins maintains that you must remain in ketosis, that you > >>increase carbs until you begin to drop out of ketosis and then drop them a > >>little. A bit of a conflict between these two statements. The first is about "a certain carb level" possibly for everyone, possibly custom tuned to the individual. The second is about a level very certainly tuned to the individual. Think of "a certain level" as being a number you can quote without going through a process to discover (like the 50 net in Protein Power) and Atkins doesn't do that. > >>This has been raised here a year or so ago, I seem to recollect it > >>was in a discussion with you. It might have been on a diabetic group. > > > I cannot find support for this statement anywhere in Atkins' book. It was quite clear in the 1972 edition. Much less clear in later editions. The good Dr A was not a skilled writer. He didn't define his terms well enough. > > Please > > cite a page number or something. Dr. Atkins does NOT maintain that a person [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > ***** Except for that planned week out of ketosis to discover your CCLL that is. He's referring to falling off the plan here. Yet another example of his poor writing skills. > He doesn't suggest getting out of ketosis until your target weight is > reached. For some people that can be years. In better detail, he suggests staying at your CCLL just barely in ketosis until you're 10 from your ideal weight and then moving on to phase 3 Premaintenance. The instructions for premaint take you out of ketosis. So the last year of loss is out of ketosis. Why the objection to ketosis? ><snip> This is supposed to be a support group for people who know they >>> can't lose weight any other way but by an Atkins type diet. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Pat in TX Isn't SB low carb? > Isn't SB low carb? No. It, like Atkins, is actually "controlled carb." That is what Dr. Atkins called it in his book....controlled carbs. The news media got the moniker "low carb" going and it stuck, but that's not what either diet is about. Pat in TX > This is supposed to be a support group for people who know they > can't lose weight any other way but by an Atkins type diet. People have already addressed the issue that low-carb is not equivalent to Atkins. I am just going to add, this is not a weight-loss group either. This is a support group for people doing low carb. Weight loss is not the only motivation for doing so. I low-carb for blood sugar control without attempting to lose weight. If I were not diabetic, I'd likely still low-carb just because I feel so much better on low-carb. Just as low-carb diet plans vary, so do people's motivations for doing them. |
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.